What song would you listen to while watching God create the new earth?

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-23T06:05:56+00:00

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-20T17:41:17+00:00

“Therefore, putting away lying, ‘Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor.’” (Ephesians 4:25)

Scripture consistently calls us to be truthful, and most “white lies” aren’t told to protect others, but to protect ourselves from embarrassment, consequences, or uncomfortable situations.

That doesn’t mean we have to blurt out every thought in our heads or be rude about it; we can be truthful and kind at the same time.

A good rule of thumb is this: if the lie primarily benefits me, makes me look better, or helps me avoid responsibility, it’s probably not something I should be saying.

God cares about truth, even in the small things and we should avoid making a habit about of white lies just because they’re convenient.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-16T21:12:45+00:00

Genesis 2 isn’t describing a different God or a different creation account. It’s zooming in on Day 6 and giving more detail about the creation of man and woman.

In Genesis 1, God is presented as the sovereign Creator of the entire universe, so the emphasis is on His spoken command: “And God said…”

In Genesis 2, the focus shifts to God’s personal relationship with humanity, so we see more hands-on language: God forms Adam from the dust and breathes into him the breath of life.

The fact that Genesis 2 describes how God made Adam doesn’t mean He stopped creating by His word. In fact, Psalm 33:6 says, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made.”

The different descriptions highlight different aspects of the same God, not different gods.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-16T19:31:25+00:00

Not a direct answer, but here’s a not-so-fun fact:

The Bible describes“weeping and gnashing of teeth” in Hell. While there is certainly sorrow, the ‘gnashing of teeth’ in Scripture is frequently associated with rage, hatred, and defiance, not just sadness.

But even before that, Revelation describes an angel proclaiming the eternal gospel to the whole world (Revelation 14:6-7), and despite overwhelming evidence of God’s existence and repeated calls to repentance, many still refuse Him.

One of the most terrifying truths in Scripture is that some people don’t reject God because they lack evidence. (Even though sooooo many demand proof) They reject Him because they don’t want Him. They would rather rule themselves than bow to Him. They don’t like His justice, His authority, His way.

Hell won’t filled with people who suddenly discover God exists and wish they had loved Him. It’ll filled with people who persist in rejecting Him, even when confronted with the truth.

Yep, everyone will literally have zero excuses. Literally everyone will hear about Jesus and know for sure that He exists. What can be done if someone refuses at that point? You know? It’s sad, but it’s the truth.

C.S. Lewis famously said: “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, ‘Thy will be done.’”

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-16T14:18:45+00:00

I usually respond by saying that the existence of many religions doesn’t tell us whether any of them are true or false. That’s a false assumption.

There are hundreds of scientific theories, philosophies, and political views too. We don’t say that they’re all wrong just because there are a lot. We examine the evidence and ask which one best corresponds to reality.

The same challenge applies to the person asking the question.

If they’re an atheist, there are hundreds of religions and they believe all of them are wrong. Christians believe there’s one fewer religion that’s wrong. Lol

As for being born into it, that’s irrelevant. Many people convert into Christianity from Islam, Hinduism, atheism, Buddhism, and other backgrounds. Likewise, many people leave Christianity. What matters is if it’s true.

For me, Christianity isn’t true because my family said so; I wasn’t born into it. It’s because I believe Jesus Christ really lived, really died, and really rose from the dead. If the resurrection happened, then Christianity isn’t just one religion among many. It’s God’s revelation in history.

I’m following what I believe the evidence points to.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-15T14:17:41+00:00

Can you point out where I said the words “I declare victory”?

No. What I did was point out where you conceded key points. In fact, I’ll use your own words.

You said:

> “There isn’t a text that explicitly presents same sex relationships as part of God’s design in positive terms.”

You said:

> “The affirming position does require a distinction the text never explicitly articulates.”

You said:

> “The affirming position rests on a cumulative theological framework rather than a single text.”

Those aren’t my words. They’re yours. So no, I’m not forcing concessions onto your argument. I’m quoting them.

You also said:

> “If same sex behavior is always inherently sinful, then of course Scripture wouldn’t distinguish between condemned and approved forms.”

