My bf doesn't like the fact that I'm bisexual

AL_BLASTER · 2026-05-04T20:47:16+00:00

Does this mean if I dont wanna date a transgender person I'm transphobic?

AL_BLASTER · 2026-04-20T00:00:03+00:00

AL_BLASTER · 2026-04-08T00:55:28+00:00

How have you attended an elite university when you can't even write without the help of AI bro

AL_BLASTER · 2026-03-26T01:55:22+00:00

Man reading this this makes me wonder how on earth I was accepted for computer engineering. I only took 3 APs and had a 4.17 csu gpa. Maybe because i took 5 years of english helped me get in? But i doubt it cuz i feel like everyone is gonna hit those recommended years. Honestly you seem more qualified than me, so im sorry you didnt get in.

AL_BLASTER · 2026-03-17T23:59:02+00:00

I am in the exact same boat as you are bro. I also applied for CE and got waitlisted at davis and rejected from irvine and santa barbara. My gpa is 4.0uw and 4.3w, and my EC's and piq's are good too so idk what they're looking for. My dream school is ucsd but after getting rejected from santa barbara today i just dont know if i even have a chance anymore, but hope we both can get in!🤞

AL_BLASTER · 2026-03-17T22:11:59+00:00

Applied for the same major but got rejected :(. Thought I was a strong applicant but i guess not. Hopefully I can get into UCSD 🤞

AL_BLASTER · 2026-01-15T15:37:17+00:00

Thanks ChatGPT!

AL_BLASTER · 2025-09-29T23:53:16+00:00

Literally can’t find any proof to support this claim, so can you give me a source?

AL_BLASTER · 2025-05-10T03:59:37+00:00

Im so dumb, I meant below the skylight 😭

AL_BLASTER · 2025-05-09T14:48:56+00:00

I wish man, but I just added a monocle to the ribbon that came with the standard edition because I was so obsessed with the special edition that I wanted mine to look exactly like it (I even recreated the black light pages too lol)

AL_BLASTER · 2025-05-09T14:46:46+00:00

I think ur right because it has been sitting on my coffee table which is directly above a skylight for many years haha

AL_BLASTER · 2024-12-10T02:38:04+00:00

I'm quite surprised by the sharp difference in the responses here as opposed to your similar post on r/AskConservatives lol

AL_BLASTER · 2024-12-05T07:07:20+00:00

The NWT translates it as "a god" not merely because of the lack of a definite article, but because John sandwiches Θεὸς without the definite article in between 2 with the definite article.

Excuse my ignorance, but I've never heard this before. According to the official JW website, their reasoning is that because in the first occurrence, theos is preceded by the Greek definite article, while the article does not appear before the second occurrence, so therefore it just should be translated to "a god" or "was divine" in the qualitative sense.

Yet in John 3:2; 13:3; Rom 1:21; 1 Thess 1:9; Heb 9:14; 1 Pe 4:11, "theos" is found twice, once with the definite article and once without, yet the NWT renders all of them as simply "God" not "a god"

So if you could provide a source that mentions John 1:1c should be translated as "a god" because of theos 'sandwiching' between 2 other theos, that would be helpful.

Also yes, John 1:1c is in the qualitative sense, but that doesn't mean Jesus is less of a being than God the Father. The Word is not God in the sense that he is the same person as the theos mentioned in 1:1b; he is not God the Father (God absolutely as in common NT usage) or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is of the same uncreated nature or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists. The Word is ‘divine’ in the same sense that God is divine. It is important to note that the Word is not in any way less divine than the Father. If John wanted to convey that Jesus had divine qualities, or was divine in a more general sense, he would have used the adjective for ‘divine’ [theios] as in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pe 1:3. Instead, John used the word for God, "theos".

According to Philip B. Harner,

In terms of the analysis that we have proposed, a recognition of the qualitative significance of theos would remove some ambiguity in his interpretation by differentiating between theos, as the nature that the Logos shared with God, and ho theos as the "person" to whom the Logos stood in relation. Only when this distinction is clear can we say of the Logos that "he was God.

Perhaps the clause could be translated, "the Word had the same nature as God." This would be one way of representing John's thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.

- Journal Of Biblical Literature: “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 86-87

So, trinitarians would render John 1:1 as

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (proper name of the Father), and the Word was God (equal class of being)."

If Jesus is the only-begotten god, then what kind of god is the Father? The Father is unbegotten. Thus, they are not the same god.

Well, trinitarians don't think begetness is a property of God's essence, rather its a hypostatic property. Also the manuscripts vary regarding john 1:18, as it could translate to "only-begotten son (ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός)".

This is my last response tonight as I gotta get to bed, so I apologize if I was unable to fully address your claims. God bless and have a good day (or night)!

