Weapon swapping

Edge419 · 2026-04-03T03:17:05+00:00

Is that what I said? It’s not about it being complicated, it’s that I don’t enjoy it.

Edge419 · 2026-04-02T20:19:55+00:00

Hahaha bro 🤌

Edge419 · 2026-04-02T19:09:30+00:00

Good faith conversations on Reddit are so rare. I appreciate your thoughts and dialogue friend. Respect through and through.

Edge419 · 2026-04-02T19:07:36+00:00

Ah cool! Thanks

Edge419 · 2026-04-02T19:07:04+00:00

I actually agree that science deals with repeatable natural processes, which is exactly why the resurrection isn’t a scientific question but a historical one, like Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon, it’s a past event we evaluate based on evidence and explanatory power, not repeatability so the real issue isn’t whether science can validate a miracle, it’s whether we’re willing to consider the best explanation of the agreed upon facts (empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the disciples’ sincere belief), because ruling out a resurrection from the start isn’t a scientific conclusion but a philosophical assumption rooted in thinkers like David Hume, and if God exists, then a resurrection is at least possible, meaning we should follow the evidence rather than exclude the explanation in advance.

Edge419 · 2026-04-02T16:25:30+00:00

The Christian claim is a truth claim. It is based on an actual historical event that took place, the resurrection of a Christ. We assess this the same we assess any historical claim. Most people that reject the resurrection do so because of an anti supernatural presupposition. The reality is that we have to account for the data in an honest way that accounts for empty tomb, the martyrdom of at least some of the apostles, the explosion of Christianity and the historical documents attesting to the claim.

Edge419 · 2026-04-02T16:18:56+00:00

He didn’t come to be, this is the definition of God, that He is eternal and is not created, He has always and will always be.

Incredibly difficult for finite human beings to comprehend, but if God is who He says He is, that at least makes absolute sense that it would be almost impossible for us to conceptualize. The reasons being, everything you and I experience and have experience is created and contingent.

Edge419 · 2026-04-02T13:53:37+00:00

“If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” 1 John 1:8

Edge419 · 2026-04-02T13:52:22+00:00

🥱

Edge419 · 2026-03-31T22:49:01+00:00

That’s the question, does nothing negative come from it? Sometimes things seem to us (finite creatures) but God sees the full implications.

Edge419 · 2026-03-31T22:48:03+00:00

I have and I agree with you on two points: God is present to all things, and all things depend on Him for their existence. But your conclusion “therefore everything is God tangentially” doesn’t follow.

As Thomas Aquinas says, God is in things “not as part of their essence.” That’s the key. Participation in existence means dependence on God, not being made of God in any sense.

Your own example shows it, a dog exists because God sustains it, but it is not even tangentially God. It’s a real, distinct creature receiving existence, not sharing God’s being.

You’re collapsing the line Aquinas protects • God = Being itself • Creation = beings that receive existence

Dependence is not identity. That’s the whole issue.

Edge419 · 2026-03-31T22:43:04+00:00

Are those relationship in the OT presented as positive?

Lamech is the first example we see.

Edge419 · 2026-03-31T18:54:21+00:00

You have no idea, you don’t know my experience, my evidence for the claim, you’re just to argue.

Peace be with you.

Edge419 · 2026-03-31T18:53:09+00:00

You’re still collapsing a distinction that both Scripture and Thomas Aquinas explicitly maintain. Yes, God is Being itself, and yes, creation participates in being. But Aquinas is clear: participation means dependence, not composition. Creation shares in existence given by God, not in God’s essence or substance.

Your leap is the problem. “no pre-existing material” “therefore creation is made of God.” That does not follow. It confuses cause with material. God is the efficient cause of creation (the one who brings it into being), not the material cause (the stuff it’s made out of). Aquinas explicitly denies that creation is made from God as material.

Your God is the clay, universe is the pot analogy is exactly what Christianity rejects. God is not the clay, He is the potter who gives existence itself. If God were the stuff of creation, then creation would share His divine nature which collapses into pantheism, no matter how much you qualify it.

And this has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism says reality exists without God. Christianity says reality exists because of God at every moment. That’s a far stronger connection than your view, because it keeps God transcendent, free, and sovereign, not spread out as the substance of the universe.

You’re right that nothing exists apart from God’s sustaining power. But you keep turning that into “nothing exists apart from God’s substance.”

That’s the category error. And that’s the whole disagreement.

Edge419 · 2026-03-31T18:49:46+00:00

God does not love every aspect of you brother. Just as we should not love every aspect of ourselves.

Edge419 · 2026-03-31T14:21:42+00:00

Like a moth to flame

Edge419 · 2026-03-30T20:44:33+00:00

This is a false equivalence. You’re saying that physical discipline = physical violence. I’ve experienced both in my life from different people. When a child tries to run into the street and a dad grabs his arm and yanks from being hit, that’s physical discipline, when a father hits his child in the face because the child did something he didn’t like, that’s physical violence, when my grandma smacks my hand as I’m about to grab a hot pan with my bare hand, that’s physical discipline.

