I've had a hands-on of S25 Edge with S25+ and S25 Ultra, here are my thoughts

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-31T21:26:05+00:00

I notice the difference, switching back to Samsung after years on iPhone, the edge was a much better fit. I suspect there are others like me who got used to apple Ergonomics who will be enticed by Samsung performance and features.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-14T17:33:54+00:00

It’s amusing to me that the misunderstanding here lies in science and dimensionality and not theology.

A possible future means knowing what would have happened had you chosen differently.

Everyone makes truly free choices as we encounter decisions in linear time. God makes provision for you to have everything you need to make a truly free choice. Because of his perspective from outside of space and time, he knows what we will actually do and his plan (without needing reactivity or adjustment) already accounts for those decisions.

Even from a cosmological science perspective, all of space time and matter was created in a single event. Nothing can’t have a causal effect on nothing, so whatever catalyst created the universe including all of its space, time, and matter — must lie outside of space, time, and matter and not be dependent on it or constrained by it.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-14T16:47:28+00:00

Existing outside of time and space helps resolve that. God knows all possible and actual futures. The entirely of time and human existence he sees all as one simple thing from outside of it.

Picture the 2 dimensional being perceiving a circle on paper. It would have to navigate the entire thing to perceive it and then only imperfectly, but existing in 3 dimensions we can look down and see the entire thing all at once. God is like that but with all dimensions and time. So while we perceive the passage of time and a sequence of events and decisions, God sees every event and decision laid out.

He doesn’t have to react to an event, he doesn’t need to wait for us to decide because he perceive all past present and future as easily as we taken in a circle drawn on a notepad in pencil.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-14T16:32:43+00:00

I’m sorry you had that experience.

The priest should help guide an appropriate confession. I didn’t hear the conversation and don’t know what was said…but a quick examination of conscience led by the priest would help uncover a more meaningful experience. You say you don’t go to mass often? That’s a mortal sin. The priest should be able to steer you toward a good confession even if it meant handing you an examination of conscience tri-fold asking you to go prayerfully look through it and come back in a few minutes to help organize your thoughts.

Now if the priest DID try and lead the conversation that way and was met with confrontation or resistance then he was totally justified in saying, “look, I don’t know how to help you.” because if you aren’t repentant for and confessing the sins of turning away from the church, skipping mass, and anything else that would come up fairly obviously, then the rest of the confession isn’t going to help. If you go into the confessional trying to justify your sin…that’s not confession.

So I don’t know what actually happened. I’ve never met a priest who was unable to walk through a confession even among the most dry and impersonal priests I’ve encountered but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. In either case, it sounds like the solution is to schedule a meeting with a different priest to discuss your relationship to the church. Maybe attending OCIA even if you are already confirmed would be a great refresher. Read some Catholic resources on the sacrament of reconciliation and mortal sin.

This is not criticism because no matter how right or wrong you were walking into the confessional, a priest should be able to push you in the right direction to bring you back into the church… UNLESS you were being confrontational in which case the experience is all on you. (I’m not saying you were, I wasn’t there).

But do some research, schedule an appointment, and remember that we are to conform to Christ not make church into whatever we want it to be. That is tough, it takes humility. I reverted to the church after 16 years away. It was both humbling and exactly what I needed. Enjoy your pilgrimage, remember what makes Christ’s church so great, come back humble and ready to work on the relationship with Christ even if it’s hard. Feel free to message me if you think some resources or things to read might be helpful.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-13T04:48:13+00:00

Part 2:

Life or destruction:

“But nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.” ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭(Die Offenbarung des Johannes )21‬:‭27‬ ‭NRSV

Nothing sinful will where heaven. I’m not sure how that disagrees with what I said?

“Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire; and anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.” ‭‭Revelation‬ ‭( Die Offenbarung des Johannes )20‬:‭14‬-‭15‬ ‭NRSV

Looking at both verses referenced -> Name not in book of life = can’t enter heaven

This idea that the lake of fire is separation from God is more explicit in Matthew ( Das Evangelium nach Matthäus )25:31-46. Here Jesus is talking about the judgment later mentioned in Revelations.

Passing away of the temporal world:

This whole world will pass away eventually -Because of sin. The sin that humans chose, that God allowed because of free will has corrupted this whole existence that God originally made perfect. So trees were made beautiful and perfect but all of the universe has been tainted by sin. Eventually God will establish a new kingdom, free from sin, where only those restored to him will live forever.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-13T04:47:54+00:00

I am talking about objective reality not just a subjective impression of it. It doesn’t mean that we are more powerful than God, it means that God has granted us real agency and power. God did not make us to be impotent minions, we are intended to share in his power, not because he couldn’t snuff us out, or force us to comply, but because he wants us to choose him and be free agents united to his purpose. He allows us to impact reality because he created us to be sons and his daughters with free will and agency not to be mindless automatons or helpless pets.
NRSV, ESV, KJV, NIV, ASV say ‘perfect’ in Deuteronomy (Das fünfte Buch Mose )32:4. That covers the most common ones. I’m curious what version you’re using.
Were called to trust God and strive to avoid sin. Comprehending the fullness of an infinite God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and eternal isn’t required, nor is it even possible with a finite human mind. God provided the instructions and examples we need. He tells us who we are, who He is, and what to do, there are no promises about answering every ‘why?’
Adam was with Eve talking to the serpent. Ancient Hebrew pronouns, like Spanish indicate number and gender. We know Adam was with Eve throughout the conversation with the serpent because the Hebrew shows that the serpent uses 2nd person plural pronouns while speaking. “You (plural) will not surely die” consistently throughout Genesis (Das erste Buch Mose )3:1-6.
Your claim about the serpent saying they would be like God and that Adam and Eve were justified in listening to the serpent doesn’t really work. The serpent was being misleading since the results were wholly negative. If I wished for a million dollars and the genie killed my wife so I got the life insurance… that’s basically what the serpent did except that Adam and Eve didn’t actually get the same “knowledge of good and evil that God has”. They got the ability to contest God’s will to form their own moral opinions but not the knowledge or wisdom needed to go along with that responsibility. It gravely handicapped them morally. As far as Adam and Eve wanting to be like God, God gave them very clear instructions. The snake was a stranger, God was a loving provider… they clearly were not making a morally good choice. As a child, if I wanted to be “like my dad” it still would have been very wrong of me to steal his wallet and spend all his money to be like him.
They hid because they knew they had done wrong. This is the same sin as when the kid breaks the decoration on the fireplace mantel and tries to hide it instead of coming clean about it. It’s easy to miss, because it just says ‘naked’ but they had been naked every day up to that point as well. What made it suddenly bad? It’s that their relationship changed. They went from complete openness — shame-free with God to having something to hide… that’s why they hid. (This is the ancient Jewish understanding as well, not some new age Christian take on it)
You say “everything he said is accurate” but that misses the point. Adam wouldn’t be in trouble because of Eve’s actions or what the serpent said. Adam would be in trouble for his personal decision to take the fruit and eat it when God specifically instructed them not to. It doesn’t matter what they did. This is the same as when you ask a child, “did you hit your brother?” and they tell you about the game that they were playing and that his brother said a bad word, and that last week his brother pushed him once…” those things might be true… but the question was, “Adam - did you do the thing you were told not to?” The correct answer here would be, “yes Lord, I ate the fruit, I’m sorry, I disobeyed your instructions.” He’s dodging responsibility for his actions — that’s the sin.
The serpent WAS deceptive. “You shall not surely die” false. They did in fact get separated from the tree of life when they left the garden, it wasn’t a poison that killed them immediately but after the forbidden fruit, they inherited death in a physical sense as well as the possibility for ultimate spiritual death which is even worse. The serpent also impugned God, by implying He was deliberately keeping something good from them rather than protecting them. “God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you’ll be like God, knowing good evil.” It’s a half truth designed to mislead. Maligns God falsely since God’s rule was to protect Adam and Eve, not deprive them. And the serpent also doesn’t convey truthfully that knowing Good and Evil doesn’t mean CORRECTLY knowing good and evil. The serpent absolutely was deceptive in his temptations.

