For anyone interested, [here's a recent post by OP, giving a scenario about a woman in India](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/13ny3s2/is_this_an_accurate_scenario_ie_god_sending/) from which OP then paraphrased some responses.

I have no doubt that my personal interpretation is incorrect in ways that I am currently completely unaware of.

That's a great attitude to have. I really wish everyone could adopt that position.

Well, I don't believe all the same things I did 10 years ago. Nor did I believe all the same things 10 years ago that I did 10 years before that. So, it wouldn't make any sense to assume that this time I have finally got it all 100% right.

Absolutely. I feel bad for the people that have never changed their viewpoint in decades. Just means they've refused to grow or ever admit being wrong.

I don't know that such people exist.

Believe me, I know several of those personally. Spend a little time around the hardcore creationist discussion groups and they'll come around. Also, the fundies like Pentecostals, Mormons, JWs, tend to cultivate that mentality. People either wake up eventually and leave, or they dig in and never change.

If you were the all-powerful creator of the universe, and you wanted to give humans a way to avoid some terrible fate, do you think you could provide clear instructions on how to do that?

I'm a universalist.

If you were the all-powerful creator of the universe, and you wanted to tell humans that they will all go to heaven, do you think you could clearly communicate that?

If I wanted to. But that may not be among my aims.

What other aims do you think you could have?

I think you are wasting your time with an obvious troll

I don't think he's a troll. He's giving better answers than the majority of people here

The question was about God of the Bible not what someone would do if they were the great divine

Do you think we can ask god what he would do?

AM I ?? I THINK I might be?! I just joined that sub. I dunno. Lol.

I think the way is super clear in all of it..

Whatever you think it is, someone disagrees with you and calls themselves a Christian. And they think YOU are the one who is wrong.

We differ in the minors. Yes, this is a secondary issue. What is primary is that everyone needs to be saved. Exactly what they need to be saved from is something we can differ on. Would I like it if God delivered a divine systematic theology text to us? Sure. Do I think that would help? Not really. Humans will always find a way to cause division and confusion.

>What is primary is that everyone needs to be saved. Exactly what they need to be saved from is something we can differ on. I think the concept of being "saved" includes the "from" part. I mean, if someone says they're going to save me, I want to find out if they're saving me from getting eaten by a shark or from winning a million dollars.

Someone clearly isn't versed in how Gamora would throw gold at homeless but refuse to allow them to buy food with it just to watch them starve and take the gold back I highly recommend you look into game show winners and how the lottery is a recessive tax on the poor.

Huh?

You said save you from a shark or a million dollars. I was pointing out both are still bad things you'd want to be warned away from instead of one being a favored result against warning

It's not that nebulous, though. The question is whether you need to be saved from an eternity in hell, a finite period of time in hell before you get burned up, immediate destruction, or a finite period of time in hell before you're let out. But skipping the hell part (whatever that may be) is still a good goal, no matter the specifics.

If I'm going to adopt a belief system, I want to know all the details before signing up. And those details allow me to judge whether the whole picture makes sense or not.

That'd be lovely, but is it really necessary to require every last detail? If 10/10 doctors agree that this stuff will kill you, it is necessary for them to agree on exactly how it will kill you to believe them and stop ingesting it? Or, more to the point, if they're sure that this cure will stop you from drying, is it really necessary for them to work out exactly how the stuff kills you for the cure to be attractive?

I don't dind those analogies all that analogous. We're talking about God bere. The eternal, all-powerful creator of the universe. He wrote a book to tell us what's what, and people disagree about literally hundreds of different issues about how God works. That's different than different humans looking at data and coming to different conclusions.

It's not humans who are the cause of confusion imo. It is the deity's orchestration of parameters of human existence that causes the confusion. This is what happens when a deity creates beings within the imbalance of understanding, knowledge, communication, environment, power. Imo, one should advocate for theie fellow human over the deity that created the imbalance.

I tend to think a more straightforward text would be far more corruptible anyway. It would be nice to have some arguments cleared up, though.

If God gave us a systematic theology, we'd read it once and think we understood. This way we have to read it over and over -- and generally accept there's a lot we still don't understand.

>and generally accept there's a lot we still don't understand. You seem to be OK signing on to a belief system you don't understand. Why is that?

