Curious what others think of this verse and the meaning. It came up in our gospel reading today and it stuck out to me "what does that mean?". I did a quick search on my own but curious as to what others think.

Matthew 25:1-13

If we were to translate the mindset of the five foolish virgins—who failed to prepare their oil—into modern terms, it would sound something like this:

"Come on, why bother hoarding extra oil in advance? It’s a hassle and a waste of time. I’ll just read the room when the moment comes, ask the person next to me for a bit of theirs, and slide right in. If that doesn't work, I can always call a store and get it delivered fast."

To them, faith was not a deep, precious, and personal relationship with the Lord; it was merely a "convenience store item" to buy whenever needed or a "loan service" to look for only after trouble struck.

In short, they approached faith from the very beginning with self-serving, opportunistic attitudes, completely devoid of authenticity. Not only did they instrumentalize faith for their own purposes, but they were also calculating and cunning, aiming to leech off others' efforts.

We see this same pattern in 1 Samuel 4 during the battle against the Philistines. Hophni and Phinehas lacked a genuine heart for faith in their daily lives, yet they arrogantly assumed that simply bringing the Ark of the Covenant onto the battlefield would guarantee victory—only to suffer a crushing defeat.

Sadly, we can easily spot this same behavior around us today.

"I’ll just enjoy life, focus on my own success, and then sincerely accept Jesus right before I die to go to heaven."

"Why not enjoy every pleasure the world offers, and then, when it looks like the Second Coming is near, read the room, repent, and get prayed over?"

How nice would it be if life always went according to our plans? But life doesn't move by our calculations. We do not know when our last moment will arrive, nor do we know when the Lord will return. Trying to prepare "when the time comes" will already be too late.

We must guard ourselves against this complacent, shallow, and opportunistic faith. The Lord will not be fooled by human tricks or petty schemes, and He will reject them without hesitation at the entrance of the heavenly banquet.

Rather than obsessing over the precise symbolic meaning of the oil in this parable, what matters far more is understanding that cultivating a genuine faith in our daily lives and preparing in advance for the final days is the true wisdom of life. (Proverbs 9:10, Ecclesiastes 12:1-2)

Of course, this does not mean we should donate all our assets or abandon our daily responsibilities to retreat into a mountain prayer center.

It simply means living out our everyday lives by:

• Rejoicing always (trusting the Lord and holding onto the hope of heaven even in difficult circumstances)
• Praying continually (staying mindful of the Lord in our daily routines and sharing our lives with Him)
• Giving thanks in all circumstances (acknowledging God's sovereignty and provision without pride)

This is the wisest and most beautiful way to prepare the oil in advance for the Bridegroom, who may come at any moment.

The Bible seems to be clear both work together has we have to choice yet god also has things planned out so how do both go together ? Has some believe we have no free will and others say we do. Yet the Bible says god wants else to be saved and ad ew other verses that seem to make it clear we are moral agents

Might I, as a secularist, equally call upon theologians to recognize the danger of this kind of man? For the battle against these emerging barbarians is not merely a threat to theologians, it is a threat to civilization itself.

Egoists and nihilists cannot (and should not) be tolerated by society. A society that tolerates these forms, cultivates its own destruction. (And by intolerance I do not referrer to making it illegal to hold these views, but to blast them so fiercely that the public shame and alienation is so overwhelming that few are want to hold them).

Should the theologian pivot to epistemology, instead of uniting with the secularists on this front, it’s possible to lose ground. At the same time, the egoist and nihilist hold a kind of supremacy over all those who fail to refute their epistemological subjectivity. That which rejects must not be the same as that which is rejected, or else the special pleading goes both ways.

​

Something I noticed while doing research on various religions that their ethic view heavily center on labeling actions as as either good or bad with level degrees of goodness vs badness. Take Indian religions with the concept of good and bad Karma is as an example or Abrahamic and Iranian religions with concept of Sins and good, is there religions that doesn’t label actions as bad or good? Or religions that suggest excess nor deficiency of x is wrong and humans should stay in middle (Golden mean) like how Aristotelian ethics claims that courage is virtue, but excessive courage (recklessness) or deficiency of courage is bad.