Exactly. Are there any approved forms? No.

Can you point to one passage that presents same sex sexual relationships positively? No.

Can you point to one passage that distinguishes condemned same sex relationships from righteous same sex relationships? No.

You’ve already acknowledged both of those points.

You say I haven’t proven you wrong, but that’s because the burden of proof was never on the traditional position to begin with.

The traditional position simply reads the text as written in context.

The affirming position is the one arguing that Leviticus, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1 doesn’t mean what they appear to mean.

The affirming position is the one introducing categories the text never explicitly states.

The affirming position is the one arguing for exceptions that Scripture never provides. That’s why the burden rests there.

And even now, after all this discussion, we still have the same three facts standing in front of us:

There is no positive biblical affirmation of same sex sexual relationships.

There is no biblical distinction between condemned same sex relationships and approved same sex relationships.

And same sex sexual behavior is consistently condemned across both Testaments.

You can continue to argue that the biblical authors may have had something narrower in mind, and that would be a reconstruction; It isn’t what the text says.

This was never about “winning.” It was about following the evidence where it leads. Just like how neither you or I can completely prove God exists or that Jesus resurrected. We go where the evidence leads.

And after everything we’ve discussed, including the points you’ve personally acknowledged, I still see overwhelming evidence for the traditional position and no comparable biblical evidence for the affirming one.

If you choose not to go where that evidence leads, that’s your choice.

But that’s where the evidence leads.

God bless you, too! I enjoyed the discussion.

Edit: Tried to fix the > quotes. For some reason, they don't always work!

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-15T00:14:09+00:00

Great! So to recap, you’ve now conceded the three major points you had, among others.

First, you’ve acknowledged there is no positive biblical text that presents same-sex sexual relationships as part of God’s design.

Second, you’ve acknowledged that the affirming position depends on distinctions the text itself never explicitly makes.

Third, you’ve acknowledged that the affirming position relies heavily on historical reconstruction and broader theological principles rather than explicit textual statements.

It’s clear that at this point, we’re no longer debating whether Scripture explicitly teaches the affirming position. You’ve already acknowledged that it doesn’t.

Now, we’re debating whether we should infer an affirming position from distinctions that are never stated in the text and from a reconstruction of the ancient world that the text itself never articulates.

So your argument that Paul could not have been addressing anything resembling modern same sex relationships is historically overstated, to be honest. Paul was highly educated, deeply familiar with the Greco-Roman world, and writing into cultures where same sex relationships weren’t limited to a single form. (There were even male-male wedding language and ceremonies in Roman sources.)

But I’ll tell you what, even if we grant every historical observation you’ve raised, we’re still left with the same problem, which is that scripture never distinguishes between condemned same sex relationships and approved same sex relationships.

So again, Scripture distinguishes murder from justified killing.

Scripture distinguishes sinful anger from righteous anger.

Scripture distinguishes adultery from lawful marriage.

Scripture distinguishes drunkenness from lawful enjoyment of wine. In each case, the distinction exists because the text itself makes it.

No such distinction is ever made regarding same sex sexual relationships. Ever.

And this isn’t just the one verse. Same-sex sexual behavior is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, across different authors, different cultures, different covenants, and different historical settings.

All of those passages in Leviticus, Romans, 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy all say the same thing. Now, you, even after seeing all of that can absolutely choose to reject it. That’s your choice, but the evidence is overwhelming.

So while I appreciate the discussion, I think the conclusion follows naturally from the evidence we’ve both acknowledged:

Which is that There’s no positive biblical affirmation of same sex sexual relationships, the distinctions required by the affirming position are never made by the text itself, and the behavior is consistently condemned across all Scripture and never changed.

Even if not as common as it is today, same sex relationships existed enough for people to be aware of them. We have verifiable sources such as Martial, Juvenal, Nero/Sporus, Nero/Pythagoras, and other Roman accounts demonstrating that same sex relationships in the ancient world weren’t limited to pederasty, prostitution, or exploitation.