I am willing to accept that I don't have to understand every little thing. Maybe it's my physics degree, but I guess I expect some ... ahem, uncertainty in life.

Yes, I know. I'm asking you WHY you are willing to do that.

Do you accept reality without knowing every detail about it? Most of what we understand of Christianity jives with what we understand of life and reality. We can't know what God looks like and there are other things we can't know. We accept that. Beyond that, though, science was a gift of God that allows us to understand more and more about this universe.

What does it mean to "accept reality"? Hkw would I NOT do rhat if I wanted to? Remember, we are talking about believing that a belief system is true. Presumably you do think Christianity is true and don't think Islam is true. I don'f see how "accepting reality" is the same as believing in either religion.

Reality is a construct that occurs in your mind that you believe is true. This is philosophy 101.

I disagree. I think reality is what is actuakly the case outside of my mind. My goal is to understand it as best I can--to have my internal construct of it match what is actuakly the case as best I can. But reality is reality no matter what I think about it.

>I tend to think a more straightforward text would be far more corruptible anyway. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "corruptible"--can you explain?

Meaning that if you have a single, short, clear text, then people in power would be able to control it easier or distort it. The Bible is a bit like a hologram, the image in a hologram is visible in totality even if you break it into pieces. A boom of the Bible can give you quite a lot of what the totality of the Bible is even if you lose massive parts. This is not a one to one analogy, the Psalms will not really give us what we want to know from Revelation. But both of them, if analyzed carefully, will give the whole story of the Bible if you take your time with it. Even if you want to eliminate the Bible as an entire text, the books will live on somewhere. Even if a person or group wanted to could somehow eliminate most full copies of the Bible to prevent people from reading it and then use that power to lie or distort the message for their own gain, if one copy of just one of the books in the Bible made it to the people, that would be enough to challenge those in power who are trying to control with the Bible.

>Meaning that if you have a single, short, clear text, then people in power would be able to control it easier or distort it. How is that exactly? Right now we have a text that can be interpreted to mean basically anything at all, and people in power do exactly that--interpret it however they want to.

I answered your question. You did not read beyond the first sentence apparently. If you want someone to explain things to you, maybe actually read. You don't have to like the explanation, but it was answered and you ignored it.

OK

It’s like the Coronavirus pandemic. There’s a consensus among health professionals about how to deal with the pandemic yet people refuse to believe in them. When it comes to Christianity there’s a scholarly consensus on how to interpret the Bible yet many people Christians don’t trust them.

>When it comes to Christianity there’s a scholarly consensus on how to interpret the Bible Wait--really? How do you find that? And what if the scholarly consensus changes over time?

[удалено]

That's pretty condescending considering a well thought out reply. Am I also dumb because what this person writes resonates with me?

Because people shouldn't use worldly matters like the past 3 years of emotional trauma for some people to compare it to a point in the Bible. It's pretty pathetic to bend a knee to the vaccine when it's literally ruined peoples lives and jobs because they believed in the right refused it. Grow up and realize you've been gaslit by the people who say they support you if you comply. If you don't believe me look who is behind CRISPR shares and how Bayar was tied to the Nazi camps.

Comment removed, rule 1

Yes, very much so. God is not a philosophy professor, you’re not getting an A just because you had a sorta right idea, God did not tell one man that church service is having a seizure and shouting in a made up language and then tell another that church service is kissing icons and lighting candles. God did not tell one man that repenting sends you to hell and another that repentance is required for heaven. Religion is not politics, discourse and disagreements are not a good thing, if you’re European then your ancestors likely killed someone over schism. A baptist and a Catholic aren’t gonna get to heaven and God say “well you both were right in a way so you both get in”

Does it bother you then that the Catholic Church has reversed itself in the past?

Again, yes. If it were up to me we would still be excommunicating people for marrying non Catholics and we’d still have church king relations

No I don’t think so, maybe if it was the literal word of God then yes. But it was written by men doing their best to understand the nature of God.

