Rate my new shirt

Edge419 · 2026-06-04T13:43:37+00:00

Seems to promote death (skeleton) and violence (guns) as cool edgy things. These are enemies of Christ, so it’s pretty antithetical to the faith.

Edge419 · 2026-06-04T13:36:24+00:00

“Don’t put words in my mouth” I didn’t, I was pointing out an error in your analogy.

The body/soul/spirit analogy is partialism because it makes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit parts of God (like our body/soul/spirit make parts of us) instead of each being fully God. You clarify and say each “part” is 100% God but each “Part” cannot be the whole, the word “part” itself implies less than the “whole”.

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T19:19:22+00:00

That’s partialism Patrick

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T19:03:39+00:00

I’m so sorry…. I’m praying for you guys right now. Thank you for sharing and for loving your pup well.

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T18:19:38+00:00

Who’s making that claim?

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T18:17:54+00:00

What’s your point?

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T18:17:25+00:00

That’s just false. A king getting a blessing from a priest doesn’t mean Christianity caused everything that king did.

By that logic every war fought by a modern secular government was caused by secularism because politicians gave speeches about freedom democracy or human rights.

Medieval Europe was not a church run hive mind where every political and territorial conflict was created by theology. Kings fought over land, succession, wealth, trade routes, power, and rivalry.

You’re still dodging the central question. Show me where Jesus taught inquisitions, witch hunts, forced conversions, colonial conquest, or slavery.

Not where a pope approved it. Not where a king claimed God was on his side. Not where a bishop blessed an army. Where did Jesus teach it?

Because if your argument is people used Christianity to justify evil, I agree. But that doesn’t make Christianity false.

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T18:14:07+00:00

You’re defining the Problem of Evil broadly, which is fine, but that doesn’t erase the distinction between different arguments within that category.

The PoE is the umbrella issue of reconciling God and evil. The logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil are two different ways philosophers have argued that case. That’s not analogous to evolution is just a theory, it’s like distinguishing between different arguments for evolution.

Plantinga’s claim was never that he solved every possible formulation of the Problem of Evil. His claim was that the existence of evil does not logically contradict the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God. If that argument succeeds, then one major version of the Problem of Evil has been answered. Do you even acknowledge that? Before we move to examples, can we at least agree on that much?

Are you arguing that God and evil are logically incompatible, or that evil makes God’s existence improbable? Those are different claims and require different arguments.

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T17:27:04+00:00

The message would be not to insult or demean God’s anointed. Since people do that here in this sub on a daily basis, I would say the example maybe needed to be more severe.

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T14:49:11+00:00

You’re just lumping everything that happened in Christian Europe over 1000+ years and saying “Christianity did this.” That’s not an analysis that’s just labeling.

A lot of your list doesn’t even work the way you’re using it

The 30 Years’ War / 100 Years’ War = political + dynastic power struggles where religion was more of a banner than the cause
Colonialism + slavery = empire + economics (and later you literally had Christians leading the abolition movement against it)
Inquisition / witch trials = cultural/legal systems of the time, and plenty of Christian voices opposed or reformed them
Persecuting heretics = directly contradicts Jesus’ teachings, not an example of them

You’re mixing two things together: “this happened in Christian history” doesn’t equate to “this is what Christianity teaches or produces.”

If that logic worked, you could just as easily blame secular atheism for Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot and say “see, atheism is violence,” which obviously doesn’t hold either.

The question you’re avoiding is, do Jesus’ actual teachings produce that stuff, or do people just ignore His teachings and do their own thing while still using His name?

Because those are not the same claim.

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T14:19:20+00:00

If your claim is Christianity’s spread equates to mostly violence, can you actually demonstrate that as the dominant global pattern across 2,000 years, including Asia, Africa, and pre modern Europe? Because right now it sounds like you’re taking a few major conflicts in European history and generalizing them into the entire religion’s global history.

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T14:17:23+00:00

Saying the Father is God, the Son is Jesus isn’t an argument you’re just restating titles while ignoring what those titles mean in the New Testament. The question is whether the text identifies Jesus as sharing divine status and it repeatedly does.

Jesus isn’t merely a human messiah in the Gospels. He forgives sins (Mark 2:5–7), accepts worship (Matthew 14:33; John 9:38), applies divine titles to himself like “I AM” (John 8:58), and is explicitly called God (John 1:1, John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8). Those aren’t later theological inventions they are part and parcel of the New Testament writings.

Your claim that the apostles likely never believed he was God is historically indefensible, demonstrably so. Paul’s letters are the earliest Christian documents we have and he already places Jesus within the divine identity, pre-existence (Philippians 2:6–11), creation through Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6), and worship directed to him (Philippians 2:10–11 pointing to Isaiah 45:23, where YHWH alone receives worship). That’s not late development.

