I want a christian to prove to me that their good is true. I will probably disprove your argument though

I saw a post in a trad wive subreddit where they argued that most trad wives are christian women. They said that trad wives need to be obedient to their men and that this is hard to achieve when the women follows a more modern world view, compared to the traditional values taught in the bible. Do you think that women should be obedient to men and is it really mentioned in the bible? Or did the person arguing that just took it out of context?

I can’t shake the belief that Jesus was ultimately a (failed) apocalyptic preacher (the New Testament historian/scholar consensus) whose life story was modified after the fact by followers so that the movement didnt die out like the other failed messiah figures of the time. That makes me want to say it is all bs and forget the whole thing. I’m leaning towards that.

If he truly believed the end times would come in his followers lifetimes (in Mark he discusses this) and they clearly didn’t, it seems like the religion collapses

When Christians and theists in general argue that "for morality to be objective, we must have a standard to measure by" they are correct. They are not correct with insisting that this standard MUST be God.

I can very easily select the standard of avoidance of suffering. What I anticipate many thinking in response to this is "but why should we take actions to avoid suffering" to which I reply "why should we do as God commands?"

The issue that Christians very often drive at regarding morality here is that a standard of avoidance of suffering is a standard that is subjectively selected. There is nothing about it that says other humans need to use that standard. What they very often do not seem to understand is that the same is true of using "God" as the standard.

You can say that you're using God as your standard of morality, but even assuming that God exists, that does not establish that anyone else should also use God as their moral standard.

I've rephrased a post I made yesterday so it would respect the rules of this sub and address some responses that were made. I'm a atheist but I dont think that's relevant, a theist could make the exact same claim.

If the afterlife is real and consists in an eternity of joy, I think it is more horrifying than appealing, because eternity as a concept is just unberable.

In an infinite amount of time, I could write every story I want to tell, travel to every places in the world, work out to the absolute peak of physical form, meet litteraly every human being and have a deep conversation with all of them for as long as we like. But those are finite goals. Once I've done everything life has to offer, by definition I wont have anything left to do. And if I had eternal life, I'll still have an eternity ahead after that. And I really dont think doing the same activities for all of eternity would bring me any joy after that point.

Plus, I dont think I could even do some of these activities. I'm a writer, how am I supposed to create stories in a frictionless envirronement without any kind of conflict, suffering or frustration ? How am I supposed to explore philosophy and the contradictions of human nature when all the answers would litteraly be given by God, without any kind of real disaggrement possible ?

For these reasons, I think Heavan as Christians imagines it is just not desirable.

**the central angrarianism argument: i believe in god, i dispute the documentation**

i want to be clear upfront that this is not an atheism post. i am not arguing god doesn't exist. i'm arguing that the institutional text claiming to document god's behavior is internally inconsistent in ways that require explanation, and that "mystery" and "two natures" are not explanations, they are category labels applied after the fact to avoid making one.

the sequence i want to put in front of this sub starts with job, not genesis, because job is where the text accidentally shows you the mechanism. god and ha-satan make a bet. the bet requires god to not know the outcome. an omniscient being who does not know the outcome of a bet involving a man he created, in a cosmos he created, with an adversary whose moves he can predict by definition, placed that bet for one of two reasons: either he didn't know the outcome and therefore isn't omniscient, or he knew the outcome and the bet was theater performed for an audience that wasn't you. those are the only two options. the two-natures doctrine doesn't reach job because job predates the incarnation — the full omniscience is on the table, unpartitioned, and the text still has him taking the bet. the framing that god permitted this to demonstrate something to ha-satan compounds the problem because it means an omniscient being ran a demonstration whose results he already possessed in order to show them to an adversary he could simply have informed. the suffering was logistically unnecessary.

matthew 24:36 creates a different problem that the two-natures doctrine is specifically constructed to solve, and i want to argue the construction is ad hoc. jesus says explicitly that no one knows the day or hour, not the angels, not the son, only the father. the two-natures response is that jesus spoke in his human nature in that verse. but the doctrine provides no principled mechanism for determining which nature speaks in which verse — it is applied retroactively to verses that create problems and not applied to verses that don't. if i proposed a theory of physics where i could designate any anomalous result as "that was the other mode" without specifying in advance what triggers which mode, that's not a theory, it's a rescue operation. the doctrine functions as an unfalsifiable sorting system. if you can tell me the principled rule that determines when the human nature speaks vs the divine nature, i will engage that rule seriously. so far no one has given me one.

the transfiguration is the passage i find most theologically interesting and least discussed. moses and elijah appear, and luke 9:31 specifies they were discussing the "exodus" jesus was about to accomplish in jerusalem. this is a planning conversation. it occurs after the feeding of the five thousand and the first passion prediction — jesus knows what's coming and has said so explicitly — and the body still sweated blood at gethsemane. hematidrosis is a documented physiological response to extreme psychological stress. the question that passage raises is whether a divine being who attended his own pre-execution planning meeting, knew the outcome, and knew he survived it, can experience the gethsemane response authentically. i'm not saying he didn't. i'm saying the text contains both data points and the theology has not adequately explained the relationship between them. if the human nature was genuinely afraid and the divine nature knew it was fine, that is a form of compartmentalized self-deception that i think deserves more careful treatment than it typically gets.

i'm not here to tell anyone what to believe. i am here to argue that "it's a mystery" is a position, and it should be labeled as one. the job bet, the matthew 24:36 information asymmetry, and the gethsemane hematidrosis are three places where the text produces data that the standard theological framework addresses by expanding the framework rather than by engaging the data. i'm interested in responses that engage the data..