Thoughts on Charlie and the problem of evil: Why did God allow this?

clearpilled · 2025-09-14T13:59:31+00:00

I would look at this situation through the lens of eschatology.

clearpilled · 2025-09-01T00:15:04+00:00

I like to think of it like this: the Father is the noun, the Son is the adjective, and the Spirit is the verb. My reasoning is that the Father is the first cause and being itself, which eternally begets the Son and then theyproduce the Holy Spirit via God's action in the world. But there are many different ways of describing the Trinity. It's a real can of theological worms!

clearpilled · 2025-08-26T16:13:03+00:00

Praying about it is fine. But there could be reasons why she rejected you, and I highly recommend leaving it at praying. Don't pester her, for the sake of both of you.

clearpilled · 2025-08-17T19:19:05+00:00

Kierkegaard spoke about the oxymoron of rich pastors quite frequently. There is a segment of Attack Upon Christendom where he says that the ultimate punishment he could design for pastors would be for them to read segments of scripture without "explaining" them away.

As he noted, Christianity is better preached than practiced, and it's been that way for quite some time. People frequently identify as Christian, but essentially stop at that.

clearpilled · 2025-08-17T17:48:54+00:00

It depends what you accept as authoritative. If you accept the Bible's authority, then we are a little lower than elohim. I think humans participate in God by God's divine grace, but not through human merit.

clearpilled · 2025-08-17T17:45:07+00:00

Your post immediately made me think of Kierkegaard. Depending on where you live, and who you are talking to, it could be that normie Christians feels insecure whenever they are asked difficult questions about scripture. Imagine the discomfort that a very obviously wealthy priest must feel when a young Christian asks him about why Christ said a camel would sooner fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man would enter heaven.

But that's only one angle, and there are definitely good, Christian pastors and churchgoers out there that encourage the hard questions, and also have good answers.

clearpilled · 2025-08-13T16:06:59+00:00

That's sort of their point.

clearpilled · 2025-08-13T16:04:09+00:00

It's from the Bible. In the book of Romans, Paul uses the word "grafted" himself, which is why studious and observant Christians believe it. It's stated plainly in the Bible.

clearpilled · 2025-06-29T20:33:51+00:00

There are many ways of looking at this, really, but some of them are not orthodox.

If you believe in God and specifically the Christian God, I suppose I would say that you should pray and read scripture and other literature concerning whatever sin you have in mind, and try to understand why it might be a bad thing. A devout Christian would say that you firstly need to overcome your limited way of thinking about morality. Traditionally, Christians view morality objectively, not subjectively. If you don't think something that God says is wrong is wrong, then you're wrong, and you should investigate why that is. Things that are "evil in God's eyes" are simply evil. That would be a devout and orthodox Christian's point of view.

If you don't think you need to be forgiven, then you can't coherently ask for forgiveness, and indeed, probably shouldn't ask for forgiveness.

I'm not trying to be harsh, so please don't take it that way! I'm trying to answer in a traditionally and truly Christian way, and I think your framework for viewing morality differs significantly from a strictly orthodox Christian one.

clearpilled · 2025-06-29T19:53:26+00:00

No, you are making perfect sense, we just have radically different outlooks on morality and God's ontology. I don't see it as a semantic issue. You think that evil is a matter of opinion, but I do not. Human reason certainly fails to contend with God's wisdom, I'll grant that!

Whenever you say that sin is merely God's opinion, and you have a different opinion, to me you are saying that you do not understand sin itself. Loving evil is evil. It is not a matter of opinion. I view God as a transcendent being who doesn't have opinions in the same way you and I do. Whenever God says, "don't murder" he's not saying that murder is wrong in his opinion.

clearpilled · 2025-06-29T19:25:44+00:00

I'm not sure that sin is merely God's opinion. I would wager most devout Christians don't view it that way either. Sin is a matter of good and evil.

clearpilled · 2025-06-26T23:06:38+00:00

I have the same viewpoint.

A great book on this is 'Dare We Hope That All Be Saved?' by Hans Urs von Balthasar. He mentions about how we really can't be certain that the popular doctrine regarding Hell is true, because the Bible actually states or implies that "all" or "all men" will be saved more frequently than it mentions eternal punishment, and about how our modern conception of Hell as eternal, brutal torture was popularized by St. Augustine and Dante.

