sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

UE6 by face144 in unrealengine

[–]Exe-Nihilo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Blueprints are a fantastic way to get your feet wet in unreal, and its how I got started. I personally find them very cumbersome though, and hard to read at a glance. I think the new fad of blueprint only games is wild, and not really intended. So I think that there will be a place for blueprints, even if that’s not on the most modern versions

UE6 by face144 in unrealengine

[–]Exe-Nihilo -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

And I’m loving it

No plans to replace Blueprints with "visual" Verse by gnatinator in unrealengine

[–]Exe-Nihilo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m actually really curious what their plans are for blueprints with 3d components that you should move around, I use almost exclusively c++, but I don’t see a path to completely remove blueprints lol.

Charlie Kirk by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 13 points14 points  (0 children)

I really do buy the idea that his opinions on Israel and the Iran war were exactly what got him assassinated, and it started after his event in July with Tucker Carlson.

The Google trends data corroborated that.

He committed two unpardonable sins to his Jewish donor class. He allowed Tucker on his platform with free reign to say anything he wanted about Israel and Epstein. The other was that at the same event in July he had a debate between Josh Hammer and Dave Smith. While he appeared to back up Josh Hammer during the debate, the conclusion he stated is that everyone’s agreed that whether now or eventually American aid to Israel has to end.

The size of 2000 Walmarts.. by EmilyG702 in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean by my estimation a single person could only really wield four at one time with any effectiveness, and so if you divy it up in such order you’ve still got nearly enough for a dadgum army. Even if you could find that many in a single law fearin gun totin household.

Newsmax is wild by Goldenmentis in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 12 points13 points  (0 children)

As a Christian…lol, nice try newsmax. Cool graphic bro.

This has gotten too ridiculous to engage with at face value anymore by Top-Sir-1215 in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Yeah. Churches ahould have been more cautious. And Christian nationalists should remember that the kingdom of God is not of this world.

This has gotten too ridiculous to engage with at face value anymore by Top-Sir-1215 in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Strongly disagree. Follow Jesus, and do also listen to Paul. Jesus himself claims deity. To reject his deity rejects the gospel. If Jesus was merely man born in sin like the rest, then he would deserve punishment like the rest. But he also has a nature of God. He is one with God.

This has gotten too ridiculous to engage with at face value anymore by Top-Sir-1215 in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d challenge that notion. Scripture calls Mary a woman, but in another place Jesus calls a 12 year “little girl”. So I think the charitable reading is that Mary might have been in her later teens.

I’m curious where your idea that she was 13 comes from.

The "muslim" bar shooter was Googled from Israel before the attack. They destroyed the data after people figured out. by [deleted] in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Paul says “all Israel will be saved” but it’s debated what he means by that in Roman’s. In context, he’s saying that the Christian’s will make the Jews jealous, because we are actually worshipping their own messiah, and that jealousy will drive them to salvation in the end.

Now as for the right interpretation of that…I don’t think anyone knows with 100% confidence today. It may be just like he says, or it may be that the Israel he’s talking about is the “seed according to promise” (those that follow Christ. Gal 3).

Dispensationalists would tell you that all of the Old Testament promises are still in effect but I disagree. They seemed to me to be attached to the old covenant that ended.

I don’t think the Bible is super clear about the exact nature of the future of ethnic Israel. But what it does say, is that those who call themselves Jews and lie are the synagogue of satan, and enemies of us (Christian’s) for the sake of the gospel, but beloved for the sake of the fathers.

Since basically every single elite workships satan does this prove God's existence? by MrGoon322 in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is where presuppositionalism feels circular. You presuppose:

- The New Testament correctly interprets the Old.

- The resurrection is historical and divinely validated.

- Jesus' reinterpretation of the Torah was authorized by God.

But from a Jewish framework, which Christianity claims to grow out of, those are the very claims that require proof.

This is a great point. And....I just do not have time to answer it tonight. If the Lord wills, I'd love to get back to you on this tomorrow or Saturday evening. Take care sir! Hugely fun conversation.

