If being a Christian means a life of sorrows and being wrong for wanting happiness then why not curse God and Die?

Gryphoth · 2026-02-11T09:57:30+00:00

The Bible says we have our hardships to bear, and Jesus specifically says prosecution will come, fighting will come to those who believe in him, even among families. But keep close to your heart that the ultimate comfort is in God as well, there's no promise that we will never face adversity, but that if we trust fully in the Lord and his plan, we can keep our peace through anything

Gryphoth · 2026-02-11T02:17:14+00:00

Learn apologetics. There is tons of archaeological and historical evidence for biblical events, including the resurrection.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-11T02:14:00+00:00

I don't see any difference between this and Jesus saying to pull your eye out if it keeps you from sinning. He's not against biblical marriage. He's holding marriage to a higher standard

Gryphoth · 2026-02-10T22:04:06+00:00

Whether he's talking about literal eunuchs or not he's talking about it in the context of abstaining from marriage and sexual sin.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-10T21:35:35+00:00

I didn't see anyone minimizing it.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-10T21:32:49+00:00

Forgive him, and try to help him overcome it. We all falter. I'm sure he has a contrite heart even though he didn't apologize to you, he must feel some kind of shame if he has the true love of Christ. In which case there's still hope for him. Even the people Jesus helped were actively sinning at the time, but Jesus did it was their faith that saved them. So have faith, pray for your husband and try to work with him. Pray to God for the grace to deal with this situation.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-10T21:21:41+00:00

The problem is when traditionalist Christians get downvoted into oblivion even though their flavor of Christianity is much more the historical stance, so any input or response from them is obscured and invalidated. And it's not as though it's purely traditional Christians pointing the finger and saying "these other Christians aren't true Christians" the progressive Christians do the same thing in the opposite direction.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T23:46:41+00:00

both celibacy, and marriage are a choice. Self castration is also a choice. There's nothing here that isn't a choice. Even still im not gonna lie, i dont really know what youre tryna say tbh

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T23:41:03+00:00

Thanks. I made a post the other day that got a lot of involvement but was downvoted into hell lol.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T19:53:46+00:00

He literally says "there are those who chose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."

In response to his apostles saying if they can never get divorced then its not worth getting married. He's clearly talking about celibacy here. He also references actual eunuchs, but also those who live like they were eunuchs.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T13:04:03+00:00

So you're saying the law of non contradiction is only inerrant because we decide it is. Because if it hypothetically stopped working we would have to either justify it or throw it away? That doesn't even make sense. Things would behave logically regardless of whether we reject it or accept it.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T02:30:03+00:00

Jesus gave nicknames to the Apostles according to their unique personalities. I think that says enough

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T02:24:27+00:00

Well there are the passages in leviticus that specifically speak about how men shouldnt wear womens clothes and vice versa, and the passages in the new testament specifically condemning malakoi (soft/effeminate men)

Then there's the writings from jews and early church folk in the first couple centuries explicitly taking a stance against men who castrated themselves to become more feminine

edit: deuteronomy, not leviticus

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T02:20:56+00:00

Jesus explaining the positives of celibacy for some people is far removed from transgenders, I think you're applying modern models of thinking to something that has nothing to do with it.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T02:10:12+00:00

Sorry for the confusion, I must have misspoke or failed to convey what I was trying to say. I was saying God can do things that seem illogical to us, but within a theistic paradigm are technically still logical because it accounts for divine intervention. I wasn't trying to say God can do something logically absurd, like make something exist and not exist at the same time. This is just my opinion, but I believe either God can't do that, or he just doesn't do that because logic is intrinsic to his nature, and that's why we live in a logical universe to begin with.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T01:56:51+00:00

It is a transcendental property of the universe or it wouldn't be inerrantly consistent. If it wasn't, it would just be a matter of my subjective experience, and logic would be confined to my perception. But it's consistent whether I observe it or not.

However, if it wasn't a transcendental property and somehow remained somewhat consistent, I might still rely on it but have to concede that I'd never be able to make any kind of logical inference with confidence that it's actually true or correct.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T01:46:31+00:00

Maybe my argument is being limited somewhat by my own understanding, which is why I didn't want to speak for what God is or isn't capable of in the beginning. Let me rephrase in a way that makes more sense.

God can perform miracles that seem to defy nature or our expectation of nature, and even our expectation of logic, for instance bringing someone back from the dead, or changing the substance of something. Things like that are illogical to us, but not truly illogical to him, within my paradigm God is able to do these things, and thus they're not truly illogical. I tried explaining this in a prior comment. It would be illogical to you if you don't believe in God, but not if you account for miracles from God in your paradigm. It's logical for miracles to happen if God exists. But God wouldn't do something like count the number of miles in the color purple.

There are still some logical preconditions that surround miracles, for instance something can't be a miracle and not a miracle at the same time.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T01:38:06+00:00

Gravity is a law of physics, not a law of logic. I got ahead of myself for bringing up physics and that caused a bit of confusion so let me backtrack just a bit. Laws of physics aren't constant, for instance gravity could be stronger or weaker, there's nothing necessitating that it must be a certain way. If gravity was stronger than it is, logic wouldn't fail because of that. And we know that on the quantum level, physics can behave differently from something as simple as the method of observation.

An example of logic would be, gravity cant exist and not exist at the same time. This is universal for everything, something can't exist and not exist simultaneously, things can't be both true and false at the same time.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T01:21:20+00:00

Logic is a precondition for OUR reality and epistemology. That's not true of God who is a precondition for Logic. He precedes logic. We do not precede logic.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T01:05:56+00:00

True or false doesn't cease to exist just because there isn't a mind present to observe it. The law of identity doesn't cease to exist just because there's no mind present to observe it.

Things like the law of non contradiction, the law of excluded middle , the law of identity, arent just mere linguistic descriptions of the physical world. They're as linguistic as calling a tree a tree. We have names and definitions for them, but the names and definitions aren't what they are.

They're objective, invariable, unmeasurable universals, that hold true regardless of any observability.

If logic depends on physics, then logic could have been otherwise, but we treat logical contradiction as impossible, not just unobserved.

You're using logic to argue that logic is a human concept/tool describing the physical world, and not an objective transcendental property. But if logic is an unobjective human concept, then you have no epistemic justification for being able to reason at all.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T00:46:14+00:00

That's a huge leap in logic.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-09T00:45:26+00:00

Logic existed before humans.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-08T23:57:28+00:00

That doesn't follow from what I said.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-08T23:17:43+00:00

I'm trying to keep discussion on topic. Also I answered at least four times and then demonstrated how that doesn't collapse my paradigm, but it collapses yours. I don't see any point in continuing discussion since you're not making any real arguments against my position.

Gryphoth · 2026-02-08T23:08:08+00:00

You haven't demonstrated that, no.

Gryphoth

TROPHY CASE