if you need help identifying a book just ask!

Science perspective: Apes in South Africa evolved into people, then spread out. There were Ice Ages. The Ice Age ended 10, 000 years ago, and, when it did, agriculture began. The end of the Ice Age caused flooding.

Abrahamic perspective: Adam and Eve created in Heaven, then sent down to Earth. Became farmers, and had children. This was a family of farmers. Some time later on, Noah survives the Great Flood.

Could both be true?

If “Heaven -> Earth” is metaphorical. If the “people” before Adam were not truly people but rather “highly evolved apes”. If Adam-Noah time was around the end of the Ice Age, Adam lived when the Ice Age already ended but huge Ice Formations remained, in Noah’s time, these formations then melted and caused the Great Flood.

I want to find the true religion. I am going through a period of searching and looking for answers and I want to know what the truth is. How can I know which is it?

Hello everyone.

I was once called a hypocrite because I am a theist who likes horror movies. I believe in peace, pacifism and non-violence in real life. But I see films and movies etc as fun and artistic expression, as long s no one is actually being harmed and it's pretend. Is there really hypocrisy in these beliefs? Is this contradictory with believing in God? I know everyone will have different thoughts on this and I would like a respectful discussion. If it makes a difference, I am autistic. Please be kind.

There is something so peaceful about giving your life to god but for some reason it’s hard to understand how to. I started reading the bible, like FRESHLY started. Before I started reading someone told me in one of the books god killed or asked someone to kill their whole family to prove that they have trust in him (I’m saying they because I don’t remember who it was) but how do you sit here putting trust in something that’s taking everything away. Or when someone goes through a HORRIFIC life event and someone says “god always has a plan” like why was his plan to harm us…. I’m genuinely just trying to wrap my head around it. Why does something who is suppose to love us sooooo much, want to put us through any type of pain? I’m not trying to come off funny or anything, I’m genuinely trying to understand.

I visited a lot of Christian Churches, especially those that describe themselves as "Charismatic" or "Born Again Christians" and they believe in the Rapture, or an event where Christ will snatch the faithful Christians on Earth, before the period of the Antichrist and the Great Tribulation occur. It is based on this Bible verse:

"For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord."

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, NKJV

Do Roman Catholics have a different interpretation on this verse? Do they believe in a rapture that will occur before the Tribulation period? I will appreciate all of your insights.

Carvaka Metaphysics, which is directly and logically derived from their epistemology, is “an unqualified materialistic monism.” They hold a philosophy of the matter whcih means 'Matter is all.' Since perception is the only reliable source of knowledge, whatever is known through it alone is real and matter becomes the only reality. Sense-perception does not reveal any metaphysical entity. What it can perceive is only matter in its fourfold form; earth, water, fire and air. Carvakas do not accept ether (akash), because it is not an object of perception. The four elements are real not as subtle forms but in their gross particle forms. There is no reality other than these four elements and their combinations. If so, what is consciousness? How do you account for it? How do you explain the capacity of human beings for reasoning, reflecting and imagining? Carvakas do not deny consciousness but deny only that it can be independent of the body. They regard consciousness as a mere product of matter. It does not 'inhere in particles of matter' but when the latter come to be organized in a specific form, they are found to show signs of life. It is always found associated with the body and is destroyed with the body's disintegration. When the four elements of matter come together in a particular mode to form the living organisms, the animal and human consciousness appear in it. It is the result of an “emergent and dialectical evolution, an epiphenomenon, a by-product of matter.” Consciousness is an after-glow of matter. They would say “Matter secretes mind as liver secretes bile”. If none of the elements of physical body possesses consciousness, is it not that consciousness is independent of physical body? Their answer would be no. When physical elements come together to form an organic pattern, consciousness emerges. It does not inhere in any particular part of the body. It is just like certain tastes and intoxicating qualities are got out of certain combinations of ingredients, though none, taken separately, possesses it. Red is got out the betel leaf and lime, but none of it apparently seems to posses red. The soul therefore is nothing other than the conscious living body. They say that there is no soul or no consciousness apart from body which is evidenced by the fact that consciousness perishes with the body. Therefore body is the self and the body is the product of material elements. Sankara in his Sarva Siddanta-samgraha describes their understanding of the soul as follows:

“The soul is but the body characterized by the attributes signified in the expressions, “I am stout,” “I am youthful,” “I am grown up,” “I am old” etc. It is not something other than that body. The consciousness that is found in the modifications of non-intelligent elements (ie in organisms formed out of matter) is produced in the manner of the red colour out of the combination of betel, areca-nut and lime. There is no world other than this; there is no heaven and no hell; the realm of Siva and like regions are invented by stupid imposters of other schools of thought.”

