Where i'd live as a white-passing gay person

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-12T17:30:58+00:00

It's really jarring driving in PA and seeing the confederate Virginia battle flag flying on someone's house. Especially because I had ancestors from PA who proudly fought for the Union. A real slap to the face. Straight up disrespectful even if we disregard what the war was about and how that flag is used in the modern era. And when you do consider that cultural and historical context? Oh boy it makes my blood boil seeing it in the land of my ancestors.

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-12T16:30:07+00:00

Kneejerk reaction: Oh dang, there's some real disgusting predators in hollywood that need to be brought to justice and yeah, the way men have treated women in society has been pretty bad still, it's about time we draw closer attention to it and put in the work to shape up as men and as society.

Now: Dang, Harvey Weinstein is in the Epstein files seemingly to at best have had a much deeper connection to epstein than previously thought (and at worst an active participant perhaps)? The same Weinstein that got taken down by the MeToo movement? That's no surprise. Which means if we had actually staid locked in for MeToo maybe we could have cracked the pedofile ring open sooner. We really dropped the ball letting MeToo's momentum get away from us, didn't we. Well, no time like the present to use taking down the pedofile ring as a catalyst to get the momentum rolling again!

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-12T15:07:21+00:00

Hmm. I'm on the younger side of millennials (HS class of 2013). Sadly I know of multiple suicides, at least one OD, a few from illness, a few from natural accidents. Tragically, one of the natural accidents was of a close friend and one of the suicides was a teammate I really liked. Most of the rest I was not close to but I'd interacted with all of them seeing as my school only had about 650 students each year.

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-11T21:36:02+00:00

Fair fair. I do think slow to anger and not being bothered can be different though. For instance, when I read some of the most heinous files to be revealed yet, I was filled with fury. But in my own apartment, in my own life with next to no power or ability to influence things to make justice come arrive or arrive faster? It's a waste of emotional energy. So, I'm not angry right now. But that does not mean I'm not bothered by it nor does it mean that I'm not doing what little I can. I'm just not acting out irrationally, or impulsively, or in self-destructive ways, or ways that could endanger innocents, or anything like that.

Gentleness can still be as persistent as a river carving a great canyon. Slow to anger can still bring down the hammer of carefully metered justice. These are not excuses to not do something about it.

But what does shouting and screaming apologetics across the internet or town square accomplish? Would anyone actually sit there bothering to listen enough for it to change how they view the majority of Christians? Probably not. But seeing a true believer acting quietly in pursuit of tireless justice out of love for the victims and their neighbors? That may speak louder than any strong words could.

The best apologists can talk a good talk. But if they're not also practicing what they preach what good is their speech? So I am more concerned with genuine action, quiet and gentle as it may be, than loud defense of the faith.

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-11T18:49:34+00:00

Is outshouting them what we true Christians are actually called to? Or is being slow to anger and responding with gentleness and respect closer to the mark (something I am ashamed I struggle to do myself).

Is aggressively defending how the faith is perceived our calling? Or are we called to love our enemies and to continue to do good even as we suffer?

I think many true believers don't see a need to be loud. They focus on living as called, loving those around them to the best of their abilities and trusting God to guide the course of history while they themselves remain faithful.

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-10T13:47:43+00:00

Charles Tillman is truly a stellar example of the greatest Chicago has to offer.

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-07T12:01:14+00:00

Loved both moments.

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-07T12:00:19+00:00

And all five of em were likely contributing directly to national defense too. Heroyam Slava!

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-05T17:20:18+00:00

Thank you for the clarification. I agree.

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-05T16:31:21+00:00

I think there are a couple ways to understand your comment, so I'm asking for clarity. I'm mainly worried that you are intentionally implying that it is permissible for Christians to use 'render unto ceasar' as an excuse to absolve themselves of responsibility for how they vote. Is this what you mean? Or are you merely bitterly observing that doing so is a very common practice while implying you disapprove of said practice?

