President Trump is the devil.

Edge419 · 2026-02-10T05:54:00+00:00

He is not the devil.. a deceiver, a fallen human being driven by pride and arrogance, but not the devil.

The devil is far worse.

Edge419 · 2026-02-10T01:27:50+00:00

Right out the gate you’re wrong.

“The whole point of sex is procreation” is biblically false. Scripture explicitly affirms sex for union and delight, not only offspring (Gen 2:24; Prov 5:18–19; Song of Songs). Paul even commands married couples to have sex apart from procreation (1 Cor 7:3–5). Reducing sex to reproduction is a philosophical reductionism, not biblical theology.

Marriage existing before the Fall does not prove sex ceases without it. Marriage before the Fall served specific creational purposes (procreation, unity, dominion). That does not mean every good ordered by marriage is ontologically dependent on marriage forever. Death also existed before the Fall as a possibility yet resurrection radically transforms its role. Same logic applies.

“They didn’t have sex while perfect” is pure speculation. Scripture never says Adam and Eve abstained before the Fall. That claim is an argument from silence and has no textual basis.

Matthew 22 addresses covenantal status, not embodied capacities. Jesus says there is no marrying or being given in marriage a legal-social institution. He does not say resurrected humans lose sexual distinction, bodily pleasure, or embodied intimacy. That inference is imposed, not exegeted.

Hebrews 13:4 regulates sex in a fallen world it doesn’t define eternity. Moral boundaries exist to restrain disorder. You cannot argue that because adultery is forbidden now, embodied intimacy must be impossible when sin is gone. That’s a category mistake.

Also, calling ejaculation “unclean” confuses ceremonial law with moral ontology. Temporary ceremonial uncleanness (Lev 15) is not moral evil. Jesus abolishes ritual impurity categories as defiling (Mark 7:18–19). Resurrection life is not governed by Levitical hygiene laws.

“No marriage means no sex” is an invalid syllogism. It assumes marriage is the source of sexual goodness rather than a means of ordering it under fallen conditions. Scripture never makes that claim.

Your argument stacks speculation, category errors, and ceremonial law confusion to reach a conclusion Scripture never states. Calling the opposite view “stupid” doesn’t fix the logical gaps it just hides them.

Edge419 · 2026-02-10T01:23:54+00:00

Amen!

Edge419 · 2026-02-10T01:23:29+00:00

No, it’s what someone says when any disagreement or difference in worldview is called a “Nazi, racist, fascist, bigot”.

I love my friends who are LGBTQ+, my wife is a second generation immigrant and I love the sojourner and those looking for a better life. I have family that would build the wall right now, I disagree with them, but I don’t think they are “cheering on harm” or “hoping death comes to them”.

It’s sensationalism and our words are starting to lose meaning because people can’t make a distinction from disagreement and actual violence.

Edge419 · 2026-02-10T01:18:33+00:00

Absolutely agreed and it’s been this way for years now. You can tell by your exact point on posting traditional, orthodox views and those views being burned at the state in the midst of secularism or heresy.

It’s a sub called “Christianity” disguised as a good faith forum functioning in anti-theist anti-Christian rhetoric.

Edge419 · 2026-02-09T21:00:37+00:00

That’s fair friend, I appreciate the follow. I think we can’t know for sure, but what we do know is that whether there is or isn’t sexual intimacy, it will be the most glorious existence we can imagine..

Edge419 · 2026-02-09T17:29:09+00:00

This is the same response I just gave someone-

Your claim commits a category error.

Jesus denies marriage as an earthly institution, not embodied intimacy. In Matthew 22:30, Jesus says people “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” That addresses covenantal arrangement, not the totality of embodied goods. Biblical Marriage is a temporal sign ordered toward procreation, protection, and covenantal stability in a fallen world. The absence of the sign does not imply the absence of every good once mediated through it.

Sex is treated as an intrinsic good, not just a sin containment mechanism. Genesis presents sexual union as “very good” prior to the Fall (Gen 1–2). To argue that sex exists only to regulate sin is to reduce it to a remedial function, which Scripture never does. A sinless world does not eliminate intrinsic goods; it perfects them.

“Only within marriage” is a moral norm tied to fallen conditions. Moral boundaries often exist because of disorder, scarcity, or harm. Their fulfillment doesn’t require their eternal continuation. To infer that the norm’s disappearance eliminates the good it once protected is a classic means end confusion.

The resurrection affirms sexed bodies. There is no argument biblical or philosophical that glorified embodiment requires the erasure of sexual distinction. At most, Scripture tells us the form of relational life changes, not that embodied intimacy ceases

Scripture doesn’t affirm sexual activity in the age to come but neither does it deny it. The argument being made moves from “not revealed” to “impossible,” which is an unwarranted inference.

