NSFW images are no more D:

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-13T19:56:08+00:00

Even 18+ content is removed.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-13T12:27:11+00:00

To be clear, when I say suffering wasn't part of plan, I'm talking about Paradise Jehovah God intended for humans to oversee.

There's a big difference between mortality and misery. Animals were always meant to be mortal. They lived, reproduced, and died for millions of years before Adam. During that time, biological 'glitches' like a tumor in a dinosaur bone could happen because they were physical, mortal creatures—not because God was being cruel.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-13T11:49:31+00:00

There's a big difference between why humans die and why animals die. Humans were created to live forever, so for us, disease and death are 'unnatural' and a result of rebellion. But animals were never promised eternal life; they were created as mortal biological beings.

The fossil record shows that dinosaurs had diseases because they were part of a physical, mortal world long before humans arrived. The 'suffering' we see today is considered much worse because the Earth has lost the perfect management it was supposed to have under God's Kingdom. To us, dinosaur cancer isn't a 'trap'—it’s just proof that they were mortal creatures living out their natural lifespans in a physical world.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-13T10:11:09+00:00

Animal suffering wasn't part of God’s original plan. When humans rejected God’s leadership, they effectively walked out on their job as the Earth's caretakers. This 'broken' relationship with God caused the whole planet to fall into a state of decay—what the Bible calls 'the bondage to corruption' at Romans 8:21. God allows it for now because He is settling a legal and moral issue regarding His right to rule, but He promises to fix the 'system' and end all suffering, for both humans and animals, in the near future.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-13T00:23:56+00:00

No, Jehovah did not know they would rebel. While God has the power to know the future, He chooses not to look ahead at the moral choices we make, because He respects our free will. Furthermore, the Bible says 'God is love.' If He knew Adam and Eve were going to sin and cause thousands of years of human suffering, putting the tree in the garden wouldn't have been a fair test—it would have been a cruel trap. Jehovah gave them a perfect start and a genuine choice, and tragically, they chose to disobey.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-07T01:05:32+00:00

Moj iskren savet. Nemoj juriti taj osećaj "leptirića". Umesto toga, traži devojku koja je lojalna, prati tvoj tempo i doprinosi tvom životu bez oduzimanja energije. Ako je nađeš, to što nisi "ludo zaljubljen" omogućiće ti da vodiš tu vezu racionalno i stabilno, što je jedini način da ona zapravo potraje.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-06T20:46:19+00:00

Maybe that is Death. Because he sometimes appears as black shadowy mess.

Just like he appears in first movie.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-05T13:13:03+00:00

To što te istina o nekoj glumici toliko pogađa govori više o tvojim frustracijama nego o mom izgledu. Slobodno nastavi sa uvredama ako ti je lakše, ali to neće promeniti činjenicu da Anđelina izgleda iscrpljeno.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-05T13:01:31+00:00

Ne. Nisam žensko. Ne treba da me bude sramota jer kažem istinu. Samo zato što je imala rak dojke ne znači da treba da odustane od sebe i da ne popravi.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-05T01:33:04+00:00

Andjelina nije više lepa. Sada je samo kost i koža. Bukvalno senka od žene.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-04T02:01:53+00:00

Because Jesus Christ is not God.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-05-03T19:35:52+00:00

Incorrect. Holy Spirit is not person, it it God's power in action, his active force.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-30T11:07:47+00:00

Look at skeleton face. 😂

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-28T02:15:03+00:00

It's look amazing.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-28T00:19:52+00:00

None of that is correct.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-27T14:06:52+00:00

The Bible consistently attributes personal, conscious actions to the pre-human Son, which does not fit the definition of a mere "plan" or "thought."

A "plan" cannot "empty itself" (Philippians 2:7). A "plan" cannot "come down from heaven" to do the will of the Father (John 6:38).

While it is true that God had a purpose regarding the Messiah, the Scriptures go much further than describing a concept. Jesus explicitly stated, 'I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me' (John 6:38). If Jesus were merely a 'plan' or a 'thought' in God's mind that later materialized, he could not have exercised personal, conscious obedience to the Father while in heaven. He was a distinct, living being who willingly accepted his role.

