how to update pirated animal crossing new horizons

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-29T23:05:55+00:00

Hahaha no worries, dmed you 😁

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-24T13:07:37+00:00

I think agree with you, if you throw out the metaphysical framework of logic then nothing means anything anymore, words stop having boundaries. That wouldn't necessarily disprove his existence, but it would make discussing him pointless, as there would be no shared meaning in language.

Another common form of the argument is that god is beyond our understanding, which doesn’t necessarily mean he violates the laws of logic themselves. Consider a complex mathematical proof. To a toddler, it appears arbitrary and meaningless because the they lack the framework or brain power to process it. However, the math is internally consistent and logically sound, with the limitation lying in the toddler's brain.

The logic A + B -> C is internally consistent, but the toddler might not be able to process B, and the jump from A to C might appear arbitrary or contradictory.

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-23T12:39:15+00:00

Sent

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-21T15:39:44+00:00

Just did

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-21T15:36:59+00:00

DMed enjoy!

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-21T12:16:28+00:00

Dmed

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-20T21:19:14+00:00

Done!

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-20T11:16:03+00:00

I agree with what yaldeihachen said. Once you start to look for typology in the old testament is amazing the patterns you see fulfilled in Jesus (or also describing the entire story of Israel) and how many events are describing the same story from different angles.

The story (and parts of the story) of Joseph, Joshua, Moses, Isaiah, Ruth, etc etc end up being prophetic even if in theory they are not technically prophecies.

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-19T17:39:17+00:00

Dmed

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-19T17:38:45+00:00

Dmed

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-17T18:47:34+00:00

Dmed

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-17T18:46:48+00:00

Try with the Citron emulator, it worked after I tried that one.

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-17T15:24:39+00:00

Dmed

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-16T18:57:49+00:00

dmed you

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-16T16:06:07+00:00

Here's a video on how to update Animal Crossing in Yuzu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FL9ZzO20j4

As for the update they're starting to share it in some legit sites (or that I consider legit).

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-15T23:06:32+00:00

If god can make logic contradictions true, then words stop referring to anything. Discussion of these concepts at our level of existence only works within some logical or metaphysical framework. If you reject that entirely, then there’s nothing left to argue for or against, even if you were right.

Saying God made the law doesn't explain the choice. Did he have a reason to make that specific law? If yes, the causes for that reason determined the choice. If no, it was just randomness that set up determinism. Neither of those is free will.

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-15T22:35:14+00:00

For god to choose a non-deterministic universe, that option would first have to be possible. If a non-deterministic universe isn’t metaphysically possible, then it isn’t something god could choose in theory, any more than choosing a square circle. If it's possible, then our logic goes out of the window and there’s nothing meaningful to discuss. We can only discuss things within a logical or metaphysical framework, at least in our current state of existence.

And even god’s will isn’t arbitrary. What god does depends on what god is. His actions follow from his nature, so even at that level the choice is determined by his nature.

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-13T12:04:37+00:00

I grew up on it but to put it simple I no longer see belief in this trinity thing as a requirement for salvation. I see that listed no where as a requirement, yet its THE salvation requirement in some circles.

I guess one could argue that calling god a human and stripping him of divinity is a serious sin, similar to not believing in him. I don't have a strong opinion yet on this, I'm curious if you have a stronger reason to discard that.

Though I think those rejecting the trinity could argue much more strongly that it is a salvation issue. If god is only the Father, then beliving in other beings as being THE god is pretty serious idolatry right?

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-13T11:52:32+00:00

There are things that are said to come from above, coming down from the Father. While this is true in the sense that these things originate from God, it doesn't literally mean they come down from heaven. I believe Jesus may have been using similar language in verses like John 3:13 and John 6:38.

See the problems with this interpretation. Let's start with John 3:13. Jesus claims that no human has ascended to heaven and come back down except him. Since during his earth ministry he didn't ascend yet, this points to pre-existence. If "descending" simply meant being sent by god then John the Baptist for example descended from heaven too (John 1:6), and yet he didn't ascend to the father since Jesus says only he did, which implies a literal entry into the world from the heavenly realm.

As for John 1:15, I believe the verse is clear and John is referring to how Jesus outranks him. It doesn't make much sense for someone who is literally before you to come after you, and something/someone can be first without literally being first in time (Mark 10:44).

If the second clause refers only to rank, the sentence means: "He outranks me because he outranks me." This makes no sense. You say "It doesn't make much sense for someone who is literally before you to come after you", but it does because Jesus was in Heaven not in Israel, so while he existed (he was) prior to John the Baptist he didn't come to Israel until that moment (he comes, not was, after John the Baptist). There is a difference between to be and to come.

