Do you believe in god?

[Unicorndreams24]

i have recently been thinking a lot about religion and wondering how many believe in god and also what made you come to the decision of believing?

I never said top survival advantage.

All great ape species, of which we are one, display the same "goodness" to each other as we do. To varying degrees.

None of the apes are like the praying mantis for example. where the female eats the male after nookie.

Wait a moment. That might be a bad example :-)

But seriously, it is an advantage. Because we are not really a specialist species. We are a jack of all trades.

And oddly enough, another species, the one that we are most symbiotic with, the dog, has similar traits.

:-)

That’s a good question, but for a believer, it really starts with understanding the gospel. The Bible isn’t about controlling people—it’s about God’s plan to redeem humanity through Jesus Christ. Jesus came to save us from sin, restore our relationship with God, and show us how to live in love and truth. As Paul puts it, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day” (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Salvation and life with God are found in a personal relationship with Him, not in merely following rules.

An analogy might help: my spouse expects me not to cheat. Some might see this as a rule and feel controlled, while others joyfully see faithfulness as an expression of love. In the same way, God’s instructions point to life, love, and flourishing, not mere restriction.

If someone reads through the Bible, they’ll see that teaching on sexuality and relationships makes up only a small fraction of Scripture. Most of it is about God’s character, His covenant with His people, His justice, mercy, and faithfulness, and His call to trust Him. Where sexual ethics are mentioned, they are woven into the larger story of the gospel, showing how living in alignment with God’s design reflects the love, holiness, and life He offers through Jesus.

So rather than control, these instructions point to how we flourish in relationship with God and other, a life shaped by the gospel of Jesus. I hope that makes sense on my perspective based on the gospel. I appreciate it may not be shared.

Actually, it is the opposite for following the Christian gospel. “Being good” isn’t the core of the Christian gospel. The message is about salvation — receiving forgiveness and trusting in Jesus for his sacrifice, even though we fall short and aren’t perfect. Other faiths may understand salvation differently, so I’m speaking specifically about the Christian perspective, not making claims about other faiths or beliefs.

You missed out the mention of evolution. The Bible does mention it, sort of. Selective breeding anyway.

Gen 30:32-43. Where Jacob breeds striped and speckled livestock by.... having them mate beside speckled and striped backgrounds.

Another example of the inspired authors ?

:-)

Why should anyone read a book about how gay people should not have loving relationships?

I’d say: read the book and find out! It explains the Bible’s perspective clearly and helps people understand what Scripture actually says, not just what people think it says. It may challenge your views, but I’m just sharing a helpful exposition on the topic.

I’m not sure I understand: I think I was discussing something different.

Thank you for answering the question. But no, I do not agree. Because the Scripture assumes that there is only one right way to live, love and flourish. That then leads to the next question: why? Because as someone with children who are gay, it seems completely arbitrary to me. There needs to be a reason. I can't just nod my head like a sheep and accept it.

Yeah, helpfully promoting propaganda.

I've seen a few talks by him. Nothing can convince me that gay people should have to be celibate their whole loves, can never fall in love or have children.

As I mentioned in my previous post both marriage and singleness are regarded as honourable in Christ’s teachings. There’s not “only one right way to live, love and flourish”. Followers of Christ love Him first and foremost, and our love is, demonstrated, at least in part, by obedience to Him as our Lord.

Those who do not recognise this aspect of Christ's authority in their lives don’t see the need for obedience to Him, whether they are unbelievers or adherents of other faiths.

posted too soon-
edited for completion

Thank you for taking the time to respond — I really appreciate how honestly you’ve shared this, and I don’t underestimate how personal it is, especially as a parent.

I agree that no one should be asked to accept something without questioning it. Christianity does assume there is a true account of what it means to live and flourish, but for believers that isn’t about control or arbitrariness. It comes from the conviction that God is the creator, and that the gospel is about restoring our relationship with Him through Jesus for eternal salvation, not about rule-keeping. Hopefully that provides a bit of colour on the ‘why’.

I also want to say this carefully: I wouldn’t expect someone who doesn’t share those starting beliefs to find the conclusions compelling. But I don’t think this position is held lightly or without wrestling. Some of my closest friends are Bible-believing Christians who have thought deeply and painfully about these issues, including around sexuality and identity, and have done so with integrity, humility, and care.

If you’re interested in understanding how Christians approach this from the inside — even if you don’t agree — Sam Allberry’s writing can be helpful. He writes as a gay Christian who takes both Scripture and lived experience seriously. I would never ask someone to accept something without interrogating it.

