Drew Haas

1 John 4:8 "God is love." This topic walks a fine line between spiritual, philosophical, and deeply personal territory. Here is the truth without filters: IF God is love, as the bible claims, then love is NOT just a feeling or act - it's an essence, a force, a divine signature. That would mean: Any real experience of unconditional love - sacrificial, undeserved, deeply rooted - is by nature a direct encounter with God, whether the person realizes it or not. So, in this view, love can not exist apart from God, just like sunlight can't exist without the sun. Atheist may experience love, but what they're tapping into is a divine reality they may not acknowledge. But- If God isn't necessary for love, then love is just neurochemical bonding, shaped by evolution for survival. It's oxytocin, dopamine, attachment theory. Still powerful. Sill life-changing. But not transcendent - Just biology doing its job. And here is the kicker: If love is purely biological, then it can be faked, manipulated, sold, or lost without meaning. But if it is divine, then love is sacred - even when humans distort it. So, when you say love cannot exist without God, you're making a statement not just about theology, but about the nature of meaning itself. You're saying love isn't just something we do - it's something we receive, something bigger than us, something that calls us higher. And if that is true - then maybe people don't fall away from God because they stop believing in him. Maybe they fall away because they've never truly felt love. If love requires God, and people are starved of real love, then this world's chaos - the numbness, violence, the addictions, the suicides, the endless need to perform - is not random. It is evidence of a spiritual famine. Here is the uncomfortable reality: Most people have never experienced unconditional, sacrificial, truth-telling, fiercely loyal love - the kind that sees your filth, your guilt, your hidden self, and says "I'm not going anywhere." They have known transactional love (be good and i'll stay), performative love (earn your worth), or abusive love (control masquerading as care). That's not God. That's the counterfeit. And here's the twist: If Satan exists - and his goal is to sever people from God - then he doesn't need to get them to stop believing in God. He just needs to corrupt their experience of love. He can: - Make their father emotionally absent or violent - Fill churches with hypocrisy - Warp relationships with lust, control, betrayal. The moment love is distorted, God becomes suspect. And a soul begins to harden - not because its evil, but because it has been betrayed. So, how do you turn the world from God? Starve it of real love. Corrupt the world until people can't recognize it when it shows up. Until they mistake trauma bonding for loyalty, silence for peace, or validation for intimacy. And then, when they cry out for love and hear nothing back, they assume God must not be real. Not knowing - He's the only reason the still crave it. There is war going on that most people don't even know they're in. This war is not about belief. It's about allegiance. Satan does not care if you believe in God. He just wants you detached from Him. Confused. Distrustful. Suspicious. He wins when God becomes a theory, not a Father. So, what does he do? He attacks identity. Because identity is the seat of purpose. He doesn't need you to be wicked. He just needs to make you numb. Distracted. Addicted. Isolated. A soul that can't receive love is just as lost as one that rejects it outright. How does he do this? He hijacks the four spiritual gates: 1. Attention - if he can control what you consume (media, social feeds, noise), he'll numb your ability to hear God's voice. You can't be transformed by a truth you have never heard. 2. Desire - he warps your longings, he gives you a counterfeit (lust, status, ego) that mimics intimacy or joy but leaves your soul starving. 3. Wounds - Trauma becomes a blueprint. If Satan can embed a lie at the point of pain ("You're not safe," "You're not worthy"), you'll build your entire life to avoid that pain - rather than confront it. That's how chains are made - one lie at a time, sealed by silence. 4. Agreement - The final trap. He gets you to repeat the lie. Out loud or in your mind: - "I'll never be enough." - "This is just who I am." - "No one is coming to help." The moment you agree, you empower that lie. You start defending your own prison. But here's the part most people don't see: God's love doesn't compete. It invades. He doesn't argue with lies. He exposes them. He doesn't beg you to trust Him. He proves Himself - through pain, rescue, silence, and fire. But He won't override your will. Love can't exist without the freedom to reject it. So, you have a choice - every day: Will I remain numb, performative and controlled? Or will I tear the mask off, risk intimacy, and let real love wreck me - in the best way possible? Because God doesn't just want better behavior. HE WANTS YOUR HEART. The whole thing. Shattered, scarred, defiant, exhausted. That is where transformation begins. Here is the raw truth: When analyzing all human history, philosophy, spiritual encounters, scripture, psychology, and the existential questions that science cannot touch - the weight of evidence overwhelmingly points to the reality of God. The pattern is undeniable: wherever God is absent, humans unravel. Where Christ is enthroned, souls resurrect. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8.