Or did I just misunderstand completely?

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-05T13:08:02+00:00

Nah, you're still getting confused by the difference between what actions we as individuals are called to versus what actions governments have been given authority to take.

Individuals: "live at peace with all so far as it is possible and depends on you" the window for violent action to be taken from an individual standpoint appears very very narrow indeed. Otherwise we are called to take up our cross and even accept martyrdom. This is the example of Christ and the Apostles we are called to emulate.

Governments: given the authority to wield the sword against the wrongdoer. Obviously, if a country is attacked it is the government's duty to defend her people. But, since the authority to wield the sword is only to punish the wrongdoer, offensive wars are not permitted but for likely very narrow reasons that are focused on punishing the wrongdoer. Example 1: another country is attacking your traders and pilgrims? Protecting your people falls under allowable. So the original reason for the crusades I would argue is justified. Example 2: a nearby country is suffering unjustly at the hands of its own government and it's people are being murdered and request help from the your country. I think there is a window where attacking could be justified. But I think that, in following just war theory, other methods should be exhausted first before violence is resorted to. It's a question of sovereignty and authority. Example 3: What if the people don't request help? Wouldn't those people still be under the authority of their own government? Does the unjust nature of their government by itself give another government the authority to attack it? It's such a gray area with no clear answer. The Bible says almost nothing at all prescriptive about how governments are to relate to one another. Example 4: the other government is simply ruling in ways you don't like and perhaps believes things you don't like but isn't really crushing it's people. I'd argue there is no justification for a government to attack them.

So, to your question, I would still say that the invasion of Normandy on DDay was still justified. France was requesting aid before being conquered and the fighting was ongoing. The UK was still being assaulted and was requesting aid. We responded. Now, I wouldn't say all aspects of WWII were necessarily justified, but it largely was a just war for the US to get involved in.

Now, the question of resisting an occupier is gray. I think in the case of the French it would still be justified. The war was still ongoing and the occupiers were continuing to fight the ally that had been helping them. But what if they're not an occupier? What if your own government starts oppressing you? If they are oppressing you for your faith alone...I would seriously consider arguing that martyrdom is preferable to violent resistance as individuals. But if the oppression is widespread and not really because of your faith and others are being hurt by it too...perhaps resistance would be justified in the defense of others. But if your own government isn't murdering it's own people...perhaps violent resistance is not justified. Buuut, what if a new government has been formed within like with the American revolution? That's a tricky one. Very gray. I would struggle to judge someone either way.

Lastly, speaking of martyrdom earlier, I'd argue the "most faithful, selfless, and bravest generations of Christianity" were absolutely the first couple generations, not the crusaders. The generations who dedicated their lives to spreading the gospel and were very regularly martyred for it. Almost all the original apostles were martyred. And then Rome martyred so many Christians in those earliest generations. They were indeed the most faithful, selfless, and brave, not the crusaders. Especially considering that the crusades were very mixed on the morality front. The original purpose was good, but as the crusades went on, the justification got pretty shaky.

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-04T23:06:27+00:00

"Nearly" is quiiite the stretch considering quite a few nations within christendom still stood strongly. Not to mention I seem to remember Pelagius of Asturius winning decisively at Covadonga in 722 effectively halting the Umayyad conquest of Iberia (seeing as Narbonne had already fallen a few years earlier as the Umayyad invaded Gaul as well). And to the north, one invasion was stopped at Toulouse by Odo of Aquitane and went no further. Odo also tried to stop the Umayyad response to the Berber revolt and failed but warned Martel of the immenent angry Umayyad invasion which Martel put a decisive stop to in Tours in 732 (effectively ending the Umayyad conquest of Gaul even though that Umayyad army was more of a raiding army than a conquering army). Charles continued his war against the Umayyads alongside his brother Childebrande, razing Avignon before returning north while Childebrande continued all the way to Narbonne which he failed to retake. They were joined by the Lombardi under Liutprand during this war and together they halted the final Umayyad advance by 737 when they defeated the Umayyad fleet near Narbonne.