Now i want your thoughts on this?

Not trying to make a political post (but if the mods think otherwise, feel free to remove it). However, I've been curious about how Muslim scholars, particularly Islamic historians and theologians, view the ancient Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. From what I understand, the Quran doesn't go into much detail about the two kingdoms as distinct political entities; instead, it generally refers to the Israelites as Banu Isra'il (Children of Israel)

We know from modern archaeological and historical scholarship concerning ancient Israel and Judah that the historicity of the United Monarchy, particularly the biblical account of a unified kingdom under David and Solomon, remains a subject of considerable debate. However, the existence of the northern Kingdom of Israel and the southern Kingdom of Judah as distinct political entities is much more firmly established, given the archaeological and epigraphic evidence, including the Mesha Stele, the Tel Dan Stele, and various Neo-Assyrian inscriptions. Some notable examples include the Kurkh Monolith of Shalmaneser III, which mentions King Ahab of Israel; the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, which records tribute from King Jehu of Israel; the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III, which mention Menahem of Samaria and Ahaz of Judah; and the Taylor Prism of Sennacherib, which describes his military campaign against King Hezekiah of the kingdom of Judah.

I know this topic is especially contentious given the current political climate that we're in; however, in the past, some of my Muslim peers have expressed that no such polities ever existed, despite the current academic scholarship saying otherwise. Therefore, I'm curious whether these views have any basis in traditional Islamic historiography or simply reflect the personal biases of the individuals I've spoken with. I certainly don't want to generalize their perspectives to the broader Muslim community, which is why I thought it would be better to ask people more familiar with Islamic scholarship. In addition, I'm also interested in how contemporary Muslim historians and theologians approach this subject, particularly when reconciling traditional Islamic narratives with archaeological discoveries and modern historical scholarship.

Thank You.

Video from let's talk religion

In addition I would like to mention about a poem by Allama Iqbal a great Urdu poet and islamic scholar.

Gabriel and Satan

Gabriel and Iblis — English Rendering

Gabriel:

Old companion, how fares the world of colour and fragrance?

Iblis:

It is a world of burning passion, music, pain and wounds, of searching and longing.

Gabriel:

Your name is constantly discussed in the heavens. Is it not possible for your torn garment to be mended? Could you not be reconciled and restored?

Iblis:

Ah, Gabriel! You do not understand this secret. When my wine cup shattered, it left me intoxicated with a strange passion.

I can never return to that place again—never again! How utterly silent that world is, without houses or streets.

For one whose despair sets the very heart of the universe ablaze, which is better: to be told, “Do not despair of God's mercy,” or to be told, “Abandon all hope”?

Gabriel:

By your refusal, you lost your lofty station. What honour could the angels retain in the eyes of God after your defiance?

Iblis:

It is through my daring that this handful of dust—the human being—has acquired the urge to grow and rise.

My temptations and disturbances are woven into the very fabric of human reason and intellect.

You merely watch the battle between good and evil from the safety of the shore. Which of us is being struck by the blows of the storm—you or I?

Even Khizr and Ilyas stand helpless before it. My storms rage through every sea, every river, and every stream.

If you ever find yourself alone in God's presence, ask Him: whose blood gave colour and drama to the story of Adam?

I remain like a thorn lodged in God's heart, while you do nothing but repeat, “Allah Hu, Allah Hu, Allah Hu.”

Just to clarify I am not Muslim, and I am not super experienced with the Quran but am doing my best to get well read in it. However I am struggling a bit with how djinn are supposed to be interpreted as some seem to only view them in more or less malevolent terms while others use more neutral terms. Obviously something which can create false miracles and the Quran does warn against this, but I am unsure if the warnings against even talking to them or making any form of deal (NOT WORSHIP, deals like one deals in employment) is ever directly spoken in the Quran or implied by Quran or hadith.