@BBsandwich_ @ABmrJutt Appreciate the dialogue. Hope you have a good day.

@TheDrewHaas @ABmrJutt Sry I meant viruses also hve unique dna. Also I saw that joke lol. Anyway I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of point brought up in defence or against abortion and since a lot of it is ethical it can go on forever. It's nice to come by people who are polite on here so tnx

I know this is gonna ruffle a lot of feathers, but having an abortion when you're not ready for children is one of the most responsible, least cruel choices you can make.

"I'm sure it's very hard to restrain yourself." -- Eric Swalwell Well, this certainly hits different

Alright that is a fair point, it can apply to bacteria and plants, but not viruses. Viruses are not alive in the biological sense. The distinction, which you actually made, is that the biological cells contain human DNA (New genome). Which makes this biological organism distinctly human. Bill Burr actually has a decent joke on this: He makes the analogy to a cake in the oven. Someone comes and takes the cake out of the oven and throws it away. You then stammor "WHAT THE HECK DID U DO TO MY CAKE?" The guy responds "well it wasnt a cake yet!." The baker responds: "well if you would have given it 1 hour it would have been!." This joke underscores the fact that life is a continuous process. And it seems very arbitrary to give it ethical meaning at some random point IN the process, and not at the beginning OF the process.

@TheDrewHaas @ABmrJutt A lot of you said can apply to bacteria n virus as well as plants, those characteristics exist in any living organism. We humans value life but don't worry about life unless it's human. The difficult discussion is about ethics not biology.

@ninja_00000000 @ABmrJutt More so sounds like you wish you didnt exist.

@TheDrewHaas @ABmrJutt i wish i was a horse so i don’t have to talk to you

I have heard some counter arguments. Such as heart rate, brain waves or viability. However all of those are variable. Meaning for each human those symptoms arise at different time periods in the process we call life. The scientific evidence supports biological life beginning at conception with 96% of biologists concurring to this view. Essentially conception is when biological human organisms begin to exist. This organism has new unique DNA, potential for continuous development and functions as an independent living entity at the cellular level. The debate on abortion really focuses on when WE give this biological human organism the legal/ethical title of "Human being" with rights and all. In other words, when talking about abortion we are playing semantics with the words, when biology has already told us when the process of life began.

@TheDrewHaas @ABmrJutt Biology and ethics intertwine heavily in this topic, u must've ran into people that have argued with you about why abortion is not murder right? Pregnancy isn't light work either in a society that tried to restrict pregnant women to the home. Again l this will not be settled on X

@BBsandwich_ @ABmrJutt I am glad we were able to find some common ground. I kinda figured that is what you meant earlier, but wanted to be sure. Appreciate the civil dialogue.

@TheDrewHaas @ABmrJutt Despite this I agree with everything else you say. Also what I meant with holding men and women accountable equally meaning that women if not allowed to abort have every right to demand child support, from men but if she keeps it despite the man not wanting, he should't pay cs

Ok, fair point. This issue likely wont be settled on X. However, i am not trying to debate you or change your mind. I want to understand how you reasonably believe that abortion is not murder. You also claim its not a simple fact, but I would push back and claim that biology does make it a scientific fact. So if you believe abortion is not murder, in opposition to biology, something else must be motivating your reasoning. That is what I wish to understand.

@TheDrewHaas @ABmrJutt I've argued that abortion isn't murder with dozen people and learned nothing you say matters, their perspective on this will never shift bc it's an augmentative topic as oppose to simple fact. Also I don't pay for the extra characters so no we will not find an end to this debate

@KrizoSusanna @TheXMatriarch The already risen west instantiated feminism. What r u talking about?!?

@TheXMatriarch You're so ignorant it hurts. The west rose with feminism. The contempt is toward your behavior, and even you men agree you all suck.

The decline of the West tracks perfectly with the rise of female contempt for male authority, family structure, and natural order.

