#but that doesn't mean they have inerrancy

[k-she-rambles]

Today in "I cannot believe I actually had to say this:"

The Lord of the Rings is not divinely inspired, at least not in THAT way. It's not an elaborate and intentional metaphor for higher truth except in the way all art and creativity is either. Jrrt would fight you

[saint-ambrosef]

oh I sent the ask about the LDS responses on your poll. I missed your own post earlier on about that exact thing lol sorry. It's just something that I think about a lot and really bugs me. I go to a Catholic college and one of my friends is LDS and at one point this came up and she insists that "who are you guys to get to set the definition of Christian; it just means that you love Jesus" and I'm like, ok, cool, so is my baptism valid in your opinion then? aghh. It's just so clearly obvious to me that the LDS church wants to be seen as Christian because it benefits them to be seen as "one of the group", when I think at their conception they were pretty happy to be separate. But that doesn't benefit them now, so they need their image to be Christian, and it's just so phony. I apologize if you didn't want this in your inbox but as I said I think about the contradictions in the LDS church a lot (and can't voice them because I don't want to lose a nice friend) Sending off anon this time so you don't have to post this if you don't want. Hope you have a nice day.

No yeah, the LDS church's attempts to try an integrate themselves with mainstream Christianity the last few decades has been obvious. I believe it is a point of contention amongst some Mormon sects, but I don't know enough about their inside baseball to be opining on it.

Definitely heard the "who are you to say who is or isn't a 'true' Christian?" line before. Usually accompanied by the argument that "Christian" refers to anyone who follows Jesus, but by that definition, Muslims are also Christian. Lol.

They can identify as Christians if they want, but I think they gotta understand that the majority of Christendom will not recognize them as such because they are so radically, fundamentally different in core doctrine. Like, their view of the Godhead is essentially polytheism to us. They reject the inerrancy of canon scripture. Those are the two most important beliefs that unite the rest of Christianity - and there are many other little things that reject Nicean orthodoxy! As long as that is the case, most Christians aren't going to consider Mormons to be fellow Christians just because they insist on being called so.

[iamnathanieldanger]

i've been deconstructing so long that i didn't have a word for it. and while you'd think that fifteen years of this would be enough to have everything at least arranged neatly, i've only recently started organizing my ideas into any sort of coherence.

there are a few things that i've identified as the Trinity of my most fundamental shifts, which everything else comes down to: Original Sin, Hell, and Inerrancy of Scripture.

Original Sin.

i grew up believing that every single person was sinful from birth. this was first challenged when a coworker from another christian tradition mentioned that it's not in the Bible and asked me to find it. it was further cemented when my wife and i had a baby, and i absolutely could not believe that this perfect little child was hellbound from birth.

instead, the original state of humanity is that we are all, every one of us, created in the Image of God. selfishness and deceit and cruelty and sin obviously still exist, but they are learned behaviors. we are instead all Divine by default.

Hell.

like most western christian traditions, i grew up being warned (threatened) about Hell: a land of hellfire where every person who does not accept Jesus Christ as their Personal Lord and Savior™ (more on this idea later probably) will be sent, even if they somehow managed to avoid sin otherwise. i've since learned that this idea of hell as Eternal Conscious Torment is just one interpretation of hell of many—and a relatively recent one (fifth century, give or take).

do I still believe in some version of hell? i really don't know. the afterlife in general has lost much of its importance to me in comparison to bringing the Kingdom of Heaven to earth, which seems to be what Jesus was like, actually talking about. but scripture is far too vague about the actual details of hell (or heaven for that matter) to spend so much of our energy on it. but if hell does exist, i'm pretty sure it doesn't look like Eternal Conscious Torment, which seem pretty damned contrary to the Nature of God.