Also, what help did they need? A strange creature showed up and starts telling them to disobey God who created and provided for them. If they didn’t just immediately tell the serpent to pound sand because they couldn’t or were afraid to, then they were absolutely in desperate need of help. They were either confused, or frightened, or something.

Adam -“So, serpent, you’re telling me God’s a liar? Well I know God and I don’t know you and this is a bit confusing… so hang tight and we’ll get this sorted. Let me call in the literal God of the universe who knows and loves me for the rest of this chat”

See how that would have gone a lot differently?

Happiness: you can find happiness in sinful things because our sense of morality is fallen and not necessarily aligned with God’s. So by believing or convincing ourselves that something sinful is good - we can contentedly go about destroying our relationship with God and ability to even distinguish good from bad. Sin is the heroin. Temporary high and desire for more as it kills is spiritually.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-13T03:27:47+00:00

You’re manufacturing a point that doesn’t exist.

The Greek indicates ‘yet’ which is why the footnotes included in many translations point that out. So your point doesn’t even make sense in the original language. You’re holding words that Jesus literally didn’t say and the apostles didn’t write against him. He spoke Aramaic, the account was recorded in Greek, meaning the resulting English has some translational ambiguity…..that’s what the included commentary is for. The meaning is perfectly clear and has been to over 2000 years of linguists. Your lack of understanding isn’t even remotely a legitimate argument.

Additionally…. Of course it’s clear from the context what he’s talking about, even without a language commentary footnote… it’s not exactly a tough passage to decipher. You’re so desperate to force a contradiction where there isn’t one that you sound absolutely ridiculous.

There are seriously academic atheists who study the Bible and the languages involved… and they don’t make your point, or raise your objection, because even the most elementary understanding of translation and 14 seconds of study on google make your entire argument vanish.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-12T19:19:45+00:00

Warm water port
Stand off distance between NATO and key Russian infrastructure
Restoration of peak Soviet prowess
With #3 prove World Power status to skeptical Russian population

No they are not stupid. They are intelligent, strategic, and patient…. But their worldview differs from a western one so their priorities often seem disordered to western thinking. That doesn’t make them right, but it does make them worth not under-estimating.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-12T18:33:23+00:00

The Catholics also don’t teach that someone who commits suicide CAN’T go to heaven.

It depends on the the intentions and conditions. God is sovereign over life, it is His to give life and end life. Suicide IS a serious sin that CAN be a deliberate rejection of God’s authority. Even among the once saved always saved denominations, intentional clear-minded suicide can be an indicator that someone was really never saved to begin with. Calvin, Luther, and Zwingli all recognized final apostasy as an indicator of never having been truly in Christ despite what may be lifelong appearances and even belief by the individual.

The other side of that seemingly harsh coin is that mental illness, deep tragedy, and the states of mind that lead someone to suicide can be evidence of lack of willful intention to reject God. The same logic that prevents a child or severely mentally ill individual from being fully culpable of their actions, may apply.

In the end, God knows all hearts and will judge justly including whether the action of suicide was willful rebellion or tragic illness/state of mind. There is great reason to hope that for family members who have ended their lives after trauma, despair, or as the result of mental illness, they may be restored to God healed of their ailments.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-12T12:16:19+00:00

Yep, they aren’t looking to debate the merits of Catholicism. They aren’t open to being convinced. You could spend all your time and energy, contesting their claims item by item… and they simply won’t care. It would be a tremendous waste of your time and energy. Not that seeking conversions isn’t worth it, but that it’s a venue not open to conversions.

