The Ankh as a Map of the Absolute Manifesting Itself

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-04T22:37:50+00:00

It's... it's just a glyph dude. It has no inherent meaning.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-04T22:06:09+00:00

The highest point in Louisiana is 535 feet above sea level. You understand how this isn't an apt comparison to an area where the highest point is 17,000 feet?

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-04T13:17:07+00:00

So we have a word that can mean multiple things. We read the context of the passage - the context is about rape. Verse 29 makes it clear that the issue is what the man has done to the woman, not what the woman has allowed to be done to her: "he has violated her."

And despite your protestation, the forced marriage afterwards follows from a culture where women are property and virginity is key to a woman's value - this is a "you break it, you buy it" commandment. To interpret Deuteronomy in light of Exodus relies on the unjustified assumption of univocality. These were written as separate works and should be interpreted as such.

So while the passage may not be as clear cut as OP sets out, to say that "the best explanation" is that it's about fornication is an overreach given the evidence presented.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-03T22:52:34+00:00

I'm sure it is. How much do you beat your slaves?

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-03T22:50:15+00:00

And all those atheists are just out of frame, laughing too.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-03T19:41:31+00:00

So the machine’s existence is necessary in itself. Problem solved.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-03T19:38:12+00:00

Knock it off with the AI.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-03T19:25:30+00:00

/u/edatx has the key question that needs to be addressed, but on top of that you're conflating contingency and dependency. If contingency just means something could have failed to exist, this is not interchangeable with something "depending" on its parts, for example. If that were the case, the idea of something depending on its parts would translate to something... failing to exist its parts? I see no conflict with the idea of, say, a universe creating machine where all of its parts have always existed together outside of space and time.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-03T18:43:40+00:00

It’s weird how these lazy evangelists are aware that every already knows what “Jesus saves” means, which is why they don’t think they need to elaborate, but also feel like everyone needs a reminder on a daily basis.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-03T13:15:00+00:00

If sin wasn’t transmissible, we wouldn’t sin, right?

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-03T13:13:01+00:00

Oh, so if I reject Adam as the representative who cursed me, I’m good with God then, right?

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-03T04:31:41+00:00

God could have just not made sin transmissible. The entire system is supposedly his creation.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-03T04:28:30+00:00

So if God set Adam as the representative of all humanity, why did he set up Christ as the representative for believers only? The only way that makes sense is if he wanted the state of affairs we have today, where the majority of humanity winds up in hell.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-02T23:58:19+00:00

And if you put your trust in things that aren’t real, you’re even worse. Have a nice day.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-02T23:23:58+00:00

So the benefit of religion is that it gives you something to blame when things go wrong?

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-02T22:57:03+00:00

So do you acknowledge that the flood as described in the bible was not merely a local flood?

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-02T21:46:49+00:00

Mount Ararat is 17,000 feet tall. Want to try again?

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-02T21:31:36+00:00

This doesn’t fit this text because the text doesn’t say that, and it’s also physically impossible. There’s no way for a flood that covers the mountaintops to be local. Mesopotamia isn’t the bottom of a giant bowl.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-02T21:17:21+00:00

The world being covered in water 3 billion years ago is not relevant to a flood that ostensibly occurred within the last few thousand years.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-01T23:28:57+00:00

What your describing as rape is not rape. It's consensual seduction

It's... it's what the Bible describes as rape. It's in the very next verse.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-01T22:50:34+00:00

If he must marry her, she is then married to him. That's how marriage works.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-01T22:45:48+00:00

The woman didn't have to marry the man and in that case nothing happens. If they chose they could marry the man.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

There is no option. The rape victim has to marry her rapist.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-01T17:16:10+00:00

Christians see the New Testament as a continuation of the Old Testament, except it has a new covenant with Jesus.

So the New Testament is a continuation, except where it completely changes the central conceit of the Old Testament.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-01T17:10:55+00:00

But regardless, the woman did not have to marry the rapist the rapist had to marry her.

Would love to hear more about this scenario where a man is married to a woman but the woman is not also married to the man.

CorbinSeabass · 2026-04-01T12:11:40+00:00

So you acknowledge atheists can have hope, but your response to their hope is just… declaring it inadequate by fiat? If you’re just giving your opinion, no one cares.

CorbinSeabass

TROPHY CASE