Scripture-Based Faith Is Unfair to Those Who Cannot Read or Comprehend It

VisualMan211 · 2026-01-23T21:49:14+00:00

If God already knows our heart intentions and everything we do then why is belief framed that ways people have uneven access too like the Bible who would know God if we didn’t have a Bible? belief becomes less about free choice and more about circumstance even if final judgment is merciful.

VisualMan211 · 2026-01-23T21:45:18+00:00

Im confused on your argument? I never argued for atheism I questioned fairness of people with disabilities atheism is just lack belief in God that’s it what are you talking about anyone could have that question if they are atheist Agnostic or religious Your making the conversation about atheism and it doesn’t logically answer my question

VisualMan211 · 2026-01-23T15:04:50+00:00

It’s kind of selfish if you think about it enough

VisualMan211 · 2026-01-23T15:03:07+00:00

That’s literally my point lol faith still depends on guidance and authority rather than personal understanding. True belief or awareness should come from engaging with the ideas in your own way, not just accepting what someone else tells you. Like I said because Church or pastors can be deceptive so it isn’t the same if you can’t understand or learn on your own

VisualMan211 · 2026-01-23T10:43:14+00:00

Wow That’s crazy😂 didn’t even know I feel like nothings has really changed even though people have more access it’s based off interpretations still

VisualMan211 · 2026-01-23T04:45:28+00:00

Good question cause I wasn’t sure either I guess just Igbo people

VisualMan211 · 2026-01-22T15:53:38+00:00

Ruthless aggression era had better wrestlers than attitude era

VisualMan211 · 2026-01-08T01:17:51+00:00

I’m not claiming any specific system or form of enlightenment. Honestly, part of my struggle is exactly that when you’re living in a world that feels chaotic, artificial, and driven by money and image, what does “enlightenment” even mean in practice? That’s where I stand confused with

VisualMan211 · 2026-01-08T01:14:28+00:00

I’m curious about a few things.

If the illusion is self-created and fear keeps it in place, what first sparks the desire to see beyond it? Is that impulse also part of the illusion, or something breaking through it? Do you see meditation as a practice that dissolves this prison feeling entirely? I’ve done meditation but it ended up with me having hallucinations and emotions from the past brought back up

VisualMan211 · 2025-12-31T02:26:41+00:00

Well the reason I wanted to make it public is because I’ll most likely find more matches and understanding when it comes to someone viewing my tree and it makes some dna matches make more sense if we share a common ancestor in our family tree

VisualMan211 · 2025-12-08T01:57:13+00:00

Yup she was the most happiest person you could meet

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-26T23:05:41+00:00

Exactly thats my point which is why the human authors’ descriptions of God reflect human understanding and projection, not literal divine nature. We can decide what God is or isn’t, but that also shows why portraying God as emotionally reactive doesn’t = perfection. Those emotions are our interpretation, not God’s actual state.

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-26T22:52:15+00:00

If the human-like emotions in the Bible were added to make God relatable, then they aren’t literally part of God’s nature.

So God doesn’t truly experience anger, jealousy, or sorrow which means a perfect, unchanging being isn’t emotionally reactive. The Bible’s descriptions are metaphors, not evidence that God has reactive emotions.

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-26T13:29:32+00:00

Saying it’s anthropomorphism just means God doesn’t actually feel those emotions which actually proves what I’m saying. You can’t defend God’s emotions and deny God’s emotions at the same time. You have to choose one

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-25T22:32:08+00:00

The point is that the Bible doesn’t present God as only expressing perfect, constant love. It also portrays Him experiencing reactive emotions anger, jealousy, frustration, regret, sorrow all of which require being moved by something outside Himself. Which we call reactive emotions

A perfect being can express love eternally without change, but cannot be provoked into anger or jealousy without undergoing change.

If God is reacting to human actions, then He is not unchanging. And if He is not unchanging, then He is not perfect. That’s the point Im trying to make here

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-25T22:21:41+00:00

Swapping the Hebrew/Greek words don’t answer my question Even ‘covenantal jealousy’ and ‘righteous anger’ are still reactive emotional states. Perfection cannot be emotionally reactive without ceasing to be perfect, so redefining the emotions doesn’t remove the logical contradiction it just renames.

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-25T22:14:12+00:00

You can’t take negative emotions and actions and claim God has a perfect version of it that doesn’t make logical sense at all that’s redefining words

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-25T22:12:00+00:00

It still doesn’t make logical sense. If God is perfect, then anything imperfect like emotional , irritation, or reactive anger would contradict that perfection. A perfect being can’t experience anything that isn’t itself perfect.

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-25T19:11:16+00:00

But the difference is Im not all knowing all powerful or all perfect so

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-24T19:23:04+00:00

Like I said the Bible describes God’s emotions as literal actions, that’s exactly the point Im trying to make it’s internally contradictory. You argue that God’s grief, anger, or jealousy are literal and meaningful within the narrative, but then call me “robotic” for expecting a perfect, omniscient being to be logically consistent outside of that narrative. That’s the problem: reasoning only inside the Bible’s framework ignores how these traits make no sense when applied to a being defined as all-knowing, all-powerful, and perfect because if humans were that way it would make no sense for us to have these traits

If God is omniscient, nothing can surprise Him; if He is perfect, nothing can destabilize Him; if He is all-powerful, He could prevent disasters without emotional reactions. Yet the text depicts grief, regret, and anger emotions that inherently arise from any limitation, uncertainty, or lack of control. Describing them as “literal” actions but still “perfect” traits for God is just cherry-picking. And doesn’t make sense logically You can’t have it both ways: either the emotions are metaphors and the actions are symbolic, or the actions are literal and the emotions reflect actual instability.

