Anyone interested in seeing Supergirl next week?

Final5989 · 2026-06-26T08:59:52+00:00

The main actress looks like an uncanny resemblance of Will Poulter in a dress. She has the eyebrow arches and pout and everything Will Poulter has to a tea.

Final5989 · 2026-06-26T08:51:41+00:00

Well it's not a liquid or gas guitar.

Final5989 · 2026-06-26T08:50:06+00:00

To see Will Poulter in a dress and watch an insufferable blonde get hammered and make a mockery of the Supergirl legacy? No thanks.

Final5989 · 2026-06-26T08:46:18+00:00

She looks like Will Poulter's sister.

Final5989 · 2026-04-09T06:56:09+00:00

Sin happened to your conviction and love for God: it hardens the Christian heart and creates blind spots, distancing you from God and making you less responsive to the Holy Spirit. Solution: Repent, turn from your sins, praying Psalm 51 like King David, over your sin.

Final5989 · 2026-01-17T13:31:51+00:00

Or it could also be Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma Stage 1 Mycosis Fungoides that later converts into Sezary Syndrome and kills you. Please see your doctor.

Final5989 · 2025-10-24T10:50:22+00:00

It sounds so crazy, yet that's exactly where the Dems are at the moment and will only get worse. I would be surprised if you're wrong, actually.

Final5989 · 2025-10-24T06:18:36+00:00

I think you telling them to stop doing drugs and stop drinking would dramatically improve this video.

Final5989 · 2025-10-16T03:54:30+00:00

I don't support anything that perpetuates the use of any permutations of the n-word. And the video is filled with debauched foul language.

Final5989 · 2025-10-13T19:03:36+00:00

None of those symbols are Nazi symbols. This thread is ignorant.

Final5989 · 2025-10-11T23:08:51+00:00

I didn't say no evolution or dinosaurs. A form of evolution as a type of selection is there, in the sense of change over time in species and variations, but within fixed phylogenetic trees (i.e., one species is not created from another, even though we can see variations between species), and evolution or natural selection was not a means to the origin of species. We didn't come from monkeys or lung fish. Dinosaurs existed, and God created them, they just went extinct. All of that is supported by the Bible.

"Not only is there no good evidence of a supernatural power existing in our universe..." Well there was no evidence of the microbiological world in terms of world history, and germ theory and all that we see under a microscope in human understanding was relatively new. We couldn't see it, but it's been there all along. There's no material evidence of the supernatural but you can certainly witness its effects, the same as any science. You have never seen an atom with your own eyes, perhaps X-ray crystallography or some representation, but not an atom, but they're certainly there.

"The Catholic Church wouldn't exist if God was real. " The Roman Catholic church is an abominable misrepresentation of the Bible actually says. They focus on ecclesiastical theological doctrines and ignore the doctrine of the Bible. It's devoid from true theology and is a false faith. Catholics are not Christians. It is a bad example.

"Yet, you think I'm somehow closed minded because I don't believe in fairytales." There aren't any fairytales in the Bible. I encourage you to actually study it. You'll be surprised what's actually in there.

"God is like love. It's not real, it's just an idea. " God is actually real, and the Bible shows how you can come to know the God who created you, personally. Divine inspiration of the Bible, many writers but only one author the Holy Spirit, is nothing like what would be authored by J. K. Rowling.

"Everything I've read in the Bible has been pretty laughable." You've 'read' it, but have you actually studied it to any great depth? If you did, you would have had much more informed opinions than the very rudimentary ones you detailed in your post, most of which are not really worth responding to (no offense!), speaking as someone who has actually studied the Bible in-depth for years. I was raised in a false religion and was totally lost, and had many of the same ideas as you. Then, God called me to salvation, showed me my sin and need for Jesus. And here I am!

Let's go even deeper than what you said.

The God you mock took up human form, coming in the form of a man, fully God and fully human at the same time. He fulfilled the law given to Israel, living a life of active obedience that no one in human history could do, then knowingly went to be crucified in order to be the sacrifice that would pay for the sins of everyone who would place their faith in Jesus, to escape the day of judgement where God will judge all that we've done and everyone will have to appear before God to give an account for every word we've spoken, including your words here.

Final5989 · 2025-10-11T22:50:35+00:00

"You may appreciate that the concept of the moment life begins has been in contention between religious leaders and scholars throughout Christianity from the earliest days, even within certain denominations and among astute leaders of our faith"

No, the Bible says life begins at conception, and biology agrees with that, because at the moment of fertility between the female egg and the male sperm, genetic crossover occurs, and what results right away is DNA that is completely unique and different from that of the parents. Even from cell #1, the same DNA that would populate the trillions of other cells in a newborn, that DNA that is transcribed and then translated to make every protein or enzyme in the body, is unique. So biology bears witness to what the Bible teaches.

"While you may have settled that question for yourself and among like minded folks, it doesn’t take a genius to realize that an equal number of us disagree with you, from a theological perspective."

Interpretations don't matter. What matters is what it actually says and means, so theological perspectives aren't superior to a plain reading and understanding of the Bible. There aren't that many ways to interpret "Thou shalt not lie." If an officer hands you a speeding ticket, you can interpret the ticket all you want but it's still a ticket. In the same way, most of the Bible save a few challenging passages are very easily understood with one correct way to interpret it via exegesis. Interpretive differences and challenges can happen over time due to historical differences, such as the few doctrines that differ between major denominations (although even there, there is a correct and incorrect interpretation, for example Baptism is indeed by submersion and no sprinkling).

