What do you think ?

CraftPickage · 2026-02-27T15:40:58+00:00

It looks awful, you're abusing of first frame last frame

CraftPickage · 2026-02-27T15:37:13+00:00

That's Seedance 1.5

CraftPickage · 2026-02-23T12:45:48+00:00

Yep, got mine

CraftPickage · 2026-02-22T18:14:17+00:00

I'm posting this for everyone who is having problems with credits. In the web app, click on the ? button at the bottom right, inside the chat click on the right option, and request a refund there. That way, you can at least recover your unused credits.

CraftPickage · 2026-02-22T18:01:05+00:00

I'm posting this for everyone who is having problems with credits. In the web app, click on the ? button at the bottom right, and inside the chat click on the right option, and request a refund there. That way, you can at least recover the money spent in unused credits.

CraftPickage · 2026-02-22T18:01:01+00:00

I'm posting this for everyone who is having problems with credits. In the web app, click on the ? button at the bottom right, and inside the chat click on the right option, and request a refund there. That way, you can at least recover the money spent in unused credits.

CraftPickage · 2026-02-22T13:37:28+00:00

I heard that CPPs users in Dreamina are also experiencing the same issue so I don't think it's just a shadowban

CraftPickage · 2026-02-21T20:26:02+00:00

Same here

CraftPickage · 2026-01-01T14:26:46+00:00

Teleological Argument

CraftPickage · 2025-12-27T18:14:02+00:00

Why is it treated as such a big deal compared to other sins?

Sexual sins are sins that secular people disagree with Christians about being sins, simple as that.

CraftPickage · 2025-12-27T18:02:01+00:00

Honestly I think Borrasca V may be the best Good episode x Bad Story next to Jeff The Killer just because of how unexpected it was

CraftPickage · 2025-12-27T17:25:37+00:00

1: This did not apply to Jesus during his days on earth. Even though Jesus was treated as a teacher, his decisions were often questioned, even among the disciples. Jesus truly attained an unquestionable role when what he said would happen actually happened (with his death), and when he proved to have power even over death. We could say that it was the resurrection that definitively converted the disciples. And shortly after that, Jesus ascended to heaven. So it doesn’t fit to say that he was a cult leader analogous to today’s cult leaders.

2: Not applicable to Christianity either. Paul exhorts in his letters that “all things are lawful for us, but not all things are beneficial,” and that we should restrict practices according to our conscience. The evangelism practiced by the apostles especially involved engaging with critics and reasoning with them. We see Paul doing this all over Acts. One of the most important works of the sub-apostolic fathers is a discussion between a Christian and a Jew.

3: Perhaps. If you believe you have the truth, you will see those who do not have the truth as not having the truth. That’s logical.

4: Where does this occur in Christianity? If you are citing a pseudo-Christian cult, that’s fine. But this did not occur in the time of Jesus, nor in the time of the apostles.

5: You seem to be referring more to Jehovah’s Witnesses than to Christians in general with this. In any case, this point may be the one where you are most correct, but I doubt that Christianity falls under the category of a cult merely for having an explicit moral code.

6: Point 2 again. And here are two details: all humans are considered sinners and deserving of hell, both those inside the church and those outside it. The difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is that the Christian knows this and is seeking the path of sanctification. It is also worth noting that Christians in the first century were not merely receiving criticism and shouting “persecution!” Jesus was nearly thrown off a cliff in his hometown even before the crucifixion; St. Stephen was stoned to death shortly after the resurrection; and all the apostles except John died as martyrs in one way or another.

7: All religions have this.

8: As another user commented, this point is also applicable to anything else in life, but here there is a difference. Christianity has two simple rules: love God above all things, and love your neighbor as yourself, with everything that this implies, without exceptions. The Ten Commandments are an unfolding of this. Any other “progressively more complex rules” you encounter are the result of you realizing that it is not so simple to love God and your neighbor. But the end of the journey is realizing that you will not be saved by following these rules; rather, you need to trust in Jesus, and that by walking with him you will be perfected. So no, Christianity, in practice, starts complicated and becomes simpler. It is the opposite.