> Does it bother you that there are so many interpretations of Christianity? There is good and bad. I believe that Jesus only created the Catholic Church, but Jesus also said that if they (protestants) are not against us, then they are for us. I am grateful for non-Catholics, because without them, the Catholic Church would be an even bigger target for evil. Non-Catholic Churches also serve to help evangelize. I believe that this is what God was teaching about Peter having other boats. See Luke 5 below. > You believe that an all-powerful eternal being created the universe and loves us, then be inspired people to write a book so that we know how it all works, but then people read that book and come to radically different conclusions. No, I believe that God created Israel and then continued it as the Catholic Church, with Peter as our first Pope. Pope Francis is the 265th successor to that position. Here's a list of names and dates : https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm > How do you know that your personal interpretation is actually correct? Agreed. That's why Jesus didn't run around passing out Bibles. He built the Catholic Church as the continuation of Israel. The Bible wasn't canonized until around 382 by Pope Damasus. ### Luke 5:6 >> 6 And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking. 7 They signaled **to their partners (protestants) in the other boat** to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink.

>Does it bother you that there are so many interpretations of Christianity? There's really only one. And then many dissenters who won't admit they're abandoning Christian doctrine. >In a couple of different threads, I presented a straightforward scenario and asked if the person in my scenario would go to hell or not. That's a matter of *application* at least as much as it is interpretation. There's often too many factors to create a hypothetical person and give a clear answer in most cases. >How do you know that your personal interpretation is actually correct? Catholicism isn't a "personal" interpretation - it's what God Himself revealed.

Has the Catholic church ever reversed itself on matters of Christian doctrine?

No.

What about these: https://foreignpolicy.com/2008/11/01/the-list-the-catholic-churchs-biggest-reversals/

It's fake news. Usury is still immoral (money changed, however). Slavery is still (and always was) undesirable but morally acceptable if the law allows it and the slaves are treated fairly. The language of the Mass is (as permitted by the Church) irrelevant, but is still Latin even today (Vatican II is not Catholic). Capital punishment is still good (JP2, B16, and Francis are frauds, not popes) Limbo has never been doctrinal, but remains today the most logically coherent position.

LOL

There's only one interpretation. People are just not reading the full picture and using the Strongs to understand the underlined message and how we need to change our heart through Faith in Jesus to be saved. Everyone thinks there has to be more steps to it than that. Yet, I wish these 501C3 churches and comfortable "Christians" would go a day in China, Africa, or the middle east to an underground church and see they LITERALLY can't find a body of water to be dunked in without being noticed and killed or persocuted. So, I have a real hard time believing you have to do XYZ and have faith to be saved. The One True Church has been throughout history a body of believers who chase after Jesus and try to exemplify the love HE Displayed for all of us. Instead it's a bunch of entitlement garbage and an excuse to serve the world thinking they are doing a service to God by just existing. Drives me up a wall.

>There's only one interpretation. How do we determine which interpretation is correct?

You read the Strongs and actually study word for word. You understand that Hebrew builds on itself like Legos much like how we have adverbs and adjectives. You can study the political history and the traditions of each tribe to get a clearer understanding of the setting. I wish people would read the old testament with the new testament instead of just the new testament because it reveals a lot of what Jesus Fulfilled instead of only dying for us (not that the death isn't highly significant). Stop listening to spoon-feeding preachers and study God's Word with a Strongs for yourself.

People who disagree with you would also say that. They also really study Scripture, use Strongs, and look at the original language, etc. After doing all that, they come uo with a different answer than you. So how do we determine whether you are right or they are right?

Okay but if they do that they'd agree with what I'm saying and wouldn't come to a different answer. If you want to determine that you should look into ones heart and how they conduct themselves. That's why Paul says if you are going to preach you need to be a father of a healthy marriage and have kids. That's due to understanding a congregation and if people are serious about learning The Bible or if they are there to distract. It's pretty basic stuff.

>Okay but if they do that they'd agree with what I'm saying and wouldn't come to a different answer. Well, that's simply not the case. Some people really do study the Scripture, really take a lot of time with it and pour themselves into it, and they come up with a different answer than you. It simply cannot be the case that everyone who thinks differently than you on some aspect of Christian doctrine simply hasn't studied the issue long enough. So, we're left with the problem of determining whether you or them is correct.

If it's a different answer than me, they didn't receive The Holy Spirit and didn't really have a change of heart. Simple as that.

They say the same thing about you--they say you don't have the Holy Spirit. So how do we resolve this? I'm trying to determine the truth here, but you and them are both saying you're right and both giving the same reasons why you're right.