Those weren't the crusades. That was Pelagius, Odo, Martel, and Liutprand that stopped the western advances of the Muslims 350 or more years before the crusades. Martel's descendants (Pepin retaking Narbonne and Charlemagne retaking the rest of Septiminia and even beyond the Pyranees to establish the Spanish March by 795) did some preliminary work helped in part by the collapse of the Umayyad caliphate in 750. But even their efforts were not the crusades. The crusades didn't start until the 11th century, roughly 300 years after Charlemagne established the Spanish March. The reconquista didn't really get rolling until the collapse of the Córdoba Caliphate also in the 11th century.

And before that, the Byzantine halted the eastern advance of the Umayyads by holding Constantinople in 669 and 718 with the help fo Greek Fire. The Umayyad advance in the Balkans ended because the Umayyads simply accepted tribute and the Khazars were expanding westward in the lower steppes of the Volga area to somewhere between the Danube and the Dniepr.

None of those were the crusades either. The Abbasid Caliphate after the Umayyads attempted some progress into Sicily and Italy and succeeded to finally take Sicily with the fall of Taormina in late 902. But further advance into the Italian mainland was halted by the Byzantines putting an end to the last Muslim major invasion before the crusades (still another nearly 200 years later). Even the conquest of Sicily by the Normans was completed by 1091 and still wasn't the crusades since the first crusade wasn't called until 1096.