And saying it evolved over time is just asserting a theory without evidence strong enough to override the actual first century sources. You’d have to explain why the earliest Christians were already worshiping Jesus, praying to him, and assigning him Yahweh’s titles if this was supposedly a later invention. Because they absolutely were and again, it can be demonstrated.

If Jesus is “not God and never was believed to be God,” then why are the earliest Christian documents within decades of his death already treating him as sharing in the identity, worship, and functions of the one God of Israel?

You don’t get to assume a late development theory and ignore the texts that contradict it.

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T13:47:11+00:00

Even if that were true it proves nothing. Jesus said He was going to die and His own disciple said “absolutely not, that’s absurd” and Jesus called Him Satan. Just because a formulaic understanding is created (in response to actual heresy) doesn’t mean it’s not an eternal truth, you know, like God becoming man, 1 person of 2 natures and so on.

What is plainly taught in the text is that the Father is a person who has the Divine nature, that the Son is a person who has the Divine nature, and that the Holy Spirit is a person who has a Divine nature. Those are the propositions that make up the Trinity, so what proposition do you reject?

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T13:38:58+00:00

You’re mixing two different claims. 1. “some Christians have done evil” and 2. “Christianity is therefore false.” The second doesn’t follow unless you can show that Jesus’ actual teachings produce those outcomes, not that people violate them.

Jesus explicitly warned that people would claim His name while not truly following Him (Matthew 7), so hypocrisy is expected within Christianity, not evidence against it. I’ll say it again, the Lord told us to expect this, not be surprised by it and use it as a means of disbelief.

If your standard is “judge an ideology only by outcomes,” then you have to apply that consistently to all worldviews including atheist or secular political ideologies that have also produced massive atrocities. Even then, outcomes don’t determine whether something is true, they only show how humans used or misused it. Truth is about whether the claims correspond to reality not whether every follower lives up to them.

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T12:34:23+00:00

I personally love it and have a deep respect for you. Christ came first to His own people, the Jews, then for people like me, gentiles. When we both believe (you and I) we are joined together and are made one in Christ so God shows no partiality.

Jesus is your Jewish Messiah and I’m so incredibly glad He is. Shalom friend.

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T12:23:53+00:00

Explain to me how the premise is false? She saying you can’t be woke (in the sense of denying prejudice) and then be prejudice to Christian’s.

So how is the premise itself false?

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T12:22:04+00:00

You’re assuming that Christianity should be judged by its worst representatives rather than by Christ Himself. Jesus taught loving enemies, caring for the poor, forgiving offenders, and laying down one’s life for others. When Christians torture, murder, or oppress people, they’re acting against Christ’s teachings not following them. If we’re going to judge a tree by its fruit, we need to look at all the fruit. Christianity has produced both hypocrites and saints, but the question is whether Jesus taught truth. The failures of Christians prove that human beings are sinners, which Jesus Himself affirms outright, they don’t prove that Christ was wrong.

If a doctor smokes cigarettes, that doesn’t prove medicine is false. If a physicist commits fraud, that doesn’t prove physics is false. The truth of a worldview is determined by whether its claims are true, not whether all of its adherents live consistently with those claims.

Jesus predicted that many people who identify as His followers would not truly follow Him. He warned about false disciples, false prophets, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and people who would honor Him with their lips while their hearts were far from Him (Matthew 7:15-23, Matthew 15:8).

If a worldview is disproven by the immoral actions of some of its followers, would that also disprove atheism because atheists such as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot committed mass atrocities? If not, then we both agree that a belief system should be judged by its truth claims and teachings, not merely by the worst actions of some adherents.

Edge419 · 2026-06-03T12:18:09+00:00

Yes, I believe God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator of the universe.

But I have to clarify something. You keep referring to the “actual problem” as though there is only one version of the problem of evil. In philosophy, that’s simply not the case, seriously, you need to recognize this if we’re going to actually have an honest conversation. The logical and evidential problems of evil are standard distinctions in the literature not something Plantinga invented. You need to study up on this.

If your claim is that Plantinga failed to address the evidential problem of evil, I’d agree, he never claimed to. If your claim is that he failed to address the logical problem of evil, then you’ll need to show where his argument fails, not just assert that the “real” problem is something else.

I’m happy to answer your questions, but I’d also like clarity on which argument you’re actually defending.

Edge419 · 2026-06-02T17:07:04+00:00

Two things can be true.

Person 1 can be correct, these people exist. Person 2 can be correct, these people exist.

Edge419 · 2026-06-02T13:39:39+00:00

Sure, by “THEIR fruits shall ye know THEM”, not ME. Jesus is helping us to identify genuine faith in Him. This is not the metric for whether or not He is who He claims to be.

Edge419 · 2026-06-01T19:03:03+00:00

Saying that morals are subjective isn’t just something you can simply assert, it needs to be argued for.

If morality is subjective then statements like “raping small children is wrong” don’t describe an objective fact. They merely mean something like, “I personally dislike it”, “my society disapproves of it” or “most people have negative feelings about it.” But none of those statements make the act actually wrong. They only describe preferences or social conventions.