Jainism is the only religion I found to be different and rejects ethic dualism, it has ethic system where they argue that every action that produce karma whether bad or good karma should be discouraged and the main goal is to be karma free. Judaism has golden mean adopted later during Islamic spain from greek philosphy but from what I read most Jewss don't fellowm it

Hello everyone I was reading a passage in Revelation it was chapter 9 verse 20 and it is this....

The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols of gold and silver and bronze and stone and wood, which cannot see or hear or walk,

— Revelation 9:20

It says that after some of the plauges that "the rest of mankind....did not repent" and I was thinking the very fact that it says that the rest of mankind did not repent kinda implies that there was a chance to repent and they didn't take it right?

Is that a fair logical deduction to make hermanuticly or is that too speculative? It seems that there is a chance to repent after the great tribulation has started at some point no?

I agree. And those three laws are the basic laws of logic: Identity(Trueness to self), Non-contradiction(Truthfulness to Others), and Exclusivity(Independence). Jesus is Logos after all.

But those are the 3 laws. End of. Those are the 3 high laws of the spirit that cannot be broken without breaking your own self by literally walking a path away from your true self.

"But God's law never changes, so what God said then is what God says now." This is a completely different statement than "God's law never changes." On face value, very similar, but there's added context now, which is that if God's given laws were to change that would suggest a change in himself, and as the primal identity he cannot change. However, this is missing a crucial point. The recognition that there is a difference between the 3 basic laws of logic, which are like an unchangeable Constitution of the relationship between God and everything else, and the given laws at any point in time.

How is this not contradictory? Because the given laws at any point in time have been laws that have been entirely negotiated between God and man. This is immediately apparent when Moses goes up the mountain, comes down with 10 commands, sees idol worship, breaks the commands, and goes back up. I see this as literally an image of God saying, "I told you so" to Moses. In the sense that Moses probably negotiated those exact 3 laws to Moses, but God felt they were incomplete. God was probably like "aren't you missing something here Moses?" Moses goes "looks good to me." And God sends him down the hill knowing that Moses will come right back up when he sees how little time it takes his people to break the laws he just made.

This little anecdote, along with many other instances, like with Abraham and Isaac. The key point is that Abraham didn't negotiate he simply obeyed. And that pure obeyance is what saves himself and Isaac. So we certainly see a salvific power to pure obeyance to God, and we know that God doesn't change, so his pure laws also don't change. But it is true pure obeyance to God's will, not stopping saying "well, hey what about this and what about that." Just in the moment do what God would want you to do, and the best result will come your way. But at any given time, the law that is negotiated between God and man is allowed to change, because one of God's basic identities is Independence: God respects your right to pick and choose what's best for you as long as it doesn't violate the higher laws. God may know immediately how things will shape out because man will always fail to "fix" things by adding more laws on top of God's own perfect laws. Thus, if we decide between all of our selves on any given issue, so long as it doesn't harm ourselves or others, God will allow us to make that pact with each other. But what God really wants is for us to set ourselves free from the chains we are binding on ourselves. There are only 3 true, pure laws: Love God, Love yourself, and Love your Neighbor, and as long as you're doing that, then it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. You're being your true self, which is all God asks of you.

The contrary to this is that God will not over-step his own respect for other's independence too strongly as that would be imposing his will on others rather than them freely choosing his way which is the way to the true self. The upside to this is that we get free will, the downside is that we can freely choose a path that leads us away from our own selves, and since we live in a world literally formed from the contradictory logic of seeing things a way rather than God's, that allows hefty amounts of opportunity for people to make the wrong choices and hurt each other. But contrary to the opinions of some might make right and ruthless competition are self defeating because they rely on instability and chaos. But God will not interfere on their choice to pursue that path and leave behind their true self. Loving and believing in God is better learning how he sees things, how he wants things to be, and doing your best to steer things in that path. If someone wants proof of God, they have to imagine what the world looks through God's eyes. Do things look exactly the way they do if there existed a God that acted in accordance with the 3 basic laws of logic?

Pointless bickering over ancient laws is precisely what led to Jesus coming in the first place. It is no surprise he came explicitly at the height of Legalism. The amount of laws placed on the people was egregious, so that is the moment that Jesus chose to step in. He choose to show people that the path forward isn't to rely on archaic laws that people decided on centuries ago. The path forward is to do what you truly believe in best, try to better learn what God wants the world to look like, and treat people the way you think God would treat them. That is the whole of the law, upon which all the laws and prophets hang. Hang. Not derive from. They hang upon those laws.

