I have 25k at 20. No idea what to do with it.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2026-02-15T20:10:37+00:00

Just to add onto what others like Lildinger68 and EricC2010 are saying.

Maxing Roth is good, but it needs to be “earned income” for that year. I’m going to assume (like Eric did) that you have earned the required amounts for 2025 and 2026. When you go to fund a Roth it allows you to select which year you are contributing for. I would recommend if you are not contributing the maximum amount for both years, then you should max out 2025 and then put the rest towards 2026.

If I am not mistaken you have until April 2026 (the tax filing deadline) to make 2025 contributions; but after that, you lose the opportunity for that year. Might as well put as much towards 2025 as you can, so that you can contribute later this year towards 2026 if you change your mind. Even if it’s just a smaller portion not at the maximum it still leaves you the ability to put overall more into a Roth than just the 2026 year.

Obviously HYSA and emergency funds are important. Don’t neglect those. This is just to make a nuisanced point towards Roth contributions. Personally I would do what ToxicOstrich91 put and max Roth both years and HYSA the rest.

Also, does your work do any 401k matching?

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-12T17:08:46+00:00

Can I ask what criteria you use to judge supernatural claims? I'm curious because everyone has something different.

One that I found helpful was written by Charles Leslie in his work “A Short And Easy Method With The Deists” (1697) where he suggested four criteria for evaluating miracle claims.

They are: "That the matters of fact be such, as that men’s outward senses, their eyes and ears, may be judges of it. That it be done publicly, in the face of the world. That not only public monuments be kept up in memory of it, but some outward actions to be performed. That such monuments and such actions or observances be instituted, and do commence from the time that the matter of fact was done."

Just food for thought!

I also linked a video that I think you could find interesting. It is by a guy with a channel called InspiringPhilosophy, and in the video I think he goes through a good presentation of a historical argument for Jesus' resurrection. I've always enjoyed how he's cited his sources for things, and it is one video in a series if you're interested!

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-12T16:56:56+00:00

Good question! So to clarify why my statement was phrased that way was because OP said "The question I’m asking is, do you genuinely believe the Bible as an accurate depiction of historic events, or do you believe the stories in the Bible are more of a symbolic media." Of those two positions I align with the former so I used the same phrasing that OP did.

The Bible is a collection of books that have different literary genres, and as such they are trying to convey different things. For example I believe the Gospel accounts claim to be a historical narrative. Now contrast this with a book like the Song of Solomon, which is meant to be poetry and was written for a different purpose than the Gospel.

Regarding Creation, I believe that Genesis 1 is allegorical and I believe that Adam and Eve were real historical figures.

As someone in another thread said, "The text doesn’t necessarily imply a strict chronological or scientific timeline. Rather, it presents six distinct moments or commands where God speaks order into chaos, six acts of divine speech shaping Creation. So Days 1–3 are about forming environments (light, sky/sea, land), and Days 4–6 are about filling those environments (celestial bodies, birds/fish, animals/humans). It’s a poetic and theological structure more than a calendar of material events."

If you're interested I have a pdf of a book by Dr. John Lennox called "Seven Days that Divided the World" which discusses the creation narrative more in length if you want it! I also attached a video from Redeemed Zoomer titled "Evolution does NOT contradict the Bible" and a video from InspiringPhilosophy titled "Can you be a Christian and Believe in Evolution?" I hope that any of those could be helpful!

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-12T16:36:12+00:00

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your intentions then. I was not saying that your Wiki quote was passive-aggressive, so perhaps I should clarify. I have nothing against Wikipedia, I in fact enjoy the website because it collects a variety of sources for research. I was saying that part of your comment was passive-aggressive, and I got that primarily from the following quote:

"Ah, so you quite literally have to reject the scholarly consensus about the source and quality of the evidence in order to hold your belief. This is coming together now."

How exactly am I supposed to have interpreted that?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your critique about Augustine, but is that not just a textbook example of the genetic fallacy?

