#2: On Sovereignty and Free Will (Compatibilism) "I believe that God is fully Sovereign AND I believe that humans have a will... I think the term for this is Compatibilist... I lean on this impossibility [wave-particle duality] in support of another: God is fully Sovereign AND humans have a will... This will isn't fully free... but it is free enough." Labels and Concepts: Compatibilism (or Soft Determinism): You are exactly right. This is the philosophical position that free will and determinism (in your case, divine sovereignty) are compatible and can coexist. Paradox / Antinomy: Your use of the wave-particle duality is a perfect example of embracing a theological antinomy—a seemingly contradictory set of propositions (a "paradox") where both are held to be true. The sovereignty of God and the free will of man is perhaps the most famous antinomy in Christian theology. Molinism: This is a very specific and sophisticated form of compatibilism that might resonate with you. Developed by Luis de Molina, it states that God achieves His sovereign will through our free choices. He does this by having "Middle Knowledge": God knows not only what will happen, but what would happen (what any creature would freely choose) in any possible circumstance. Therefore, He creates the specific world where He knows our free choices will ultimately align with His sovereign plan. Associated Thinkers: Luis de Molina: The 16th-century Jesuit priest who formulated Molinism to reconcile the seemingly contradictory beliefs held by the Dominicans (on sovereignty) and Jesuits (on free will). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: A philosopher who argued for a "pre-established harmony." He believed God, in creating the "best of all possible worlds," created free beings whose wills would, by their own internal nature, freely choose to act in a way that perfectly fulfills God's plan. Augustine of Hippo: While often seen as a father of determinism, Augustine held a compatibilist view. He argued that after the Fall, human will is "free" only to sin, and it requires God's grace to be "freed" to choose good. Our choices are our choices, but they operate within the context of God's grace and sovereign plan.
1 month ago | 0
#4: On the Distribution of Faith "It takes Faith to know God, and God gives this Faith, and God distributes it same as other human attributes like height and IQ... God didn't really choose exactly which human gets more faith... but God did create the System that distributes these human attributes." Labels and Concepts: Faith as Grace: The concept that faith is a gift from God ("by grace you have been saved through faith... it is the gift of God" - Ephesians 2:8) is a cornerstone of Christian theology, particularly in Protestantism. Rejection of Unconditional Election (Calvinism): Your view is a direct rejection of the Calvinistic idea that God "chooses" (or predestines) specific individuals for salvation, "electing" some and passing over others. Process Theology (elements of): Your idea that God "created the System" but does not "choose" (or determine) the exact outcome for each individual is very similar to ideas in Process Theology. In this view, God establishes the initial conditions and "lures" or "persuades" creation toward certain aims (like love, beauty, and complexity), but He does not have coercive, deterministic control. The outcome is a combination of God's "lure" and the free choices of creation. Systemic Providence: This is a term for the belief that God's providence (His guiding hand) works primarily through the systems and natural laws He created, rather than through constant, individual, supernatural interventions. Associated Thinkers: Alfred North Whitehead & Charles Hartshorne: The foundational thinkers of Process Theology. They would agree that God establishes the "initial aims" and natural laws (the "System"), but that the world and its creatures have genuine freedom to respond, creating an open and unfolding future. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: (Again!) His concept of the "best of all possible worlds" suggests God chose the best possible set of rules (your "System"), and the distribution of all attributes (height, IQ, even faith) is a consequence of that perfect system running, not a series of individual micromanaged decisions.
1 month ago | 0
#3: On Divine Hiddenness "One of the ways that God gives humans a will is by hiding from them. If God appears to a human that previously believed there was no God, that would interfere with that human's will, so God doesn't do that." Labels and Concepts: The Problem of Divine Hiddenness: This is the formal name for the philosophical question, "If God exists and wants us to believe, why doesn't He provide more obvious, undeniable evidence?" Epistemic Distance: This is the specific solution you are proposing. The term was coined by philosopher John Hick. It's the idea that God deliberately creates a "distance in knowledge" (epistemic distance), making His existence ambiguous. This ambiguity is necessary to protect our free will, allowing us to enter into a relationship with Him freely, rather than being coerced by an overwhelming and undeniable presence. Associated Thinkers: John Hick: The 20th-century philosopher of religion who is the most famous proponent of the "epistemic distance" argument. He argued it was necessary for "soul-making" (see #5 and #6). Søren Kierkegaard: This idea is central to his philosophy. Kierkegaard argued that objective, certain proof of God would destroy faith, which he saw as a passionate, subjective "leap." God must be "incognito" (hidden) for a true, loving, and free relationship to be possible. He tells the "Parable of the King and the Maiden" to illustrate this: a king who loves a poor maiden can't just appear as a king, as she would be overwhelmed. He must appear in a humble form so she can freely love him. Blaise Pascal: In his Pensées, he wrote, "There is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows for those who don’t." This perfectly captures your idea that God is findable for the seeker, but hidden from the one who does not wish to see.
