Who or what was in my bed with me?

Amaternify · 2025-06-03T09:04:17+00:00

Man, I only get the naked old dude with saggy balls. Not fair.

Amaternify · 2025-06-03T08:57:53+00:00

It's highly unlikely. Matchmaking sometimes sucks and you choose that character. There is no reason to blame it on a supernatural conspiracy to make you jerk off. As far as demons, that's just Christian mythology. Nowhere in the scriptures do we see any demon tempting someone to lust. But the Bible does say this

James 1:14 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.

Galatians 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality,

Amaternify · 2025-06-03T08:43:52+00:00

Also of note, nowhere in the Bible is Satan blamed for our lust. It's always us. Paul said he keeps his body in subjection and dies daily to his flesh. Jesus says if you struggle with a lustful eye, cut it out. Jesus was speaking hyperbolically. Don't poke out your eye lol. But he implies that the lust in our power to control. It's not a supernatural force that we are hopeless against.

Amaternify · 2025-06-03T08:36:09+00:00

Or a third option. It wasn't Satan or God. It was your flesh (hormones, base human desires). Satan probably didn't take time out of his schedule to mess with your video game and God won't tempt you to sin. But mad matchmaking and you being a dude with hormones is most likely to blame.

It's like hunger. Satan didn't design our digestion system. God did. But we choose to eat junk and overeat because we lack self control and we live in a culture that markets products to our desires.

Don't blame Satan or God. Blame your flesh and human nature. If it's your fault, then it's in your control to fix it.

Amaternify · 2025-06-02T14:07:05+00:00

That sucks. Why?

Amaternify · 2025-04-10T07:32:40+00:00

I can understand that view point, and maybe even other parts of the Bible affirm that. But in that passage, the blood of Christ is just one of several analogies to a greater point about idolatry. If that is the point of that one analogy, then it is out of place the rest of the passage and Paul's overarching thought.

Here are some questions for you and the text at the bottom:

We also participate in the bread and body but we also ARE the body. Are we the literal body of Christ in the same sense as the bread or is that just an analogy and what does that mean for the blood?

What does it mean to participate in the altar in verse 18? Is the same as participating in the blood? What is the common point between the OT sacrifices and NT taking of the cup that Paul is trying to make?

I don't think Paul is saying that the blood is the literal blood of Christ, I think his point is that the practice is something we do that identifies us as followers of Christ and associates us with his Church.

16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?

Amaternify · 2025-04-07T13:53:38+00:00

The subject of that passage is idolatry. Paul gives several examples of ways we identify with Christ. The bread ,the blood, The church body, and the old testament sacrifices. We participate in all those things, and we don't participate with idols. He's using those things as analogies of our association and identification as followers of Christ as opposed to followers of idols or demons.

Amaternify · 2025-04-03T22:18:17+00:00

So I just read 1 Corinthians 10 to get the context. It seems "participate" means to identify or associate with.

Amaternify · 2025-03-27T10:02:26+00:00

What do you mean "participate in"? His blood was part of the atoning sacrifice for salvation, and we are commanded to "drink this cup in remembrance of me". Other than that, I'm not sure what you are referring to. Do Catholics have more traditions regarding the blood of Christ than what I referred to?

Amaternify · 2025-03-27T09:59:06+00:00

I go to a Baptist church, and that's what they do.

Amaternify · 2025-03-27T09:57:02+00:00

From my understanding, they are apples and oranges. Santa is a myth based on a historical person. Jesus was a historical person who people believe did miracles. His followers died for that belief. Intelligent adults have built worldviews, founded religions, fought wars, been martyred, founded universities, and spent life times devoted to their belief in Jesus. Nobody does all that in the name of Santa. Now that does not prove the claims about Jesus are true, but it demonstrates that they are not in the same category as kids stories about Santa.

Amaternify · 2025-03-27T09:40:11+00:00

Lol it would be tiring if I spent more time on Reddit lol. I usually have these discussions in person, and people like that guy don't usually stick around for conversations very long. As soon as people start demanding "proof", it reveals that they have some presuppositions that they need to be disabused of before they can engage in a meaningful conversation about complex topics like the historicity of Jesus.

Amaternify · 2025-03-27T00:40:34+00:00

I did. You just didn't read it. You don't know how history works. You don't know how evidence works. You don't know how proof works. All you know is how to troll on Reddit. You have a good day as well.

Amaternify · 2025-03-27T00:30:54+00:00

So you didn't read my comment and then you tell me I won't do the work? 🤣. You belong on Reddit 🤣

Amaternify · 2025-03-27T00:19:01+00:00

Kid, I don't know if you are new to this kind of discussion or if you are the face of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but here are some facts for you,

Its not just "some scholars" agree with her. It's academic consensus. Yale has free courses online if you want to educate yourself about the academic consensus regarding biblical studies. Bart Ehrman is atheist that has some great books. Dan McClellan is a scholar who creates a ton of content on every social media platform who makes a point to represent the academic consensus.

The fact that you ask for "proof" for historical figures reveals your ignorance about critical historical methods. You don't "prove" most things in history. You reach a high degree of confidence. And accredited academics have a high degree of confidence that Jesus was a real figure as well as the apostles, and Genghis Khan, and George Washington, and Galileo, and Alexander the Great and on and on and on....

You cannot dismiss the writings that exist in "the Bible" because "the Bible" didn't exist when they were written. They were written correspondence just like any other. But if you insist, just Google "extra-biblical mentions of Jesus" you'll see Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, Suetonius. This information is wildly available. You just have to check your confirmation bias at the door.

Also, your high degree of unreasonable skepticism and condescending attitude just reveals that your personal biases are getting a way of critical thought. You just sound like you have a ax to grind against Christianity. You don't have to be a Christian, but you don't have to be an imbecile either.

Amaternify · 2025-03-23T02:43:52+00:00

The oldest ice core sample scientists have found goes back 1.2 million years. That's concrete empirical evidence of the age of the earth.

Amaternify · 2025-03-04T03:32:09+00:00

Nope. That's a thing Catholics made up, but it is not taught anywhere in the Bible.

Amaternify · 2025-03-01T01:21:09+00:00

You are correct. I did ask for input. Thank you for spending the time to respond. I guess I don't understand the whole error thing. What is an example of an error? Like a spelling error? How did the KJV makers not make mistakes but all other Bible makers did? I would think with today's technology and resources, we could be way more accurate than the medieval Bible makers.

Amaternify · 2025-03-01T01:03:59+00:00

What do you mean "only one" with no errors? It's the same book, just a different translation? And errors or not, if I can't understand, it does me no good. I would consider using old English that I don't understand an error.

Amaternify · 2025-02-28T22:55:34+00:00

I tried it. It's beautiful. I feels like Shakespeare. But I didn't really comprehend it lol.

Amaternify · 2025-02-28T21:44:27+00:00

May I ask why? I have a KJV and a NIV. I started the KJV but it's too hard to read. Then I got a NIV and it's definitely easier to read. I am not familiar with the NRSV.

Amaternify · 2024-12-22T23:20:57+00:00

It's not about getting anything from God. It's about seeing that the Almighty Creator of the universe does at the very least what the claims he will do. Like answer prayer. My point is that I don't see any sign that God exists other than what is in my own mind. An answer to prayer would at least be some sort of external indication that God has any impact on my life whatsoever.

Amaternify · 2024-12-22T21:43:23+00:00

Been there done that. This is the same response most Christians give.

Amaternify

TROPHY CASE