Inerrancy of Scripture

this was maybe the first domino to fall. and i want to be clear that i still hold the Bible in great regard and believe that it still has authority. but too many of us treat the Bible as something it was never intended to be. like many other evangelicals, i was taught that every single word of the Bible was divinely inspired by God himself, and that every word of it was true, creating one huge unified narrative from Genesis to Revelation.

except...that's not at all the case. the Bible was written across several centuries by dozens of authors in dozens of contexts and purposes. there are multiple genres represented (even "apocalypse" is a genre of poetry. the more you know). and every single one of those authors was heavily influenced by their contexts. most of it is influenced by the biases of their time. some of it is even straight up Hebrew Nationalist Propaganda. most of it doesn't mean what modern audiences usually interpret it to mean (biggest offenders: genesis, revelation, job, just about every reference to homosexuality...). even the canon of Scripture was decided by a group of men who were highly influenced by their own contexts and biases. even when the word "inerrancy" was first used to describe the Bible, it was in reference to the reliability of the copies of source texts that we have‚ not in the divinity of their inspiration.

the Bible is certainly still important—essential even—to my faith, but it isn't simple. it requires wisdom and discernment to be understood—two things that are entirely lacking in American Evangelicalism in particular.

just about everything else—queer affirmation, disbelief in the rapture, the anxiety over "sinning," my political worldview, etc has been born from shifts one of those three ideas. many of the questions i've struggled to reconcile have been brought to peace by recognizing each of these deeply entrenched ideas as inessential or unclear. and nothing has helped me love my neighbor (and my myself) more than not believing that we are wholly corrupt and bound for hell because the Bible says so.

and even with all that shifting, a few things have become even more clear: the compassion and justice of Jesus, the Fruit of the Holy Spirit (e.g., the more loving, joyful, kind, peaceful, patient, gentle, etc i become, the more like God i become), and the message of Love and Grace. and as long as that's firm, the uncertainty of everything else becomes more bearable.

[gayleviticus]

I think anytime people want to talk about how [group] isn't really [religion]' its quite difficult bc there are at least four different possible levels this conversation could be happening on: (this can probably apply more broadly but I'm most familiar w Christian ones so I use those examples)

Linguistic - "I believe in Christ so I'm a Christian". basic and to the point, you can argue w it by pointing out Muslims also believe in Jesus (and then counterargue he's not the cornerstone of Islam)

Sociological - "even if it diverges from Christian orthodoxy, LDS self identifies as Christian and emerged from the Christian tradition so it is Christian"

Normative theological: "JWs aren't real Christians because they reject the Trinity and believe in falsehood' (or, for that matter "JWs are the only true Christians because we're the only ones who accept the truth")

Community: I don't think people tend to explicitly verbalise this one as much, but it sortve like "we just don't believe the same thing as that group and don't have anything in common."

And I think where it gets especially tricky is the way that 3 and 4 can become quite difficult to unentangle.

let's say there was some kind of gnostic Christian church that believed the God of the Old Testament is a sadistic monster (this might exist but i dont know of any; i pick this as a pure hypothetical). when they self identify as Christian, I would concede 1 and 2, disagree on 3 but accept everyone thinks they're right in life so what are you gonna do about it, but where I would feel uncomfortable is when we get to 4.

I can accept someone might have an interpretation of Christianity that thinks my God is an evil demiurge - but I'm going to feel like we really don't have a shared faith in common. We may both use the language of Christian, but what we mean by that is very different and doesn't necessarily imply unity. That doesn't need to be a bad thing at all, unless you think being of the same religion is necessarily to truly respect others as human beings; if I can respect Islam and Judaism, I can respect Gnostic Christianity as a different faith from mine. and so a lot of people think 'hmm, well my faith is so different from X that it feels wrong for both of us to call ourselves Christians.'

but 4) is more than just a binary of exclusion/inclusion; it's about what actually marks a community in common, and I think that's more, not less pertinent in a society where we understand other people don't have to be your coreligionist to be someone you can respect and love and be in community and solidarity with in other ways.

and its also difficult because people can feel like they have different parts of their faith that are fundamental from others and not understand why there seems to be this one way gap (which can include the liberal not understanding why the conservative cares so much about biblical inerrancy, but it can also include, say, the evangelical not understanding why Jewish people won't accept Messianics). and so debate over who is a true [believer] often just becomes a proxy for 'is this someone with whom my faith is a unifier or a differentiator'. which is then quite unhelpful when someone tries to argue against someone operating on this level with a sociological argument.