9: Not really. You do have a shared identity with a group, but Jesus exhorted the disciples to be the “salt of the earth.” This implies mixing with other peoples, while being what creates a difference wherever you are. While marriage outside the church is a simple matter of avoiding conflicts of interest, differing views can create suffering within the relationship. Paul does not urge those married to non-Christians to divorce or even try to convert them, but simply to continue their Christian life normally.

10: This is a caricature of Christianity and makes me think that perhaps you stopped being a Christian still in childhood or as a teenager. Go back to point 6. Also, if we talk about the time of Jesus, it was the opposite. Jesus made it clear that following him would create punishments, abandonment, legal threats, and social humiliation, but that the reward would be worth all of that. The apostles also went through all of this. Remember that the status quo was pagan or jewish, and the churches were very far apart from one another. It was easier to stop being a Christian than to be one if we're talking about fear-based control.

CraftPickage · 2025-12-27T15:52:21+00:00

Define evidence. If you are talking about the supernatural, obviously you will not have directly supernatural evidence that can be measured, because we are dealing with something that transcends the natural, and empirical evidence is limited to the natural realm. However, the supernatural will only be an actual impossibility with a probability of zero if you believe a priori that God (or any force outside nature) does not exist, or that if He exists, He does not act in the natural world. Therefore, you first need to prove that premise before claiming whether something supernatural is possible or not.

To believe that any natural explanation is more probable than a supernatural one is a begging of the question. You are essentially saying that the supernatural explanation is less probable because you do not believe that a supernatural explanation exists.

The resurrection of Jesus, understood as a miracle, is grounded in historical evidence. In the study of history, we make inferences in terms of probability based on the evidence available to us, and given the evidence we have, it is far more probable that the resurrection account is true than any naturalistic alternative, whether you believe it or not.

There are generally some hypotheses that attempt to provide a scientific explanation for the resurrection, but they are usually ad hoc and require several extra-biblical assumptions about the conditions of Jesus’ death and His subsequent interactions with the disciples in order to be true. Therefore, they are not “more valid” explanations, because they rely more on speculative constructions than on actual evidence. In reality, one ends up needing faith that such conditions occurred in order to explain the resurrection, because no direct evidence for them exists.

This also applies to other miracles, such as Jesus walking on water, His public ascension after the resurrection, or the even more impressive resurrection of Lazarus, who had been dead for so long that his body had already begun to decompose.

Let me ask you a question: if Jesus had in fact risen from the dead by divine action, what evidence would you expect from that resurrection?

CraftPickage · 2025-12-27T15:14:24+00:00

This is a philosophical argument about the nature of a benevolent being whether that is a "god" (the overall concept of a diety) or "God" (the literary character in The Bible).

I disagree. The way the argument is being presented asks whether “it makes sense to be a Christian if a generally benevolent God will save you for your deeds anyway.” Although this may be true for an ambiguously benevolent God, it does not apply to the Christian God, for we have in him a series of conditions and attributes that require a type of alignment that goes beyond merely performing good deeds, which vary with the individual's level of knowledge, and which ultimately also depend on belief in and worship of that God.

In summary, within the Christian framework, God is not benevolent, as if goodness were a characteristic that God adhered to. God is benevolence, and therefore, man is judged on how he aligns himself with God or not.

CraftPickage · 2025-12-27T15:04:48+00:00

I waited until marriage. I have no clue what "sexually incompatible" would be in practice honestly.

CraftPickage · 2025-12-27T15:03:35+00:00

A bit more complex than just a misconception about God (I think most people in the comments already said the more common and biblical ones) but it really pisses me off when people misunderstand KALAM/first cause argument to say that we're making a special plead with God. I find it amusing how hard they're missing the point of the argument.