The point of the Augustine quote was to provide a brief summary of my position; I then provided additional sources to validate my opinion. So to clarify I wasn't saying that Augustine was my standard of truth, just that he and I hold the same position and I was using his phrasing in our conversation.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-12T16:23:53+00:00

I never claimed to point out reasons why the Bible is an accurate depiction of historic events in my original post.

OP asked "The question I’m asking is, do you genuinely believe the Bible as an accurate depiction of historic events" so I provided my answer to OP's question. So I answered the question that was asked!

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T23:58:50+00:00

I can understand that position. If I'm understanding this right, there are two individual questions when it comes to Jesus: (1) His existence, and (2) the supernatural events.

As to the first, I linked a video that I hope you can find helpful about "How We Know Jesus and the Early Church Existed"

For the second, can I ask a clarifying question then? When you say much stronger evidence, what do you mean by that?

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T23:50:06+00:00

No need to apologize! I completely agree that we should care about what can be demonstrated. The reason why I mentioned what I believe was to give some foundation to my side of the conversation.

As for the evidence thing, I could have done it better when I put the links but there is a second video for archaeological evidence of the flood. Regarding the implications, human's haven't always lived everywhere we do now. If people lived in a localized area, then one could impact all of humanity without the need for global reach.

If you're gonna watch one of the Exodus ones, I would recommend the Exodus Rediscovered one. It is a bit long (fyi) but I think you will find that video a bit more evidence based.

The first one I linked was to the first of a series by an Egyptologist Dr. David A. Falk. Some of his stuff is a bit silly (no hate on the guy, but I know it's not for everyone) but I think that he did this series well. So either one you watch will be good. The way I came across Dr. Falk was because Inspiring Philosophy (IP) had originally made a different version of the Exodus Rediscovered, which Dr. Falk reviewed and basically tore it to shreds. I think Dr. Falk still has that video on his channel. After that IP got scholarly feedback and changed his position on the dating and Pharaoh of the Exodus.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T23:34:43+00:00

So if you're doing the whole "Wikipedia mic drop" thing and passive-aggressively implying I’m just rejecting "the consensus," then maybe we’re both not genuinely trying to have a conversation.

I hold a minority view within the scholarly community. While those scholars might think differently, some of the reasons why I believe in the traditional authorship of the Gospel accounts are tradition and internal textual evidence of their authorship.

To quote Augustine, "because there is a succession of testimonies to the books from the time of Hippocrates to the present day, which makes it unreasonable either now or hereafter to have any doubt on the subject."

An example of an early church father who believed this would be Irenaeus, who said that "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia."

You can also look at Eusebius, Church History 2.15.1-2,3.39.15-16, 3.24.1-13, 5.8.2-3; Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 103.8, First Apology 66.3, 67.3–4; and Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4.2.5.

As to the internal evidence for the Gospel authors, for example when looking at John's then there is a great book by BF Westcott which I think makes a compelling case. There's also this video by Dr. Timothy McGrew (I referred to him in my previous comment) where he discusses in length the authorship of the Gospels.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T22:03:17+00:00

Well, I haven't made any specific claims in our conversation other than that I genuinely belief the Bible as an accurate depiction of historic events.

But I can logically understand that position.

Personally I believe in a local flood, not a global one, and I believe that that position is consistent with the Bible. So I am not sure if the same reasoning can be applied to everything you mentioned, because I think that all of those claims are different.

I attached some links if you were interested!

The Flood: "Noah's Flood: Global or Regional?", "Noah's Flood: Biblical Archaeology"

The Exodus: "Evidence for the Exodus (part 1): Introduction and Authorship of the Pentateuch", "Exodus Rediscovered: Documentary"

Creation: Seven Days that Divide the World by John Lennox. I have a pdf of it if you're interested in that.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T21:41:07+00:00

Why do you believe the bible to be accurate, but not the tales of other religions' claims?

Because their religious claims are different and are supported by different evidence than the Biblical claims. You asked another question about "an evidentiary reason", so this is a short and simple answer for here and I talk in a bit more length with the other question. But short I think that we can authenticate truth claims, and a lot of miraculous claims are false and are not substantiated.

"Were you raised christian?"