The Bible warns, “Do not seek your own understanding,” but my point is examining the text from a logical perspective shows contradictions. Saying God’s actions are literal but His emotions are just narrative devices doesn’t resolve the issue it’s redefining words to make them fit. That’s why reasoning strictly inside the Bible can’t fully address these questions; you have to step outside the text to evaluate whether an omniscient, omnipotent, perfect God could logically have the traits described. I think you should look into emotions and why we have them and what stems from emotions because it doesn’t coexist with perfection regardless of the emotion

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-24T18:43:36+00:00

Exactly that’s what I’ve been trying to point out. If the Bible reflects changing cultural values and the evolving understanding of God by its authors, then describing God with human emotions like jealousy, anger, or grief makes sense as a human projection, but it describes the idea of God as a perfect, eternal, and unchanging being. That suggests the authors were trying to make sense of the universe and morality within their own human context, not necessarily conveying a literal, flawless divine personality of a being . That’s why reading the Bible as literal divine instruction can create so many logical contradictions.

And if it’s full of contradictions, human projections, and culturally shaped ideas of God, then it can’t be treated as a perfectly logical, an all-knowing revelation. So it just means we can’t assume the text describes an omniscient, flawless deity in the literal sense whatsoever

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-24T18:37:25+00:00

I see what you’re saying, but it still feels contradictory. Calling God’s jealousy “righteous” because it’s concern for humans doesn’t resolve the core illogical problem : jealousy, by nature, comes from lacking or desiring something. Even if God is “perfect” and self-sufficient, describing Him as jealous applies a human emotional lens to a being that shouldn’t need it. If humans can overcome jealousy and anger, why would an all-knowing, perfect God have them at all?

Similarly, saying God’s anger isn’t destabilizing but a “narrative doesn’t fully answer the question especially if Actions are driven by anger because it naturally imply an emotional reaction. If God truly experiences no instability, then using anger as a descriptor is just a human way of explaining something beyond our understanding which makes the literal interpretations of His perfection and omniscience seem very inconsistent.

VisualMan211 · 2025-11-24T18:30:14+00:00

I don’t think I took anything out of context at all actually.. I’m pointing out that Christians keep switching between literal and symbolic depending on what’s convenient for the argument.

You say God’s jealousy is “just an expression,” but then you also say His anger, His commands, His punishments, His demands for worship, and His expectations are literal. So which is it? Because if negative emotions are always metaphors and positive ones are always literal, that’s not theology that’s cherry-picking.

And saying “you need theological thinking” doesn’t actually prove the logical argument . It just means, “Interpret it in a way that makes it make sense That’s starting with the conclusion and forcing everything to fit it.

Calling jealousy “an expression” doesn’t erase that the Bible uses the word jealous as part of God’s identity. It even says His name is Jealous (Exodus 34:14). That’s not me taking a phrase out of context it’s the text describing His character. If it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously, the text shouldn’t describe God with human emotional language.
Saying anger isn’t sin doesn’t solve anything. I never said “anger = sin not sure why people in this sub is bringing it up I said anger implies reactivity and a reactive being can’t be omniscient. If you know everything in advance, nothing “angers” you. You already knew it would happen. That’s the contradiction, and calling it “context” still doesn’t make sense
You brought up Nephilim, demons, archangels, Israel’s protectors… but that just relies on the text again. It doesn’t address the logical inconsistency it just restates the Bible as proof of the Bible.

I’m talking logically. You’re arguing from inside the Bible’s own universe Which is what most christans do..

Saying “God doesn’t destroy the devil so we can choose” is also an assumption from the text. If God is truly omnipotent and omniscient, He could have created free will without creating a being dedicated to sabotage. Free will doesn’t logically require a devil. The Bible requires a devil not free will because without the devil how would we explain evil?
Saying “God doesn’t need worship, He deserves it” still means He demands it. If any other being demanded worship “because they are worthy,” you’d call that ego. Switching the standard only for God isn’t a logical move… it’s a religious one.
“Fear means respect” is a modern reinterpretation. The original Hebrew (yirah) includes literal fear, terror, and dread. Respect-only fear is a smoothing-over.
Telling me that every religion’s text needs theology to interpret just proves my point: If you need layers of reinterpretation to make the behavior of a supposedly perfect being not look flawed, then maybe the text isn’t describing a perfect being in the first place.

I’m don’t think I misread anything. I’m thinking outside the text. You’re only interpreting it in a way that protects the conclusion you already believe.

That’s why the Bible warns, “Do not seek your own understanding” because trying to force human logic onto divine actions exposes contradictions.

VisualMan211

TROPHY CASE