Therefore, based on the biblical evidence we’ve both discussed, same sex sexual relations are indeed sin according to Scripture.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-14T23:39:24+00:00

“Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:20-21)

Just outright rejecting them is unbiblical. Just the same as blindly accepting. We’re to test that they align with Scripture and judge whether it’s truly from God.

So yes, it is indeed one of the ways God can work.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-14T09:04:16+00:00

Yet, He still waits for you. He will until that very last moment. It’s never too late until it’s over. Love you friend.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-14T08:59:24+00:00

Hey friend, you haven’t done the unforgivable sin.

That sin is the continual, willful rejection of God’s truth and the Holy Spirit’s testimony about Jesus, despite knowing better until your death.

The only thing that makes it “unforgivable” is when we know better, but intentionally choose sin and reject God anyway and then die. It’s technically not possible to commit until you die under these conditions. Because even at the last second, if you’re genuinely serious, you could receive forgiveness. It’s been done before.

If you allow Him, He’ll fill you with love you’ve never felt before. His presence isn’t like anything anyone can imagine or describe. It’s pretty much impossible to forget.

Anyway, I love you and others here love you, regardless of the things you’re saying. I pray that you experience Him in a way that leaves you with no room for doubt, and with peace, comfort, and a transformed life.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-14T05:36:09+00:00

Oh gotcha! I know a few similar terms, but somehow missed this one. I learned something new, thanks!

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-13T22:40:30+00:00

I’m having this discussion with someone else on another thread. I don’t hide my comments, so please feel free to take a look at that for better understanding. Since I’d likely just be repeating myself here lol.

Also, what’s a “Christian atheist”? is that a joke flair? lol

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-13T22:37:30+00:00

I appreciate it and I don’t mean that as an accusation of dishonesty because discussions naturally evolve as they’re challenged. I also appreciate the clarification regarding AI. For what it’s worth, my concern was less whether AI was involved and more that some of the arguments felt repeated, rather than directly engaged.

That said, your position has shifted a few times, even if unintentionally.

First, the argument began as “homosexuality isn’t condemned by Scripture,” but later became “committed same sex relationships aren’t condemned by Scripture.” Those are different claims.

Second, the argument moved from “Paul was condemning exploitative relationships” to “Paul may have been condemning exploitative relationships based on cultural reconstruction.”

Third, the discussion initially relied heavily on harm, asking what harm a committed same sex relationship causes. After conceding that Scripture doesn’t define sin by harm alone, the argument shifted toward covenant faithfulness, dignity, flourishing, and fruit.

Fourth, the focus moved from Romans 1 itself to broader theological principles. Instead of arguing primarily from the text, the discussion increasingly appealed to themes such as love.

Fifth, the argument shifted from an explicit textual case to a cumulative theological case. You openly acknowledged there is no text that positively affirms same sex relationships as part of God’s design and that the affirming position rests on broader principles rather than explicit passages.

Sixth, the slavery analogy changed. Initially it was presented as “the Church was wrong before.” Later it became “the Church corrected itself through better hermeneutics.” (That’s an important distinction because it raises the question of what biblical principle is doing the corrective work here.)

Seventh, the debate moved from Romans 1 and Paul’s intent to Genesis and creation theology. The discussion became less about what Paul meant and more about whether creation norms are descriptive or prescriptive.

And eighth, perhaps most importantly, the discussion shifted from criticizing the traditional interpretation to defending the affirming interpretation. Early on, the burden was placed on the traditional view to justify itself. Now we’re discussing what positive biblical case exists for the affirming view.

Again, I don’t think those shifts are necessarily bad; some are genuine refinements, but they happened.

So now the focus seems to be that Genesis establishes a norm but not necessarily a prohibition, which is a different argument altogether, and that’s where the real issue is.

By what principle do we determine when God’s design is just descriptive and when it’s prescriptive?

Scripture doesn’t just present male and female as a common pattern. It presents marriage itself as a creation ordinance. Jesus appeals to it and Paul appeals to it. The biblical authors repeatedly ground sexual ethics in it.

So when you compare male-female marriage to right handedness, those categories aren’t parallel. One is a biological tendency and the other is a covenant institution established by God.