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

I'm not the same anon as before but I was scrolling through like Side B/SSA catholic tumblr for a while and I feel truly terrible. then I remembered your post about just shooting you a message. My question is, when you think or believe God is LGBT affirming, how do you know you're not fashioning a God out of your own beliefs? it's a question I always hear from side b ppl and homophobes in response to affirming churches and I never know how to answer. like I'm catholic so I'm not sola scriptura and that doesn't bother me as much, but if I don't rely on tradition or the Bible then what am I relying on? I have so much faith in God, but everyone believes that their beliefs are true. Am I wrong to doubt the church tradition and should i have more faith in them to be rightly guided by God? Does trusting my own interpretation mean I'm twisting God to fit my own image? So sorry about the long ask.

cw homophobia, transphobia, queerphobia, unaffirming Christians

Hello anon! Ach ugh, I am bombarded with that accusation of "shaping God in my own image" all the dang time and it drives me up a wall.

While I acknowledge that we all have a tendency to want to find our own assumptions confirmed in scripture, I'm not the one conforming to the world's stereotypes and bigotry by casting God as a wrathful, abusive, anti-queer, white supremacist patriarch! I've been compelled to investigate and challenge my own beliefs time and time again — why don't my accusers take even a single moment to do the same with their assumptions and beliefs?

Anyway, to start with the question of rejecting tradition:

Christian tradition is so much richer and broader and more colorful than those in power want you to know!

Christians over the centuries have organized themselves into communities and relationships that many contemporary Christians would despise, as they break with heteronormative norms of the "nuclear family." Kittredge Cherry of QSpirit writes about much of this history in her articles on various Christian historical figures.

And Saints have experienced God in many-gendered ways from the start — and have experienced themselves that way too!

As Elizabeth Geitz explains,

"It is important to stress that throughout the Christian tradition, even the incarnate Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, was consistently imaged as both male and female. It is for this reason that Anglican theologian Mary Tanner stated at the Lambeth Conference of 1988 that the church needs to ‘recapture certain neglected strands of the tradition, especially from the mystics of the church, that help to point our way into the future.’

Recapturing and recovering lost tradition is what I am suggesting here, not inventing something out of whole cloth to answer only a twentieth-century concern. As committed Christians isn’t it appropriate that we teach all of the tradition of our church rather than just part of it?"

On to the next facet of your question —

Are we fashioning God in our own image / according to our own beliefs or desires?

I am told time and again that in order to believe that God affirms LGBTQA+ persons and relationships, I must "go against scripture." To the contrary, I find the God of scripture to be radically inclusive.

It’s only if you insist on a narrow reading of the Bible as the literal, inerrant word of God (and especially if you resist examining biases & failures translation) that those tiny handful of “clobber verses” require you to accept as “clear as day” that God isn’t LGBT affirming.

For my own framework of reading scripture that takes the Bible seriously but not literally, visit my webpage here. One problem I explore there is the one that Rachel Held Evans lays out in this quote:

“The truth is, you can bend Scripture to say just about anything you want it to say. You can bend it until it breaks. For those who count the Bible as sacred, interpretation is not a matter of whether to pick and choose, but how to pick and choose. We’re all selective. We all wrestle with how to interpret and apply the Bible in our lives. We all go to the text looking for something, and we all have a tendency to find it."

On that webpage, the last section responds to that accusation that “you’re just reading into the Bible what you want to believe!”

On a similar note, I’ve got an old post that explores 1. How to “know” we’re not just “justifying our sin” when we interpret God as affirming us; and 2. “If being gay is as natural and God-affirmed as being straight, why do we need to work so hard to prove it?” I direct you there for responses to those questions!

Finally, as you continue to grapple with arguments commonly made against us, I invite you to explore my rebuttals tag, where I compile responses to those common arguments. Some of the stuff in there that’s tangentially related to your questions:

I once wrote a sermon on the idea that when we give in to the idea that being LGBT is a sin, that’s “conforming to the world,” while embracing LGBT people as they are is living into God’s Kin(g)dom.