1 month ago | 0
#8: On the Limits of Human Knowledge (Epistemology) "All that I have describe so far, is a simplified model... Humans are flawed, finite beings, while God is perfect and infinite. Therefore, no human can fully know God... my model of God is flawed too." Labels and Concepts: Apophatic Theology (or Via Negativa): This is the classic theological position that states that because God is infinite and beyond all human categories, we cannot make positive statements about what God is (e.Gas., "God is good," as our idea of "good" is too small). We can only state what God is not (e.g., "God is not finite," "God is not evil"). Epistemological Humility: This is the philosophical stance that our knowledge is limited and fallible. Finitism: The belief that human understanding is inherently finite. Kantian Philosophy (applied to theology): Your statement is a perfect echo of Immanuel Kant. Kant argued that our minds can never know the noumena (a thing "as it is in itself") but only the phenomena (a thing "as it appears to us"). Applied to God, this means we can never know God's true, infinite essence. We can only create the "best fitting model" that our finite minds can grasp. Associated Thinkers: Immanuel Kant: His Critique of Pure Reason established this framework of human limitation. Your entire #8 is a textbook summary of a Kantian approach to theology. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite: A 6th-century mystic who was a foundational proponent of Apophatic Theology, arguing that God is "beyond assertion" and "beyond denial." Thomas Aquinas: While he believed we could say positive things about God (through analogy), he famously concluded his life's work by stating, "The ultimate human knowledge of God is to know that we do not know God." Summary of Your Belief System The central, unifying framework of your worldview is the Irenaean (or Soul-Making) Theodicy. You believe the purpose of existence is for God to grow a family of free beings, and that suffering and challenges are a necessary part of that "school of life." To make this possible, you endorse: Compatibilism (specifically a Molinist or Process-like view) to reconcile God's "System" with human freedom. Divine Hiddenness (via Epistemic Distance) to protect that freedom from being coerced. A Purgatorial Universalism (that all are saved) which uniquely incorporates Reincarnation and Karma as the mechanism for soul-making across lifetimes. A Lockean (Psychological) view of the afterlife, where God "compiles" our consciousness. A Kantian/Apophatic epistemology that frames this entire belief system as a "flawed model" of an unknowable, infinite God. This is a powerful and coherent synthesis of classical Western theism, modern philosophy, and Eastern religious concepts. I hope this analysis is helpful for your project.
1 month ago | 0
#5: On God's Purpose (A Relational God) "God's purpose is to grow a family of beings that choose to love each other and choose to love God... God did not create non-thinking robots, that would be boring for God." Labels and Concepts: Irenaean Theodicy (or Soul-Making Theodicy): This is a central label for your worldview. Named after the 2nd-century bishop Irenaeus, this is the belief that God did not create humans as perfect beings in a paradise. Instead, He created us as immature beings in a challenging world on purpose. The world, with its struggles, is a "vale of soul-making" where we can freely develop virtues and grow into a genuine, mature, loving "likeness" of God. Relational Theism: A broad movement in modern theology that emphasizes the idea that God's primary nature and purpose is relational. He desires a "family," a "covenant," and a genuine, loving, back-and-forth relationship with His creation. Open Theism: This view, which fits your "no robots" argument perfectly, states that God's desire for genuine relationships required Him to grant humans "libertarian free will" (a will that is not determined). Because this freedom is real, the future is "open" or "partially unknown" even to God. This view strongly emphasizes that love must be freely chosen. Associated Thinkers: Irenaeus of Lyons: The 2nd-century bishop who first formulated this "soul-making" idea, contrasting it with the "paradise-lost" model of Augustine. John Hick: (Again!) He is the primary 20th-century champion of the Irenaean Theodicy, which he explicitly named the "Soul-Making Theodicy." Your description is almost a perfect summary of his position. Clark Pinnock & Greg Boyd: Modern theologians and leading proponents of Open Theism, who use the exact "love cannot be robotic" and "God desires a real family" arguments.