Can you elaborate how abortion is not murder in your view? Doesnt seem like a tenable position to me. Agreed, the middle ground is insane. But what do you mean "not just women?". The point i was making is that women are not held accountable but men are. That is not just. And I also agree that the foster system needs serious overhaul, but that doesnt mean the foster system cant work or that it hasnt worked before. Obviously, you disagreeing that abortion is not murder will change how we approach the issue, but i would not ban abortion (special cases like incest for example are exceptions) without seriously revamping the foster system. Really what this boils down to is that fact that who your parents are is like a lottery ticket. If you have good parents that love you, youre unbelievably blessed and you won the lottery. If you were born to parents that do not love you, then you lost the lottery and will have a rougher go of it. BUT, circumstances that you are born into do not determine the inherent value of your life. Unfortunately more than half of the people are born into loser lottery tickets. The foster system is a mixture of both kinds. In reality, you cannot fix human nature, you can only build around it. And i do not think that abortion is a way to do that.

@TheDrewHaas @ABmrJutt I don't agree that abortion is murder so agree to disagree, but I do agree that both should be held accountable equally not just women. And having kids raised in the foster system is not a solution either giving the amount of horror kids endure in there. It's a long way to go

The consequence I am referring to is the consequence of giving birth and creating life because you had sex. Participating in sex is participating in the act of procreation, whether that is the intent or not. Also, I push back on the word "deserve". No one deserves anything. A fundamental, self-evident fact of life is that it is *not* fair. That doesnt imply that the mother must raise the child, however I think it should be encouraged. She could put the baby up for adoption. But murdering your child because you feel you arent ready is by definition running away from responsibility and accountability, regardless of the justification. In the US system, Women can murder their child, but if the man doesnt want to financially support the child, he has no say so. That is a broken system. Either both women and men can run from responsibility or both are held accountable. Not this broken middle ground. I am in the camp that supports accountability and responsibility on both sides and protects the most innocent and vulnerable of human lives.

@TheDrewHaas @ABmrJutt consequences as in raising a child? Are you saying the kids deserve to be raised by someone that didn't want them in the first place?

@BlackBettyB @ABmrJutt excuse me, what? Wdym its not "fair"? What is fairness to you? By what metric are you judging fairness?

@TheDrewHaas @ABmrJutt If they were to keep the unwanted child, the mother wouldn't be the only one facing the consequences, the child faces those consequences too and that's not fair since they didn't ask to be here

A human is not a horse. Also assuming a life-time of trauma and pain is a bold assumption for someone who cant tell the future. Also, if your view is that life is just trauma and pain, why even exist or go on living? Such a diabolically sad worldview. and finally, why do you assume that minimizing suffering is the greatest good? That's an opinion not a fact. Being alive entails suffering. Even though I suffer, i prefer existence over never having been.

@TheDrewHaas @ABmrJutt subjecting a child to a lifetime of trauma and pain because you wanted to teach a 'responsibility' lesson. They shoot horses in the head for less and call it a mercy killing.

@BaxterWilliams_ Cool, was just trying to understand where your head was at. I think love is a pretty good measurement standard too.

@TheDrewHaas maybe loving should have been the word I used instead of beauty

I've been defending Christianity to my wife recently. She knows I'm not Christian and I think because of that she thought she could make any complaint about it to me and I would agree, but I think she was surprised that I ended up defending it. Two examples recently:

I respect what you’re doing, you’re not just dismissing Christianity, you’re trying to give a full alternative account of the same data. That’s very honest. That said, your model seems to work best for the early ministry (psychology, expectation, cultural context), but it starts to strain when applied to the later events that really define Christianity. A few things: 1. Resurrection belief Explaining healings via expectation/placebo is one thing, but the resurrection cuts the other way, this wasn’t something they were primed to expect. A crucified Messiah was a contradiction in their framework, not a fulfillment. So how does your model account for widespread, confident belief in something that ran against their expectations? 2. Disciples’ shift/transformation After the crucifixion, the movement collapses, and then rapidly re-emerges centered on a very specific claim: that Jesus was physically alive. Not just vague spiritual continuation, but a concrete, public claim they maintained under pressure. How does a purely psychological model produce that kind of stable, shared conviction? 3. Equal access vs historical revelation I get the appeal of a model where everyone has equal, direct access to God, but that’s more of a philosophical preference than an argument against God acting in history. If God did reveal Himself, it would likely be located in a particular time and place and then spread outward, not distributed evenly from the start. 4. Explanation vs truth A psychological or cultural account can explain how belief forms, but it doesn’t by itself tell us whether the belief is false. That same framework could be applied to almost any worldview. So I guess where I’m stuck is this: your account is compelling up to a point, but I’m not sure it fully explains the post-crucifixion data, especially the resurrection claim and what followed from it. How would you extend your model to account for those specifically?