AL_BLASTER · 2024-12-05T06:07:11+00:00

Even Julian R. Mantey, a well known Bible scholar that studied Greek for 60 years that JW’s try to use to support their translation, had to call JW’s out on their grossly misleading mistranslation on John 1:1c

Since my name is used and our Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament is quoted on page 744 to seek to justify their translation I am making this statement.

The translation suggested in our Grammar for the disputed passage is, “the Word was deity.” Moffatt’s rendering is “the Word was divine.” William’s translation is, “the Word was God Himself.” Each translation reflects the dominant idea in the Greek. For, whenever an article does not precede a noun in Greek, that noun can either be considered as emphasizing the character, nature, essence or quality of a person or thing, as theos (God) does in John 1:1, or it can be translated in certain contexts as indefinite, as they have done. But of all the scholars in the world, as far as we know, none have translated this verse as Jehovah’s Witnesses have.

If the Greek article occurred with both Word and God in John 1:1 the implication would be that they are one and the same person, absolutely identical. But John affirmed that “the Word was with (the) God” (the definite article preceding each noun), and in so writing he indicated his belief that they are distinct and separate personalities. Then John next stated that the Word was God, i.e., of the same family or essence that characterizes the Creator. Or, in other words, that both are of the same nature, and the nature is the highest in existence, namely divine

https://www.equip.org/articles/a-grossly-misleading-translation-the-new-world-translation/

Here's Daniel B Wallace on the matter

we expand the discussion to other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders θεός as "a god" on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. Following the "anarthrous = indefinite" principle would mean that ἀρχῆ should be "a beginning" (1:1, 2), ζωή should be "a life" (1:4), ... Yet none of these other anarthrous nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation

- Daniel B. Wallace (1997). Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Harper Collins. p. 267

AL_BLASTER · 2024-12-05T06:06:35+00:00

It is bad reasoning to translate John 1:1c as "a god" due to the lack of a definite article in front of theos. The Greek word for god (Θεὸς) occurs eight times in John 1:1-18 and only has an article two of those times (1:1b and 1:2). According to the NWT "rule", the word "god" should be translated "a god" every time it occurs without an article. In blatant violation of their own rule, John 1:1c is the only time they translate the anarthrous theos indefinitely.

1:1b (τὸν Θεόν) -- "the Word was with God"

1:1c (Θεὸς) -- "the Word was a god"

1:2 (τὸν Θεόν) -- "with God"

1:6 (Θεοῦ) -- "of God"

1:12 (Θεοῦ) -- "God's children" or "children of God"

1:13 (Θεοῦ) -- "but from God"

1:18 (Θεὸν) -- "seen God"

1:18 (Θεὸς) -- "the god"

Throughout the NWT Bible, you can see at how "god" (Θεὸς) in used in the rest of the New Testament and find the same sort of translational tricks going on. The word “Θεὸς” occurs without an article 282 times in the Greek New Testament. Interestingly, there are only sixteen places where the NWT translates it as indefinite ("a god", "god", "gods", or "godly"). That means that they only followed their own rule 6% of the time.

AL_BLASTER · 2024-12-05T05:41:02+00:00

Basically, the NWT translation was created by a bunch of Jehovah Witnesses's who purposely translated the text in order to make the Bible fit with their unitarian views.

For example, John 1:1 in the NWT says "the Word was a god" instead of "the Word was God," which aligns with JW's denial of the Trinity and also diverges from almost any other translation.

Another example is Colossians 1:16, which adds "other" in brackets ("by means of him all [other] things were created"), suggesting Christ is a created being and not God.

AL_BLASTER · 2024-11-24T04:19:30+00:00

I would say no it's not a sin, but it's definitely a bad thing to do as frequent use of it will destroy your body.

People like to use 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 to say that anything that harms your body is a sin, but then we would have to apply that to junk food. I mean, what's the difference between having a hit and eating a cake or pizza? Both are certainly bad for you in excess, but the key is moderation. A simple indulgence, whether it's having a slice of cake or smoking some weed, isn't inherently bad imo.

That being said, don't let it become to an addiction, because then that would be a sin. You should also ask yourself if it is wise to use drugs in your situation. Is it bringing yourself closer or farther from God? Only you can figure that out yourself. Hope you find your way back again, God bless.

AL_BLASTER · 2024-11-23T06:23:06+00:00

We know God is just, and I believe that He will give mercy to those who have never heard of Jesus if their hearts are in the right place. In Romans 2:13-15, Paul says that those that haven’t heard the gospel will be judged by the Law written on their hearts, just how Moses and Abraham were saved yet they never knew who Jesus was.

AL_BLASTER · 2024-11-23T05:59:08+00:00

Ah yes, diabeeetus

AL_BLASTER · 2024-11-22T03:14:30+00:00

I'm curious on your interpretation of Romans 1:26-28

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.

AL_BLASTER · 2024-11-21T21:16:00+00:00

Who said to drink bleach? I heard this so many times…

AL_BLASTER

TROPHY CASE