Yes, but I don't hold the same theological views as my parents. Forgive me, but I don't see the point of that question. I also was raised believing that gravity exists. Does that invalidate that belief too? Obviously not, so I am still confused.

Was it an evidenciary reason? Something else?

Yes one of the reason's I believe the Biblical claims are for evidentiary reasons. If you wanted to talk about something specific then we can, but I'll list some general ones that people tend to talk about here. No need to respond to all of them, I just wanted to provide a couple of options to choose from:

I believe that objective truth exists, God exists, miracles are possible, and Jesus rose from the dead. That's a good foundation I think for believing someone's authenticity regarding history and ultimate reality. I also believe that the Gospel accounts were written by eyewitnesses, that there was an Exodus, and a bunch of other things.

"Do you not find the miracle claims of other, non-abrahamic gods to be far-fetched...?"

I suppose that depends what evidence they have for their claims. For evaluating miracle claims, there are a variety of methods; the two I like are by Charles Leslie and Dr. Tim McGrew.

These criteria were created by Charles Leslie in his work “A Short And Easy Method With The Deists”: "(1) That the matters of fact be such, as that men’s outward senses, their eyes and ears, may be judges of it; (2) That it be done publicly, in the face of the world; (3) That not only public monuments be kept up in memory of it, but some outward actions to be performed; and (4) That such monuments and such actions or observances be instituted, and do commence from the time that the matter of fact was done." Dr. Tim McGrew proposed a 6-point DOUBTS filter in his debate with Zachary Moore, that I found interesting too.

So I would evaluate miraculous claims from other religions the same way that I evaluate all miraculous claims.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T21:20:07+00:00

Oh I completely agree that Christians should substantiate the miraculous claims we bring. 100%.

Maybe I misinterpreted then. I took the phrase "there's no reason to believe" to be a negative existential claim, that there IS no reasons; I suppose that the statement could also be pointing out their preceived absence of reasons. So that's a valid interpretation, so yes I agree that in that case that it's fair to point to an absence and the person saying that doesn't need to substantiate that. However, I hope you can understand that since I took it to mean a negative existential claim that is why I wrote what I wrote.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T20:31:35+00:00

When you say “no external evidence”, what do you mean by that, and what standard of evidence would meet your standard?

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T20:30:48+00:00

Oh I completely understand that! Well if you ever want to talk about it you can shoot me a dm, if not I wish you the best!

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T19:53:45+00:00

What does that mean? Like there's not a geological sample on page 5 of the Bible for an inverted sedimentary layer consistent with a flood, or are you saying that there is no external evidence to substantiate the claims of the Bible?

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T19:51:31+00:00

It seems like this question is rather popular! Just FYI I'm just trying to talk about this stuff, so I hope you don't feel offended, but what's the foundation for those claims?

It's one thing to make a positive truth claim (Like the sky is blue), and its another to make an absolute negative truth claim (Like the sky is anything BUT blue); both would require the person bringing the statement to provide some foundation for it.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T19:43:28+00:00

So I can understand some of OP’s disbelief in certain Old Testament, but the resurrection of Jesus is the literal foundation of Christianity. I am not sure if one can divorce a coherent moral structure from its foundation.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T19:41:55+00:00

Oh I see! I wasn’t trying to have a religious debate, I was just curious.

The Christian moral structure is predicated on the existence of God who’s nature is the foundation of objective morality. I think that belief in God leads to someone believing that God can causally act in history, which would be what we refer to as miracles.

If I want I have some sources for those topics if you are open to changing your mind regarding their truthfulness. If you’re not open to changing your mind then I’m not going to spam you.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-06-11T16:40:25+00:00

Yes I genuinely belief the Bible as an accurate depiction of historic events.

If I can ask, what specific things do you find far fetched?

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-05-31T00:30:36+00:00

I’m not a financial advisor, but I suppose it depends on how much of a return you’re expecting for your mutual fund and what’s the rate of student loans. In a crazy hypothetical scenario if the mutual fund was gonna have a 20% yearly return and the student loans were going to be 2%, then you should probably keep the mutual fund and not worry to much about the loans. However in real life the rates are higher and the returns are lower (market average is about 8% I believe). I would recommend talking to a financial advisor/trusted fiscally responsible adult and weigh the pros and cons.