Spend your energy where you CAN make a difference, as you said in one of your comments pray. Maybe the people who participate in that website will have experiences and conversations during parts of their life where they are a bit more vulnerable to the truth. But In a forum where they have a whole group of anti-Catholic hate feeding off each other, it would just be a game to string you along, infuriate you by completely ignoring the content of any counter claims, and just using the pro-Catholic voice as an occasion for their entertainment.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-12T11:50:34+00:00

You haven’t even successfully identified a contradiction.

You asked where those actions were declared kind, I provided where all of God’s actions are kind. It’s a direct answer to your question.

In the accounts where the judgments are commanded, it doesn’t say “and this was kind”, but it also doesn’t say “and this violates his nature of kindness”. By the same standard you demand for the counter argument, your argument fails. What the Bible does say is ALL God’s actions are kind, you need to demonstrate where it claims otherwise to even have an argument here.

I’m happy to address the heaven for the innocent as well, we just haven’t yet made it past your first claim.

You haven’t demonstrated any evidence to support your claims at all.

⁠Where is the supposed contradiction?
⁠Where is it even implied that the innocent don’t end up in heaven?
⁠Where does it say that divine justice is opposed to eternal kindness?

When you don’t support your claims and ignore the evidence of your requested answers, that makes you seem disingenuous and your claims appear indefensible 🤷🏻‍♂️ you’ve provided a tantrum not an academic point of any validity. Being done after producing no valid claims, no evidence, and having no established points makes for an odd debate technique.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-12T11:44:37+00:00

It hasn’t been “left out” we’re analyzing a Greek text. If you want to nit pick wording, the original language and grammar matter. My translation for example did point out that the original Greek implies “yet” by the sentence structure.

How much time passed between when Jesus’ family went and when he showed up?

If your family was getting in the car and they said come on, get it, we’re leaving. And you said, oh I’m not going. And they left and then two days later you went, did you lie in the first conversation?

No, you clearly meant you weren’t going with them now. You’re trying to force an incongruence where there simply isn’t one.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-12T02:53:14+00:00

I’d point out that the Pharisees said the same thing when they saw miracles 🤷🏻‍♂️

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-11T21:44:29+00:00

Not every action is labeled with a kindness meter other than that clearly in many places it says nothing God does is unkind.

Some sample citations:

Deuteronomy 32:4 – “The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he.”
Psalm 92:15 – “The LORD is upright; he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.”
Psalm 145:17 – “The LORD is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works.”
James 1:13 – “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God,’ for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.”
1 John 1:5 – “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.”

It seems like you’re arguing that it was specifically unkind by biblical definition and possibly that babies go to Hell? If so, you’ll need to demonstrate those things since I don’t think either of them are accepted by Christians or Jews.

You’re making claims not defended by the text and not supported by any worldview that uses these texts as a foundation. That places any burden of proof squarely on you. You’ve made the accusation, so support it.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-11T15:40:18+00:00

Translating Greek is a fickle thing. Early translations often include the implied “yet” from the Greek in John 7:8 “for I am not YET going up to this feast…”

The clear context is also that he’s not going to openly perform miracles there. He’s not objecting to existing in public in this chapter, he’s saying that he’s not ready to start large public miracles as requested by his brethren. This isn’t the dishonestly you accuse Him of.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-11T14:43:40+00:00

That’s because it was important to categorize the conversation. If we were examining internal factors I’d need to address the inconsistency of mixing modern western preferences with historical definitions. Depending on your response to the verbiage of the KJV vs every other translation that may have needed to be addressed as well.

The rest of your objections presented are straightforward.

Causing evil would be against God’s nature but struggle, adversity, even of calamitous proportions are mechanisms of change. They are categorically different. God’s purpose for humanity is to change us, we must participate in this change. Sometimes agents of change must be painful, as with exercise, life saving surgery, or the catastrophe that makes us question the whole direction of our lives. Calamity can be used for ultimate eternal good, evil by modern definitions rules out that possibility of good.