“How do you know God is okay with LGBT+ people?” Answer

Everything I thought I knew about God has changed now that I have accepted God affirms LGBT people – what do I do? / I don’t know the Bible or God like I thought I did – what do I do? Answer

This beautiful statement by Rabbi Shai Held about God’s love in the face of human rejection 

And of course, even more vital than tearing down others’ hate is to build up joy and love — so check out my #affirmation tag too, where among other things you’ll find examples of how various parts of scripture support the full affirmation and inclusion of LGBTQA+ persons.

Wishing you well, anon! Please let me know if you have more questions or requests for resources! <3

[deservedgrace]

Listen I KNOW okay I know the Christian way of viewing things, the progressive Christian way of viewing thing, the luke-warm Christian way of viewing things, the on-fire-for-the-Lord way of viewing things, the Bible literalist way, the "well this scripture is obviously metaphorical" way, the "God's word is inerrant" way, the "submission doesn't actually mean that!" way, the "slavery was fine actually because God told his people not to beat their slaves to death in order to protect them" way, the "God actually affirms and blesses gay relationships!" way like, there is no version or way of seeing this book that would make me believe this is even a good book, much less perfect, and you can cherry-pick scripture all you want, you can twist it and turn it and say if you squint your eyes just right you'll see it like a 3D Magic Eye™️ poster, it says what it says and people act accordingly and it's absolutely useless as a Book of Truth bc apparently no one knows what the goddamn thing "actually" means bc it's used to justify literally anything AND DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON "BUT THAT ISN'T REAL CHRISTIANITY😥" I swear to the fucking god i don't believe in don't dismiss the legitimate pain, suffering, and trauma people go through in the name of christianity to distance yourself from "fake christianity" and avoid any responsibility for your role in that pain; it's dishonest and it does nothing but silence those who have been t r a u m a t i z e d by your religion. Your kind and loving god, in all his omniscience, knows exactly how much damage you're doing by deflecting and refusing to listen to us.

[coffeeman777]

Hi Coffee,

Next week in college, my history class starts ancient cultures including the 12 tribes. This week we focused on the evolution-theory based view of the Ice Age & Mankind's origins, so I'm not certain next week will be respectful to Judaism or Christianity (among the other religions that will be covered). I don't have the strongest faith but I know that to keep myself centered on truth, the Bible is invaluable but it's also intimidating, being a lifetime's thorough study. Do you have any advice for folks like me on how to start and not get discouraged?

Don't let it intimidate you. Your study doesn't have to be complicated.

When I started, I would read a section in a variety of translations, then use an interlinear to look at the original language of the passage and try to get a handle on why each word was translated the way it was.

Don't worry about reading a lot each time you study. Better to pick a small section, like a single chapter, and focus on understanding what is being said.

Stick to the historical-grammatical method of interpretation: Read the passage in its immediate context, taking note of the original language as mentioned above. Then consider the passage in the context of the rest of the book, then again in the wider context of the whole of Scripture. Finally, consider the time the passage was written, and the culture of the people to whom it was written, and try to figure out what the passage would have meant to them.

Don't be afraid to use commentaries as well. If you come across something that doesn't seem right, like a passage that seems to contradict some other passage, don't be afraid to investigate. Compare Scripture with Scripture, see what other theologians think about the issue in question, and use the historical-grammatical method to connect the dots.

You're going to have your faith challenged. People in your circle will inevitably tell you the Bible is errant, and offer you some interpretive issue. Don't be rocked by it when it happens. I once had a coworker tell me the Bible was full of inaccurate stuff, and offered me a passage from Genesis as proof. In that passage (I can't recall the exact reference off the top of my head), the English translations say there was a caravan that included camels, and apparently, there haven't been any camel remains found dating to that period that show any evidence of having been used as beasts of burden. My co-worker said that was proof that the Bible wasn't divine.