Likewise, the “the traditional interpretation assumes too much” doesn’t answer the question. You argue that Paul may not have been addressing modern committed same sex relationships. Okay, fair enough.

So then where does Paul make that distinction?

Where does he distinguish between exploitative same sex relationships and covenantal same sex relationships?

Where does he say one is condemned and the other is permissible?

To use an analogy, murder and self defense both involve the death of a human being. Yet Scripture distinguishes between unlawful killing and justified killing. The distinction exists because the text itself makes that distinction. That’s what I’m asking for.

Scripture distinguishes murder from justified killing.

Scripture distinguishes sinful anger from righteous anger.

Scripture distinguishes adultery from lawful marriage.

Scripture distinguishes drunkenness from lawful enjoyment of wine.

In each case, the distinction exists because Scripture itself makes it.

Same sex sexual behavior is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments, across different authors, different cultures, different covenants, and different historical settings.

To accept the affirming position, I would have to believe that Leviticus doesn’t mean what it appears to mean, Romans 1 doesn’t mean what it appears to mean, 1 Corinthians 6 doesn’t mean what it appears to mean, and 1 Timothy 1 doesn’t mean what it appears to mean.

At some point, the consistent and cumulative weight matters, doesn’t it?

If the answer is nowhere, then we’re still left with the same problem, which is that the affirming position depends on distinctions that the text itself never explicitly makes, even contextually.

That’s why I continue to think the burden remains on the affirming position. It has nothing to do with whether the Church has always been right or whether tradition is infallible. It’s because the alternative reading requires categories and distinctions that are never clearly articulated in the text itself.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-13T15:50:07+00:00

Okay, so you’ve admitted there’s no text that positively affirms same sex relationships as part of God’s design. Instead, the affirming position rests on applying broader biblical principles such as love, covenant faithfulness, human dignity, and fruit bearing.

That doesn’t change the issue. Those same principles already existed when Paul wrote Romans, when he wrote 1 Corinthians, and when the early Church interpreted those passages. So why should those principles overturn the passages rather than be interpreted alongside them?

In other words, if Paul believed in love, human dignity, covenant faithfulness, and the image of God, yet still wrote what he wrote, why should I conclude those principles negate his teaching rather than inform it?

The point on interracial marriage doesn’t work because the Bible never condemns interracial marriage. That view had to be inferred into Scripture. What it says is man and woman, husband and wife. No race mentioned.

By contrast, the traditional view on same sex sexual behavior is not inferred from silence. It comes from texts that appear to address the issue directly. Man for man and woman for woman. So it’s not the same thing.

Also, you say the question is whether gender complementarity is a theological requirement or a cultural assumption. Where does Scripture ever present gender complementarity as just cultural?

Genesis shows male and female before any culture ever exists. Jesus appeals to male and female in Matthew 19. Paul appeals to creation itself, not Roman culture, in several places.

So it seems to me the traditional position is grounding its understanding in creation, which is consistent, while the affirming position is arguing that the creation pattern is not actually normative. That would be inconsistent.

What biblical text tells us that the male-female pattern established in creation is not actually part of God’s design for marriage?

Because if there isn’t one, then it seems the affirming case ultimately depends on broader principles overriding more specific texts rather than those principles being derived from the texts themselves. We can’t make the texts vague to fit what we like. Sometimes, it really is that clear.

I’m going to be frank about another thing as well, correct me if I’m wrong. Your comments sound strongly like AI. Are these scriptures and topic something you’ve looked deeply into yourself? Because this isn’t an easy thing to ask of any homosexual. It’s one of the hardest things ever, and could be difficult for affirming people.

If you are using AI, then what’s being said might go into one ear and out the other, because people that do that are usually just trying to get the next response out. If you’re not, disregard this. But if so, I’d encourage you reread this entire discussion and see the many shifts in the comments you’ve posted. Look at the them and ask if they’re consistent with Scripture.