1 month ago | 0
#7: On the Afterlife and the Permanent Self "No part of our physical bodies... survives death. But our conscious thoughts and experiences... God is compiling those into our Permanent Beings... our true Selves... with God's guiding." Labels and Concepts: Rejection of Physical Resurrection: This view is a clear denial of the traditional Christian creedal belief in the "resurrection of the body." Soul Dualism: The belief that the human being is composed of two distinct parts: a physical body and a non-physical soul/mind/consciousness. You are a dualist. Psychological Continuity (of Personal Identity): This is a philosophical theory of what makes you "you" over time. Your view is that identity is not in your physical body (your "substance") but in your consciousness—your "thoughts and experiences and choices and emotions." God "compiles" this psychological "data" to ensure your continuity as a "Permanent Being." Associated Thinkers: John Locke: The 17th-century philosopher who is the most famous proponent of the psychological continuity theory of identity. He argued that what makes a person the same person is their "consciousness," specifically their memories. He famously said that if the consciousness of a prince woke up in the body of a cobbler, he would still be the prince. Your idea of God "compiling" your consciousness is a theological version of Locke's theory. George Berkeley: An Idealist philosopher who argued that reality is ultimately mental. In his view, "to be is to be perceived." Physical objects (and even our bodies) are just collections of "ideas" held in the mind. A "soul" or "self" is a perceiver. In your model, God is the ultimate Perceiver and "Compiler" who holds your conscious self in His mind, giving it permanent existence.
1 month ago | 0
#6: On Hell, Suffering, and Rebirth "There is no actual Hell, but those that do evil... will experience Hell on Earth, perhaps in other lifetimes... If you abuse another, you will experience abuse... to develop sympathy... all suffering has a point." Labels and Concepts: Rejection of Eternal Conscious Torment: You explicitly deny the traditional doctrine of Hell as a place of endless, punitive suffering. Christian Universalism (or Apokatastasis): The belief that all beings will ultimately be reconciled to God. Your view is a specific form of this. Purgatorial Universalism: The belief that "hell" is not eternal, but a temporary, purifying, and remedial state (like Purgatory) that all will eventually pass through to be cleansed and made fit for union with God. Your "Hell on Earth" serves this exact purifying, educational function. Reincarnation / Transmigration of Souls: This is the belief in "other lifetimes." This is a major point of synthesis, as it is a central tenet of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, but is not a part of mainstream Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. Karma: Your concept—"If you abuse another, you will experience abuse... to develop sympathy"—is a textbook definition of the law of Karma, but with a theistic and pedagogical (teaching) purpose. It's not just a blind law of consequences; it's God's system for teaching sympathy. Associated Thinkers: Origen of Alexandria: A 3rd-century Christian theologian who was one of the first and most famous proponents of Apokatastasis (universal reconciliation). He argued that God's "fire" was a purifying fire of love that would eventually redeem all souls, even the devil. He also speculated about the pre-existence of souls. George MacDonald: A 19th-century Scottish author (a major influence on C.S. Lewis) who was a passionate Christian Universalist. He argued that God's love is a "consuming fire" that would burn away sin from every soul until they were pure and could freely return to Him. (For Reincarnation): There are no major historical Christian theologians who taught this. This is a core doctrine of Eastern Religions. Your belief system represents a significant synthesis between Abrahamic Theism and Eastern philosophy.