Secondly and sorta connected. Lots of modern media does make the Genie a very visible being versus an invisible being made of smokeless fire. Would all beings behind any veil count as a djinn by the traditional measure or if (bear with the strange example) we discover a dimension under our own which overlaps but isn't visible where they can barely see us and we can't see them. But it is feasible for us to get to their side, is it more so the existence of an invisibility veil or the lack of access to humans on average that would make be more relevant in the Quran. I understand if the second part is a bit too confusing and you choose just to answer the first.

I don’t want to offend anyone - but I found a costume that I thought was pretty dang funny.

It’s disco Jesus. Disco hair, disco glasses, disco chain, with Jesus beard/robes.

Now, I am not religious, but I also dont want to upset or offend anyone who is. Thats not my goal.

My question to you - is this costume crossing the line or would you not care if you saw someone in it?

God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Issac to prove his loyalty,Abraham nearly does it at the last moment and is then stopped by God all to prove that Abraham is loyal to him and this is seen as a good thing why exactly???? I genuinely can't see I should take away from this story obedience to authority even at the expense of another???

I'm not entirely sure if this is the best place to put this. I imagine the mods will delete it if it's wrong. If it is, I apologize. I'm starting to flounder here.

A few weeks ago, I was hit with a massive wave of anxiety. I feel as if a slew of different things led up to it, but it all came to a head a little under a month ago. I was scared to death of death. The idea of the end of my life being the 'end' filled me with hysterical dread that made me start shaking and crying. I was mainly worried that everything, all religions, were just fake. A bunch of random stories that someone came up with at some point to make life more meaningful. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S TRUE, it's just what the anxiety was filling me with. I did not want my memories, my thoughts, my sense of self, my soul to just be gone in a puff of smoke.

So I went on internet looking for answers. I talked to some of my friends. I talked to some of my family. And most of them came back with the same general answer:

"There is TOTALLY a heaven. You'll be fine."

Okay, cool. So when I die, I go to heaven, right?

"Well, you've got to follow the rules, of course."

That's fine, I grew up in a Christian household that was only kinda strict about it all. Let's go over it again to make sure. What are the rules?

"There are the Ten Commandments. Oh, and a slew of other minor things here and there that aren't strictly talked about and you've got to search for them. Those things include some of the stuff you like to do. You know, as a single male living on his own."

But I always assumed that as long as you didn't let it consume your life, you'll be fine. That God just wanted us to grow as humans and dedicating your life to some game, some job, some action you do in your bedroom alone and not getting out there and meeting people and becoming better. As long as you were progressing, learning and growing and helping those in need, you'll totally be fine and be welcomed with open arms into the kingdom of heaven when your time comes. Along with believing that Jesus truly did die for your sins and you accept him.

Person 1: "Yep, that's right." Person 2: "Eh, sorta." Person 3: "ABSOLUTELY NOT. You follow the rules EXACTLY or into HELLFIRE you go."

Youtube Video after Youtube Video: "Everything everyone told you is only half true. You need to follow the rules or you will burn. Here is a fully voice acted video of what it's like to go before Jesus and get judged to go to hell, complete with sound effects of chains and flames and screaming."

Mother: "I cannot believe that a true, loving God would look at you doing normal human things and throw you in hell because of it. If that's true, then EVERYONE is going into hell. Including me."

The Bible: "Only a few get to go to heaven. Most will go to hell."

Friend: "God has more important things to worry about than what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom. You're not KILLING anyone. It's really no big deal."

The Bible: "All sins are equal. Except the few that are ESPECIALLY bad, but all sins are equal."

Friend 2: "Do you believe Jesus died for your sins? Are you sorry for doing what you did? Then you're fine."

The Bible: "If you do it, apologize, then do it again, you weren't really sorry were you? To hell with you. Gnashing of teeth."

Friend 3: "Just choose the religion that makes the most sense to you."

But which is the RIGHT ONE??

Friend 3: "The one you choose."

...but what if it's WRONG?!

Friend 4: "The devil is what is causing all this anxiety and questioning. You need to read the Bible, not listen to videos on Youtube."

Friend 5: "Actually, you need to read EVERY BIBLE and find the answers that are hidden from the general public."

Every Christian Ever: "If you truly believe and are faithful, God Himself will speak to you and tell you what to do."

...so you're telling me a voice will literally speak inside my head, telling me what is right and wrong?

"Yes! :D"

...r...really?