I had never considered that passage before. I told him I'd look into it and get back to him, because in the moment I didn't have an answer. After I did a few minutes of research, I learned that the word translated as "camel" in that passage doesn't specifically mean "camel." It just means beast of burden. The use of camel by the translators was just an educated guess. That, combined with the fact that just because there haven't been any camel remains from that time period with evidence of being used as load carriers found yet doesn't mean such remains will never be found, defeats the objection to Biblical inerrancy.

There are answers to almost every challenge, and even when you can't find a good answer to a challenge, never assume the challenge is an actual defeater. For a really long time, skeptics believed that King David was a myth, like King Arthur, because they didn't have any archeological evidence of his existence. Then they found hard evidence and proved David was real. The skeptics are always quick to assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Don't follow their thinking.

Study well. Hold the Bible to be the divine Word of God. Don't be afraid of challenges. Answer the ones you can. Give God the benefit of the doubt when you can't. Realize that the challengers have to employ even more faith in their worldview than you do in yours. And of course, stay connected to your local church, and don't neglect prayer and private worship.

You're gonna be ok.

[debhanatric]

Jack Hits Every Nail On The Head; so take need theists everywhere or I'll mock your arse big time! Over to you Jack I haven't posted this in a while. Occurrences lately have convinced me there's a need. ---- TIPS FOR CHRISTIANS WHO WANT TO DEBATE ATHEISTS. #1. Don't be stupid. Someone wiser than me said that arguing with an atheist is a bit like picking up a woman in a bar: You're 90% of the way to being successful if you can manage to avoid the stupid shit other people have already done. Most of what you have to do to successfully argue with an atheist is just do not be stupid. ---- #2. Never, ever quote the Bible at an atheist. Ever. Seriously, you're not going to convince them that way. Ask yourself, would you be convinced by someone who was quoting the Hindu vedas at you? Or was quoting the Tao, or the Koran? To an atheist, one ancient book of fairy tales is very much like any other ancient book of fairy tales and until the atheist decides to believe in the religion in question, that's all any scripture will ever be. ---- #3. Do not say things like "God is just" or "God is love". The Bible is filled with examples of God being a cruel, nasty, blood-soaked, murderous bastard. Saying these things will only make an atheist laugh at you (or else will make an atheist get angry at you), and it definitely won't persuade them you are right. ---- #4. Do not mention Creationism, and do not deny Evolution. Doing so makes you look like a complete and total moron, like those psychotic wackadoos who still believe in astrology, or that the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the center of the solar system. Showing your own scientific ignorance will not convince an atheist that you know what you are talking about. The opposite is, in fact, true: this is the quickest way to show the atheist that you're not worth listening to. ---- #5. Do not pretend that Christianity makes you morally superior to the atheist. The atheist probably has his own sense or morality, and will be fairly clear on what is wrong and what is right. If you tell him he is morally inferior because he isn't a Christian, all you're doing is insulting him. Besides, the atheist knows that the history of Christianity is filled with violence and bloody atrocity, and that the Bible encourages this bloody violence and prejudice, whereas other religions (like Jainism and Wicca) lack any violent history at all. ---- #6. Avoid telling an atheist what he or she thinks. You'll find yourself wanting to say things along the lines of "How can you believe that the universe just appeared out of nothing" or "How can you believe we came from monkeys?" Don't do it, because the atheist, who is almost always conversant in modern scientific theory, knows that both questions are nonsense and doesn't believe those things at all. Let the atheist speak for himself and do not put words in his mouth. Likewise, avoid telling an atheist WHY he thinks. Do not pretend to know why the atheist believes what he believes. Saying "You just hate God" is stupid, insulting, and will absolutely win you zero points. Maybe the atheist doesn't believe in God because there is absolutely no evidence supporting his existence -- which is the same reason you deny the existence of Vishnu and Thor, by the way. ---- #7. Don't use a broad brush. Always remember that atheists have a wide variety of beliefs, hail from a wide variety of backgrounds, and are not one large monolithic herd of people. Just because they don't believe in God does not make them clones of each other. Likewise, just because Atheist A is also a lesbian socialist who works in a record store in Amsterdam, has a pierced nose, and hates Italian food does not mean Atheist B cannot be a heterosexual capitalist who heads up a Fortune 500 company in New York City, is a dedicated family man, doesn't even wear a watch, and loves him some tortalinni al fresco. ---- #8. Don't