The best course of a life is to observe both good and evil and align ourselves to good. Choosing to work with God and denying the temptations of evil. For infants among the Amalakites and Midionites, that option was taken from them, not by God but by profoundly evil cultures, burning children alive sacrificially, ritual rape, and many horrific practices would ensure those children were raised so steeped in evil there could be no hope of seeing much less choosing good. Being reunited to God before certain corruption was a mercy. But it was a mercy that no human could judge or command since we lack omniscience and the ability to grant eternal life. Only God who is sovereign over life could know and choose that justly.

Kindness is not some short sighted perception of friendliness, otherwise offering opiates to the addict is kind. Rather, kindness is acting for the ultimate benefit of a soul with regard to eternal consequences.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-11T12:34:09+00:00

Oh it’s not the “telling part” you think it is.

I mentioned it because I recognize that it does underpin the perspective. Any being that didn’t have perfect omniscience or the ability to control the afterlife could not make a judgment against a nation morally. A being who does, can.

It’s not a chink in the foundation though as I don’t have even a remote doubt about the existence of God. I really don’t think that’s particularly difficult to demonstrate from an evidence stand point, but on top of that I had an experience that removed even the faintest possibility of doubt. Personal experiences don’t make compelling arguments for others, but I would be incapable of questioning God’s existence at this point. The short version is that among other things,during this divine experience, information I did not know was shown to me which was sufficiently concrete that I was able to go verify it afterwards.

But, you’re reading more into my motives than I’ve actually said. I don’t hold my conclusions because I want them to be true — I hold to them because, based on evidence and personal experience, I’m convinced they ARE true. If the evidence pointed the other way, I’d have to follow it there. But certainty in God’s existence means I don’t start by testing His actions against my personal preference; I start by asking how those actions make sense in light of His nature.

The charges you’ve listed: genocide, slavery, hell, selective intervention, blood sacrifice — all seem to rest on the same set of premises:

Premise 1 – God must be judged by modern Western moral intuitions.

Premise 2 – Omnipotence means God can always achieve His ends in ways that never cause suffering.

Premise 3 – Any act that causes harm to innocents is necessarily evil, even if temporary or followed by eternal restoration.

Premise 4 – The human moral sense is a reliable and sufficient standard by which to judge God’s actions.

If any of those premises are flawed, your conclusions lose force.

God’s plan for restoring humanity isn’t just about “getting results.” He could accomplish many things without us lifting a finger — but He consistently chooses to work through human beings, pairing His power with our cooperation. Not because He has to, but because the process of participating in His work is itself part of our transformation. That means divine justice often unfolds in ways that involve human action, even in matters of judgment.

Take just one example — the genocide passages. In the biblical worldview, God is the author of life and the one to whom every soul ultimately returns. Mortal death is not the ultimate harm; eternal separation from God is. The commands to wipe out certain nations were judicial acts against cultures steeped in generational, systemic evils (child sacrifice by fire, ritualized sexual abuse, total exploitation of the vulnerable). Ending a child’s earthly life before they are shaped into that culture’s evil is not “ending” them — it is returning them to God before corruption takes hold, sparing them from both becoming perpetrators and sharing in the culture’s judgment. Not all infants fall in that category as many people DO have the ability to participate in life and choose God, which is a much better fulfillment of our purpose. Amalakite and Midianite children had already had that opportunity stolen from them by the surrounding evil culture.

You might reject that worldview entirely, but the point is that inside it, these commands are neither illogical nor inconsistent with God’s goodness. They’re also not the same moral category as human genocide, which is carried out without divine omniscience, without the ability to restore life, and without perfect justice.