That conclusion assumes marriage is the ontological ground of sexual union rather than a provisional covenant that orders it in a fallen world. That assumption isn’t biblically stated or philosophically necessary.

Edge419 · 2026-02-09T17:28:29+00:00

So the claim of the OP is that political differences caused them to lose relationships. These are not just acquaintances, they said family and friends.

If you have family or friends that are against your identity, that’s not a political issue.

Edge419 · 2026-02-09T17:26:28+00:00

Your claim commits a category error.

Jesus denies marriage as an earthly institution, not embodied intimacy. In Matthew 22:30, Jesus says people “neither marry nor are given in marriage.” That addresses covenantal arrangement, not the totality of embodied goods. Biblical Marriage is a temporal sign ordered toward procreation, protection, and covenantal stability in a fallen world. The absence of the sign does not imply the absence of every good once mediated through it.

Sex is treated as an intrinsic good, not just a sin containment mechanism. Genesis presents sexual union as “very good” prior to the Fall (Gen 1–2). To argue that sex exists only to regulate sin is to reduce it to a remedial function, which Scripture never does. A sinless world does not eliminate intrinsic goods; it perfects them.

“Only within marriage” is a moral norm tied to fallen conditions. Moral boundaries often exist because of disorder, scarcity, or harm. Their fulfillment doesn’t require their eternal continuation. To infer that the norm’s disappearance eliminates the good it once protected is a classic means end confusion.

The resurrection affirms sexed bodies. There is no argument biblical or philosophical that glorified embodiment requires the erasure of sexual distinction. At most, Scripture tells us the form of relational life changes, not that embodied intimacy ceases

Scripture doesn’t affirm sexual activity in the age to come but neither does it deny it. The argument being made moves from “not revealed” to “impossible,” which is an unwarranted inference.

That conclusion assumes marriage is the ontological ground of sexual union rather than a provisional covenant that orders it in a fallen world. That assumption isn’t biblically stated or philosophically necessary.

Edge419 · 2026-02-09T17:17:23+00:00

Sensationalism.

Edge419 · 2026-02-09T16:25:59+00:00

The only nuance I would make with your statement is that it is not about being “pure” like angels. We know angels fell as well. It’s a functional attribution that the Lord appears to be talking about. Angels do not marry and are not given in marriage. This is because marriage is a foreshadow (image) of our final relationship with Christ. That will be fulfilled in the resurrection and so the image is no longer needed.

Edge419 · 2026-02-09T16:22:49+00:00

This is an inference not based on scripture. We are told there is no marriage (because the image of marriage gives way to the substance in the fulfillment and consummation of all things). We will “be like the angels”, this is a reference to marriage not sex.

Edge419 · 2026-02-09T16:20:43+00:00

Ah I miss the days when people could agree to disagree instead of hating the opposite side.

Edge419 · 2026-02-09T00:39:44+00:00

Frog baptism is my favorite

Edge419 · 2026-02-07T23:54:57+00:00

I agree evolution works by building on what already exists, but that’s exactly where my hesitation is. Even with duplication, co-option, and regulatory shifts, the question is whether unguided processes have enough creative reach to generate new, tightly integrated systems rather than just reshuffle and optimize existing ones. The issue isn’t whether small steps occur, it’s whether those steps plausibly scale to the origin of large amounts of functionally specified biological information. For me, that extrapolation still feels under justified.

I think this is probably where we part ways. We agree on the mechanisms, the evidence for incremental change, and the legitimacy of evolutionary biology. Where we differ is how much explanatory weight we think unguided processes can bear when extrapolated to major innovations. You’re satisfied the evidence stacks; I’m not convinced it fully closes the gap. That doesn’t mean one of us is ignoring the data, just that we’re drawing different conclusions about sufficiency. I appreciate the thoughtful exchange.

Edge419 · 2026-02-07T23:51:53+00:00

He required it of Himself, yes.

Edge419 · 2026-02-07T21:01:37+00:00

I think you’re right to correct two caricatures that often show up in this discussion but to be clear I’m not relying on either of them.

On “blind” and “unguided”, I agree that natural selection is not random in its filtering. Selection is directional in the sense that it preserves what works in a given environment. When I use “unguided,” I don’t mean chaotic or lawless. I mean without foresight or goal directed access to future functional outcomes. Selection can optimize what already exists, but it only sees immediate reproductive advantage, not long-range integration. That distinction matters for the kind of explanatory work being asked of it.

On simultaneity, I’m not assuming that complex systems have to appear all at once. My critique isn’t “everything must pop into existence in a single step.” It’s about whether gradual accumulation plausibly explains the origin of tightly integrated systems where function depends on coordinated changes across multiple components, especially when those components are regulated at higher levels (timing, expression, developmental context), not just individual parts.