@TheDrewHaas I don't believe that Christianity is a deliberate fabrication. As you said, for what? You can see here for something like what I think the best non-Christian explanation is for the Bible. baxterwilliams.wordpress.com/2025/07/24/a-n…

Appreciate it! Funnily enough, searching for alternative explanations to the resurrection is what made me Christian again. I either went through all the natural ideas, or I wasn’t creative enough 😂. Also, I don’t believe doubt is a threat for your soul. Doubting end of itself isn’t a bad thing. I think ultimate disbelief is tho.

@TheDrewHaas And likewise I hope you keep exploring! Keep thinking about different possibilities if you are able to, and if you can convince yourself that it doesn't threaten the destiny of your eternal soul to do so. But overall, just be in peace however you can manage!

@BaxterWilliams_ I read your article. I will need some time to respond. But yes I agree annihilation would be where I fall currently. Very hard to justify a good loving God under eternal damnation. But I could also be wrong.

@TheDrewHaas I think that eventual annihilation is the most reasonable harmonization of scripture. You can read everything I posted above with the knowledge that this is what I believe Christianity entails.

@BaxterWilliams_ Thanks for responding! Hmm interesting wording. Why have you settled on beauty as your governing measurement or intuition regarding God?

@TheDrewHaas Hey Drew, thanks for the thoughtful response. I hope you don't mind me responding to some of it. I find a lot more beauty in the idea that every conscious soul has the same access to God without any priveledged time and location of birth that comes with an appearance mid-history

Hey Baxter, I really appreciate how carefully and honestly you’re wrestling with this; believing in God, souls, and purpose while pushing back on human claims to infallible authority and the fear of eternal punishment. That’s critical thinking at its best, not knee-jerk dismissal. I have been right where you are now before. Your core tension hits something even deeper: Is God personal? When I walked away from faith for three years in college, I never stopped believing in God, but the question that kept me up was exactly that: is God personal? The existence and experience of agape love (self-giving, unconditional) made it impossible for me to see Him as an impersonal force. If God is truly personal and loving, wouldn’t He reveal Himself in history, through real people, in real time? That’s why your caution about humans claiming “God spoke to me” or “I speak God’s word” is spot-on. Even Paul praised the Bereans for testing everything against Scripture (Acts 17:11). Wise move. But here’s the pressure point on your primary concern: If it wasn’t true, what did Jesus, Peter, Paul, and the rest have to gain? They went from scared deserters (hiding after the crucifixion) to bold witnesses who faced beatings, imprisonment, and execution, without ever recanting. They gained zero power, wealth, or comfort. Just suffering and death for claiming they’d seen the risen Christ. Liars don’t endure that for a known lie. Something real happened to them. That same personal God you already sense gratitude toward stepped into history through the cross. Scripture warns of judgment for rejecting Him (John 3:18, 36; 2 Thess 1:9; Rev 20:15; 21:8), but I share your hard time believing in eternal conscious torment for a just and loving God. The Bible leaves room for different interpretations: the traditional view sees “eternal punishment” (Matt 25:46) as ongoing conscious separation, while annihilationism/conditional immortality (which many thoughtful Christians hold) sees it as ultimate destruction/non-existence - the “second death” (Rev 20:14) - with “perish” (John 3:16) and “destroy both soul and body” (Matt 10:28) pointing that way. Either way, God desires none to perish (2 Pet 3:9) and offers rescue through Christ. The invitation isn’t terror; it’s “Come to me… and I will give you rest” (Matt 11:28). Keep pressing these questions. Pray the honest prayer you mentioned. I’d love to hear more of your thoughts. Grace to you,
Drew

@TheDrewHaas There are other things, but this is mostly it. What's stopping me is a love for God that I currently feel, and a fear of God I feel if Christianity is right. Should I gamble with my soul? I don't know. God, if it is within your power and according to your will, guide me to you.