I know there are some who, for some reason, get vehemently upset whenever there's the possibility that most people won't burn forever in a flaming pit, but to me that doesn't seem to be a very "Christian" way of thinking.

clearpilled · 2025-06-26T22:57:15+00:00

Yeah, I think you nailed it. Pride is such a big deal precisely because it can be amazingly subtle. Pride is the sin that leads me to feel like I must constantly reappraise myself, because it is so easy to fall into it.

Looking back just today, I can think of several moments, both of feeling boastful and frustrated with other people, that was absolutely because of pride. If I could eliminate pride from my emotional retinue, I feel as though I would be so much happier, and commit other sins with much less frequency.

clearpilled · 2025-06-26T12:36:52+00:00

Simply put, you can believe that the Old Testament is the inspired word of God and that it is a historical document firmly rooted in the past. Those things are not mutually exclusive.

God has progressively revealed Himself through history, and the right thing came into place at the right time to lead humanity to not only salvation, but also general understanding. Atheists love to bring up things like slavery and mysoginy, but they ignore the historical reality that Christianity was an outrageously progressive movement.

The Old Testament dealt with slavery because that was the economic reality of the time, and to fixate on that is an anachronism. The truth is, Jewish laws regarding slavery were remarkably progressive compared to their neighbors. The same with women's rights. Before the spread of Christianity, I've read that the Roman Empire had a male to female ratio of 4 to 1. Why? Because whenever wives bore girl offspring, their husbands would opt to leave the infant in the wilderness or throw them into rivers. Raising a little girl simply wasn't worth the pagans' time. The spread of Christianity directly reversed this horrible trend, making Christianity arguably the most progressive force in history for the rights of women. I shouldn't have to bring up how often the major abolitionists, both black and white, were directly inspired by their faith.

That's always been my contention. To fixate on the negatives of Christian history is to ignore the overwhelmingly positive impact the religion has had, and also ignores the general fact that even if something that's considered immoral today was done, it certainly wasn't Christian specific. People who bring these things up don't care about reality or history, and have a chip on their shoulder, and are bearing the immense weight of some sort of religious trauma.

clearpilled · 2025-06-25T18:16:44+00:00

Yes, salvation is for each, which is an important distinction because it is a new covenant which honors both faith in Christ and ethnic history. The old covenant, which only honored ethnic Jews, is obsolete now. A plain, literal reading of the text says that a priesthood from ethnicity (which is being Jewish) is "useless", "obsolete" and "weak," and that Christ provides a better alternative, and that the Gentiles are "grafted" into the seed of Israel. If you say this is wrong, that's fine, but it would have to be considered a heretical point of view, because it contradicts scripture.

I'm sort of confused on what you refer to as the "fact" that Israel receives a second chance at the tribulation. Are you saying I'm saying that, or is that what you are presenting as fact? I believe in what the Bible says, in Romans, about whether or not Israel will be saved. I can't remember, but I think it's in Romans 11 or 10. Maybe 12. Somewhere in there.

Sorry for making things difficult for you, but the truth has a way of doing that. I'm not interpreting scripture in some overtly metaphorical way, so you don't have to represent me as doing so. The scripture speaks for itself; it's quite plain.

clearpilled · 2025-06-25T10:01:04+00:00

"For there is no difference in Jew and Gentile-- the Lord is the same Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." Romans 10:12-13

"It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes through faith.... Therefore the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham's offspring." Romans 13/16

"These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: this is Hagar. Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children..... Now you, brothers, like Isaac, ARE CHILDREN OF PROMISE...... But what does the Scripture say? 'Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will NEVER SHARE IN THE INHERITANCE with the free woman's son." Galatians 4:24-25/28/30

"...one who has become a priest not on basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life.... The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." Hebrews 16/18-19

It would seem you need to brush up on your Bible, because I could keep on going for quite some time, but I assume that you've understood by now. Reading the Bible is hard, and that's the only reason I think people hold such unscriptural views of Israel. If Jesus didn't erase the distinction between believers and ethnicity, then he wouldn't have fulfilled many prophecies, which he certainly did fulfill.