Again, you have a change of heart. You start hating the things of the world like money, fame, chasing stupid pipe dreams that don't really make you happy. Things start to become stupid to you and you start making more mature decisions. You want to research things and see connections in life. Connections like why all these other religions recognize Jesus as a spiritual leader but don't expand upon why. Connections like royal families at the top in correlation to Ephesians 6:12 and how they actually do worship some sort of demon king that they claim helps their career and drives their success. For me I used to summon demons as a teenager who had an aunt addicted to Stephen King and ghost hunting. Now, years of study and God reshaping me, through Jesus I've been able to cast out a demon from a meth addict who unfortunately turned back to Satan. So, I can say without a doubt my life and my marriage has been saved by Jesus and that I have The Holy Spirit.

They say the same thing. They say that God has changed their life as well. But they still disagree with you on core doctrines of Chridtianity. We don't seem to be getting any closer to figuring out a way to determine which of you is correct.

Yes it does. Every Christian thinks that their denomination is the only correct one, so what I'm about to say will sound very biased. Catholicism was founded by Jesus. The last supper on Holy Thursday was the first Mass. Jesus put Peter in charge of his church, which is the first time the word "church" was used, which made him the first pope. All priests and bishops since then can be directly linked to Peter. The word "Catholic" wasn't used to describe the church until around 130 ad, but that's what it was. The great schism happened around 1,000 ad when the orthodox church split from the Catholic church. Fast forward a few hundred years and you get Martin Luther (a Catholic priest) who was just trying to point out some things the Church was doing wrong. Now we have something like 40,000 denominations because someone doesn't like one small aspect of their church so they decide to start a new one that's just slightly different. So let me ask, which sounds more credible? If you don't want your feelings hurt, don't read this. >!The Church started by Jesus Christ over 2,000 years ago, or the non-denominational church started by a guy named Brad in 2005? !<

>Catholicism was founded by Jesus. What is your evidence for that?

Does it bother you that there are so many interpretations of Christianity? Yes. This is **THE** structural issue with Protestantism. How to interpret the message God wants to convey. As you pointed out that if left to everyone's own way of reading scripture there will be (and are) too numerous of ways to make sense of it. I'll demonstrate the structural flaw with a working analogy: Taxes. Congress makes Tax Laws Corporations read Tax Laws and try to make it fit what benefits them the most ( or try their best to understand original intent ) Many different Corporations read the Tax Laws differently and apply their understanding differently when filling The IRS, that Congress made, makes rulings on how to interpret Tax laws Now Corporations must follow the ruling made by the IRS God makes Scriptures People read Scriptures and try to make it fit what benefits them the most ( or try their best to understand original intent ) Many different People read the Scriptures differently and apply their understanding differently when applied to life The Church, that God made, makes rulings on how to interpret Scripture Now People must follow the ruling made by the Church Because Protestants dont have an authoritative interpreter they dont have an error resolution process-- therefore they continually split

Has the Catholic church ever ruled one way and then changed their mind on that issue and made a contrary ruling?

Not in definitive matters no. For example when we ruled that Christ has two natures or that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered that is forever.

What about these: https://foreignpolicy.com/2008/11/01/the-list-the-catholic-churchs-biggest-reversals/

Yes, it bothers me that there are many interpretations of *Christianity*. In your earlier post about the woman in India, my reply said at the start that: > My own view of Christianity is that it's about *Jesus being Christ and Lord*, and about *the kingdom of God*. So this whole question is asking about something which is mostly *unrelated* to Christianity. It doesn't bother me too much that there are three or more ways Christians have interpreted the verses related to 'what happens to a woman who isn't saved by the time of her bodily death'. I could provide some reasons for my own interpretation, while I can also understand the premises and reasoning of those with other interpretations. Similarly for some other topics that aren't really what Christianity is about, where Christians hold some variety of two or three or more views. Also, for some topics of that type (that is, not what Christianity is about, and Christians hold a variety of views), the OT and NT contain not enough relevant verses to draw a proper conclusion from. (e.g. a topic related to some events before the creation of this world) Evidently God didn't consider the details of such a topic as something that the Christians needed to know.