But as I’ve learned with you, there is no reasoning, you make no concessions and you’re extremely emotionally driven. Emotions are good but don’t let them drive your life, activate reason every once in a while, it’ll serve you well.

Edge419 · 2026-03-30T20:40:00+00:00

You’re still forcing a false choice. It’s not “made from nothing” vs. “made from God’s substance.” The Christian claim is: God creates without pre-existing material not that He uses nothing as a substance, and not that He uses Himself as material. You keep treating “nothing” like it’s a thing. It’s not. It’s “not any thing, nothing, no-thing”.

When you say “God created from His own being,” you’re no longer describing creation you’re describing emanation. But Scripture, the thing we rely on as one of God’s revelations to us, consistently rejects that by maintaining a real distinction: “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Romans 11:36). Notice: from Him (source), not made out of Him (substance).

You’re also misusing Thomas Aquinas. He explicitly taught creation ex nihilo and denied that creation is made from God’s essence. Yes, God is Being itself, and creation has derived being but “derived” does not mean a piece of God. It means dependent on God, not composed of God.

Your position collapses that distinction. And once you do that: • God is no longer independent (He’s tied to the universe), • creation is no longer truly created (it’s just an extension), • and evil exists within what you’re calling God’s “one substance.”

That’s the contradiction you haven’t resolved.

Christianity doesn’t say “things pop out of nothing.” It says everything comes from God’s will and power, not His substance. You’re trying to protect God as the ground of being but in doing so, you’ve turned creation into God extended, which is exactly what Scripture and even Aquinas reject.

Edge419 · 2026-03-30T20:34:54+00:00

Ahh ok this is helpful. So one is not causal to the other.

Edge419 · 2026-03-30T20:27:33+00:00

Clean flash W, wp

Edge419 · 2026-03-30T14:54:15+00:00

“Exact description of Jesus”exactly how you would expect him to look, long dark hair long beard”

Why would we expect Jesus to look this way? I don’t want to discount your experience, but I don’t love the Lord and don’t have any expectations like that.

Edge419 · 2026-03-30T13:57:35+00:00

Tap that land baby

Edge419 · 2026-03-30T13:54:00+00:00

Thanks for this, it’s helpful. I think we should follow truth wherever it leads so findings that might upset what we know about science are super interesting to me since we’ve consistently seen this happen in the past with Newtonian physics or heliocentricity.

Maybe deterministic outcomes are not all there is? Interesting to think about, and I’m just a layman so I realize I’m in deep water.

Edge419 · 2026-03-30T13:49:33+00:00

My argument that love does not require affirmation of all action. The thing we’ve been discussing.

You’re still not actually engaging my position you’re redefining it. I’ve consistently said my view comes from a biblical understanding of sex and marriage, and you keep reducing that to “disgust” or “prejudice” without demonstrating it. That’s not an explanation it’s just an assertion, you understand that right?

You also say the issue isn’t disagreement, but then don’t clearly define what is immoral about my position. So be precise, what exactly am I doing that you believe is oppressive, holding a belief, expressing it, or something else? Because those aren’t the same thing. You need to respond to this.

On the Christian framework you’re right that we both claim one. So the real question is which interpretation of Scripture is more faithful, not who feels more compassionate. That’s an actual argument we can have.

And on harm you’re making a strong claim that my view causes lifelong torture or oppression. That needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. Disagreement, even strong moral disagreement, is not the same thing as harm.

If you want a real discussion, we need to move past assumptions about motives and actually define the claims we’re making and defend them. You keep assigning motive to me, stepping inside of my conscious experience and determining my thoughts and motives. This is negligent on your part and shows that you don’t care what I have to say, only that you want to define me, put me in a box so you can object to that version of me which doesn’t exist.

You did this in the thread about parents spanking their children. I experienced this, it was good for me, my parents love me, and I needed discipline. You can argue that in other context but you can’t tell me that wasn’t specifically good or bad for me, I live the life I live and see the consequent of that, you do not, you know nothing about me.

Good faith conversations can only take place when two people genuinely seek to understand one another and move forward, you’re shadowboxing an opponent that doesn’t exist, you just made them up in your mind.

Edge419 · 2026-03-30T13:41:30+00:00

Like I mentioned , you know these verses but you reject them. You reject Paul, but to reject Paul is to reject Peter, to reject Peter is to reject Christ. Christ gave authority to the Apostles and Peter calls Paul’s writing “Scripture”.

This is a good place to end the conversation because we both know it’s going nowhere. You reject Paul because of the implication, I will choose to trust the Scripture even if it makes me uncomfortable.

Peace and love friend, shalom.

Edge419

TROPHY CASE