Does God make all things, people and beings? Does God make mistakes. Yes or no answers please.
This is rhetorical entrapment. You frame the question as if you’re exploring doubt, but the structure betrays the truth: you already believe in a creator god and are simply fishing for agreement. You don’t want an answer—you want affirmation of what you’ve already internalized.
You’re not asking, “Is there a god?”
You’re assuming there is—and then setting up a false dilemma:
If God makes everything, and
If God doesn’t make mistakes,
Then everything that exists must be part of God’s perfect plan.
This is the oldest trick in the monotheist playbook: create the illusion of logic by starting from faith-based axioms and demanding binary answers.
But the real flaw is in your premise.
There’s no objective evidence that your “God” made anything—only ancient myth repackaged as moral authority. And if you’re unwilling to let that premise be questioned, you’re not inviting dialogue.
You’re setting a theological trap. That is dishonest.
If someone demands belief without evidence, frames a trap as a question, and shuts down real dialogue, they’re not sharing truth—they’re preaching.
And preaching isn’t conversation. It’s control disguised as concern. So yes—if you’re not open to being questioned, don’t preach to others. Because once you try to trap someone into your belief system, you’re not spreading faith. You’re just pushing obedience.
And that’s the point you’re missing:
The objective of religion isn’t truth. It’s control. Control over behavior, thought, identity, guilt, community, and even language. It wraps that control in moral language—sin, salvation, divine will—but the outcome is always the same: Obey, or be condemned. Conform, or be cast out. Believe, or be broken.
Preaching isn’t about opening minds. It’s about securing allegiance to an ideology. So when someone sets up a trap like, “Yes or no—did God make everything?” they’re not seeking truth. They’re enforcing doctrine.
Religion isn’t here to liberate you. It’s here to domesticate you. And the moment you reject that trap, you stop being a subject—and start being a sovereign.
So here’s my answer to you: Wise up. Stop mistaking control for compassion. Stop confusing obedience with virtue. Stop letting ancient myths dictate your worth, your choices, or your mind. If someone has to trap you into belief, it’s not truth they’re offering—it’s submission.
Wise up. Your freedom depends on it.
He replied, “Here’s a polished and expanded version of your message—it keeps your core logic intact but improves clarity, tone, and impact.” It gently challenges the contradiction without sounding hostile:
This isn’t entrapment—unless someone is afraid of what the answer reveals.
Religions often say, “God created all things” and “God makes no mistakes.” I actually agree with both of those statements. So when I ask someone if they truly believe those ideas, it’s not to trap them—it’s to clarify whether they stand by their faith’s teaching before I continue the conversation.
Because here’s the real question: If God created everything, makes no mistakes, and made humans in His image…then how can anyone claim that gay or trans people don’t fit within that creation?
The tension isn’t in the question—it’s in the inconsistency of how the belief is applied. If someone’s answer leads them into a box, that’s not entrapment. That’s simply exposing a contradiction that deserves reflection.
I replied, “You’re not being logical. You’re just using the appearance of logic to cover your emotional need to dominate. Do you really think polishing your trap with AI phrasing suddenly makes you “logical”?
Using AI doesn’t validate your argument. It just smooths out your dishonesty. You’re still operating from a rigged premise, false dilemmas, and emotional coercion. That makes you manipulative, dishonest, self-righteous, insecure, coercive, condescending, and intellectually weak—a petty inquisitor hiding behind religion to control others because you lack the courage to think freely.
You’re under the illusion that a clean, composed format can mask the fallacies underneath. But all it really shows is that you’re not confident enough in your own logic to speak plainly.
So he asked a question using a phrase from the religious text that most people claim to believe in, and I’m not being logical. I’m simply saying, true or false: God made all things? True or false, God made no mistakes. Why are you answering those questions that are answered in your Bible? Not fair questions.
He continued, “I would argue that anyone who’s not willing to answer those simple, direct questions is the one who’s avoiding the topic and not being logical, the same way you people who claim to be Christian (not you personally) are still okay with a philandering president and are still okay with not taking care of the immigrants, refugees, and criminals but finding excuses while they might be stealing from the system, they might be this, they might be that. I need excuses to not help these people.
It’s very easy to defend attacking someone else’s questioning your faith and defend the reason that you might not follow your faith because both make you feel comfortable and neither one threatens the worldview, and again, I don’t mean you personally; I just mean the vocal, loud, and misguided minority of religious people.
It’s kind of like saying we should have prayer in our schools, but the Islamic countries should not have Sharia law and their prayer in their schools, or the two biblical and Quran texts say almost the same thing.
I know I’m not distracting from the issue; I’m using other examples of how it’s okay for us but not okay for someone else.
And my response, “Your emotional over-investment in immigration, refugees, and moral outrage is suspiciously personal.” You’re not debating—you’re hijacking theology to force moral compliance around unrelated political topics.