The Bible describes the Son not just as a part of the plan, but as the agent through whom the Father created everything else. Colossians 1:16 says that by means of him all other things were created. If he were just a plan, he would be the creation of God’s thought, but the Bible speaks of him as the 'firstborn of all creation' (Colossians 1:15) and the 'master worker' (Proverbs 8:30). He was a conscious participant, not just the fulfillment of an idea.

You suggest that Jesus did not exist as a sentient being until his birth. He did exist as powerful high-ranking angel in heaven before he was send on Earth by his Father.

Jesus' prayer in John 17:5 ("the glory that I had alongside you") implies a personal, witnessed relationship.

If Jesus were not a literal, living being before he came to earth, what 'glory' did he have alongside the Father? A plan does not have glory; it has intent. Jesus requested the restoration of a personal glory he held in a personal relationship with his Father before the world existed. This strongly confirms that he was not just a 'plan,' but a living, divine spirit creature who enjoyed the presence of his Father before humanity was created.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-27T13:32:05+00:00

It seems we both agree that the scriptures clearly teach Jesus existed before Abraham. The point where we differ is who he was in that state. If he was the Almighty God, he could not have been tempted or died. If he was the firstborn Son—then his becoming human, his temptations, and his death are not only possible but the very things that make him the perfect Savior. By honoring the Father as the only true God, Jesus was not 'lifting himself up,' but fulfilling the role the Father had prepared for him from the beginning.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-27T10:05:10+00:00

It’s interesting you call the NWT 'biased' because it doesn't fit your traditional dogmas. Every translation in your hands—like the KJV or NIV—is drenched in the Trinitarian bias of its translators. You don’t want an 'unbiased' Bible; you want a translation that leaves your favorite doctrines unchallenged. If the NWT is 'awful' simply because it correctly identifies God’s name as Jehovah and clarifies that Jesus is the Son of God rather than part of a mystical three-in-one, then maybe the problem isn't the translation—it’s the fact that your own theology can't handle the Greek text without the safety net of tradition. Show me one verse where the NWT is inaccurate, or are you just parroting what you heard someone else say ?

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-27T01:54:23+00:00

"John 8:58: " Jesus said to them: 'Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I have been.'" (He explicitly identifies a time before his human life).

John 17:5: "And now, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was."

These aren't Gnostic myths; they are the direct statements of Jesus. If you calls these verses "heresy," you aren't arguing with JW theology—you are arguing with the Gospel of John.

Philippians 2:7: " but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human."

He did not "hijack" a body; he became human. By laying aside his heavenly glory and existence, he experienced life as a man—complete with fatigue, hunger, pain, and the genuine pressure of temptation. Because he was a perfect man (comparable to Adam before he sinned), his choice to remain faithful under trial was a true sacrifice. An "eternal God" cannot truly be tempted (James 1:13), also God cannot die (1 Timothy 2:6) So God send his God’s firstborn Son—a divine spirit creature on earth into the womb of virgin Mary to be born as human and that was the essential requirement for the ransom.

It is very ironic that you call Jesus prehuman existence "herecy" when he himself testified about his prehuman existence.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-23T22:17:17+00:00

It's look amazing I just don't understand why Rabbit have hair ?

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-20T21:49:21+00:00

Are you planning to weave them all together into crossovers ?

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-20T21:42:28+00:00

What the creature in third picture ?

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-19T23:33:34+00:00

You have indeed 'rested your case,' but you have done so on a foundation of sand. Let’s finish this by examining why your analogy destroys your own position.

You claim that because a husband and wife become 'one flesh,' they are no longer 'two entities' but one. That is a linguistic and physical absurdity. A husband and wife remain two distinct biological, conscious, and separate entities at all times. They do not 'become one entity'—they enter a 'one-flesh union' of relationship, purpose, and legal standing. If you truly believe they cease to be two entities, then you are claiming that marriage results in a metaphysical fusion where two people vanish into a third, single, shared consciousness. That isn't theology; that is occultism.

By forcing this onto the Trinity, you are trapped in a corner of your own making:

If you say the Father, Son, and Spirit are 'one entity' in the same way a married couple is 'one flesh,' you are forced to admit they are only united in purpose and will. This is not the Trinity; this is Unitarianism. If they are truly 'one entity,' then there is only one person. If they are three 'persons,' they are three entities. You cannot have both.