threaten them with Hell. The threat of Hell is useless because not only do atheists not believe in God, they don't believe in Hell either. Its like threatening them with Never Never Land... they'll just laugh you off for threatening them with a make-believe "punishment" that won't ever happen anyway. And don't be cute and use the backhanded "Its not me, its God" approach to the threat, because that's even more ridiculous. ---- #9. Do not ignore or evade questions that put your faith to the test. Don't evade serious questions that put your faith in a bad light. Do not tap dance and pretend the question does not exist, and do not bullshit about having "answered" the question when all you've done is dodged it. Atheists occasionally ask heavy questions like "If God is supposed to be all-loving, then why does he allow so many children to starve to death every year?" or "If God wanted to reveal himself to us, why did he do so through a self-contradictory and confusing Bible that has lead to thousands of splits in Christian theology, so that almost nobody -- NOBODY -- heard the alleged revelation correctly?" Do not avoid these questions by answering with "Who are we to question God?" or "God is mysterious." or "He has a plan and its not up to us to question it." Such answers are just another form of dodge, and it makes you look like you've got something to hide. ---- #10. Never make an assertion that you cannot defend with independent, verifiable, testable evidence. The truth is, Christians often will memorize and parrot points from an apologetics website, but won't actually bother to find out whether what they've memorized is actually true. They won't bother to even find out why they are supposedly true, even when they aren't. Atheists have heard most of these arguments before, know that these arguments are false, and usually have ready answers that point out how false they are. ---- #11. Admit when you're wrong. If an atheist can show that your argument is false, and you respond with "Um... well... You must just hate God!" or "You refuse to accept the truth when its given" (despite having just been shown that your "truth" is nothing more than a big fat lie...), you're only going to look like an idiot. ---- #12. Treat atheism seriously. Most philosophers and scientists are atheists. You know, the smartest people in the world? So don't just handwave it away as if its not worth your time to discuss. Go out of your way to understand the atheists point of view, especially why they are atheists in the first place. Do not brush aside the points they are making, and always keep one thing in mind: YOU MIGHT BE WRONG AND THEY MIGHT BE RIGHT. Since Christians almost never consider atheism seriously, you’ll win a lot of points with atheists if you do this. They’ll see you as a different breed of Christian, one actually worth talking with. ---- #13. If you're going to talk religion with an atheist, do so honestly. Do not begin such discussions from the assumption that your conclusions are automatically true. Rather, be honest and open and talk things out. Doing otherwise isn't discussion, its dictation, and no one likes being dictated to. Again, accept that the atheist might have good, rational, believable reasons for his atheism, and accept that your belief in God is a matter of faith, not fact. When an atheist makes a good point, acknowledge that he has done so. And always stay respectful, even if the atheist isn't. ---- #14. Admit when you are wrong. Yes, I know this is a repeat, but so what. This is simple: if you are wrong, and can be shown to be wrong, on a matter of verifiable fact, then just admit it and accept it. For example, perhaps an atheist points out where you employed a logical fallacy. Admit your mistake, and then restate your argument without using a fallacy if possible. This is huge. Atheists will respect you for this and will want to talk with you more often about your faith. Admitting your mistakes is very impressive. Hopefully you are not a Creationist or a Biblical literalist, because the truth is that a huge part of the original Christian doctrine was simply wrong. There are real, scientific and historical errors in the Bible. However, be aware that the presence of these errors in no way takes away from Jesus's message, and to a Christian it should be the truth of that message, and not the false "inerrancy" of the Bible that matters. ---- #15. Appeal to reason and evidence, not faith or personal experience or Scripture. Atheists don’t see any use for faith, which they often define as "believing in something without any evidence". To the atheist, “I believe because I have faith in God” sounds as silly as “I believe in astrology because I have faith.” Likewise, your personal mystical experiences with God aren’t going to convince the atheist. The atheist didn’t have those experiences, and can’t verify them. Besides, the atheist knows that billions of other people around the world claim personal experiences with contradictory gods and spirits and aliens, so he doesn’t see personal experience as reliable evidence. And we already talked about the problems with Scripture. ---- #16. Have a sense of humor. At some point, you might be mocked for believing in magic and illusion and having faith in an invisible sky man. Do not get angry, because all that shows is that you are immature, have a thin skin, and need to grow up.