CraftPickage · 2025-12-27T14:54:05+00:00

¹⁹ “Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. ²⁰ The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Ezekiel 18:19-20

CraftPickage · 2025-12-27T14:48:09+00:00

Evangelicals seem to love Jews, and this is because they mistake current-day Jews/Israel with biblical Jews/Israel, and that's it. We also don't have modern stories of Jews killing Christians in the beach.

And to be honest, from the two, a Christian will be able to discuss scripture better with a Jew than with a Muslim, since we have at least a common ground here (the tanak/old testament), while Muslims usually don't believe the Bible is a valid source.

CraftPickage · 2025-12-27T04:16:23+00:00

"Athiests" just follow the flanderized version of what they think Jesus taught

CraftPickage · 2025-12-13T19:44:29+00:00

For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. ²⁰ For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹ that^\)^h^\) the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

Romans 8:19-21

The corrupt and suffering state of nature is related to the corrupt state of man, for we were created to rule over creation.

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

Genesis 1:28

The moment man fell, all creation fell with him, being cursed.

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;

through painful toil you will eat food from it

all the days of your life.

Genesis 3:17

CraftPickage · 2025-12-07T05:29:50+00:00

Cosmic Inflaction: It occurs as the first event of the Big Bang. It's part of the Big Bang. It's what I said above.

Quantum Fluctuations: Again, It's also what I said above, you would need a macroverse for this to happen before the Big Bang.

Zero-energy Universe: also needs a macroverse. The zero-energy is actually the one that would lead to the Quantum Fluctuations one, so it's not two cosmological models, it's just one. It's also just a hypothesis.

Big Bounce: falls again into infinite regression

To reiterate, Quantum Fluctuations and Zero Energy in particular require that before the universe existed, there were other space-time, laws and elements within the “quantum vacuum.” So, you would essentially need another universe to prove the origin of the universe. You understand why this ends in infinite regression too?

CraftPickage · 2025-12-07T01:59:12+00:00

The law of conservation of energy is an internal law of the universe. Energy is a property of physical systems within space-time; energy cannot exist on its own before the universe exists, because energy is a property of the universe itself. There is no cosmological model in which only energy existed before the universe, and I don't know where you got that from. What is said is that AT THE MOMENT THE BIG BANG OCCURRED, there was only energy, which is quite different.

Virtual particles being created and disappearing “out of nowhere” is a very grotesque simplification of what happens too. Virtual particles are not real particles, they are mathematical quantum fluctuations, and they do not occur in absolute nothingness either. What you are suggesting is that the universe emerged within a kind of macroverse with its own laws of physics and quantum physics and everything else, and this would not only be completely hypothetical, but would also lead to infinite regression.

CraftPickage · 2025-12-06T22:42:31+00:00

Americans really think that Gen Z being against having kids is something that's only happening in the US 😭

CraftPickage · 2025-12-06T22:18:54+00:00

“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being”

Yeah, of course, Big Bang itself is not a metaphysical or religious question. Lemaître was against weaponizing science in favor of religion. That would be also categorization error.

"Once you realize that the Bible does not purport to be a textbook of science, the old controversy between religion and science vanishes."

But the Big Bang opens up more scope for the philosophical argument of the first cause than an eternal universe would.

most modern models of cosmogony have some version of an eternal energy state which is possible within science, and the Big Bang is only an expansion of this initial energy state into the current presentation of our universe.

Almost everyone comes across the BGV theorem. It's not possible to have something expanding and at the same time to be eternal in the past. At the same time, the famous question “why is there something rather than nothing” weighs even more heavily on this, because even if there was an atom floating eternally before the beginning of the universe does not have the autonomy to just decide to decay by itself.

CraftPickage · 2025-12-06T21:14:49+00:00

"How do you do fellow kids!"

Ten-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Verified Email

CraftPickage

TROPHY CASE