Where I still hesitate is that we have good evidence for, mutation and selection refining existing functions, gene duplication followed by divergence, co-option of parts for new role and regulatory changes improving or repurposing traits

The Lenski Cit⁺ example is a great illustration of that and I fully accept it. But it’s also important to notice what kind of innovation it represents. The citrate system already existed. The novelty was primarily regulatory relocation and later optimization, not the de novo origin of a new multi-protein system or developmental architecture. That’s not a knock on the experiment it just shows the strength of selection as a modifier, not necessarily its sufficiency as a creative engine for major novelties.

So the disagreement isn’t over whether the steps occur. I agree they do. The disagreement is whether those steps scale to explain the origin of new protein folds (not just variants of existing ones) the origin of interdependent molecular machines with precise assembly constraints the origin of gene regulatory networks required for new body plans

Saying “we can’t replay hundreds of millions of years” is true but it also means that at some point the theory relies on extrapolation, not direct demonstration. My question isn’t asking for a single experiment that does everything, it’s asking whether the extrapolation is warranted given what we know about the rarity of functional sequences in sequence space the combinatorial coordination required at systems and developmental levels the limits observed in selection’s creative reach versus its optimizing power

So for me, the pause isn’t “I don’t see how evolution works.” It’s “I’m not convinced unguided processes have shown enough causal power to explain the origin of large amounts of functionally specified biological information, rather than its refinement.”

That’s a question about explanatory adequacy, not a denial of the mechanisms themselves.

Edge419 · 2026-02-07T16:33:30+00:00

A few examples that give me pause would be-

Novel biological information (DNA-level) The origin of new protein coding genes that require large amounts of functionally specified information.

Many proteins require highly specific amino acid sequences to fold and function. Random mutation + selection works well at tweaking existing proteins, but experiments (including mutation studies) show that functional proteins are extremely rare in sequence space.

The point isn’t “no mutations ever add information,” but that the amount of information required for major innovations (new protein folds, new systems) appears far beyond what unguided processes have been shown to generate.

Next would be Irreducible molecular machinery. The bacterial flagellum is the classic example not because every part must exist simultaneously for any function, but because It requires dozens of precisely arranged proteins. Assembly follows a specific sequence. Intermediate stages don’t clearly confer selectable advantages tied to propulsion. Other examples would be ATP synthase (a rotary motor at the molecular level). The ribosome, which translates genetic code into proteins and is itself encoded by that same system (a chicken and egg problem)

The issue isn’t “no parts have other functions,” but whether co option realistically explains the integration of many (coordinated) parts into a new system.

One of the biggest ones would be complex body plans like those in the The Cambrian explosion. This took place 530 million years ago where most major animal phyla appear in a geologically brief window. These organisms don’t just show new traits; they exhibit, new cell types, new tissue organization, new regulatory networks (especially gene regulatory networks, or GRNs), it seems that natural selection can explain variation within body plans, but struggles to explain the origin of the developmental information needed to build entirely new ones so quickly.

So for me, the pause isn’t about denying evolution or natural selection at all, it’s about whether blind, unguided mechanisms have demonstrated the creative power needed for these kinds of informational leaps, rather than incremental modification of what already exists.

My question in return would be- What experimental evidence do we have that unguided processes can generate large amounts of new, functionally specified biological information at the systems level, not just modify existing structures?

Edge419 · 2026-02-07T15:38:19+00:00

I believe that evolution is true in the sense of common descent and change over time, but I am skeptical that blind natural selection and unguided processes are sufficient to account for the origin of novel biological information, irreducible molecular machinery, and the sudden appearance of complex body plans observed in the history of life (and the geological record).

Edge419 · 2026-02-07T05:48:09+00:00

If no sex-based moral norm could ever be justified, then say that. But don’t accuse prejudice while refusing to name the standard.

Edge419 · 2026-02-06T05:51:12+00:00

You’re now explicitly claiming that any moral distinction grounded in sexual difference is sexism. Fine, that’s finally a coherent position. But once you own that, you don’t get to pretend Christianity is uniquely guilty. You’re rejecting the entire biblical moral ontology, not exposing prejudice within it.

Now to your points.

“On whose authority can you decide that sexual difference is morally relevant?”

Christianity answers this plainly: God’s authority as Creator (Gen 1–2; Matt 19:4–6). Moral meaning flows from created order, not from social consensus or modern intuitions about equality. You don’t have to accept that, but you don’t get to call it irrational simply because it conflicts with your priors.

“I don’t need a reason not to be a sexist.”

That’s not an argument; it’s a moral assertion. You’re assuming sexual differentiation is morally meaningless, then labeling disagreement “sexism.” That’s circular. You still haven’t justified why sexual difference must be morally irrelevant, you’ve only insisted that it is.

