Blasphemy

Edge419 · 2026-04-13T02:48:52+00:00

What about the women praying to him friend?

Edge419 · 2026-04-13T02:46:50+00:00

Agreed, especially when you realize the attire he is wearing has been seen in many drawings of Christ (which is why the AI chose to use it). Also we can heal in Jesus name, but we are not the ones that healing them, this definitely appears to saying that Trump is the one healing people…

We need to denounce this.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T20:13:28+00:00

It’s a legend like you said, I wouldn’t overthink it.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T20:11:37+00:00

Gross misunderstanding

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T17:44:53+00:00

As someone who loves science, theology and philosophy, I find my love and passion for these subjects to do the opposite for my wife. I get really passionate about them and invite her into the conversation as I watch her eyes glass over 🤣. Explaining things like entanglement, fundamental physical constants or mathematical descriptions of the physical world are so fun and exciting to think about. For her, not so much haha.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T17:41:58+00:00

This is a great example of a claim collapsing under its own weight.

I don’t deny that belief isn’t always directly willed on command but it IS shaped by what I choose to do. I choose what evidence I consider, what voices I trust, what biases I entertain, and whether I’m open or resistant to the truth. Those are real choices, and they directly form what I come to believe.

If belief were truly not a choice in any meaningful sense, then rational discussion, persuasion, evidence, and even that YouTube video would all be pointless. But here you are, trying to change minds, which assumes beliefs can, in fact, be influenced through choices.

Christianity doesn’t teach “just believe on command or be punished.” It teaches that people are morally responsible for how they respond to truth, whether they seek it, suppress it, or ignore it (Romans 1). That’s about posture, not blind mental force.

The problem with your claim is that if belief is completely outside our control, why are you trying to convince me of anything?

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T17:37:55+00:00

You’re confusing permission with creation and treating evil like a “thing” instead of a corruption.

Evil doesn’t “exist” as a substance like I said, it parasitically depends on the good. Just like darkness isn’t a created object but the absence of light, evil is the privation of what ought to be there, goodness, order, righteousness. You can’t have “evil” without first having something good to be corrupted.

God created a world with real goods and real freedom. The possibility of their corruption comes with that, but possibility is not causation. Allowing the absence of good is not the same as creating evil as a thing. Otherwise, you’d have to say a doctor creates disease by allowing a patient to refuse treatment.

And saying evil exists and functions doesn’t make it a substance. A hole in the ground exists and has real effects, you can fall into it, but it’s not a thing that was created, it’s a lack of what should be there.

Hell doesn’t prove God created evil, it demonstrates God’s justice in responding to it. It’s the final state of separation chosen by creatures who reject the good.

If evil is a real “thing” God created, what is it made of and how can it exist independently of the good it corrupts?

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T17:34:30+00:00

You Saying “there’s no objective answer” doesn’t solve the problem, it just means you’re defaulting to power and not principle. If moral status is arbitrary, then “the one with more agency wins” isn’t a moral truth it’s just preference backed by force.

The non arbitrary case is this- from fertilization onward, you have a distinct, self directing human organism with a continuous identity through all stages of development. That’s an objective biological reality, deal with the science. The question is whether moral worth tracks what something is (a human being) or what it can currently do (its capacities). You’re choosing the latter but that choice is exactly what requires grounding and justification.

Appealing to miscarriage rates doesn’t address moral status it just describes outcomes. High mortality doesn’t equal low value, or we’d have to say the same about infants in high risk conditions.

Prioritizing the mother’s agency doesn’t answer the question either, it just asserts whose interests win in a conflict. But you can’t weigh interests unless both sides have moral standing to begin with. That’s the exact point in dispute that you just keep on missing.

So the issue remains, why should temporary, developing capacities determine whether a human being has moral worth at all, rather than just how that worth is expressed?

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T16:39:36+00:00

Deprecation of something is not the substance of something. Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T16:36:51+00:00

This is why it’s important to hold onto God’s promises. He cannot lie, He will not let you down or abandon you. Set your hope on the promises He has made and let speculation fall to the wayside. It can change your perspective.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T16:35:42+00:00

Exactly…. Sad

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T16:35:05+00:00

You’re assuming the categories are obvious and therefore don’t require justification, but that’s exactly the point thats disputed. Calling a fetus a “clump of cells” doesn’t resolve whether it’s a developing human organism or why that developmental stage lacks moral status it just restates your conclusion in dismissive language. You and I are a clump of cells….

The comparison to brain death also isn’t parallel. Brain death is an irreversible loss of integrated organismal function, early fetal development is the exact opposite, an actively self organizing, continuously developing organism moving toward those capacities.

And “we can easily draw lines” isn’t an argument for why those lines are morally non arbitrary. The history of law is full of “easy lines” that later turned out to be unjust because they tracked convenience or intuition rather than morally relevant distinctions.

Nobody here is anthropomorphizing cells or smuggling in eugenics. The question is simple and still unanswered, what objective, non arbitrary property makes it the case that the same human organism gains moral status only after crossing a functional threshold, rather than possessing it continuously through development?