This isn’t reasoning. It’s emotional deflection—the behavior of someone who feels exposed. You’re projecting unresolved guilt, entitlement, or defensiveness. Instead of owning your discomfort, you try to make it someone else’s moral failure. That’s not conviction—it’s displacement.
Framing people who question unchecked immigration as morally bankrupt while positioning yourself—or illegal immigrants you might be defending—as automatically deserving of help and protection is entitlement disguised as righteousness.
And bringing up Trump’s affairs, Christian hypocrisy, or Sharia law only proves one thing: your defensiveness. You can’t handle being called out, so you shift blame and lash out.
You’re not standing in truth—you’re arguing from personal emotional pressure. Whether it’s guilt, identity conflict, or insecurity, you’re using others as moral shields to protect what you won’t face in yourself.
That’s not intellectual engagement or moral clearness but emotional outsourcing.
You don’t need to trap people.
You need to face what’s unresolved in yourself.
Basically, it sounds to me as though you set out to build a moral framework based on every person as being entitled—to compassion, validation, and protection—without responsibility, logic, or boundaries. That’s not ethics. You are making it look like virtue, but it’s essentially emotional blackmail.
No one is entitled to anything—especially not moral immunity just because they invoke suffering. Compassion without accountability is not a virtue; it’s emotional manipulation.
No one owes you agreement, acceptance, or moral high ground. You are not entitled to anything—not status, not protection, not silence. Especially not when you build your arguments on guilt and coercion.
Your entire argument was based on emotional leverage, and then you pivot to moral coercion? Emotional guilt-tripping using religion is moral dishonesty. You don’t get to weaponize virtue and then use guilt as a tool for control.
In anger, he exclaims, “You’re completely positioned as well, and your assumption has the first three letters in bold, dark capital underline, and you also avoid answering the most basic questions about your faith. One of us is avoiding it; it’s not me.”
I said, “You’re not entitled to know anything about my faith.” It’s not your business, and it’s not required to expose the fallacies in your argument.
You started with a trap, couldn’t defend it, spiraled into emotional projection, and now you’re hiding behind sarcasm because you’ve got nothing left.
You tried to manipulate, guilt-trip, and control. I called it out—accurately and completely. Now you’re flailing. You don’t get to demand answers while refusing to face the failure of your own logic. You don’t get to weaponize religion and then play victim when it backfires. And you sure as hell don’t get to define anyone else’s faith while you’re using yours as a shield for illogical reasoning.
Stay out of my belief system. Fix your own. Then he draws again from AI.
He’s now playing that he is lost in the woods and in need of “navigators?” He asks, “What trap did I start with asking if God made everyone in his image, asking if God made all things, asking if God makes no mistakes?”
Here’s a ready-to-paste message for Facebook that draws from Scripture and major world religions — all affirming that every person is beautifully made, loved, and deserves compassion:
We Are All Made Perfect and Loved 
1. We Are Created Perfectly
Psalm 18:30 — “God—his way is perfect… in his covenant faithfulness he does no wrong.”
Job 38 & 40 show that God’s creation is deliberate and flawless in its design.
2. Made in God’s Image (Imago Dei)
Genesis 1:27 — “So God created mankind in his own image… male and female he created them.”
Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Highlights our shared dignity regardless of background.
3. Everyone Is Loved and Worthy
John 3:16 — “For God so loved the world…” (meaning all of us)
Romans 8:38–39 promises nothing can separate us from God’s love
4. Love Everyone — Unconditionally
Matthew 7:12 (Golden Rule) and Matthew 5:44 — “Love your enemies…”
Matthew 5:48 — “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Other Faiths Affirming Human Dignity & Universal Love
Islam
Qur’an 49:13 — “O mankind, We created you from male and female… the most noble of you … is the most righteous.”
Islamic teaching emphasizes ALL humans equally deserve security, dignity, and respect.
Hinduism/Vedanta
Chandogya Upanishad 6.9.1 — “All creatures… are that One. There is nothing that does not come from Brahman.”
Bhagavad-Gita 9:29 — “I look upon all creatures equally; none is less dear to me or more dear.”
All living beings hold a divine spark, urging compassion for even animals and plants.
Buddhism
Metta (loving-kindness) — a practice of universal goodwill: “May all beings be happy, safe, and at peace.”
Teaches showing unconditional compassion without expectation — even to those we find difficult.
Baháʼí Faith
Strongly teaches the Oneness of Humanity: “All humans have been created equal in the image of God” — advocating unity in diversity.
Core Truth Across All Faiths:
We are all created with intention and purpose. We all deserve dignity, love, and compassion. People of faith are called to mirror this universal love — no exceptions, no judgment.