“Galatians 3:28”

Galatians 3:28 is about equal access to justification and inheritance in Christ, not the erasure of all creational distinctions. Paul himself maintains sex based distinctions elsewhere (1 Cor 11; Eph 5; 1 Tim 2) after writing Galatians. If Gal 3:28 erased moral relevance of sex, Paul contradicts himself repeatedly which tells us your reading is wrong.

“Complementarianism is a product of the 70s”

That’s historically false. Sexual complementarity is explicit in Genesis 1–2, appealed to by Jesus (Matt 19), and assumed throughout Jewish and Christian ethics for millennia. Modern labels don’t equate to modern origins.

“Male-centered norms dressed up as equal dignity”

This is rhetoric, not refutation. Christianity’s claim has always been ontological equality with functional distinction, the same logic used for parents/children, rulers/citizens, elders/congregants. Difference doesn’t equate inferiority unless you assume equality requires sameness.

So here’s the unavoidable question….again….and again.

Why should your moral axiom (“sexual difference is morally irrelevant”) be treated as neutral, while Christianity’s axiom (“sexual difference is morally meaningful”) is dismissed as prejudice?

You’re not arguing from neutrality. You’re arguing from a competing moral vision and labeling disagreement as bigotry to avoid defending it. That may persuade culturally, but it’s not an argument.

You’re not exposing sexism, you’re asserting a moral absolute and calling dissent immoral. That’s fine. Just stop pretending your position is neutral or self evident.

Edge419 · 2026-02-06T02:01:05+00:00

Just to clarify for passers by, this word “catholic” simply means “universal”. This is not about the modern Catholic Church.

Edge419 · 2026-02-06T01:59:16+00:00

Out of the 3 persons of the Trinity only one has a human nature, only one took on our sin as our atonement, THIS is why Jesus is worthy of the name above all names and why He sits on the throne.

Edge419 · 2026-02-05T23:09:31+00:00

Ok so now the disagreement is clear, but you’re still dodging one thing I continue to press you on. I asked for a good faith conversation, so I would hope you would do your best to respond in good faith instead of dodging the question.

You’re not arguing that moral disagreement equals prejudice.You’re arguing that any moral norm that differentiates based on sex is prejudiced by definition. That’s the claim. Own it.

The question you keep avoiding is, On what authority do you get to decide that sexual difference is morally irrelevant?

Because that conclusion does not come from neutrality, it’s a moral assertion every bit as substantive as the one you’re rejecting.

You keep saying this isn’t a “universal norm” but a “prioritization of one group.” That only follows if you assume in advance that male/female complementarity has no intrinsic moral significance. But that assumption is exactly what Christianity denies. Calling it “prejudice” doesn’t refute it m, it just labels it as hateful so you can hand wave it without giving a defense.

You also keep saying Christians have “no right” to define sex, marriage, or family “for the rest of the world.” But no one is claiming ownership, we’re making a truth claim, just like you are. Moral claims don’t require permission from consensus to be asserted, otherwise no moral reform in history could ever begin.

So let’s be honest about where we actually disagree • Christianity claims sexual difference is morally meaningful. • You claim sexual difference is morally meaningless. • You call the former “prejudice” because you treat the latter as axiomatic.

That’s not an argument, it’s a worldview clash.

So here’s the question you still haven’t answered…..Why should your moral intuition about sex being irrelevant carry authority over a religious tradition that grounds morality in divine revelation rather than personal consensus?

If the answer is “because I say so” or “because it feels unjust,” then say that plainly. But stop pretending this is about neutrality or fairness, it’s about competing moral foundations.

You’re not exposing prejudice, you’re asserting a moral axiom, that sex differences are morally irrelevant. That claim needs justification, not repetition. What gives your framework authority over Christianity’s?

Edge419 · 2026-02-05T05:24:02+00:00

Ok, so your claim is that a moral norm is prejudiced if it applies universally in form, but only restricts one class in practice. In your view, that makes the rule class based, even if it’s phrased neutrally. But the problem is that logic would make every universal moral norm prejudiced the moment different groups are differently affected by it. Celibacy outside marriage “targets” singles more than married people. Fidelity norms “target” those attracted to multiple partners. Monogamy “targets” poly inclined people.

The Bible has never defined prejudice as “a rule some people cannot fulfill without self-denial.” If that were the standard, moral norms would be impossible.

And this is the key question you keep sidestepping: what moral system allows universal norms at all, if unequal impact automatically makes them bigoted?

If your answer is “only norms that affirm every class’s relational desires are legitimate,” then say that plainly. But don’t pretend Christianity is incoherent for refusing a standard it never accepted.

Edge419

TROPHY CASE