from Facebook via IFTTT

[coffeeman777]

The pictures are screen shots I took on Saturday evening of a reply I got to my follow-up post with the exegesis of the five most clear Bible passages that prohibit homosexuality.   I dialogued with the person who replied a little bit, and they made it clear that they weren't interested in discussing the subject.  They said they'd ignore my reply, and preferred me not to tag them in it.  So, my I'm going to respect their wishes and leave them out of it.  But there's a great example to be made here, and I wanted to write my reply anyway, for the benefit of others who read it. 

Slytherclawpadawan  repeats in their reply some very common responses from the opposition once it's clearly shown that the Bible does not support homosexual behavior.  They begin with anecdotal evidence to support their decision to embrace the sin that they love while rejecting the Bible as any sort of authority.   They may very well be sincere in their descriptions of their efforts and feelings, I can't know for sure; but for the purposes of this post, I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt.   They describe all the effort they put in to changing themselves, and what it felt like as they did it.  I feel for them, I know how frustrating that can be.  But this doesn't read like they were legitimately born-again.  This backstory has all the markers of a false-convert; my own backstory involves a period of time a lot like that.   This is an experience with religion, but not with the Living God.  

Instead of going back to the Scriptures to find out what was wrong, instead of going before God as often as possible to cry out for Him and His presence until He answered (Matthew 7; Luke 11), they concluded that it was the Bible that was wrong, and they rejected it.   Then, they claimed that they felt closer to God afterwards, after rejecting the Scriptures and embracing their sin; this is actually idolatry.  Slytherclawpadawan rejected the true God and raised up for themselves a false god, one made in their own image, one that was perfectly ok with how they wanted to live their life.  I was much the same way.  At the beginning of the darkest time of my life, I'd convinced myself that God was okay with my sin, and for a long time, that gave me peace; but it was a false peace that would have ended in judgement. 

The heart of Slytherclawpadawan's reply is emotional.  This is an attempt to gain acceptance from other Christians by pulling the heart strings.  It can be a powerful tactic. When the other side uses this, remember to go back to the Scriptures.  Slytherclawpadawan's premise is faulty.  They accepted the lie that God made them have the feelings they feel, and that those feelings are central to their true self.  The Bible teaches that all of us are fallen; we have a corrupt lower nature that causes us to desire sin.  Of course it would feel natural and right to obey it.   The whole reason Jesus came to die for us was to free us from our "true selves," not enable us to live guilt-free in such a state.  

The Bible alone is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.  It is the rule by which we live.  It is infallible and perfect in all that it teaches and means to affirm.  It's outside the scope of this post to present all the manuscript / historical / scientific evidence in support of the doctrine of inerrancy, a subject for another time.  Suffice it to say, the Bible is God-breathed, divine, and perfect for its intended purpose.  

2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

2 Peter 1:20-21

"For no prophecy recorded in Scripture was ever thought up by the prophet himself. It was the Holy Spirit within these godly men who gave them true messages from God."

Our God is perfect and doesn't make mistakes.  Humans are fallible, but when God moves on them, they are capable of acting perfectly, because God is with them.  When Slytherclawpadawan accepted the lie that the Bible was flawed, they removed any basis at all for trusting anything taught in Scripture.  This is a self-defeating, self-deceiving maneuver, but it's something you'll see all too often.  To avoid being deceived, we must hold fast to the Word of God.  We're helpless otherwise. 

Slytherclawpadawan suggests that the Holy Spirit is supposed to guide us, not the Scriptures; that's really flawed thinking.  The Holy Spirit is who gave us the Scriptures in the first place.  The Holy Spirit -does- guide us dynamically, but He does so in agreement with the Scriptures He inspired, never in contradiction to them; He illuminates, witnesses to, and confirms Scripture.   