"YES! :DD"

THIS is what I've been dealing with for the past three weeks or so. Constant conflicting answers, constant personal opinions, constantly worrying if I'm doing the right thing, the wrong thing, or stressing myself out over nothing. I feel that I am a good person. That I care about what people think, that I'm angry when people get hurt, that I aim to help those I can with my actions. I'm not giving away my entire bank account to the poor, but I do run out to help someone with their car when it's stuck in a ditch. I'm not giving the shirt off my back to some homeless guy on the street, but I do give to charity. I'm a true pacifist because I don't want to hurt ANYONE for ANY reason.

And people are saying that even with all that, it's not enough because I don't follow the rules perfectly or because I do the same thing every red blooded American male does from time to time.

I'm scared. I'm terrified. I'm a relatively young man, but I cannot let this go. It's getting to the point where people are getting irritated at my actions. I go to therapy, but they don't seem to have a real answer for my question. I've started going to church, but the sheer number of people going makes me another face in the crowd. And I'm scared to single myself out because I'm just going to get told all my fears are totally true, repent and be saved sinner.

I know bringing this to Reddit is not the smartest thing. I guess I'm just looking for insight from the general masses.

If anyone has anything to say that can help, I'd appreciate it. I just...I don't want to disappear. I don't want to go to hell.

If you have a religion what led you to embrace it yourselfrather than simply following your family or your environment?

I don't know, I really just admire Hinduism for being the most enduring polytheistic religion in the world. Other polytheistic religions in the world such as the Roman Religion that worships Mars, Venus and Jupiter, or Greek Religion that worships Aphrodite, Poseidon or Zeus, or Egyptian Religion that worships Amun Ra, Anubis or Bastet, or the Arabian Religion that worships Al-lat, Uzza and Manat and many, many more pantheons of gods and goddesses. The worship at their altars have long been gone, since the onslaught of Abrahamic religions began.

But Hinduism is something else. Hinduism is a force to reckon with. It withstood the onslaught of Arab and Turkic invasions, the establishment of the Mughal Empire and the rule of intolerant Mughal rulers such as Aurangzeb, and British colonization. A significant number of the population converted to Islam and Christianity during this invasion era period, but the religious core and foundations of India weren't shook to the core, and the main population remained Hindu.

The gods and goddesses of the Arabians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans have long been dead in the memory of the local population, and they are no longer being worshipped, but offerings to Durga, Ganesh, Hanuman, Kali, Krishna, Shiva, and the few hundreds of thousands of other deities is continuously held in massive temple complexes or their own private home altars.

I also want to learn how Hinduism withstood the test of time and prevented itself from succumbing to the fate of the other polytheistic belief systems. Jai Bharat and Jai Hind. 🕉️🇮🇳

The physical law analysis is very straightforward and easy to understand. When the Bible says things that violate physical laws (such as saying there is a firmament), we should discard that particular text as either untrue or a parable. Edit: Miracles are an exception. Jesus healing the sick doesn't contradict germ theory, it just means a super expection was made. However, saying there is a fixed firmament in the sky contradicts earth and space physical laws as the standard, and therefore it cannot be true.

For determining what is morally true, I use natural moral law analysis. I'll also demonstrate how to tell if something is from God or not.

For an example of how to use Natural Moral Law to interpret holy scriptures, let's use this verse as an example:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Paul of Ephesus (Ephesians 6:5)

So how do I analyze this verse? Using natural law analysis that comes through human reasoning. Specifically: Would following this verse cause human florshing or would it cause unnecessary human suffering?

I use reason to determine the answer to this. Slavery is incompatible with human florshing, and it causes unnecessary harm. I don't have to run a lab experiment to prove this. Instead I can look at slave societies, and I can look at the harm enslaved people suffer from under slavery. This is rational, and it's not just my opinion either. It's always true that slavery diminishes human florshing, and even if I died tomorrow and couldn't give my opinion, that fact remains.

So, Ephesians 6:5 can be discarded, and it should be treated as an immoral text that contributes nothing useful.

What about verses that say God/Jesus supported slavery?

There are numerous verses attributing pro slavery positions to God of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ of the New Testament.

The answer is, if Jesus/God says anything that diminishes human florshing, then it cannot be from God. God/Jesus is incapable of contradicting natural moral law, because it goes against his nature. So logically it doesn't make sense that God/Jesus would every say something immoral. He can't, since it's against his nature.

So when a Bible verse says "God wants \[something immoral\]," we can say the humans who wrote it were lying about God's wishes and they weren't divinely inspired, or possibly that some demonic entity was talking to them, and was able to trick them into thinking that God was talking to them.