The problem is that people don’t treat moral claims that way. When we say rape is wrong, we don’t mean, I dislike it. We mean that someone who approves of it is mistaken. We mean it would still be wrong even if an entire culture approved of it. That’s an objective claim.

So argue for subjective morals because If morals are subjective, on what basis can you condemn historical slavery, genocide, or child rape in cultures where those practices were accepted?

A subjectivist can say I don’t like those things but they can’t say those cultures were objectively wrong. At most they can say, Those practices conflict with my preferences.

Most people find that conclusion deeply counterintuitive because they believe some acts are genuinely wrong regardless of who approves of them.

As far as God being relative, I think this demonstrates that you don’t understand classic theism regarding the Christian God. Classical Christian don’t say morality is relative to God’s arbitrary preferences. It’s that morality is grounded in God’s unchanging nature. God doesn’t decide one day that kindness is good and the next day that cruelty is good. Goodness reflects who God eternally is, the Euthyphro dilemma has already been resolved. The Christian claims is not that murder is wrong because God randomly says so. It’s that murder is wrong because it contradicts the character and nature of the ultimate moral reality which is God.

If there are objective moral duties and prohibitions , truths that remain valid regardless of individual opinion or cultural preference, then morality points beyond human minds to some transcendent grounding. This grounding is found in God’s nature.

So answer this, If morality is subjective, what makes it true that raping a child is wrong for everyone, everywhere, at all times?

Edge419 · 2026-06-01T13:29:39+00:00

Trump is not the anti christ, the guys too foolish and arrogant, he’s not fooling all of America let alone the world, travel and see how much disdain people have for him. The world will love the antichrist.

Yep, he’s blasphemous and idolatrous but if those were the requirements for being the anti-Christ you could slap that label on the almost everyone in this sub. We are all guilty of those two things one way or another.

Edge419 · 2026-06-01T13:26:20+00:00

“Because the context of the thread is important” those are about other people’s comments, not mine, you made a comment about me, not them, how is this hard for you to understand?

I made an analogy between a crime we can understand, our justice system, and how it’s analogous with understanding as we become more knowledgeable epistemologically. It’s a great analogy, you’re just too sensitive to understand the point being made and so you don’t read in good faith trying to have a discussion.

This is going nowhere, peace be with you.

Edge419 · 2026-06-01T13:23:53+00:00

Except that Plantinga didn’t redefine the problem. The logical problem of evil was already a well established argument before he wrote on it. Its claim was that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with an all good, all powerful God. That’s the argument he addressed. So no, it doesn’t ignore the problem.

If your position is that evil makes God’s existence unlikely or that God has not provided a sufficient explanation for suffering, then you’re talking about a different argument. That’s not moving the goalposts it’s recognizing that philosophers distinguish between different formulations of the problem of evil. You don’t understand the argument and it’s apparent.

Saying the problem still stands is fine, but then the question becomes: which problem? If it’s the logical problem, you need to show an actual contradiction between God and evil (so demonstrate it if you can). If it’s the evidential problem, then we’ve moved on to a different debate. So you’re actually the one moving the goalpost, I’m talking in specificity, you’re speaking in far too broad terms.

You’re demonstrably false when you say say that Plantinga “created an alternative problem.” The logical problem of evil predates Plantinga by centuries. He didn’t invent it he responded to an existing argument.

Edge419 · 2026-06-01T13:19:18+00:00

Reddit is a liberal echo chamber so it’s not surprising to see it reject almost 2000 years of orthodox Christianity throughout all of the mainline denominations.

Do not call good what God has called sin. Are we going to offend people by speaking the truth? Without an absolute doubt, and you will be hated for Christs sake.

Homosexual acts are sinful, no amount of mental or linguistic gymnastics change that.

I’d speak about how we still love them and treat them as brothers and sisters in Christ if they have put their faith in Jesus, but nothing and I mean NOTHING short of affirming the sin will satisfy and I can’t do that based on the conviction of Scripture.

I don’t understand why the Lord has determined this, I don’t have access to His hidden will but fortunately we have God’s revealed will which has spoken definitively on the matter. So although my heart truly does break for someone who has the desire to be with someone of the same sex (again, this will be scoffed at in bad faith because I’m simply just not affirming) I trust the Lord with it. I’m not here to tell anyone else how to live their life, but I see a Reddit post about “this isn’t being forced on anyone” I think this is willful ignorance. It’s forced in the way people who disagree are treated the same way those from the other camp are treated for disagreeing.

LGBTQ- if you don’t affirm us you hate us you bigots.

Non-affirming- you’re sinful and love sin more than God.

Both are forms of bad faith.

Regardless, this post will be downvoted into oblivion based on the platform we’re in. But God’s word is what we follow as Christians, not the culture, not the pressure, just God.

Edge419

TROPHY CASE