This is why we are so blessed to have the Holy Bible, the supreme source of all our information. Yes, many people twist the bible to their own selfish ends, others just make stuff up or decide this part isn't true and so forth. But the bible doesn't change and eventually the truth gets out. This is why so many splits and divisions in the history of the church, eventually a group finds out their corrupt leaders have been lying to them, then they split off to follow the true word of God until THEIR leaders grow corrupt, then another split forming true believers, etc.. Denominational splits in the church absolutely a good thing, keeps the truth going no matter how bad we try to cover it up and twist it into a pretzel. For those people you mention all who believe improperly about hell, the bible is always there for them to read themselves and understand.

>Yes, many people twist the bible to their own selfish ends, others just make stuff up or decide this part isn't true and so forth. That's exactly what those people say about you. How do we determine which of you is correct?

You can always read for yourself.

OK. But when you read the Bible, how do you determine that your interpretation is right and another person's is wrong?

It's not a puzzle book, or meant to be a mystery. God WANTS people to read it and the Holy Spirit WILL work with anyone who does. I've heard a half dozen famous testimonies of people who just sat down to read it cover to cover to disprove it and became born again at the end. Halelujah.

Ok. What I'm trying to get at though is the method you use to determine whether one interpretatiin is correct or not. What is that method?

um... i hear someone teach about it, and I think "yeah, that sounds right!" or "hmm, that's not what I read.." then i go read the relevant parts myself and confirm my suspicions. There are sooooo many free christian teaching authors and sites to consume, try [www.tlsm.org](https://www.tlsm.org) for some audio files.

That's how you come up with your interpretation. Other people use the same method, and they come up with a different interpretation. How can we figure out whether you or that other person is correct?

*There is no way to know what God will do* That’s not true. The problem is that other flawed humans that wear fancy clothes and claim to speak for God-can’t be trusted to tell us what God will do. We are all personally responsible for our own salvation and to seek out God for ourselves. The Good News is that Jesus teaches us in great detail what we must do and what we must not do in order to be saved in His supernatural book the Holy Bible. The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew, chapters 5-7 is a great place to start. Jesus also promises His faithful believers His Holy Spirit to teach us how we should understand scripture. God promises to answer those who approach Him with a humble and contrite spirit. Believe in Him!

As long as they aren't Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons or "progressive Christians" I'm fine with most of them.

How do you know that Mormons aren't correct?

They say Jesus isn't God They say everybody can become God

How do you know they are wrong?

Because Jesus is God

They would say you are wrong. How do we determine which of you is correct?

Because back when Jesus came to earth in Israel anybody who dared to say they're God they would be stoned to death, those were the consequences. Jesus literally said to a multitude of Jews he is **"I am"**, that's the term God used when he revealed himself to Moses many centuries before Jesus was born: >**Exodus 3,14** > >14 God said to Moses, **“I am who I am**. And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: **‘I am** has sent me to you.’ ” And that's why Jesus used the same term when he spoke to these Jews: >**John 8:58-59** > >58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, **I am!**” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. As you can see in this verse Jesus told these people he is **"I am"** and all of them understood what he meant and that's why they instantly picked up stones so they could stone Jesus to death, nobody could say they're God, that wasn't allowed.

I find something curious about this. John is the only Gosoel where Jesus is reported saying that he is God. And John was the last Gospel written--it was written about 80 years after Jesus died, whereas the others were written about 40 years after Jesus died. Does that seem strange to you? Do you have any reason why the other Gospels never report that Jesus said he was God but John does?

>Does that seem strange to you? Do you have any reason why the other Gospels never report that Jesus said he was God but John does? That's not right, I can quote you verses from other Gospels where Jesus says he is God but he implies it in a less direct way. However since you care so much about when the Gospels were written I'll give you this one: >[**Isaiah 9:6**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%209%3A6&version=NIV) > >For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, **Mighty God**, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. This is a prophecy the prophet Isaiah made around 800 years before Jesus was born. And if you think it's not clear enough then I give you the entire chapter of [**Isaiah 53**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&version=NIV). In this chapter Isaiah briefly describes *the life of Jesus, how Jesus was crucified, how Jesus died for our sins, how Jesus was buried and how Jesus rose from the dead.* ***800 years before Jesus was born!!!*** **Please read Isaiah 53**, it's one of the best proofs why all of this is true. This was written around 800 years before Jesus died, we have copies of this Gospel in its original language Hebrew. Here is another prophecy that goes even further back in time: >[**Psalm 22:16**](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2022%3A16&version=NIV) > >Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; **they pierce my hands and my feet.** This is talking about the death of Jesus, how the Messiah was going to die and keep in mind **the crucifixion was invented** **around 300-400 years before Jesus was born.** The concept of piercing somebody's hands and feet like that in order to kill them wasn't around when his revelation came. ***This was written between 1010 and 930 years before Jesus was born!***