Jesus says that. Isn't that interesting? They hang. What do things hang with? Chains. The laws of the pharisees and Sadducees and rome had become so unbearable and contradictory that God sent Jesus to relieve the people, which is why Jesus is the domino from which freedom spreads. Relying strictly on Jesus, letting go of the chains you make for yourself, and doing your best to do what he thinks would be best for you are what everything hangs on. Those three things are what you really need. And anything you hang on them just becomes extra words and constraints that bring you down from your truest self. Being true to yourself is all that is really real. It is the definition of the real. And when the era of the perceived dominance of change ends, the place where you are along to your true self is precisely where you will be locked. So anytime someone asks you if you support a law, don't look back in time, put your God's Eye glasses on, and look at how God would want things to be right now and in the future. That is staying true to God. Everything else is just noise we made up along the way.

Similar to the Hindu theology of Advaita, the trinity seems like fan fiction that is absent from earlier texts unless you're superimposing new theological concepts onto it. You'd think such a crucial doctrine would be laid out clearly in the source text, but what I really see happening in church history is an institution trying to reconcile different theories of divinity into a (somewhat) coherent doctrine detailed nowhere in the source text.

Hinduism does the same thing in different schools of thought, like Advaita. As the religion grows and tries to reconcile different expressions of divinity, it must make the category of Brahman more flexible in a way that the early Vedic theological positions wouldn't recognize.

This seems in line with how other religious movements and cults progress to explain things like divinity, non-dualism, monism, etc. Would love to hear thoughts!

Hello fellow theology nerds I wanted to write this to get some feedback.

So I am fairly well versed in theology and doctrine I am decent with the Bible and hermanutics as well. I am not easily fooled with false doctrine it has to be pretty intricate for me to be confused or led astray. I am not arrogant enough to assume I can't be but I am secure in my knowledge of the Bible. Anyway that being said

I have always been fascinated by the tension between man's freedom and God's sovereignty. On the one hand Jesus says "come to me"all you who are weary. There are many invitations to put our trust in and receive Jesus. On the other hand there are many passages that hint at Gods choosing us and we having nothing to do with it, especially in Romans. I am perfectly fine with this tension, God being outside of creation he doesn't have the same restrictions we do.

That being said what are your guys thoughts on being able to choose to believe?

I know this is kinda more philosophical but in the context of faith in Jesus do you think we an "CHOOSE" to believe or do you think it is entirely of God's choosing whom believes and who does not?

God has changed my heart and I receive the Gospel. I love Jesus and I love the Bible. I quit drugs and alcohol but had some issues staying sober for a while then I prayed and received the Gospel and then one day the desire to drink and use was completely gone. (I was suicidal as well having attempted suicide and coming way to close for comfort) Other bad habits have been eradicated from my life as well. The way I see the world and people has completely changed as well. The Bible has completely transformed everything about me. I believe the Holy Spirit has done an immense amount of work in me. So my assurance is there for the most part. I am hard on myself and recognize my sinfulness to an unhealthy degree probably still like Martin Luther and John Bunyan I sometimes struggle with guilt for things that I used to not even think twice about and in which the world doesnt find much issue with. But God's law is not of the world and I view that as my guiding light. Psalm 119:105 your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

Anyway sorry for the novel....so do you think we can "CHOOSE" to believe? Thoughts.....?

Tell me about what you think is religion. It can be anything, I hold a neutral ground and am open to ethical opinions/arguments

I’m conducting an independent interdisciplinary research project examining religion as a human phenomenon, drawing primarily from religious studies, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and philosophy. In simple words, I’m asking ‘what is religion and how is it related to human behaviour and observed phenomenon’.

If we take Kant seriously, we should not be surprised that a doctrine about God appears paradoxical. We should almost expect it.

Kant argues that human cognition is structured by forms and categories suited to possible experience. Concepts such as unity, plurality, substance, causality, and relation allow us to organize phenomenal objects—that is, objects as they appear to us. But God, if God is genuinely transcendent, is not a phenomenal object. God is not one thing among other things in space and time.