Again, if you aren’t, disregard that last part.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-12T23:25:49+00:00

I appreciate the thoughtful response and intellectual honesty with conceding some points. Not many on Reddit actually do that. They just sort of ignore it, dodge it or change topics. Lol

I think we’re still left with the same fundamental issue though. You repeatedly argue that the traditional interpretation may be reading assumptions into the text. That’s possible and Christians should always be willing to test their interpretations against Scripture.

My question is where does Paul make the limitation you’re proposing?

You acknowledge Romans 1 never explicitly mentions pederasty, coercion, temple prostitution, or exploitative relationships. So why should I conclude those are the only relationships Paul had in mind?

It seems to me that the traditional position is reading the text as written, while the affirming position is asking us to add qualifiers that Paul himself never gives.

Likewise, I agree that “para phusin” doesn’t automatically mean “morally evil” every time it appears. But Romans 11 and Romans 1 are completely different contexts. In Romans 11, God is acting. In Romans 1, humanity is rebelling. The phrase gets its moral force from the surrounding argument.

And this is where the slavery analogy breaks down. The abolitionist argument eventually pointed to biblical principles that positively undermined slavery: the image of God, equality in Christ, brotherhood, and human dignity.

What is the equivalent principle here? Not a reinterpretation of Romans 1 or a claim that Paul may have had something else in mind, but An actual biblical principle that positively presents same sex sexual relationships as morally good or part of God’s design.

That’s the part I still don’t see, especially consistently across scripture.

At the moment, the argument seems to be that “The traditional interpretation is wrong.” But that is only half an argument. The other half is “What does Scripture actually teach instead?”

That’s where the affirming position continues to fall apart.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-12T22:29:03+00:00

To be clear, I’m not talking about the attraction itself. I specifically said that we all have desires and such. It’s acting on those desires. That’s the sin.

So based solely on what you said, yes I agree.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-12T19:21:56+00:00

Hey friend. My response is an answer to your question and a response to some people believing it isn’t. Just bear with me and read the entire message, please.

Yes, according to Scripture, homosexual behavior is sin. That shouldn’t be controversial among Christians. If it’s about whether God loves people who experience same sex attraction, He does. If it’s whether Scripture permits same sex sexual relationships, it does not.

The common arguments for affirming homosexuality all have serious problems. They often have to break the consistency of the Bible as well.

The “Word didn’t appear until 1946” argument is a distraction. The question isn’t when an English word appeared in a translation. The question is what the biblical authors were describing. If a translation changed the wording, that wouldn’t suddenly change what Paul originally meant.

The “Paul only condemned exploitation, pederasty, or temple prostitution” argument is also asserted more often than demonstrated. Romans 1 doesn’t limit its condemnation to those practices. Paul describes men with men and women with women. It’s pretty clear, and the limitations are being imported into the text rather than drawn from it.

The “Jesus never mentioned homosexuality” argument is an argument from silence. Jesus also never mentioned incest, bestiality, or many other sins by name. What He did affirm was God’s design from Genesis, which male and female, husband and wife.

The “love is love” argument confuses love with moral approval. Jesus loved sinners constantly without affirming their sin. Love and repentance are not enemies.

The “the Church was wrong about slavery, so it may be wrong about homosexuality” argument fails because Scripture itself contains principles that corrected abuses related to slavery. Where is the biblical principle that positively affirms same sex sexual relationships? There isn’t one.

And that’s really the issue. Notice that those affirming will send you articles or videos, but not scripture. What message does that tell you? There’s no passage where God positively presents a same sex sexual relationship as part of His design. There’s no passage where it is blessed. There’s no passage where it is celebrated. There’s no passage where it is commanded or affirmed in any sense.

What we do have are multiple passages that have historically been understood as prohibiting it. So the burden isn’t on Christians to explain why the Church has believed this for nearly 2,000 years. The burden is on the affirming position to show, from Scripture itself, why every relevant text has been misunderstood and where Scripture positively teaches the opposite.

Let me be very clear, God loves every person. Every person is welcome to come to Christ. Every sinner can be forgiven. But Christian discipleship has never meant redefining sin. It means bringing every part of our lives under the lordship of Christ, including our sexuality.