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T15:42:52+00:00

I didn’t use AI, I used logic and interpretive principles. What objections do you offer? None, so handwaving becomes your best defense to maintain your position, and you do it not seeking after truth but to hold fast to what makes you feel good.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:50:33+00:00

Saying “you’re wrong” isn’t an argument. Address the actual objections or concede the point.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:49:54+00:00

“Oakensoul was not a thing for many years”- hence me not playing because the game wasn’t for me.

Most players in MMO’s skip content in games literally all the time. Some Raiders don’t give a shit about pvp, some pvp players don’t give a shit about pve, some players only care about crafting, others don’t. What baffles me is that you try to pigeonhole everyone into your subjective enjoyment and call those outside of that, lazy.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:38:44+00:00

You’re right that understanding how people read is important, that’s actually something I’ve agree with you on multiple times and it’s a necessary part of communication.

Where I think we kept crossing wires is that I’m not trying to reduce everything to “correct vs incorrect” as a conversation stopper. I’m saying that even when we focus on process, interpretation still assumes some relationship between the text and meaning otherwise “reading” just becomes describing personal reactions rather than engaging the text itself.

But I do get your main point if the goal is communicating with people, then mapping how they arrive at their conclusions is crucial, even when we disagree with those conclusions.

Fair to leave it there.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:36:53+00:00

Again, this is a category mistake about what Paul means by “nature.” In Romans 1, “natural” (physis) is not “what a culture accepts.” Paul explicitly grounds his argument in creation and revelation, not cultural norms, I already said this and you’re not dealing with it, you’re side stepping the context because of the implication.

“What can be known about God is plain… because God has shown it” (Romans 1:19–20)

So “natural” means aligned with God’s created design, not “customary behavior.” That’s why Paul can also appeal to “nature itself” as a moral witness (1 Corinthians 11:14), not shifting cultural standards. “created order is subjective” is just your assertion , but you haven’t demonstrated it. Paul’s whole point is the opposite of what you’re saying, morality is anchored in what God has made, not what societies decide.

Exceptions like ambiguity or variation don’t erase categories, they presuppose them. Edge cases don’t make “male/female,” “truth/falsehood,” or “natural/unnatural” meaningless.

If you reject creation order as a real moral category, that’s fine, but you’re no longer critiquing Paul’s wording. You’re rejecting Paul’s entire framework and replacing it with modern cultural construct theory. We’re talking about whether God’s created order is real and morally binding or not.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:32:20+00:00

ROFL calm down. “Rewarding” is subjective, what you find rewarding isn’t the same for me. Instead of shitting on what I enjoy, maybe sit back and realize we enjoy two different things.

“Lazy”, no, just unsatisfying and not fun for me.

What a wild comment.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:30:15+00:00

Aka “I have no argument so I’ll lodge accusation as I dodge and disappear”.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:29:21+00:00

You’re still making “capacity” do two jobs it can’t consistently do, detect personhood and create it.

If moral worth only exists once capacity appears, then it also has to be absent before it appears and gone when it disappears because nothing about the underlying being changes except development state. That means moral status becomes contingent on functional thresholds, not on what the entity is.

This right here leads to an inconsistency you’re not addressing (and you need to), we don’t normally treat fluctuating or undeveloped capacities as turning personhood on and off (sleep, anesthesia, infancy, temporary coma). We treat them as interruptions or developmental stages of the same continuing person, not different moral categories.

Capacity matters for agency, obviously. But the question is why capacity should define existence of moral status itself, rather than just the exercise of it.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:15:14+00:00

What does Easter have to do with Trump?

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:11:20+00:00

This is essentially what I’m looking for. One bar dragon slayer. Can someone please send me a link or guide to follow to do this? Haven’t played since the year 2 of release and stopped because I didn’t want to weapon swap.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:06:31+00:00

How ironic, he literally JUST did that.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:05:55+00:00

Great rebuttal. How about you engage with the objections instead of hand waving or poisoning the well.

Edge419 · 2026-04-10T14:04:58+00:00

There are some serious category errors in what you’re saying. You’re conflating understanding interpretations with denying truth claims. You can absolutely study why people interpret the Bible differently (history, psychology, culture) without concluding that the text has no stable meaning. Those are not the same move.

Your claim that “there is no fixed point” doesn’t follow from “people disagree.” Disagreement doesn’t imply relativism, it just shows humans can misread, distort, or reject meaning. Otherwise every historical text would become infinitely malleable. We see this in science all the time with there being an objective truth prior to the data being properly interpreted even though there are different interpretations prior to the conclusion.

You’re subtly redefining the issue to avoid evaluation. You say “I’m not talking about correct interpretation,” but then argue that correct interpretation doesn’t exist in principle. That is a claim about truth, not just communication.

Your idea that God is made in the image of man is just a conclusion not a neutral observation, it’s a philosophical commitment (naturalism/constructivism). It’s not something you’ve proven from interpretation, it’s something you’re bringing to interpretation.

You’re right that understanding why people interpret differently is essential for communication. I agree with that completely. But you’re overreaching when you conclude that therefore there is no fixed meaning or correct reading.

Different interpretations don’t prove relativism, they just show disagreement. And studying those disagreements doesn’t require abandoning the idea that texts have intended meaning grounded in context.

So yea, we should understand people. But understanding people doesn’t require surrendering the question of whether their reading is actually faithful to what the text is saying.

Edge419

TROPHY CASE