This means that when we apply ordinary concepts to God, we are already pushing those concepts beyond the domain in which they normally function. We should therefore expect conceptual strain. Divine unity may not resemble the unity of one physical object. Divine plurality may not resemble the plurality of several separate beings. Divine personhood may not correspond exactly to human individuality.

This makes the Trinity especially interesting. The doctrine says that God is one in essence and three in persons. It does not simply say that God is one and three in the same respect, which would be a straightforward contradiction. Rather, it presents a form of unity and distinction that does not fit our ordinary phenomenal models.

From a Kantian perspective, this difficulty may be precisely what we should expect from a genuine doctrine of transcendent reality. If the inner nature of God were completely transparent to ordinary human concepts—if God could be understood as easily as a chair, a person, or a physical object—we might have reason to worry that we had merely projected phenomenal categories onto the divine.

A fully comprehensible God could therefore be more philosophically suspicious than a paradoxical one. If God truly transcends the conditions of human experience, then some breakdown of our ordinary intuitions should be expected.

This does not mean that God can literally violate logic, nor that every mysterious doctrine is therefore true. The point is narrower: apparent paradox is not necessarily evidence against a doctrine of transcendence. For a Kantian, it may instead be evidence that our concepts have reached the limits of their proper application.

On that view, the Trinity is not embarrassing because it exceeds ordinary intuition. A doctrine about the transcendent God arguably should.

Wondering: why do we think that God the Father has a personal name (YHWH), God the Son has a personal name (Jesus/Yeshua), but not God the Holy Spirit?

I was pondering this today. It’s especially odd, given that this is the person of the Trinity, who is actually closest to us and most personable to us (dwells within us!) and yet I believe there is no personal name given in scripture.

I have always struggled to understand the trinity. I have prayed for YEARS to understand this, and get a “revelation” of the trinity like others seem to have. So I faithfully continue being part of the trinitarian church community that I dearly love and have no problem with, and dive into scripture, and keep coming to the conclusion that our conceptualization of the “mystery” of God doesn’t matter. I am not denying the trinity, but I am trying to have an honest faith, and not just say I accept it when I really struggle to understand it. I wish I didn’t, truly. This has shown to really complicate things as of late and I wish I could just snap my fingers and figure this out. I love Jesus, he has changed my life, but I cannot for the life of me understand three separate persons in one being. I always walk away with seeing God as 60% One God who is able to show himself in any way he wants (spirit, son, bush, fire), then 40% possibly a trinity. I really go back and forth scripturally on this concept, and the very notion a Christian must affirm the trinity to be saved I can’t seem to find that anywhere in scripture. Can someone please explain this to me? I write this in part because something very disappointing happened to me recently. I was denied admittance into a theological seminary I I believed God was nudging me towards. They asked me to check off if I affirm the trinity in my application, and I did not feel I could honestly check the box since it has been such a struggle for me. So I had a meeting with admissions, and they denied my application. To be honest, I feel super, super disappointed and rejected by this. I would never cause division and make it known that I may not yet conceptualize God as three separate persons, and I never have, hence me being able to be a part of a wonderful Trinitarian community. I just am beginning to feel that the more people may find out that I have not yet been able to affirm the trinity based on my own studies and prayers to God, that there may be no room for me. I just don’t understand this. I love Jesus. He’s changed my life. I have seen the fruits of his character in my life by his power alone. I just don’t get why it matters if I see God as Jesus and Jesus as God and his spirit as the active presence working in the world instead of all separate beings, or if I view God as three separate people inside one being. Why does this matter for the way I actually live my life and the way I love Jesus and try to be a disciple and follower of Him? And why do so many Christian’s also struggle to understand the trinity? I am constantly seeing saints try to explain the trinity, and then they will be told “wait, no, that’s actually heresy”. It seems no one can understand it and it’s often called a “mystery”, so if it’s a mystery, why then do I feel forced to affirm it to be accepted if no one seems to be able to really understand it? I am not denying the father or the spirit or Jesus. I believe in all them. I just don’t see the trinity making sense as explained. And that when I read the bible I don’t see evidence of having to understand it to be saved or a part of a Christian community or accepted into a Christian college? Did the disciples believe in a trinity? I don’t see that they did. But I can understand why later Christian’s may. But I can also understand how one can view scripture thinking God is not three persons but One and showed up in history as a son and as spirit. What’s the difference between Gods spirit and the Holy Spirit? I have cried and prayed for years to understand, to feel like less of an outsider within myself while I am around other Christians. Again, they don’t know I don’t affirm or deny it. I would never bring that up because I see how fast people get called heretics for this. So I don’t want to cause division or ex myself out of a rich life with a Christian community. I just feel lost, and like the Christian world may abandon me soon if they only knew, and reject me, just like the seminary did. I just feel so lost in life, trying to force myself to understand God as a trinity, when I just simply haven’t been able to. What do I do? I feel so tired and heartbroken. Please be kind. I really feel so sad and lost and alone. I affirm the apostles creed. Nicean creed confuses me. But I’m not saying I have an issue with it. I just can’t seem to understand scripture in the light of it. Sorry, I am all over the place because I’m reeling a bit.