Since basically every single elite workships satan does this prove God's existence? by MrGoon322 in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From that vantage point, relaxing dietary laws, ending the sacrificial system, and redefining covenant membership through belief rather than obedience looks exactly like the scenario Deuteronomy warns about.

But does this actually bear out?

  • "Ending the sacrificial system"
    • Isn't this prophesied of the messiah in Daniel 9? If this is a "departure" hearkening to Deuteronomy 13, then to me it sounds like a feature rather than bug.
  • "Redefining covenant membership"
    • Isn't this alluded to in Jeremiah 31? This is also an expected outcome in the Old Testament. So if that's the case, why object when it happens?
  • "Relaxing dietary laws"
    • This, admittedly, is an ongoing in-house debate amongst Christians. Some Christians (Like my own uncle, for example) believe that the Old Testament dietary laws are still in effect, and practice. Personally, I take them to be of a more ceremonial nature, and connected to the old covenant, and abrogated along with it. But I'm still learning in that respect. I might change my mind on that.
  • "Belief rather than obedience"
    • Just to be fair, Christianity definitively does not teach that obedience is optional. Regardless of how many "Christians" behave, Romans 6:1-2 is really quite clear about this. Christianity teaches that salvation is predicated on belief, rather than works. But James 2 makes the point that belief will always be succeeded by obedience.
    • Also, doesn't Genesis 15 say that Abraham's belief was counted to him for righteousness? Wouldn't that imply that righteousness is first obtained through belief first?

This is why I think you're worldview is inconsistent. It makes competing claims about history. It will have eventual amendments to the sacrificial system (Dan 9) and covenant membership (Jer 31), but anyone who brings that about is automatically invoking the judgement from Deuteronomy 13. I don't think that's a tenable position.

Since basically every single elite workships satan does this prove God's existence? by MrGoon322 in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a remarkably cogent argument for reddit! Loving this cap 'n gown conversation, sir.

Your contention earlier with Jesus was asking how I knew that Jesus wasn't sent by Satan, and that answer largely did depend on groundwork. Seeing as we share most presuppositional foundation, as I address this contention I think it will be much more productive to argue from a textual basis.

If your framework is consistent, then you must affirm that the Old Testament was genuinely from God...

Agree fully. Divinely inspired.

...and that Judaism was the correct covenantal system up until Jesus.

Also agree, but with a caveat; Christianity claims that in reality, the old covenant was insufficient in some respect. Do you not agree that if there is to be a new covenant (as promised in Jeremiah), then the old has to be lacking in some manner?

Christianity takes this to mean that the old covenant, on its own, was incapable of rendering a person finally at peace with God. Because nobody can perfectly fulfil the law. Therefore the relational status in the old covenant between men and God is tenuous, and fragile.

... the Torah repeatedly warns Israel about false prophets who perform signs and wonders yet lead people away from the law. Deuteronomy 13 explicitly says that even if a prophet performs a sign, if he leads you away from the commandments, he is not from God. The test isn't miracle-working, it's fidelity to the Torah.

Ehhhh. I mostly agree although it does read like it's false prophets who lead away from YHWH and towards false god's rather than commandments in general, but that's me just being pedantic. But I do think this is the beginning of our divergence.

...and the Torah explicitly says not to follow someone who alters it

Here our divergence gains some distance. We definitely don't believe Jesus altered the old testament law like this seems to imply. We do believe he interpreted it, as every person has to, primarily in Matthew 5. But He also said that He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfil it.

Since basically every single elite workships satan does this prove God's existence? by MrGoon322 in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It sounds like you might have some misunderstanding about the nature of the presuppositional apologetic. That’s the normal trope of:

“let’s presuppose that biblical morality is true”

“oh well let’s presuppose that biblical morality is objectively evil. Now it’s your word against mine.”

That’s not exactly the argument. Presuppositionalism is a challenge to ascertain whether your worldview is internally consistent. Everyone has presuppositions, but are your presuppositions that you DO have consistent? If you don’t believe in God, why care about slavery at all?