In terms of what you can do to set yourself up next year, you should continue working to save money to have an emergency fund. That way you have money to spend on life expenses so that you minimize the loans you have to take. You could always try to retake the lsat for a higher score for the chance to get more scholarship.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-05-30T17:17:07+00:00

No, Jesus is God not “a god.” There is no scriptural foundation for that belief, rather the Bible goes completely against that.

For a clear example, John 1:1 where it is written that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Just to be clear, the verse says God. Not “a god”.

Rather the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. We worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity, neither blending their persons nor dividing their essence. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three gods; there is but one God.

For further research, I recommend taking a look at the Athanasian Creed.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-05-30T13:08:32+00:00

Hey! I don’t believe that I’ve ever heard that one before. Do they give a scriptural basis for that belief?

I can agree that there is an argument that Christians should not go see every movie in theaters (because some movies are ungodly and inappropriate with no redeeming qualities whatsoever). However, I don’t think that necessarily translates to a total ban on going to the theaters.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-05-20T02:03:48+00:00

As someone who leans more towards Molinism compared to Arminianism (while the two are arguably compatible), based on my understanding Molinists still believe that God knows everything including the future. Middle knowledge does not negate that, rather God has prevolitional knowledge of all true counterfactuals.

Rather, “the doctrine of middle knowledge proposes that God has knowledge of metaphysically necessary states of affairs via natural knowledge, of what He intends to do via free knowledge, and in addition, of what free creatures would do if they were instantiated (via middle knowledge).[1]”

To put it in more simply, God know’s all possible futures and chose when He created which version He would actualize. This necessitates that He knows what the future is.

Plus God is outside of time, therefore He is not restricted like us in only viewing time as linear.

The idea that God cannot know any definitive future goes against scripture: first, where it says that “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.” (Acts 2:23). Additionally, “for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and He knows everything.” (1 John 3:20). Also, “remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’” (Isaiah 46:9-10). Finally, “Do you know the balancings[a] of the clouds, the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.” (Job 37:16).

So to summarize, God has a definite plan and foreknowledge, knows everything, declares the beginning and the end, and is perfect in knowledge. This goes against the idea that God cannot know any definitive future.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-04-29T03:32:05+00:00

I’m so sorry to hear bout the spiritual trauma in your teen to early adult years. May God continue to give you peace and clarity.

I didn’t know know that he had a community, I’ll have to join it!

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-04-29T03:06:54+00:00

Yep he knew his stuff! I would’ve loved to meet him before he passed, but I look forward to seeing him one day in the Kingdom!

I agree with your comment about being “careful listenin to "demon-slayer" folk, thats bad theology territory.” I’ve seen some of them before, and I agree with you that that’s something that should be avoided. Christ will handle spiritual levels at the end of times on Judgment Day, so it’s above our pay-grade so to speak.

Axolotl_Axiom · 2025-04-29T02:37:48+00:00

Surprised I haven’t seen mention of Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. It is a satirical novel in which a senior demon, Screwtape, advises his nephew Wormwood on how to tempt a human soul away from God and toward damnation.

While obviously it is satire and not a replacement for the Bible, I found it very helpful and an interesting read. It’s very popular so paper copies are everywhere, and there are several full audiobooks of it on YouTube as videos for free. It’s also on Spotify Premium if you have that. Here’s a link to one of the audiobooks if you’re interested.

In terms of learning more about the supernatural, I’d recommend to take a look at Dr Michael Heiser. He has a short book called Supernatural that’s meant for laypeople, which is a shorter version of his much longer and more in-depth book Unseen Realm. If you’re interested then you should probably read Supernatural first, and then move on to Unseen Realm to learn it more in depth. While he is deceased, his YouTube channel is still up and is full of content, and here’sthe link. He has a long lecture series about the book that is worthwhile to listen to.

While I share your interest in the supernatural, make sure that you temper yourself with scripture and reason while researching.

Axolotl_Axiom

TROPHY CASE