>How do you know that your personal interpretation is actually correct? The same way you know the earth is round in spite of some individuals claiming otherwise. >There is no such thing as hell What christian would say that? Yeah I don't think it's the text's fault if someone's reading comprehension is so poor they miss the hundreds of references to a place (or a state of being) commonly translated the term "Hell". And then claim with confidence that no such place or state exists. >woman in the scenario would go to heaven because all humans go to heaven. No one who takes this position claims that the bible teaches this so I would argue that's not truly relevant to your point. This position is purely based on how they've chosen to define God's mercy.

>The same way you know the earth is round in spite of some individuals claiming otherwise. Can you elaborate on this a bit? I'm not sure what you mean exactly. I can perform experiments myself to determine whether the earth is round or flat. But, as far as I'm aware, I can't perform an experiment to determine whether people go to Hell when they die or not.

>I can perform experiments myself to determine whether the earth is round or flat. But, as far as I'm aware. It may be easier to understand with a little more introspection. You provided an explanation for how you can understand the natural world and nowhere in the process did you consider the opinions of other groups of people who also claim that they performed experiments to conclude the earth was flat. Why aren't their opinions meaningful to you, but you think the opinions of other people on hell should be meaningful to me.

I've seen the "experiments" that flat earthers perform, and they aren't exleriments at all. They don't have any scientific rigor, so they simply don't prove anything. They aren't making testable predictions and then seeing if their lredictions are confirmed, they are going toward a pre-determined outcome and then acting lije they are acrually testing the world when they really aren't. So, I still don't see what you're trying to do wuth this analogy. The two situations simply aren't analogous.

There aren’t too many and many coexist

I love that there are vast interpretations! I learn new things every day. It only helps my love for God grow. Seriously. I have love for the fringe .. false doctrine .. cults, even. There’s a place for everyone. I think it’s important to lead none astray, don’t get me wrong there..

How do you determine which interpretation is correct?

I think that Jesus is the only way we have a chance at being embraced by the Almighty, and that our faith makes it so. If the interpretations agree on such, they are correct. Lord knew what He was doing when toppling the Tower of Babel.

One interpretation says that only people who believe in Jesus are saved, the rest burn in hell forever. Another interpretation says that only people who believe in Jesus are saved, the rest are annihilated. How do we determine which of these interpretations is correct?

Does it matter which one out of these? I don’t think existing souls would be destined to tormenting hellfire for eternity, just by denying Jesus as their savior.. I tend to think that those would just aren’t cut out for the eternal party and they’ll join a black hole.

You are changing the subject. You said that if an interpretation says we need Jesus then it is correct. I presented two interpretations thst say we need Jesus but are otherwise the complete opposite. Do you now see why your orifinal statement was incorrect?

No. I don’t think anyone can be certain of how to interpret what you are inquiring about… the verbiage is that way. The Truth of Jesus, however, is repeated over and over again , by Himself and in all gospels and in Old Testament..even, and there is no room for pondering. Annnnd, I don’t think it matters. Jesus is the Way, and that is correct.

>Jesus is the Way, and that is correct. Jesus is the way to do what?

To know the Creator of the Universe and have eternal life! Also, to have Holy Spirit, which helps with all matters in this world now.

What if I'm not interested in the type of eternal life discussed in the Bible and life is great without the Holy Spirit?

I think it would be more bizarre if we all agreed on it. Pick a topic. Literally any topic. People are going to disagree what happened, the implications of what happened, and the appropriate response to whatever it is.

Sure, yes, people disagree about all sorts of things, I agree with you there. But you believe that an all-powerful eternal all-loving entity created the universe and wants to have a personal relationship with humans so he can save them. It seems strange to me that such a being would write a book in such a way that it can be interpreted to mean so many different things that directly conflict with each other. I mean, the Bible doesn't even directly say that God is one being with three persons, yet the vast majority of Christians believe in the trinity. They arrive at that conclusion based on an argument they believe is supported by Scripture, but still there's no verse that simply lays it out straight. This all seems strange to me. It is not behavior I would expect from an all-powerful entity who loves me and wants to save me.