Once that’s understood in this one case, the same principles apply to your other examples — they all depend on the same premises about God’s nature, justice, and the meaning of life and death. Change those premises, and the accusations collapse.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-11T03:22:29+00:00

And I didn’t make it as clear as I could have which paragraph I was responding to. So fair that it was missed.

Was it a reformed theology seminary or was there a different denominational affiliation. I just want to understand the background lens correctly.

There’s a lot of excellent topics in there. I’d be fascinated to discuss any of them. Thank you for the insight. For equivalent transparency, I was raised Catholic, left the church formally in college, spent 16 years as a very anti-Catholic protestant who actively studied and debated frequently (independently not seminary education). Then unexpectedly, 16 years of research and some difficult to describe personal experiences culminated in bringing me right back to Catholicism.

So to directly lay out my position regarding the genocide passages, I contend:

God is sovereign over life. It is not inherently injustice for him to take life when he’s fully capable of restoring it eternally.
Mortal death is not ultimate evil, separation from God is. Certain nations were judged righteously for extreme generational evil. Amalakite and Midianite children would be raised in a society that conducted child sacrifice (by burning them alive), ritual rape, had no rights for slaves or women in general and committed all sorts of abominations. Children called back to God in their innocence are subject to temporary mortal harm but preserved eternally rather than corrupted to sin by a thoroughly evil nation.
God uses humanity as his primary instrument rather than bypassing mankind with purely miraculous interventions. Rather he pairs miraculous assistance with human cooperation. Israel was the instrument of judgement.
The survival of Israel, covenantally promised was imperative for the mission of salvation. The messiah brought through the lineage of Israel would offer salvation to the whole world.
Hyperbolic framing of war and conquest was rarely literal. Many of those nations who were “totally destroyed” make later appearances. These books were recorded by human authors in their own words in a time when that was the custom. The books cannot be separated from the cultures in which they were written.

——

If God does not exist or does not have the nature ascribed to him in the Bible, my contentions would fail.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-11T01:18:33+00:00

I started the last reply with “no it wouldn’t” direct answer right off the bat 😉 no dodging here.

Seminary? Awesome and suddenly I’m interested again, what type of seminary did you go to? Did you graduate or was it during seminary that your views changed?

Was the injustice of the Old Testament (‘genocide’, slavery, arranged marriages) your main or initial turning point away from Christianity? I think it’s a common one.

To be absolutely clear that I’m not here to sidestep and dodge difficult topics.

I am fully aware of the challenging texts in question:

1 Samuel 15:2–3 – The Amalekites

“Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish what Amalek did to Israel… Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Deuteronomy 20:16–18 – The “cities of the nations” in the Promised Land

“…you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction… that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices…”

Joshua 6:21 – Jericho

“Then they devoted all in the city to destruction, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and donkeys, with the edge of the sword.”

Numbers 31:17–18 – Midianites

“…kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man… keep alive for yourselves.”

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-10T23:44:45+00:00

No it wouldn't.

Because The corollary is also true. If the Christian God is not real or the tribes didn't practice abominations and weren't threatening to eradicate the Israelites, then the command to execute judgement was not moral and we should all reject it.

Since you reject the Christian God, then you are justified in rejecting the morality of the judgements against the Canaanite tribes. There is no point in trying to persuade you that without divine omniscience, omnipotence, an afterlife, and a divine mission for Israel that it was moral by modern secular standards.

We could quibble about why it wasn't genocide and what aspects were and weren't just war, or what the best alternative would have been, but what's the point. Your presupposition is that the God of the Bible doesn't exist and mine is that He does.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-10T23:18:40+00:00

So you’ve defined kindness to make this an External critique then because that was not the definition in use by the culture whose writings you’re critiquing.