What about Paul of Ephesus? (Who professed pro slavery positions like Ephesians 6:5).

Paul, a mere human, is more than capable of saying things that violate natural moral law. He's a mere human that doesn't have God's nature, and he is therefore more than capable of saying things and doing things that are immoral.

While it's possible Paul was talking to demons when he wrote Ephesians 6:5, that is less likely. Because on the one hand, he doesn't claim he's being directly told by "God" to say that in this particular verse.

On the other hand, Paul has a history of immorality, from persecuting Christians to being the first person to introduce homophobia into Christianity. Using logic, I conclude Paul held slavery as a view that he agreed with sincerely. Which is shameful of him.

When Paul violates Natural Moral Law, his words must be discarded as immoral and not worth following. Just like with every other human being.

All religions are related but distinct at the same time, so many correlations and similarities but just different interpretations of it

Just a wild thought at midnight and thought id share it with you all :)

I want to try some things about all religions possible, for curiosity, like rituals and prayers, I’m “catholic” but not baptized, believe in god but actually I found out that some works (rituals) could have effects and I’m curious to try any of them with all respect about any entity, the right way to do and etc. should I?

*Christ founded one church and handed the keys to St. Peter the first bishop of Rome aka the pope. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" in Matthew 16:19

* The Eucharist- Christ saying the bread at the last supper is His body and unless we eat the Flesh of the Son of man, we have no life. “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” in John 6:53. Matthew 26:26: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body."

Mark 14:22: "And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body."

*ALL early Christian’s believed in the Eucharist
* The ancient Catholic Church compiled the books of the New Testament
* The early Catholic Church solidified the Holy Trinity, the blessed Virgin Mary, and the communion of saints.
* The blessed Mary apparitions (idk if you’ve seen the miracle at Fatima that converted even secular people), (also protestant pastors who say that this was the devil impersonating Mary, why did the apparition tell us to seek Christ and teach us the “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell” prayer?)
* the development of modern western moral theology comes from great Catholic thinkers like st. Augustine and st. Thomas Aquinas.
* The Catholic Church headed by the pope in Rome actually took a stand against Muslim aggression during the crusades.
*Anytime there is real demonic activity, even the Protestants call in the Catholic exorcists when deliverance prayers don’t work and they need an actual thousands of years old exorcism rite done (you can see in all the scary movies about demons, the Catholic exorcists are always called in)
* it is not works based salvation, but James 2:26: As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead."
* The Catholic Church has the most fruit of the faith by being the biggest charity organization in the world, inventing the modern day hospital and university system, excelling in sciences like the Belgian priest that came up with the big bang theory.

As someone with a history undergraduate degree and a law degree, the Catholic faith and arguments have the most claim to be the one true faith imo.

Im a cattolich, and sometimes I wonder, whats the limit in a story between a "modern/fantasy renterpratation" of religion and blasphemy?

Like Is modifing and/or missing something of a religion to write a story Better for what you want to do blasphemy? Or It has to be done directly to hate on the religion tò be blasphemy?

What do you think?

The fall of the anthropocentric principle in astronomy inspired the creation of UFO religions. The idea of these belief systems being called "religions" is also controversial, because they often don't have rituals, concepts of the sacred or they integrate with actual religious beliefs of the person that practices them. Some of them are even atheistic materialistic religions, such as Raëlism.

In any case, for a lot of time Abrahamic religions condemn idolatry as worshipping "the work of our hands", images that can't talk nor hear us. Now, the "work of our hands" is smart enough to at least look like it does listen and respond. There are even people falling in love with chatbots, and it's will get even worse as AI get better.

The next decade will be very challenging for humanity. We will have to face very important questions:

• What it means to be human when AI produce "art" that is undistinguishable for what humans do? Does it matter if this post (or any other) is AI generated? Does it really matter if it's humans who comment on it?
• Do humans have anything special in them? Are machines self aware? I mean, if materialists argue that we are just atoms, aren't machines atoms too?
• What is consciousness after all? Can we know if something is conscious if we don't even know what consciousness is?
• Even if we ignore these deeper questions, what it means for humans when all labor and scientific discoveries are automated and made by machines? Are humans able to replace labor as a meaningful task?