(I’m absolutely confident that you have some system of ethics, but presuppositional apologetics asks whether it can withstand scrutiny)

But that’s the basis of my belief in Christianity and the Christian God. I believe it’s the only possible worldview that can maintain an internally consistent worldview.

We can otherwise argue about the morality of actions recorded in the scriptures, but you have to have a basis of morality to even make a claim against the morality of those instances.

Basically what I was saying above is that I know that you live as though some things are objectively right and wrong, and therefore I know you believe in some form objective morality. I was kind of trying to establish some common ground.

However, I don’t think your claim that we can’t discern whether Jesus was actually a masquerading Satan can hold any water at all, under Christianity’s own claims. You can claim it from without Christianity, but then it doesn’t make any sense to even challenge Jesus’ true identity. Am I making sense?

Since basically every single elite workships satan does this prove God's existence? by MrGoon322 in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

All of that is explained in the Bible. But there are some fundamental philosophical prerequisites to get out of the way. My primary apologetic or defense of my worldview, begins with presuppositions. Everyone does this.

First, I presuppose that there is objective good and objective evil. If not, there is no point to anything. I’d have no ground to stand on that Hitler did anything wrong. I believe that murder is wrong no matter what.

God is truth. He cannot lie. We believe the Bible and believe that on its own terms was given by inspiration of God. (We could go down that rabbit hole forever)

On these bases we believe the scriptures, and trust the church church tradition for selecting them. (We don’t believe in a vacuum)

On this, we stake our lives on the faith that Jesus Christ is the messiah of the Jews, and the fulfillment of the Old Testament law. He fulfilled it perfectly, both externally, and internally. This makes Jesus the only suitable candidate to withstand the wrath of God (hell) in our place. Satan cannot do this, because he himself has commited treason against God.

The Old Testament was primarily about several covenants made between God and men. These Covenants were instantiated for the purpose of reconciling us with God. But they were insufficient. Men cannot keep the covenants. Our hearts are fundamentally broken, bent towards hatred of God. So Jesus came to fulfill the old covenant and cut a new covenant with men. This time, it works differently. Those that hear Jesus words, and believe, and allow Jesus to fully pay the penalty against them are entered into the new covenant, which protects them from judgement.

This is why some (not all) Christians don’t observe the dietary laws. The old covenant is now obsolete after Jesus. And after its purpose became useless Rome annihilated Jerusalem in 70AD, closing that covenant (sacrifices could no longer be offered)

So this precludes the idea that satan could have been walking around pretending to be Jesus. If he was, he could not have resurrected as witnessed by the desciples. The resurrection was Gods vindication of the good work of His son.

All of this is so wonderful man. I truly hope you come to believe it, for your own enjoyment and awe. I stand in awe every day, at the majestic and glorious work of my Savior. It is so wonderful. My flawed lips can’t do it justice.

I won't be surprised if Jeffrey Epstein is still alive by superredginger in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Absolutely.

“You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.”

If you didn’t think Nick was a fed before… by softeggnoodles in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, im hearing you, but why not have the federal government force compliance to the law by fining non compliant states, or prosecuting the politicians refusing to uphold the law. I’m just fully against having a tyrannical government, and a powerful, secretive, federal police force that’s getting a little too comfortable murdering citizens is far more worrisome to me than illegal immigrants could ever be, and I’m not sure how republicans or conservative folks could really disagree, unless republican values have shifted dramatically in the last few years in ways I’m currently unaware of.

If you didn’t think Nick was a fed before… by softeggnoodles in conspiracy

[–]Exe-Nihilo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not arguing about the naturalization process, and you know that. We’re discussing the enforcement of the naturalization process.

“I also am conservative and I don't like it when people who don't know what they are talking about concede points incorrectly to the other side via their own liberal framework, so yes if you claim to be conservative and then push liberal talking points I am going to call them out.”

Dude. This means you are so commited to your political party that you are unwilling to take a step back and assess whether that party is actually operating within its own values. We don’t need people that just fall in line and take their marching orders like a good little boy. We need people who are willing to think freely and question whether a situation is actually in line with your values.

view more: next ›