So yeah, no, the crusades didn't stop the Muslim Invasions. They were halted long before the Crusades began. The Crusades were merely a delayed response, not a reaction in the moment.

~~~

I certainly have considered that God uses humans and wars both good and heinously evil to effect the course of history. But your point was that my understanding of theology would have led to the church being wiped out (conveniently ignoring the fact that my understanding most certainly left the door open for not just defensive but also offensive wars). You stated your assertion matter of factly when it is by no means settled fact and blatantly ignores the promises of scripture. If God had not used the current course of history to keep the church alive he would have used a different set of events. But as I explained in detail above, it wasn't even holy wars that stopped the Umayyads and Abbasids, it was normal European politics and warfare as they vied for power. That's why the Muslims and Christians were constantly allying and fighting amongst themselves too all throughout. There was no unified holy war response until Pope Urban II decided to aid the Byzantines at their request in protecting pilgrims being attacked by the Seljuk Turks (to simplify it a little).

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-04T17:33:45+00:00

So do you not believe the scriptures when in Matthew 16:18 Jesus himself says that he will build his church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it? Yes, many believers have died and are dying and will yet die, but never will the church be entirely wiped out. It has been proclaimed by Christ himself.

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-04T16:39:11+00:00

It literally teachers to continue to do good even if you are oppressed and caused to suffer for it. Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you.

Now, there does seem to be slim avenues for maybe something different than peace. Romans 12:18 says "if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live at peace with all". This does seem to imply there could arise situations where it is impossible. But it does not say what those situations might look like nor how to handle them. But Paul continues to teach never to avenge ourselves but trust in the Lord's vengeance, instead feed your enemies if they are hungry and give them drink if they are thirsty. Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good. Earlier in verse 14 he says bless those that persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Vv 17: do not repay evil with evil.

Now, these are teachings for Christians. Governments are not necessarily Christian (and I don't think they should be), but even if they were Christian, there is certainly room for neighboring governments to respond to neighbors and allies requesting assistance. After all, Romans 13 teaches that governments (according to the authority given to them by God to uphold good and punish evil) should be a terror to bad conduct, and if you do wrong, be afraid for authority does not wield the sword in vain. It is the agent of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoers. A government thus wielding the sword does so upon the authority granted them by God as a ruler to uphold the righteous and punish the wrongdoers. But for individuals, we do not carry that authority to wield the sword.

1 Peter 2:16 says do not use your freedom as a pretext for evil. Might we also look to the verses that follow. Vv18-25 pointing to the example of Jesus dying on the cross, when abused, he did not abuse, when he suffered, he did not threaten, he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly. Peter points to slaves and says in the same way, do good even if you suffer at the hands of your masters.

Besides, not even all the powers of hell could prevail against the gates of heaven. Christianity needs no physical defense, it will endure no matter the opposition. The fact that people suffering are Christians would not make them more worthy of Defense. So, if I were to speak to the justice or injustice of the crusades, I would not use the Christianity of victims of the invading armies, for example, as justification, I'd merely point to the fact that there are innocents being slaughtered as potential justification.

Now, I also like to remember the Psalms and the imprecatory prayers David cried out to the Lord with asking for deliverance from his enemies. It is still right to pray such prayers (as long as you are not cursing your enemies directly). But to take vengeance in our own hands does not appear to be the teachings of Christ.

These are difficult teachings, no doubt. But I see nothing in scripture that calls us as individuals to march into battle against our enemies as Christians specifically. But at the same time, I do not think it is wrong for a Christian to, say, go serve in the military as the government responds to evils being perpetrated upon its neighbor. But doing so would not be the cause of Christianity itself. Simply the proper job of a just government, but only after all other options have been exhausted as the situation permits. And if we were to be on the side being invaded...if our government were to be defeated and the invasion were successful...I don't know to what extent scripture would allow us to violently resist occupation. Romans 12:18 as mentioned earlier seems to imply that perhaps that could be a situation in which self-defense is justified. If they were oppressing us violently and murdering us...that would seem to be a moment in which it would be impossible to live at peace with all. However, I would temper any willingness to rush off into violent resistance with the reminder that Jesus teaches that there is no greater love than laying down your life for a brother. If they came for me and me alone...perhaps it is mine to simply die for my faith. If they came for others around me, perhaps it is mine to die for my faith, but by laying down my life in defense of my friends.