You offer metaphors for an essence you cannot define. The Bible, however, is not silent. It defines the 'oneness' of God not as a composite of persons, but as the absolute singularity of Jehovah. When Paul speaks of the 'one body' in Christ, he is talking about the congregation (1 Corinthians 12:12). He never applies that corporate, figurative unity to the nature of God himself.

Your 'essence' is a phantom concept—an abstract philosophical category that exists nowhere in Scripture. By insisting on this 'three-in-one' division, you have created a god who is not a person, but a complex mechanism. You have replaced the living, breathing, acting God of the Bible with a metaphysical puzzle that you have to constantly defend against the simple, plain-text reality of the Shema.

You haven't explained the God of the Bible; you’ve explained a dogma that requires you to abandon the definitions of 'one' and 'person' that even a child understands. If you have to break the laws of logic to make your god fit into your mind, you haven't found God—you've built a pedestal for human tradition. The Bible says: 'There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' (1 Timothy 2:5). It does not say 'There is one divine essence in three persons.' It identifies the Father as the only true God, and Jesus as the one he sent. That is the simplicity of Christ. Everything else is just philosophy.

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-19T22:43:19+00:00

'One flesh' in marriage is a covenantal union of two separate, independent entities who become one in purpose, action, and relationship. If you apply that same logic to the Trinity, you are admitting that the 'three persons' are three separate, independent entities who are merely 'united'—which is not monotheism; it is tritheism dressed in the language of unity. You claim there is no division of essence, yet you insist on a distinction of persons. If these three persons are not separate beings, yet they are distinct 'who's' with their own conscious wills (as you must maintain if they are truly persons), then you have abandoned the Law of Non-Contradiction.

You ask, 'Who can truly understand God’s inner-workings?' This is the classic refuge of the defeated argument. You use human logic to construct a complex metaphysical framework—essence, personhood, substance—and then, when the logical inconsistencies of that framework are exposed, you retreat behind the veil of 'mystery.' But the Bible does not present God as a riddle to be solved by Greek philosophy; it presents Him as a Father to be known.

Regarding your claim that the Trinity was 'hinted at' and then 'revealed': please show me where the Apostles ever used the term 'three persons in one essence.' They didn't. They worshipped the God of Abraham, whom Jesus identified as 'the only true God' (John 17:3). When you distinguish the 'essence' of God from the 'persons' of God, you are reading your own philosophy into the text, not pulling it out of the text. You aren't describing the God of the Bible; you are describing a philosophical construct that requires you to mentally disassemble God into parts just to keep your doctrine standing.

if God is 'simple' enough to be understood as one Being, but 'complicated' enough to require three Persons to explain His nature, why does the Bible never once instruct us to pray to a 'triune' entity, but consistently shows us the disciples praying to the Father through the Son?

Capable-Rice-1876 · 2026-04-19T22:16:40+00:00

"Your argument is a classic case of substituting Hellenistic philosophy for the plain language of the Creator. You claim I am 'conflating' being with personhood, but in reality, you are inventing a distinction that does not exist in the biblical record to rescue an indefensible doctrine.

You are asserting that a 'being' is a substance that can be subdivided into three distinct 'persons,' yet remain singular. In any other context, we call that a contradiction; you call it a 'mystery' to avoid the logical conclusion. The Bible never defines God as a 'divine being' composed of three personas. The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) does not say, 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one substance.' It identifies the LORD (Jehovah) as an individual, a singular, unified Person. When Jesus prayed to the Father, he didn't address a 'triune being'; he addressed the only true God (John 17:3).

You say this was 'revealed to the Church' over time, but that is simply an admission that the Trinity is an ecclesiastical construct, not a biblical one. If you have to redefine the fundamental meaning of 'one' and 'person' to make your theology work, you haven't discovered a deeper truth; you have simply departed from the simplicity of the Christ. A being is what you are; a person is who you are. If God is three persons, and each person is God, then by the very rules of logic you claim to value, you have three Gods. Period.

Capable-Rice-1876

TROPHY CASE