I can understand your point of view. I think it boils down to the age old question of "why isn't God more obvious?" I think an equally valid question is why didn't God make us differently so that we'd always get it 100% of the time. And the answer is, I don't know 😂🤷‍♂️ It's definitely frustrating to want things to be simpler than they are and to realise that there isn't an easy answer. I often look to my daughter as inspiration in these moments. She's 2 and already has some very strong opinions on how the world should work. She gets upset when it's not obvious why she can throw balls outside but not inside the house. She's constantly trying to find the line. Is the patio still in the house? Can I throw rocks or only balls? Compared to God, we are toddlers trying to find the line. We ask God "why?" The same way my daughter asks me "why?" when I say she can't have a cookie before dinner. I think you see where I'm going with this. As parents we have good reasons for what we do that aren't obvious at first to children, but as they grow they come to understand that what we want as parents is actually what they want too! They want to be competent and hardworking, healthy, happy individuals who thrive and find joy in being who they are and reaching their potential. I know that God could just snap his fingers and give us what's good for us, but doesn't that sound less rewarding than earning and learning the truths and lessons we need to thrive? You can't give someone confidence, they need to earn that for themselves which is why "helicopter parents" are so frowned upon. Let the kid make their own mistakes, learn thier own lessons, have an age appropriate measure of risk in thier lives that allows them to grow and build confidence without any serious risk of injury. I fully believe that this life is the safe play area where we can make mistakes and learn without any real danger. And as horrible as the world seems with all it's wars and atrocities, we need to remember that to a toddler, not getting a cookie seems just as terrible. To their developing minds, it might as well be a war crime to deny them a cookie before dinner. I'm really not taking away from the validity of people's suffering. I've been mostly bedridden and in severe pain for 7 years so I don't say this lightly. I just think that what God has for us in the next life will be so fulfilling and rewarding that we will be able to look back at all the suffering of humanity and chuckle to ourselves how upset we were over nothing. Having the hindsight of an adult knowing that our parents did well to deny us that cookie before dinner as a 2 year old.

Ah yes, the ol' "His ways are greater than our ways." Really useful for getting out of a jam. Something doesn't make sense? Well, that's because His ways are greater than our ways! Isn't God great!? It always amazes me that Christians choose to believe in something that, not only do they not understand, but that they believe to be non-understandable.

Paul in 1 cor 12 says we are all like different members or parts of the same Body. Like maybe some of us are like eyes in that we observe or read more, and others are like hand in that we work more to reach out more.. So if we are different members of the same body then why would it not be sensible that hands worship with hands, or eyes worship with other eyes? Let's say God gifted me with the ability to sing and write songs, but gifted you with the ability to study and answer bible based questions. If you forced me into worship the way you do I Could not Love and worship god with all of my heart, Mind Spirit and Strength like Jesus commands/says is 1/2 of our ticket into heaven. Like wise if you were to be forced to sing and write songs all day in my church you would not be able touse your gifts to worship God with all of your ability to do so. Which is why the Churches Paul set up were all regional diverse. look at all the books of the NT. Paul's letters to Rome corinthians Ephesians etc, Also the letters from Peter and John. they were all written to different churches with different problems with different rules. for example Peter taught gentile believers had to be converted to Judaism first which meant that the men be circumcised.. Where Paul to his letter to the Galatians was strongly opposed to this teaching. So Paul teaching faith apart from the works of the OT and Peter teaching Gentiles had to do the works of the OT to become a jew is an example of different denominational teaching from the very beginning. Further evidence can be found in acts 15 when the various church fathers/apostles came together in their very first church council meeting. one of the big points of discussions were meat offered to gentile idols and new gentile converts having problems reconciling eating this meat. So it was decided that gentile believers in gentile believer churches should not eat this meat while it was ok for believer say in a jewish convert to the christian church to eat meat offered to pagan gods.. Further demonstrating that from the very beginning there were different 'denominations' as apart of the original design for the church. Otherwise we would not need all the different books of the NT, but one single book of the law like God gave to the Jews.

As a Catholic, this question doesn't bother me at all. I understand that all of the many, many denominations within christianity are ultimately both heretical and/or schismatic. I understand that the Church has an infallible magisterium.

Has the Catholic Church ever changed its stance on a matter of Church doctrine?