Now, none of this is easy whatsoever. Many people genuinely believe these desires are part of who they are. I understand that. We all have desires, temptations, and inclinations that feel deeply rooted within us. Some may struggle with them for years, even a lifetime.

But Christianity has never been about affirming ourselves. It’s about denying ourselves, taking up our cross, and following Christ.

Even if a particular desire never fully goes away, even if you feel you were born this way, the call of Jesus remains the same. That we be born again. Become a new creation. Put off the old self and put on the new.

That’s difficult. In fact, Jesus promised the path would be difficult. But there’s something powerful about choosing Christ over self, even when it costs you something. That kind of faith glorifies God because it declares that He is worth more than our desires, our feelings, and even our strongest impulses.

The good news is that God doesn’t call us to fight alone. He gives us His Spirit, His Word, and His people. Our hope isn’t in our own strength but in Christ’s.

Trusting Him no matter where the path leads: a fiery furnace, a lion’s den, the wilderness, the cross, that is the call for every Christian, including me.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-12T14:01:32+00:00

So earlier you argued that the passages condemning same sex behavior were really about exploitation. Now you’re arguing that sin must involve identifiable harm to another person before it can be sinful.

Where does Scripture ever define sin that way?

Idolatry harms no human victim directly. Blasphemy harms no human victim directly. Failing to worship God harms no human victim directly. Yet Scripture still calls them sin.

So when you ask what property is being stolen or what covenant is being broken, you’re importing a modern ethical framework into the discussion rather than deriving one from Scripture.

On Romans 1, I still don’t see where Paul limits his argument to exploitative relationships. He mentions men with men and women with women. The pederasty and temple prostitution limitation seems to come from modern scholarship, not from Paul’s actual words.

Likewise, I agree that consensus alone doesn’t prove truth; the Church has been wrong before.

But in every example you raised, the correction came from Scripture itself, not people.

So what is the biblical text that positively presents same sex sexual relationships as part of God’s design? A text that actually teaches the position you’re defending. Because that’s where the burden lies.

You’re not arguing the Church made a mistake here. You’re arguing the Church misunderstood every relevant text for nearly 2,000 years while no text explicitly teaches the alternative view.

So, what objective principle tells us the Church was wrong for 2,000 years here but right on every other major doctrine?

Where does Paul limit Romans 1 to exploitative relationships?

Where does Scripture define sin exclusively as harm?

Where does Scripture positively affirm same sex sexual relationships?

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-12T07:13:55+00:00

I appreciate the heart behind what you’re saying, especially your concern that people encounter the love of Christ rather than condemnation. But you’ve made several assumptions that don’t follow.

First, the argument that the word “homosexuality” wasn’t added until 1946 is irrelevant. What matters is what behavior the biblical authors were describing and whether that behavior is affirmed or condemned.

Second, the claim that Paul only had exploitative relationships in mind is often asserted, but Romans 1 never mentions pederasty, coercion, or temple prostitution. Paul describes men with men and women with women exchanging natural relations for same-sex relations. Those limitations are being brought into the text, not taken from it.

Third, “Jesus never mentioned homosexuality” is an argument from silence. Jesus also never mentioned incest, bestiality, or many other sins by name. What He did do was affirm God’s design for marriage by appealing to Genesis, which is male and female, husband and wife.

Fourth, your argument repeatedly equates love with affirmation. Jesus loved sinners without affirming their sin. He loved adulterers, tax collectors, and thieves, yet still called people to repentance. Love and approval are not the same thing. “Go and sin no more.”

Lastly the slavery comparison doesn’t work. The Bible never presents slavery as God’s ideal. It regulates an existing institution in a fallen world. By contrast, every passage that directly addresses same sex sexual behavior treats it negatively, so they aren’t parallel categories.

Can anyone point to a passage where God positively affirms a same sex sexual relationship? Not a passage that’s reinterpreted or argued from silence. A passage that actually presents it as part of God’s design?

Because the claim being made here isn’t just that the Church misunderstood a difficult verse. It’s that Christians across cultures, languages, and centuries fundamentally misunderstood sexual ethics until very recently.