Share this if it resonates — let’s remind each other that love, respect, and dignity transcend boundaries and beliefs. “
My response? Posting a collage of spiritual platitudes doesn’t erase how manipulative you’ve been. You ignored everything I said, dodged accountability, and now you’re trying to walk away pretending to be virtuous after ducking the truth. You don’t get to preach universal love after trying to guilt people into submission.
He refuses accountability by saying, “goodbye I refuse to be attacked in a stupid Facebook post when my question remains the same did God make all things does God make mistakes that’s what those messages prove doesn’t matter what religion you are they all agree
Because I agree I will be responding to this anymore.”
A complete cop out.
Part II
Meanwhile, trouble is brewing from another commentary of mine.
What you’re calling “revival” is just regression dressed up in piety. There is no national blessing coming from superstition. Believing that a deity hands out prosperity based on moral compliance is magical thinking—not moral clarity. It infantilizes people into thinking obedience equals virtue and that suffering is punishment.
And let’s talk about “sin.” That word doesn’t mean anything outside the ideological framework built to control people. It’s not a moral compass—it’s a leash. It punishes independence, inquiry, and human nature while rewarding submission to arbitrary rules.
You want a better nation? Start by rejecting control systems that pretend to be salvation.
Celebrating a god won’t save us. Appreciation unlocks benefit—because what we honor shapes what we become. If we celebrated these principles instead of gods or sin, the blessings would be real, tangible, and transformative:
If we celebrated Truth—not belief, but evidence, understanding, and intellectual honesty—we’d build a society grounded in clarity and critical thinking, where lies can’t govern and propaganda loses its power.
If we celebrated Consciousness—the capacity to think, reflect, and choose freely—
We’d raise generations who act with intention and resist manipulation because they know themselves.
If we celebrated Courage—the willingness to face reality without needing a myth to comfort us—
We’d stop running from discomfort and start confronting the roots of suffering—personal, social, and global.
If we celebrated Accountability—owning our actions instead of outsourcing them to divine will—we’d see integrity replace blame. People would take responsibility for their choices instead of hiding behind “God’s plan.”
If we celebrated Compassion—real empathy, not conditional love filtered through doctrine—
We’d stop dividing love into the saved and the damned. Our empathy would become active, intelligent, and unconditional.
If we celebrated Creativity—human potential expressed through art, science, and innovation—we’d elevate imagination—solving problems, making beauty, and envisioning futures religion never dared to dream.
If we celebrated Justice—rooted in reason, not scripture—we’d build systems that serve people, not dogmas. Justice would mean fairness, not punishment in the name of faith.
If we celebrated Freedom—from ideological control, fear-based obedience, and moral blackmail—we’d no longer fear what we think, who we are, or what we question. We’d be free to grow—not just obey.
That’s not revival. That’s evolution. And it doesn’t come from worshiping a god. It comes from choosing to honor what makes us fully human.
Andrew responds, “Did you learn that from Villanova?” Apparently, Stephen can’t help himself, and his answer is more common, “Pound Sand atheist..less words.” While Elaine exclaims, ” I’ll stick with God , thanks.”
And so this is where I have to finally shut it down after all their worthless words, when the room became silent.
I said, we’ve had 6,000 years of war, domination, and oppression—justified in the name of gods and kings. And still, people call obedience a virtue?
That is just dependency—on monarchies, empires, and institutions that have always demanded submission to power.
It takes courage to live by cause and effect. Not blind faith. Not pleading to a god. Not superstition. Just reality—where your actions produce your results.
Supernatural causation is superstition. The belief that invisible beings reward or punish you for obedience has nothing to do with how the world actually works. It’s not reality. It’s magical thinking.
I don’t talk to supernatural entities or perform rituals to get advice from them. I’m not a witch.
I have a thinking mind, and I’m not about to abandon it for superstition. It makes no sense to hand over your judgment—to mythical gods, fallen angels, memes, mantras, or to the prophets, priests, rulers, and elites who control the systems you depend on.
I don’t expect blessings for compliance. I understand consequences. I don’t fear punishment from above—I take responsibility for my choices. I graduated from Villanova. I studied religion as ideology, not gospel. I paid my own way. I think for myself.
And I don’t need a myth to tell me what’s right.
Sheep follow. Dogs obey. Neither of them possesses reason. That’s what belief in supernatural control creates—people trained to submit.
But I’m not here to be ruled—by figures of authority, or anyone else who claims authority through fear. I’m here to think, to live freely, and to experience this life through enlightenment—where reality and wisdom create happiness.
You chose obedience over thought—so don’t complain about the chains you wear. You put them on. You can’t worship control and then act surprised when the world is broken. You helped build it. Live the way you want—but don’t cry about the consequences. That’s the price of superstition.
If you wanted freedom, you’d be thinking. Instead, you’re posting obedience packaged as righteousness—because it’s safer than truth.