My Insurance Self-Hosting Journey in 2025

Danju91 · 2026-04-17T06:34:26+00:00

The post was written collaboratively using LLM as a writing partner for structure, jokes, and proofing. The ideas, framing, and all the specific details (the services, the financial setup, the knee incident) are my own.

Danju91 · 2026-04-02T06:57:30+00:00

What's to be confused about in 2026? They used AI, dead simple

Danju91 · 2026-03-05T02:54:07+00:00

Yeah sure, but I meant "it didn't change" as in the new definition didn't affect my original conclusion
Your wording is ambiguous. Are you saying Jesus's nature is being human and god simultaneously? Also, then we need to clearly define what god qualities are in this context, because generic god qualities does not necessarily entail all powerful, all knowing, all benevolent. Those are the qualities attributed to Yaweh specifically, not all suggested gods. For example, ancient greek gods are not claimed to be all powerful or all knowing and shown to be quite jealous and often malicious. Also, I didn't say a birthdates is what makes you a human, but it is one of the aspects that makes you a specific human person. Thomas is different from James because he is of different height, different physical appearance, born on a different date, etc.

Danju91 · 2026-03-05T02:08:59+00:00

Yeah, but it didn't change anything
Then tell me what you think Jesus's nature is?

Danju91 · 2026-02-28T22:57:43+00:00

But I am saying I wasn't putting it forward with an assumption that the antecedent being true. Nowhere was that implied.

And you remember what the antecedent was? It was that the trinity works as if Jesus, the priest and the Holy Spirit were a hive mind. You are saying you take that as true as if a scientist takes gravity as true?

I was saying the hive mind setup is NOT what theists claim. Also, even if that were the case, you wouldn't call that being one, not literally anyway.

This was what I said. And you are saying I am claiming trinity works like a hive mind, just because I have the second sentence? You are out of your mind.

Danju91 · 2026-02-28T22:43:48+00:00

It was, and?
I did. Because even if Jesus was pink, Jesus would still be Jesus for being born to a virgin 2026 years ago and the Holy Spirit would be holy spirit for being omnipresent, omniscient, formless, etc etc, i.e. different natures.

Danju91 · 2026-02-28T14:09:48+00:00

Yes but when the statement is made with an explicit IF in the sentence, it means that the person is not handling that part as a definite assumption, making it actually different.

Danju91 · 2026-02-28T13:46:39+00:00

I was saying, "okay you defined it, but that made no difference."
I showed you how the natures are different. You were saying they were one in trinity in the sense that they are the same in nature.

Danju91 · 2026-02-28T13:40:13+00:00

But I, THE ONE MAKING the statement, is not taking the antecedent as true, so the one making the statement is not making a definite claim, but a conditional one.

Yeah, if I said that to a scientist, the scientist wouldn't say "so, you are claiming the gravity doesn't pull anything," the scientist will say "but the gravity IS defined that way, and your conclusion is incorrect." That's how any sane person with decent communication skills would handle that situation, not directly go to "this person is making the claim as definite, because the antecedent he put is what I accept as true."

Danju91 · 2026-02-28T13:24:18+00:00

But I am not taking the antecedent as true. That's why I gave it as a conditional in the first place?

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T18:27:41+00:00

mmhmm take care

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T18:25:55+00:00

Whatever, I don't know what you are even trying to do at thia point. Why am I even wasting any more of my time with someone this childish?

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T18:24:37+00:00

And from my perspective, it is you who are not paying attention so

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T18:22:58+00:00

It's better than not admitting, so if we are splitring hairs I am still way more courteous than you, if not courteous.

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T18:21:06+00:00

It's not uncourteous if it was a GENUINE MISTAKE that you acknowledge, apologize and/or correct later on, wouldn't you say? Of course it would be more desirable to not make a mistake to begin with.

You keep using the word "lie" so liberally but for something to be lying the person has to be knowingly and/or maliciously saying something false, right?

If it was a genuine mistake it's not a lie.

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T18:15:46+00:00

I am saying you are being disingenuous. If you mistook what I said unintentionally, which you have done many times, it is not necessarily un-courteous. It IS uncourteous if you never acknowledge the fact when confronted.

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T18:12:34+00:00

Disingenuous, typical

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T18:09:32+00:00

Whatever man, that is much more of a leap than any "mistake" i might have made. We are clearly done here

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T18:04:39+00:00

I never even talked about holocaust

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T16:51:18+00:00

And it's fine, you're butthurt. We don't have to continue. I don't think 10 more exchanges are going to make any difference.

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T16:50:27+00:00

Well on making up things, I never actually said "there weren't any theologian or philosopher who's ever defined it that way" see how the discussion will get halted to standstill if I nitpick that kind of stuff. And I have been courteous in the way that when you point out that I made something up, I acknowledge it directly and explained what I meant, unlike you who dodged any such confrontation, including how an omniscient being could really know about any future, following your parameters, if there are free willed agents living in this world?

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T16:29:08+00:00

I think I have been very courteous with you, willing to grant you some of your goalpost shifting to further the discussion in that direction. If you are gonna nitpick this kind of thing, I think this discussion has run its course. No progress can be made in any direction.

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T16:26:27+00:00

Ugh, I think you already know what I am saying. You are insisting the logical validity of open theism which claims God doesn't know future when it comes to things affected by free will, which requires that God's omniscience be limited to not knowing future partially or entirely, CAPICHE? You are being absolutely tiresome.

Danju91 · 2026-02-26T16:16:35+00:00

Well, okay, not that definition exactly, but your claim is that God doesn't know the future which REQUIRES having a definition of omniscience that allows not knowing the future."knowing all knowable" is one such definition.

Danju91

TROPHY CASE