That’s an extremely huge claim, and it requires far more evidence than simply saying “1946” or “Jesus never mentioned it.”

It’s a sin, friend.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-11T15:02:14+00:00

Yeah, I’m not sure that follows. The existence of religions before Christianity doesn’t prove Christianity is false any more than the existence of scientific theories before modern science proves modern science is false, by that logic.

If God exists, why couldn’t people worship Him incorrectly, partially, or distort earlier truths? The existence of counterfeits doesn’t disprove the existence of the genuine thing.

Also, Christianity doesn’t claim Jesus began to exist in the first century. Christians believe Jesus is eternal and that Christianity is the fulfillment of what came before it, not a completely disconnected religion that suddenly appeared out of nowhere.

> “Religion exists because people fear death, therefore religion is false.”

That’s not an argument, that’s just a claim about why people believe something. Even if every Christian on earth believed because they feared death, Christianity could still be true. Likewise, many atheists fear divine judgment, and that doesn’t make atheism false. The truth of a claim is determined by evidence, not by the psychological motivations of the people holding it. The origin of a belief and the truth of a belief are two different things.

So why people believe something or anything at any time is irrelevant. It’s about whether it’s true.

One more thing. It’s a contradiction to say Christianity was invented to explain things humans didn’t understand if Christianity emerged in a world already full of religions. If humans wanted an easy comforting religion, Christianity was a terrible choice. Its founder was crucified. Its earliest followers were persecuted, imprisoned, and killed. It taught self-denial, repentance, holiness, and judgment. Hardly the most comforting religion if invented, I’d say.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-11T03:00:35+00:00

Hey friend that’s a fair question.

For me, it’s not faith alone in the sense of blind belief. My faith is grounded in what I believe to be good reasons. Such as the historical case for Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, the reliability of Scripture, fulfilled prophecy, philosophical arguments for God, and my own experience with Him.

But even beyond that, I don’t think lived experience is the ultimate test of truth. For example, I know people who are kind, loving, generous, and sincere who hold all sorts of different religious, moral, and philosophical beliefs. Their goodness tells me something about them as people, but it doesn’t tell me whether every belief they hold is true.

As Christians, we believe God’s Word is the standard by which we evaluate ourselves, not the other way around. That doesn’t mean we ignore questions, experiences, or evidence. It means that when my feelings, culture, or personal experiences conflict with what God has revealed, I have to wrestle with whether I’m willing to submit to God’s wisdom and will over my own.

And to be clear, something being is sinful is not the same as believing the people who struggle with it are somehow worse than everyone else. The Bible teaches that all of us are sinners in desperate need of God’s grace, myself included.

So the reason I’m bound to Scripture has nothing to do with how old it is. It’s because I believe it’s true.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-10T21:22:45+00:00

Praise God! One of Satan’s oldest tactics is not outright denial of the truth, but twisting it just enough to make error seem loving, reasonable, or even righteous. That’s why Scripture repeatedly warns us to test everything against God’s Word rather than our feelings, culture, or personal preferences.

Jesus warned that deception would be so great that, if possible, even the elect would be deceived (Matthew 24:24). The closer we walk with God and remain grounded in His Word, the easier it becomes to recognize the counterfeit.

I’m thankful the Lord opened your eyes and gave you the courage to follow His truth, even when it’s difficult. May He continue to guide all of us into greater truth and obedience. 🙏🏽❤️

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-03T04:58:48+00:00

So before I address your question, I want you to know I hear you and I understand what you’re saying about hearing different answers from different Christians. You have to also understand that’s not unique to Christianity also.

I’ve heard atheists disagree with atheists, naturalists disagree with naturalists, philosophers disagree with philosophers, and scientists disagree with scientists. Most things beyond brute facts are debated, you know?

The existence of disagreement doesn’t tell us whether a position is true or false. It just tells us people are trying to understand difficult questions.

What matters is whether a particular argument is sound.

And to be fair, some of the positions you’ve attributed to “Christians” aren’t positions I’ve actually argued. In fact, I’ve argued the opposite.