More than anything, I hope these conversations can be held with kindness and respect, because real people and real families are at the heart of them.

Great, that’s helpful to know, thank you so much for sharing. I think we’re coming at this from very different starting points, and that’s okay. Scripture itself recognises that people approach faith from different places — “Each of us should be fully convinced in our own mind” (Romans 14:5). My intention isn’t to persuade you to adopt my beliefs, but simply to explain how Christians who take the Bible seriously understand their faith.

For Christians, this reflects a sincerely held worldview shaped by Scripture and by a relationship with Jesus. The Bible is also honest that following Christ can involve submission that is difficult and costly in different ways for different people — “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (Luke 9:23). That call applies to all believers, not selectively.

I respect that you don’t share these convictions. I appreciate the chance to exchange views respectfully, even where we disagree. I imagine people reflecting their views on different sides of an issue may be deemed to be promoting propaganda, and that is likely to be perceived from both sides. I apologise if that was the reception. I had found Sam Allberry’s resource particularly helpful from the perspective of someone who has considered these issues personally and in line with the gospel. I am sorry that it was not the same for you after reading it. We are different people with different frameworks.

@ByLovingTraybake ultimately though, Sam Allberry believes that if you are gay, you are never allowed the joys of marriage, sex and family. He thinks that this is what God demands.

And if that is so, then God is not worthy of anyone's worship. Any entity who thinks it is acceptable to treat a part of their own creation that way is monstrous.

That is why I am an atheist. It is far more likely that strictures against homosexuality come from human fallibility, judgement and a sense of entitlement than from a deity we are told is all loving. I cannot reconcile your God with good morals.

Thank you so much for your post and explanation on your beliefs. That is helpful to understand and I value the time you’ve taken to explain your position. I don’t doubt the seriousness or sincerity of your objection. You’re right that Sam Allberry believes God calls him to celibacy — and that he believes God is still worthy of worship. Where we differ is over who God is and where moral authority comes from.

From a Christian perspective, God isn’t worthy of worship because He affirms every desire, but because He is understood to be the source of life itself. Christianity doesn’t promise marriage, sex, or family as a right to anyone — gay or straight. Jesus himself was unmarried and celibate, yet Christians believe he lived a full and meaningful human life.

I can see why, from your moral framework, God feels unacceptable. We’re starting from very different foundations, and that’s okay. I respect that difference, even though it leads us to very different conclusions and different joys and hopes. Thank you for telling me your approach and perspective, and sharing such personal thoughts.

Why would you be obedient to him

As I understand it - I'm sure alternative understandings exist - the thinking goes like this:

1. Sex creates children
2. Therefore the purpose of sex is to make children
3. Children should only be born into families
4. Families are created by married couples
5. Therefore married couples should have sex
6. People who are not married should not have sex

The rest flows from this: homosexual sex is clearly not going to create children, so it's an abomination. But, since people can't help being homosexual, they are not abominations: their sex lives are, so they're enjoined not to do sex.

God's various spokesmen tend to go a bit wide on this. There's advice on marriage being a man's best defence against promiscuity, the implication being that they can have sex for reasons other than reproduction (otherwise, they'd only be doing it once a year!) The Old Testament approves of men getting their slaves pregnant if their wives can't. The Old Testament also assumes polygamy - though not polyandry or wives getting pregnant by their slaves; the very idea! It is not universally opposed to incest. While the rules forbid it, it's treated as a practical solution to begetting children where suitable options are limited.

It's perfectly reasonable that the biblical strictures on sex are a focus of criticism these days:

1. It's no longer imperative to make more children
2. We know that masturbation doesn't use up a man's 'seed'
3. Pregnancies can be safely prevented or terminated
4. Children can be successfully raised in alternative family structures

The logic behind the proscriptions on homosexuality and unmarried sex is redundant, along with the logic that led to polygamy and pregnant slaves.

Few people have a problem with instructions to be considerate of others, not to steal and murder, etc. Other laws have been softened for modern times, leaving sex as a starkly outstanding area of conflict between 2,000-year-old rationale and life in today's world.

@ByLovingTraybake

Quoting you from above" Jesus himself was unmarried and celibate, yet Christians believe he lived a full and meaningful human life.".

Again, this is not in the Bible. This is post Bible claims. So it's not a divinely inspired thing. You are adding to the gospels here. Stating as fact, something that is not known as fact.

There are non canon gospels that suggest he was married. Written later, and some are difficult to find.

It's similar to how some Churches insist Mary was always a virgin. Even though the gospels are totally clear that she had other children.