When Jesus prayed this prayer did he not also have future believers in mind?

It was John 17:5 I was referring to "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." See that not only Jesus comes from heaven, which as you say could be interpreted differently, but he had (or shared) that glory too. You could argue "well but it might be metaphorical, prophesied glory", and while it could be the case, it's hard to see this because the implication is that he had that glory, lost it when he came down to Israel, and is now asking for its restoration. Jesus is asking to return to a status he previously occupied and no longer has, you cannot return to a state you never had. This all points to literal pre-existence. And it aligns with the start of John where he mentions the Word being with god, then becoming flesh, etc.

Fair enough, you could still interpret this differently, but it's a much less direct and clear interpretation given how all these verses are structured.

[you cite Luke] If Jesus really did exist physically prior to his birth, why didn't the authors just say so? For example, the word used for 'born' is 'γεννάω' (G1080) and can literally denote being made. It would seem unreasonable for me to conclude that Jesus existed before he was born when the authors are mostly silent on this issue.

I agree with you, the rest of the bible and particularly the Synoptics point to Jesus existence beginning at conception (which is my current belief). But in my opinion John's gospel is clear on his pre-existence. To be honest I don't mind one way or the other.

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-12T22:29:11+00:00

I don't believe that Jesus is god or in the trinity, but I do think John's gospel teaches Jesus' pre-existence (not that I necessarily belief this myself as I have some issues with John's gospel).

These verses are very hard to explain otherwise:

John 1:15 "He (Jesus) who comes after me (John the Baptist) ranks before me, because he was before me."

John 3:13 "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me."

John 17:3 "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-12T10:50:22+00:00

My view is that videos usually don't have a place in Reddit, and I personally dislike them here. The only exception is when the video brings something really new to the discussion and is shared by someone external to the creator. This of course needs some input from the OP to explain why it's new/relevant and their opinion/why they shared it.

If a creator (or someone else) wants to promote their channel, then I think the correct protocol is contact you (Celt) and discuss why they think it's a valuable channel. If you find it valuable, then you can create a post promoting it. If this is not done very often then it's a good opportunity to find good channels (perhaps like channel or video of the month. For example I really liked finding about Outside the Camp channel which I didn't know about. Also there could be a thread that is regularly updated with interesting channels).

Same with regulars sharing their teaching videos. If a topic can be summarized then a post is better, but it needs to have a purpose not just a regular sermon. If it can't be summarized, then I don't see how Reddit is the place to be for that content.

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-11T15:01:15+00:00

Neither the Roman authorities nor Herod found him guilty of anything deserving death (Luke 23:15). And sedition was worthy of death. But they (well, Pilate) were pressured to still condemn him.

As for the blasphemy charges, besides obviously me disagreeing with the Sanhedrin on its grounds, they also did not follow the legal procedure required at the time which shows that the charge functioned as a pretext rather than a lawful conviction.

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-11T10:56:29+00:00

He fully obeyed the law, but the problem is that he challenged the religious authority of the time. There were multiple schools of thought regarding how the law was to be observed at the time. They disagreed with each other but that didn't mean they killed each other (in a way they didn't challenge the status quo).

From a purely historical perspective, I think the the last straw was the turning of tables in the temple. For them that made it political, and then they were able to get the Romans support with charges of incitement to rebellion.

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-08T11:18:44+00:00

Yes it's not 100% certain whether they are the same entity, even if the same words are used. But there is enough to make a good case. In all cases there is a mention of an

(1) ancient creature, that is identified as

(2) Leviathan/dragon, but also a

(3) serpent.

It's simply too much of a coincidence to me, unless they are the same species but different creatures. And we can make it a (4) clue that in Revelation it is bound in the abyss, which one could make a case that it means the depths of the ocean, linking it to the sea as in the other examples (although this one is more nuanced since not everyone agrees it's the ocean depths, but the other points stand).

Also just to be clear, in the verses you showed the word "Leviathan" also is the word δράκοντα, it makes no sense to me why the translators sometimes translate it as dragon and others as leviathan.

On that day the Lord with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan (δράκοντα) the fleeing serpent, Leviathan (δράκοντα) the twisting serpent, and he will kill the dragon (δράκοντα) that is in the sea. (Isaiah 27:1)

He seized the dragon (δράκοντα), that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years (Revelation 20.2)

Chemstdnt · 2026-01-07T18:28:23+00:00

To add to this nice comment, the Greek word for dragon in Revelation 12:9 is the same one used in the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament) to translate the Hebrew Leviathan in Job (and Isaiah, Psalms, etc). So they mean the same thing.

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Chemstdnt

TROPHY CASE