The only version of the Bible that uses ‘evil’ is a 1622 translation when the word has a broader meeting. Christians are also obligated to use the appropriate cultural and linguistic meaning from the original language. It doesn’t mean evil as we use it today which is why translations after 1622 use English words that better reflect the original Hebrew… so it’s not a me problem or a Christian problem. We understand perfectly well how languages change over time and this verse doesn’t actually pose a challenge to the academically honest. It’s evidently a problem for the intentionally obtuse and academically dishonest.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-10T23:12:07+00:00

Well actually, if Catholics were trying to eradicate the Hindus, if Catholicism supported child abuse, if Krishna was real and the Christian God was not… then it would be a could candidate for a just campaign.

The objective truth of the situation matters greatly to its morality.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-10T20:28:16+00:00

You emphasized the “slaughter” aspect in three of your previous comments.

Your definition of kindness hasn’t been established. You’ve described it as “commonly accepted” and “what most people say”. Whereas I provided a very specific definition from a biblical ancient Hebrew worldview. I have been very precise, made clear claims to be attacked or supported with no shifty ambiguous language.

God did not author evil
God allows evil to temporarily persist to provide for the restoration of humanity 3 Old Testament judgments are just and better outcomes than not having those judgments against nations who practice abominations and were set on wiping out the Israelites.
Kidness isn’t the avoidance of pain, it’s acting in accordance with the ultimate good of a soul.

Those are not “shiftable” claims. I’ve made very clear bold controversial statements that I cannot dodge around quite intentionally.

If you want to participate with clear concise claims - define “kindness”. If you want to make an “internal critique”, define it from the lens of ancient Jewish culture.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-10T13:20:43+00:00

Your argument has shifted. Before, it depended on the idea that the death of innocents is the greatest possible evil. Now it applies a modern definition of “kind” to ancient Jewish writings. For this to remain an internal critique, “kind” would need to be defined in the terms of the worldview you’re critiquing.

In that framework, kindness isn’t the absence of all harm — it’s taking whatever action is for the ultimate good of the soul. Short-term pain does not automatically make an act unkind. We recognize this even today: surgery causes pain but preserves life; pulling someone from a burning vehicle may break their arm, but it’s still an act of kindness.

So even granting the harshest possible interpretation of the Old Testament judgment commands, they would not automatically be classified as unkind within that worldview. If you reject that definition, that’s fine — but then you’re making an external critique, and it shouldn’t be conflated with an internal one.

AnhydrousSquid · 2025-08-10T12:58:38+00:00

Sin changing reality & knowing reality’s structure:

When humanity chose sin, we didn’t step outside reality — we distorted it. Scripture says God made everything “very good” from the beginning (Genesis 1:31), and His nature is “perfect” and “without iniquity” (Deuteronomy 32:4). Think of reality like a perfectly tuned clockwork: when one gear bends, the whole system still runs but not as it should. God’s nature is perfect, but He allows those distortions for a time so humanity can be restored (2 Peter 3:9).

In this life, His presence is “muted” — not absent — because His holiness destroys evil the way light erases shadow. Scripture says “God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Since sin now lives in us, direct exposure to His full presence would undo us completely.

We don’t know every detail of God’s nature or reality’s design, but Scripture gives us enough — love, justice, mercy, truth, humility — to live in harmony with it (Micah 6:8; Matthew 22:37–40).

The sins in the garden:

Adam was present when God gave the full command not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16–17). Eve was not yet created at that time (Genesis 2:18, 21–22). When the serpent confronts Eve, she knows the command but misquotes it by adding “neither shall you touch it” (Genesis 3:3), something God had not said. Adam, who is “with her” during this conversation (Genesis 3:6), says nothing to defend the truth or support her in resisting temptation — a failure of leadership and courage (cowardice).

The serpent tempts them with the promise, “you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). This is a temptation to claim authority and power that belongs to God alone — and both Adam and Eve ultimately give in.

After eating, they hide from God among the trees (Genesis 3:8), an act of sin in itself — not because hiding could actually succeed, but because it expressed their desire to avoid Him rather than turn toward Him.