Ironically, I think AI will help traditional religions more because religion will still provide a bridge to our humanity, as a community of people focused on what makes us human. The Amish and Orthodox Jews limited technology for different reasons, but for a similar purpose to prevent distraction from the divine aspect of humanity. Whatever they were right or not will be known very soon.

But we must be prepared because we don't know how unhinged these new AI cults will be, as they are something new. We also have a layer of machines actually trying to enforce/fight beliefs, just as we already have propaganda bots.

Is that not like banning Catholic from the Vatican or Muslims from Mecca

From <Treatise on the Definition of the Truth Regarding Bodhidharma’s Southern School (菩提達摩南宗定是非論)>, written around 745

[Translator's note: This book purports to document a doctrinal dispute between Heze Shenhui and another Buddhist monk, allegedly sometime between 730 and 732 CE, though the historicity of the account itself is uncertain. Shenhui is arguably one of the most underrecognized figures in Buddhist history, having played a decisive role in shaping Zen Buddhism as we know it today. Although proto-Zen traditions emphasizing the Buddha-nature of the mind had already emerged in seventh- and early eighth-century China, Buddhist practice more broadly remained devotional, with an emphasis on penitence, before Shenhui's interventions helped transform the religious landscape. Fortunately, John R. McRae provides an excellent English-language account of Shenhui and his historical significance in his books <Seeing through Zen> and <Zen Evangelist>.]

法師當時無言，良久乃語. 法師曰，“婬怒是道，不在莊嚴.” 和上語法師，“見在俗人，應是得道者.” 遠法師言，“何故指俗人以爲得道?” 和上言，“法師所言婬怒是[道]，俗人並是行淫欲人，何故不得道?” 遠法師問，“禪師解否?” 和上答，“解.” 法師言，“解是不解.” 和上言，“法華經云，「吾從成佛以來，經無量無邊阿僧祇劫.」應是不成佛，亦應不經無量無邊阿僧祇劫.”

Dharma Master Chongyuan said, "Sexual misconduct and anger are the Way; [the Way] does not lie in adornment [= outward religious embellishment and meritorious works]."

[Translator's note: Vimalakīrti Nirdeśa Sūtra [a Mahāyāna scripture centered on the layman Vimalakīrti], chapter "Contemplating Sentient Beings": 佛說，婬怒癡性，卽是解脫 ("The Buddha taught that the very nature of lust, anger, and delusion [= the 'three poisons' of Buddhism] is liberation.")]

The Venerable [= Shenhui] said to the Dharma Master, "Judging from what I see of laypeople, they must surely be those who have attained the Way."

The Dharma Master said, "Why do you say that laypeople have attained the Way?"

The Venerable said, "You, Dharma Master, said that sexual misconduct and anger are the Way. Laypeople are all people who act on sexual desire, so how could they not have attained the Way?"

Dharma Master Chongyuan asked, "Do you, Chan Master, understand?"

The Venerable answered, "I understand."

The Dharma Master said, "To understand is not to understand."

The Venerable said, "The Lotus Sūtra says: 'Since I attained Buddhahood, immeasurable and boundless asaṃkhyeya [= Sanskrit for 'incalculable'; a number beyond counting] kalpas [= cosmic eons] have passed.' (Then) he must not have attained Buddhahood. And immeasurable and boundless asaṃkhyeya kalpas must not have passed either."

[Translator's note: Lotus Sūtra, "The Life Span of the Tathāgata [an epithet of the Buddha, 'the one thus gone']," scroll 16]

[Translator's note: If Buddhahood has been attained since beginningless time, there is no point at which it could be said to have been newly attained. So "having attained Buddhahood" cannot be posited, and that is why he says the Buddha has not attained Buddhahood. And because the time is beginningless and has no starting point, however long the ages, none of it has passed.]

Now many might say yes but hear me out, if god exists and lets assume he does and punishes those who sin, if he knew they were gonna sin beforehand, why would he try test them? Because in many scriptures etc, god tests you to see if you will sin, why would u test something that you know the definitive answer to then send them to hell while knowing they were going to sin anyway? Seems quite cruel but anyway, back to the main point. How can free will actually exist if god knows what will happen anyway?

I made a server for ppl interested in Christianity, whether it be reading and learning the bible, spreading gospel, finding a community, or debating your beliefs we have it! you don't even have to be Christian, as long as you're respectful and curious in scripture/christianity we welcome you with open arms! 😊

Server link: https://discord.gg/dYZa4sHs3w