Talking of non canon gospels, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is a wild one, and much of that does survive. Gospels were a bit of an industry it seems. When is the next book out sort of thing. John and Revelation, both written much later than the synoptic gospels and in the gnostic style are almost certainly in this "cottage industry" category. And there is non cannon stuff that make it into Church lore,

Link to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, just for interest. :-)

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (othergospels.com)

I’m not adding to the Gospels. Later non-canonical texts tell us about much later communities and ideas, not about the historical Jesus, which is why they aren’t treated as reliable sources by mainstream scholarship, Christian or otherwise. Saying that Christians believe Jesus lived a full and meaningful human life without marriage isn’t a new doctrine. It is a basic Christian claim, even if you don’t accept it. I am not here to address the false gospel.

Thank you for taking the time to set this out so clearly. Your post is a thoughtful, very modern cultural reading of how biblical sexual ethics are often understood, and I appreciate the care you’ve taken in explaining your reasoning. Thank you!

If I may, I’d offer a brief biblical reading with Jesus at the centre. Christianity is first and foremost about the gospel — that God, in Jesus Christ, acts to reconcile people to Himself, not on the basis of moral performance but through grace. Within that wider story, Scripture doesn’t frame sex simply in terms of reproduction, but of covenant, faithfulness, and the joining of two people. That’s why the sexual ethic remains consistent even where circumstances change: it flows from how human beings, bodies, and relationships are understood within God’s redemptive purposes, not merely from social need.

I think this is where our different frameworks matter. Reading the same texts through different assumptions — about authority, progress, and what defines flourishing — leads to very different conclusions. From a Christian perspective, moral teaching isn’t something we selectively update as culture shifts, because it’s tied to a bigger claim about who God is and what salvation means, not just about managing behaviour.

I appreciate your reading, even where I see them differently. We’re clearly coming from different starting points, and that will naturally lead to different conclusions. I hope it’s okay that I’ve tried to explain the biblical basis as Christians understand it, even if we don’t ultimately agree. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this — I appreciate we will form different conclusions, but I really valued hearing where you were coming from.

But you are stating something as fact when the gospels don't mention it. You are using doctrine, not bible recorded information.

By definition, that means you are adding to the gospels.

And of course, those gospels are false, but these ones are true.

:-)

The bible never says Jesus was unmarried or celibate, @ByLovingTraybake. It does seem likely that someone would've mentioned this deeply unconventional choice.

In Matthew 19:12, Jesus refers to those who "have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake," but it's a bit of a stretch to interpret this as a personal statement of celibacy, isn't it?

The first 30 years of his life are unaccounted for. He could've been married and raised a family, then fucked off to do his ministry. I might prefer the idea that he wandered East and studied Buddhism, mind you!

Yes, I agree those gospels are false.

I hope it’s okay that I’ve tried to explain the biblical basis as Christians understand it, even if we don’t ultimately agree.

Of course it is, @ByLovingTraybake, that's what we're here for! Thank you.

From a Christian perspective, moral teaching isn’t something we selectively update as culture shifts.

Hmm. Pardon the (arguably) trivial example - but do you consistently dress in dull clothes with no jewellery, keep your hair long but unstyled, and avoid head coverings?

The head covering prohibition really tells you they lived in a warm, dry climate!

Indeed, the Gospels don’t explicitly say “Jesus was unmarried.” Historians infer it from what is included: his family, siblings, travels, and relationships are all mentioned, but there’s no hint of a wife or children — something that would have been remarkable and almost certainly noted in that context.

Matthew 19:12 isn’t about Jesus personally; it’s a teaching on commitment to God’s kingdom. From a Christian perspective, whether Jesus married or not doesn’t change the heart of the gospel: he came to show God’s love, forgive sin, and offer salvation to all who trust him. The evidence for his resurrection — including the empty tomb, the stone which was guarded, multiple eyewitness accounts, and the radical transformation of his earliest followers — confirms that these events really happened. That reality would conflict with any idea that Jesus wandered east, lived a secret family life, or otherwise avoided the ministry and ultimate purpose he came to fulfil. It is a fascinating idea and I’d love to hear more for the basis of this though!

I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with these questions, and I hope sharing this perspective is helpful, even if we approach the texts from different starting points.

I am not sure why you agree. It was a rhetorical question.

In my opinion, all of the gospels are false. Especially John. And sure, subject to the usual man v myth stuff.

So photo below, all false, even though some church dogma is taken from them ? I would need to check what from where tho. But we have covered the books of Enoch already.

:-)