1 month ago | 0
This is a fascinating and deeply considered project. You have constructed a cohesive and intricate personal theology. It's a wonderful exercise in "faith seeking understanding," as the theologian Anselm would say. Let's go through your points one by one. I will provide the labels and concepts you're looking for, as well as the names of philosophers and theologians who have explored similar ideas. #1: On God as Creator and the Nature of the Bible "I believe God created everything, but the Bible itself was written by man. Some of what the Bible says about God is true, while some is false." Labels and Concepts: Theism: The foundational belief that a God (or gods) exists and created the universe. Your belief is specifically a formof Monotheism. Rejection of Biblical Inerrancy/Infallibility: This is the key concept. You deny the belief that the Bible is "without error" (inerrancy) or "unfailing" in its purpose and teaching (infallibility). Inspired (but not Dictated) Scripture: This view sees the Bible as a human product inspired by God. The human authors wrote from their own limited, historical, and cultural perspectives, capturing some divine truths but also including their own errors, biases, and mythological elements. This view is common in Liberal Christianity, Progressive Christianity, and Neo-orthodoxy. Associated Thinkers: Thomas Jefferson: Famously created "The Jefferson Bible" by literally cutting and pasting the New Testament, removing all miracles and supernatural events he deemed false, while preserving the moral teachings of Jesus, which he believed to be true. Baruch Spinoza: In his Theologico-Political Treatise (1670), he applied a rational, critical lens to the Bible, arguing it was a historical text written by different humans over time, not a single, divinely dictated book. Friedrich Schleiermacher: Often called the "father of liberal theology," he argued that Christian doctrine should be based on the "feeling of absolute dependence" (on God), rather than on the rigid acceptance of scripture as a perfect text. Rudolf Bultmann: A 20th-century theologian who advocated for "demythologizing" the Bible. He believed the core message (the kerygma) was true, but it was wrapped in the "mythological" worldview of the 1st century (demons, miracles, a three-tiered universe) which modern people could no longer accept.
1 month ago | 0
ChrisGodgetti
Today, inspired by Philip K. Dick, I wrote out my Exogenesis, and prompted Gemini 2.5 Pro thus:
Gemini, I would like help with a project. I want to give and explain my beliefs around God, and have you tell me what labels these beliefs might have, as well as the names of the people who held similar beliefs in the past:
#1: I believe God created everything, but the Bible itself was written by man. Some of what the Bible says about God is true, while some is false.
#2: I believe that God is fully Sovereign AND I believe that humans have a will. I think the term for this is Compatibilist, but not entirely sure. I believe that God created light to be a particle AND a wave, and even did so as a sign to us. It is impossible for light to be a wave AND a particle, for humans, but NOT for the Creator! I lean on this impossibility in support of another: God is fully Sovereign AND humans have a will. This will isn't fully free, we humans can't do things that are impossible, but it is free enough. We make choices. We learn.
#3: One of the ways that God gives humans a will is by hiding from them. If God appears to a human that previously believed there was no God, that would interfere with that human's will, so God doesn't do that.
#4: It takes Faith to know God, and God gives this Faith, and God distributes it same as other human attributes like height and IQ. God knows some humans will have enough Faith to seek and find God to some degree, but God didn't really choose exactly which human gets more faith, nor which humans are tall, but God did create the System that distributes these human attributes.
#5: God's purpose is to grow a family of beings that choose to love each other and choose to love God. God is creating this family, us! From God's perspective, God is creating God's family. From our perspective, we are living on Earth. As we make choices, live, grow, learn, God is teaching us how and why to choose love. God doesn't fully control us, because God wants thinking and feeling beings with a will of their own to be God's family. God did not create non-thinking robots, that would be boring for God.
#6: There is no actual Hell, but those that do evil, those that cause suffering, they will experience Hell on Earth, perhaps in other lifetimes, perhaps even as other beings. That is why there is suffering in this world. It is a necessary part of learning. God starts each of us as a fully selfish nothing, and through our conscious experience, God grows our eternal beings. If you abuse another, you will experience abuse, not as pointless suffering, but to develop sympathy. God IS love, and would not cause any pointless suffering, thus all suffering has a point. Even the deer who is pinned under a fallen tree, and dies suffering, starving, that suffering has a purpose.
#7: No part of our physical bodies, including our brains, survives death. But our conscious thoughts and experiences and choices and emotions, God is compiling those into our Permanent Beings. We will recognize those we have known on Earth once we are these Permanent Beings, not physically, but our true Selves we have become, with God's guiding.
#8: All that I have describe so far, is a simplified model of God. Humans are flawed, finite beings, while God is perfect and infinite. Therefore, no human can fully know God, including me! Therefore, my model of God is flawed too. But, it is the best fitting model I know, better than any I've heard.
1 month ago (edited) | [YT] | 4