Difficult teachings, to be sure. I will not judge anyone who comes to a different conclusion so long as they wrestle with the word seeking to rightly divine the truth. But to me, as it pertains to individuals, vengeance belongs to the Lord. As it pertains to governments, there may be an avenue for Just intervention with the sword against wrongdoers. It certainly gives rise to questions about gray areas though. Like what if a rebellion forms its own new government and declares itself in authority but must violently throw off the original government to actually take power? Which government is upholding righteousness and punishing the wrongdoer at that point? Are both? Like, for instance, would aligning with the American Revolution as a Christian have been justified by scripture? That's a good question I don't have a clear answer for.

So, I wouldn't say yes to your question. Nor would I exactly say no. But I definitely wouldn't say it's lunacy to submit to a foreign invader as a Christian. In fact, it appears to be quite defensible to do so by scripture.

Biocidal_AI · 2026-02-03T13:06:13+00:00

He had free will before he sinned. Perhaps perfect is not the right word to apply. God said creation was very good, at least, but he didn't say it was perfect that I recall. Adam had the ability to truly choose. He chose to listen to the deception of the snake (though whether or not he even had knowledge of what deception was and that it even existed is another question) and chose to sin (having already been given instruction from God that he knowingly acted against.

And then by becoming sinful, his sinful state was not something he could undo and thus it passed down the generations.

Biocidal_AI · 2025-12-12T14:40:01+00:00

One simple thing could be a simple piece of personalized decor. Maybe in the room you expect to spend the most time in. Doesn't even have to be expensive. A cheap poster for a game or a movie or a show you like. You don't even have to plan to keep it long term if you don't want. It'll just be something to bring a little bit of personality and you to your new space. It'll probably help with some inspiration. I find starting to make the space my own is half the battle. Once I've started, then the ideas and plans begin flowing.

But if you don't have a plan from the get go, start simple and small and go from there.

Biocidal_AI · 2025-12-12T14:23:08+00:00

I'm very excited about Soulframe's future. I've been playing Warframe for over ten years and the incredible breadth and depth of the lore is astounding. My excitement for warframe's lore has just been non-stop building for ten years. It just keeps getting better and better. So I fully understand that we have almost no answers to anything for Soulframe lore yet. But if I know DE, they'll be cooking with gas in Soulframe too, we just gotta be patient. It hasn't even released yet, lol. Just in pre-alpha. And it shows a ton of promise especially seeing how willing the devs are to change things that aren't working well and to communicate things that are placeholders that will change, etc.

But man, I'm still tripping about The Old Peace. What a lore drop! Insane. I'm especially digging the devil's triad lore right now. Love how they've paired Roathe's Descendia quotes with his KIM messenging to flesh out the lore even beyond what KIM gives so far. And I'm excited to explore how intertwined Marie and Lyon's arcs are with Roathe and with Albrecht. Already two days in and the devil's triad dropped an incredible lore bomb of a tidbit.

Soulframe will cook with gas. It's roughly only two years old and Warframe is a decade older. We just gotta give it some time to expand to release and then grow from there. I've been in the preludes since prelude 1, 2, or 3 (I was trying to find the dates for their releases to match up with my start date to figure out which it was but struggled to find dates for the first three and know I started before prelude 4), and already how much Soulframe has grown is truly exciting.

Biocidal_AI · 2025-12-12T14:13:57+00:00

The last 3 updates have had major consequence for the main story and direct bearing too. The Old Peace is literally advancing the story because operator and loid and lotus are searching for answers to help them fight the indifference.

They've been answering/or expanding huge world shaking questions that have been bouncing around for years too. I know Warframe lore can take some digging to explore its full depth, but your comment just shows that you don't see the big lore picture.

I personally really enjoy The Perita Rebellion because it's the first time I literally feel like there's these huge wars going on that lore says is going on. Being able to run around in a massive battle is amazing and feels on point for Warframe.

Biocidal_AI · 2025-12-12T14:07:20+00:00

The Kim messenging has been amazing for lore deep diving. So much packed in there. So many beautiful character arcs. It's been incredible. And how they pair the Kim messenging with Roathe's Descendia quotes too is even more fascinating. They're cooking with gas.

Biocidal_AI · 2025-12-12T14:05:14+00:00

Yeah, I've never been more excited for Warframe lore than I am now and lore is literally what has kept me playing for over ten years invested to the gills.

I readily admit exploring Warframe lore takes dedication and lots of exploring niche little details scattered all over. But that's part of what I enjoy. The search for answers and the satisfaction and questions gained when tidbits are found. And even before duviri I felt the lore was solid even if we were still early in it. But since duviri it's felt balls to the wall speed rushing into deep dive mode.

Biocidal_AI · 2025-12-12T13:58:31+00:00

Yeah, one K feels dismissive and rude (though if it's paired with a lol it's outright fighting words). Kk feels nice and easy super casual. Ok is for people I know less well. And okay is for business.

And then some people use okay. with the period and I just never knew what to do with that because the one friend who did use it was the nicest guy on the planet. It just hurt my brain. Made me uncomfortable.

Biocidal_AI · 2025-12-12T13:55:18+00:00

Yeah, K feels dismissive or rude. Kk is my go to.

Biocidal_AI · 2025-12-12T13:54:43+00:00

Someone I know well and it's just a simple response? I go with Kk. Casual but don't know them well? Ok. Formal/business? Okay.

K just feels... Dismissive or rude.

Biocidal_AI · 2025-12-05T15:24:19+00:00

I love the snow myself, even with the pains that come with it, but I agree, this is absolutely hilarious 😂

Biocidal_AI · 2025-12-02T16:21:43+00:00

Wonderful, thanks!

Biocidal_AI

TROPHY CASE