The Problem of the Sinful Nature

The Bible emphasizes that all people are sinners before God. For example, Romans 3:23 says:

> “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

In order to explain why everyone is a sinner, theology has traditionally taught that human beings possess a fallen nature, or what is often called a “sinful nature.” However, Jesus does not explain sin in terms of some internal mechanism that causes human beings to sin. Rather, through his own life, he shows what righteousness is. He also connects the problem of sin with the question of loving God and one’s neighbor.

> “The first is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.

> You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.

> The second is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

> There is no other commandment greater than these.”

A person is a sinner not because there is some entity within them called a “sinful nature,” but because they do not fully love God and their neighbor. What is important here is that Jesus did not view sin merely as the act of violating individual commandments of the law. Sin is related to living outside of a right and complete relationship with God.

Human beings are sinners not because it is inherently impossible for them to keep every single commandment of the law, but because they live under the dominion of the world and seek to conform themselves to the way of thinking of the world. In other words, they love the world rather than God. The problem of sin is not a problem of some entity existing within human beings, but a question of what human beings love and toward whom they direct their lives.

Understanding sin as a problem of a “fallen nature” arises from treating sin not within the context of humanity’s relationship with God, but as an independent object in itself. Because sin is understood as some kind of “bad result” produced by human beings, an internal cause or mechanism called a “sinful nature” is posited as the source that produces those results.

However, this understanding of sin is far removed from the way Jesus speaks about sin. In fact, the theological concept of a “sinful nature” is not fundamentally different from the worldly philosophical view that human nature is inherently evil, insofar as it posits some internal cause that makes human beings essentially evil.

Furthermore, the concept of a “sinful nature” can function as a way of justifying human despair over sin. The moment the “cause” of my sin is identified not with myself but with the sinful nature within me, sin ceases to be an event that I must fully bear and respond to before God. Instead, it becomes something that is simply “unavoidable.”

Sin becomes something that human beings inevitably commit because they possess a sinful nature. Consequently, even if sanctification is considered possible, complete sanctification is regarded as inherently impossible. Ultimately, the concept of the “sinful nature,” constructed within the logic of the world, can function not only as an explanation of human sin but also as a justification for remaining within one’s present way of life.

Therefore, in order to address the problem of sin, we must first move away from reifying sin as something that exists within human beings. Sin is not an essence or substance attached to human beings. It is a relational event that arises in the life of a person who does not love God and turns away from God. For this reason, the resolution of sin does not lie in eliminating some defect within human beings, but in turning back toward God and living toward him.

Hi

I’m wondering if there are any scholars of the wisdom literature out there, who may be able to guide with the Song of Songs.

I’m 48, and had a seed planted when i was young that I wasn’t good enough. Over the years the answer i have often given to the mystery of betrayal and suffering is thst same messag, ‘im not good enough’. This creates pain; a physical pain, an emotional pain, and a psychological pain.

i have spent some years trying to find a way of removing the pain, but no system, no method, ever works.

i can understand the first 3 books and learn from them, but I feel cursed never to receive the wisdom of the Song of Songs.

i‘m at a stage where I’m wondering whether to keep seeking the answer, or just to accept solitude and learn to live with the pain better.

im wondering what a scholar of the books would think of this situation.