I'm not a mental health professional, I'm not pretending to be.  But I am a born-again child of God, tasked to preach the truth to all, and that's all I'm trying to do.  I'm going to do what God said to do, using what means He's given me, and I'm going to trust Him with the results.  

Satan and his angels are tricksters par excellence.  No human being at any time has been clever enough to see around his lies, apart from God's help.  The Word of God is what is true, and everything counter to it is false.  Sometimes the truth hurts.  Sometimes the truth is difficult.  But it's only God's truth that can save anyone.  We must be sensitive to those we preach to.  We must make every effort not to add any grief or trouble to the Gospel when we preach it; it is offensive enough all on its own.  But we simply cannot trade away the truth for the sake of feelings; not our own, not anyone elses.  You could make a false convert or unbeliever happy for a while, and ultimately give them a shove on their way to Hell.  Or you could tell them the truth, with all the gentleness and compassion you can, and risk them hating you, but also giving them a fighting chance to find the Lord Jesus for real, and be saved.  By the grace of God, I will -always- do the latter.  

The last thing I want to draw attention to is how this reply takes almost the exact form of the people Paul describes in Romans 1. Read their post again, then read this section of Romans 1.  

Romans 1:18-28

"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

"24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

"26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.  28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done."

Stay on your guard.  Stay prayed up.  Stay in the Word.  Don't be hoodwinked by these kinds of vacuous arguments.  The days ahead are only gonna get worse.   Please pray for Slytherclawpadawan, that God would by any means wake them up and save them.   

[coffeeman777]

God Answers Prayer

God is the one and only Judge; His is the only determining say-so on whether our prayers are answered. The Bible tells us what promises God has made, and further tells us what conditions must be met to receive those promises, if any. But God is a Person; He isn't some power that can be manipulated. Even when we ask according to His promises, even if it seems to us as though we have met all conditions, God may yet say no. Why? Who but God can say? Sometimes there's a lesson for us to learn, and so He declines; sometimes there are other factors involved of which we are not aware. God sees all and knows all. He has perfect reasons for doing all that He does. Part of trusting God means we must believe His reasons are just and is way is right even when it makes no sense to us. You may ask, "If that's the case, how can we ask God for anything with confidence? How can we ask for daily things, much less for miraculous things? How can we 'believe that we have received' as the Lord Jesus taught, if we're doing everything right and God still sometimes says no?" My answer to that is this: Learn to hear God speaking. If we can clearly discern His voice, we will know His will in any given situation, and we will therefore know what to pray for that God will give us. The Lord will guide us; His Spirit will lead us into all truth. If we ask Him what His will is, He will tell us. How do we learn to hear God speak? It begins with the Bible, God's inerrant Word to us. Study it. Apply it to your life. Surrender to it, let its wisdom teach you. Fall in love with it. Learn from it God's commands and strive to obey them, to put all sin behind you. Abandon sin completely; make no excuses for it, make no room for it. Obey God as much as you love Him. And as you delve into the Scriptures, pray. Pray constantly, about everything. Pray throughout the day, but do not neglect to set aside special time to escape to be with God and focus on nothing but prayer. Worship God continually, not just in church. Praise Him for His goodness. Thank Him always for every good thing, and refrain from complaining about the negative circumstances. As you devote yourself to following Him, as you obey His commands, worship Him in Spirit and Truth, patiently endure the various trials that test your faith, and seek His presence through constant prayer and worship, you will mature as a Christian, becoming more Christlike every day. And as you grow in Christ, you'll begin to hear God speaking; not only in the general way God has spoken to all of us, but also in a personal way that applies to your specific circumstances. Always in agreement with the written Word, God will speak to you through His Holy Spirit, and reveal His will to you, so that you can pray and see your prayers consistently answered.

TL;DR -- Sometimes God answers prayer, sometimes He doesn't. In order to see your prayers consistently answered so that you can have perfect confidence toward God, do what the Bible says; obey, pray, worship. Learn to hear God speak, so that you can know what to pray for and see your prayers answered.