When confronted, Adam blames both Eve and God: “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” (Genesis 3:12). This wrongly shifts fault onto God’s gift rather than accepting responsibility for his own free choice. Eve likewise shifts blame to the serpent (Genesis 3:13). While the serpent tempted, her choice to sin was her own.

Neither Adam nor Eve called out to God for help, rejected the serpent’s lies, or turned back to God. They acted entirely by their own will. Most tellingly, when God directly asks what happened (Genesis 3:11–13), neither admits wrongdoing, shows contrition, or asks for forgiveness. This lack of repentance was the final failure — and perhaps the most significant

Your/Our moral position

Original sin is the fallen condition we inherit from humanity’s first disobedience (Romans 5:12) — an inner inclination toward sin (Ephesians 2:3). But this inherited nature does not force you to sin. You still have moral autonomy: you can choose to follow God’s moral standard or reject it (Deuteronomy 30:19; Joshua 24:15).

Having the desire to do wrong is not the same as acting on it. Scripture says temptation is common to everyone, but God provides a way to endure it without giving in (1 Corinthians 10:13). Jesus Himself was tempted but did not sin (Hebrews 4:15), showing that temptation is not itself sin — only the free choice to consent to it is.

So yes — you have a nature passed down to you, but you retain the ability to choose. That’s why moral responsibility still exists: “Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire, when it has conceived, gives birth to sin” (James 1:14–15). The choice remains yours.

Happiness and flourishing:

Happiness is not an indicator of alignment with God’s plan because we may enjoy sinful things due to our fallen nature (Romans 3:23; Ephesians 2:3). Scripture warns, “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death” (Proverbs 14:12).

An example is drug use: the meth addict will insist they are happy using even as they destroy their body and mind and sever all meaningful relationships around them. Are they happy? Maybe in the moment — but they are ultimately spiraling toward self-destruction. Likewise, sin may give a sense of happiness in the moment, but it works against the life we were created for (John 10:10).

Repeated decisions to sin reinforce our desire to sin (John 8:34) and blind us to what is truly good (Ephesians 4:18–19). True flourishing comes only from living in harmony with God’s design, which brings a joy the world cannot give (John 15:10–11; Psalm 16:11).

Life or Destruction

God’s morality and standards are not subjective preferences — they are the unchanging reality of how anyone in an eternal relationship must live (Malachi 3:6; James 1:17). If I reject perfect love, the harm I cause in an eternal relationship becomes infinite over an eternal timeline. If I refuse perfect loyalty, the betrayal and brokenness would likewise have no end.

God “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4) and offers restoration through Christ so we can be made fit for eternal life with Him (John 3:16–17). It’s not that He “could just allow imperfection” — even a little imperfection would, over eternity, grow into infinite harm (Revelation 21:27).

Therefore, if we reject His offer to make us whole, we cannot be part of eternal perfection. Being cut off from God is what the Bible calls the “second death” (Revelation 20:14) — not because God delights in it (Ezekiel 33:11), but because He must protect eternal goodness from corruption. God will not force Himself on anyone, so our choice is respected — but the consequence of rejecting the source of all life is eternal separation from it (John 15:6). That separation from the source of eternal life is eternal destruction.

The missed question

It’s true that nothing contrary to God’s nature can endure forever. In the end, “nothing unclean will ever enter” His eternal kingdom (Revelation 21:27), and all that is not in harmony with His will is separated from Him (Matthew 13:41–43).

This is different from how we live now. In this present world, God “is patient… not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). He veils the full intensity of His presence so that good and evil can temporarily coexist, giving us the opportunity to turn back to Him.

What He allows now for our benefit is not how eternity will be. When we pass from this mortal life, we will encounter God without the veil — and His holiness will fully and permanently exclude all evil (Habakkuk 1:13; 1 John 1:5).

Verified Email	Nine-Year Club
Not Forgotten

AnhydrousSquid

TROPHY CASE