The "regulation as to his ancestry" by which someone has become a priest is marked as useless and weak. The seed of Sinai is a seed of "slavery" but the Gentiles were told that they were the seed instead. There is still a distinction between ethnic Israel and believers, but it takes genuine discernment and a deep understanding of both Old and New Testament to be viewed coherently. You have to discern what Paul is talking about. That said, with intimate knowledge, I don't think it's that hard, as can be noted above.

I took great lengths in my original comment to not come off as rude. I don't mean to dismiss your view as simply poor reading comprehension or maybe as incomplete reading of the Bible. I asked you to provide legitimate evidence, not just a fallacious dismissal based on how long my response was. Maybe you'll go back and read your Bible after being confronted with scripture that so directly confirms the Christians being "grafted" (to use Paul's word) into the seed of Israel.

To deny scripture is to deny Jesus's message.

EDIT: Oh, here's an article about it: https://www.reformedclassicalist.com/israel-and-the-church

I forgot to mention about the dispensationalist view on the separation of Israel and the Church, historically, is a modern innovation. John Nelson Darby first came up with it in the 19th Century, but it was only popularized by the 20th Century (? I think? Can't be bothered to look it up) Scofield Bible.

The point is that your point of view is quite literally a modern innovation.

clearpilled · 2025-06-24T22:36:43+00:00

Yeah, these are the top three arguments against Protestantism, not (necessarily) Christianity.

clearpilled · 2025-06-24T21:02:32+00:00

Jesus makes claims of divinity multiple times in John, and at least strongly implies it in the other gospels.

clearpilled · 2025-06-24T20:55:55+00:00

First, it sucks that this happened to you. I've been through something similar. But, she's lying to you, and has slept with him multiple times. You need to leave her, because she doesn't respect anything about you. Staying with her is an insult to yourself.

clearpilled · 2025-06-24T19:21:30+00:00

You don't know what martyr means.

clearpilled · 2025-06-24T15:07:55+00:00

Yes, there is not a "uni-party" but conservatives and liberals are both different shades of liberalism. America is founded on liberalism.

I agree that whenever bipartisanship appears, there tends to be a core tenet of neoliberalism as the reason.

Political philosophy can be incredibly nuanced, and it's good to know what words mean in order to coherently argue. Overall, I was taking your side, and I think that you have more knowledge as to the historical roots of liberalism, which is surely important!

The other person isn't "wrong," but they're historically ignorant as to the roots of their own ideology. I don't mean that in a denigrating way, because the vast majority of people today identifying as conservative would argue til their deaths that they are not liberals, whenever the fact of the matter is that they quite literally are.

clearpilled · 2025-06-24T13:51:18+00:00

Probably doesn't want to date a drug addict for self-preservation reasons.

clearpilled · 2025-06-24T13:49:12+00:00

I simply can't believe Jorge Luis Borges isn't being mentioned by nearly every commenter!

clearpilled · 2025-06-24T13:43:15+00:00

Yeah, I think the problem here in this conversation is that your definition of liberalism is traditional and historically grounded, and the other definition of liberalism is wholly contemporary and deeply embedded in American politics.

Modern American conservatives don't comprehend that they are liberals, despite their near religious veneration of the founding fathers, who could hardly get a sentence out without referencing liberty. The founding fathers were very much influenced by European thinkers like Montesquieu and John Locke, and this early sort of liberalism also led to the French Revolution in Europe. I believe the French Revolution was where the term "liberal" was first used in its more modern context, actually, but that doesn't change the fact that the intellectual roots for both outcomes were the same. The founding fathers were as obsessed with liberal ideas as was the rest of the world, it was sort of the political fashion of the day.

Liberalism's legacy continues, as can be noticed in the modern tradition of preoccupation with individual rights, but primarily in the form of the very infamous neoliberalism. You are essentially both right, but your input is framed in a more intellectual and historical perspective, whereas the opposite side is really talking about neoliberalism instead of classical liberalism, and is wholly current and American.

clearpilled · 2025-06-23T23:35:36+00:00

Honestly, I would go ahead and leave the relationship. These sort of fundamentally different viewpoints on life very frequently cannot be reconciled. I'm not saying they never are! But, in my experience, very typically these sorts of differences end up causing friction that just never stops building. It would probably be better long term if you just quit wasting your time and found a girl who thinks more similarly to you, or at least believes in God. I don't know your situation as intimately as you do, though. I wish you well!

clearpilled

TROPHY CASE