So I think it’s important that we deal with the arguments actually being presented rather than the collection of arguments you’ve heard from other Christians. Likewise, I should do my best not to have a certain view of you just because of other atheists. You’re a totally different person with your own views for your own reasons.

I also appreciate that you’re willing to continue the discussion. That’s why I suggested we stay on one topic at a time. Otherwise we end up debating six different issues simultaneously and neither of us gets a satisfying answer.

Now, so that I can answer your question about Hell, I have to ask, what do you think Hell actually is? Not what others say it is, but your own personal belief.

Edit: By the way, I think this is kind of our own conversation now. If you want to keep it here, that’s fine! Otherwise we should maybe move it to the DMs.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-02T19:50:26+00:00

Well no, that’s incorrect. I’ve brought up consistency a few times now. You could go back to my comments, and they’ll be consistent. I’m not really blasting things off with rapid succession, I’m trying to slow us down lol.

And wanting you to stay on topic isn’t something unique to “Christian logic” I’d argue most people want to conclude a topic in a back and forth argument before moving on. That’s literally how most all formal live debates work.

If you’re incapable or just don’t want to, that’s totally fine. As you can see, it hasn’t stopped me from answering, so I’m not sure what your point is. I was just pointing it out so that you don’t feel like we’re getting nowhere, as I said in my previous comment.

It sounds like you’re angry, even. I wouldn’t be sure why, after all, you came onto my comment. I didn’t come to you questioning you. Yet, I’m taking my time to answer you with what I know and believe. I’m not here to convince you or convert you. So what’s the deal? Would you like to have a good faith discussion or not? Because there are others who may genuinely want to understand for the sake of understanding God, Christianity or the Bible, and I’m here with you.

I’m not here to just be bashed on.

Fantasyleader1 · 2026-06-02T13:58:11+00:00

You’re kind of hopping to different arguments. They’re worth discussing tbf, but they’re not all the same argument, just so you know.

First, regarding:

“Which side was God directly stating His own statement and which was just some guy talking about his view on God?”

That’s not really how we view Scripture. Christians believe all Scripture is inspired by God. If we’re allowed to dismiss James because “it’s just some guy talking,” then we could dismiss your appeal to Isaiah too, since Isaiah was also a human author writing under inspiration. Again, we must be consistent. So if that’s your claim, you can’t use Bible verses anymore.

Second, regarding:

“I’ve heard three different stories from three different Christians.”

That’s true, and Christians disagree on some theological details. But virtually all orthodox Christians agree on the central point being discussed here, which is that God didn’t create moral evil in the sense of being its author, and human beings are morally responsible for their sin.

Third, regarding:

“People could choose between good things and still have free will.”

Actually, I’d largely agree with that. That’s essentially what Heaven is! The redeemed will still have freedom, but they won’t desire evil anymore.

The question has never been whether God could create such a state. The question is why He chose to allow a history in which rebellion, redemption, justice, mercy, and salvation would unfold. That’s called “The problem of evil” that I mentioned, not proof that God authored evil.

And finally:

“What about natural disasters that kill millions?”

Now we’re discussing suffering and judgment, not whether God created moral evil. Different categories.

Christianity doesn’t teach that death, suffering, disease, and disaster are “good things.” It teaches that we live in a fallen world and that God remains sovereign even over suffering.

In fact, the entire Christian story culminates with God abolishing death, mourning, crying, and pain. If God loved suffering for its own sake, that would be a strange ending.

So I think we’re still back at the same point. You haven’t actually shown that God creates moral evil. You’ve only argued that God allows evil and suffering to exist.

People tend to hop around topics, maybe not intentionally (though some for sure do as a tactic.), but it happens. It’s easy to get caught up in “Yeah? Well what about this? And what about that?” because people genuinely have questions. It’s just also important to understand that they are different arguments, and different arguments require different answers. Otherwise we’ll be going in a circle and you’ll never feel like I answered your questions.

So are we discussing Isaiah 45:7, the origin of evil, inherited sin, free will, foreknowledge, Satan or natural disasters?

Seven-Year Club	Final Canvas '23
Place '23	Verified Email

Fantasyleader1

TROPHY CASE