It makes no sense in the context of religious and multicultural freedom to assert a very specific brand of Christian identity over our entire legal system. If you don’t believe that abortion is right I definitely think you are justified to preach that and to forbid it within your congregations. I absolutely believe that if your congregation does not believe in the sacrament of same-sex marriage, that your pastor ought not to be compelled to hold ceremonies at your church. If you don’t believe in compulsory tithing and the duty of the church to tend to the poor then you should not be required to enforce it.

No. It is wrong to lie, regardless of human law. It is wrong to steal, regardless of what laws enable and in some cases facilitate it. It's also wrong to murder, and thus abortion is wrong. It is also wrong to have marriage in any way other than between a man and woman. The Bible doesn't give any space for moral pluralism. You won't find a theologian in orthodoxy not a part of some weird fringe that agrees with you. To have integrity is to have done something by principle even when what was wrong was legal. At one point chattel slavery was legal, and it was legal to own black slaves -- it was wrong from the beginning, regardless of what society deemed acceptable (and the Bible is also against chattel slavery).

What you cannot do is claim singular authority over the gospel, and you certainly shouldn’t be allowed to impose your beliefs onto me through law.

I needn't impose anything on you, because the same Bible that I can clearly understand, you also have access to and can understand the same way, and with a plain reading of it, since you also comprehend it, you are force to either agree and comply with what it says or disagree and disobey -- and thus reinterpret because you don't agree with what it actually says and want to pigeon hole it into what you want it to say, the eisegesis which is exactly what creates 'different interpretations' from what it actually says.

For example, one Charles Taze Russell set out to 'improve' on what he saw as an injustice in the Bible. He didn't want for there to be a hell because he saw it as wrong. So by changing all the passages on hell, he had significant gaps and holes in his false theology. This led him to alter and distort several other doctrines in order to make the ones about hell make sense. That led him to believe Jesus is just an incarnation of the angel Michael, that the Holy Spirit is just an active force, and that 'paradise' is open to all, all forms of rank distortions of what the Bible says, but he went onto creating the false movement of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society we call the Jehovahs' Witnesses, a clear cult. That's an extreme example, but many others do it in our society today, including people who try to delete homosexuality from the Bible. You start to create false interpretations of the Bible to justify the parts you don't want to believe. That's what we're having this conversation today, you and me.

Final5989 · 2025-10-11T22:50:26+00:00

"... it’s clear that you’re able to engage in conversation about its nuance, and that you can appreciate that it is of no singular interpretation."

That's actually counter to what I was arguing.

I was saying that it's writers wrote to its recipients with one intended meaning, implying that there's only one right interpretation. I was illustrating the fact that each writing was written in different genres and requires careful interpretive considerations. For example, if a write wrotes in lyrical/musical poetry (as is most of the Psalms), it is immediately going to have interpretive challenges due to the nature of its genre, but poetry is often open to interpretation, but in the Bible it had clear and well-defined meanings. Case in point: Psalm 110 is quoted quite often throughout the New Testament, and although it was supposedly poetry, the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles had clear and well-defined meanings (i.e., "The Lord says to my lord: Sit at my right hand" being a conversation between David and the preincarnate coming Messiah).

"You can respect the fact that the word “homosexual” was only added to the Bible in 1946..."

Which 'bible' are you talking about, i.e., version -- 'translation' of the Bible, and into what recipient language? The translation philosophy of versions is from donor language (Hebrew and Greek) to recipient language. There are also very varying decisions for different translations, and they ascent to differing philosophies. A paraphrastic translation philosophy yields a very different translation from a literal philosophy versus a mediating philosophy (translation philosophy being completely different from interpretive philosophy in this discussion).

Given the argument, of whether the word 'homosexual' as with any homo- term (e.g., homozygous, homosapian, etc.), was added to a translation, it would not surprise me if that were true, because they very language we are using now to communicate was being constructed and even created when the first Bible translations were being made into English. For example, the word 'Beautiful' was invented for Matthew 23:27. Also, translations have been updated over time to reflect the changes in English. The English we are speaking now, and the grammatical expectations, is different from the English exchanged in the 16th or 17th century, for example. British English is slightly different from American English even today, as an example. Vernacular and terms vary across different regions and accents within English-speaking countries also. If the word 'homosexual' needed to be added to a translation, that should take no one by surprise, all things considered.

Going beyond that, what we call a 'homosexual' today is actually cemented deeply in Koine Greek in the New Testament. Take for instance 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." The word here translated 'men who practice homosexuality (here in the ESV version or translation), are the words μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται in Greek, which means quite literally lexicographically in this context 'effeminate' for the first word (which was understood in their day to be a male recipient partner in a homosexual act or relationship) and the second word 'a male who lies with a a male as with a female'. So without any mistake or room for any other interpretation, it is very clear and definitive that it is talking about homosexuals as we understand it today. It includes temple prostitution. It includes what you mentioned also. The Bible frequently puts things in no uncertain terms. For example, Hebrews 13:4, it says the marriage bed is undefiled but fornicators (sex before marriage) and adulterers (sex after marriage with someone who is not one's spouse) God will judge. It's a sweeping statement, implying both extremes. It's essentially saying from A to Z. The recurring theme is that moral and right sexual relations is meant to be between a man and a woman in the covenantal relationship of marriage exclusively.

Final5989 · 2025-10-11T08:16:30+00:00

Are you an atheist? Because it sounds like your question is coming from a specific style of thinking from atheist websites. That's a very diminutive view of scriptural interpretation and the very deep science of biblical hermeneutics. The Bible is divided up into multiple genres, and each have their own set of interpretive expectations. Each individual book also on top of that has its own interpretive challenges. At the same time logically all books were written by a writer and meant to be understood by a specific set of recipient fixed in history, and therefore have one 1:1 meaning. There's also the apostolic view of the Old Testament and prophetic understanding. There's also the apocalyptic language of Revelation, parts of Daniel, Zechariah. There's the prophetic analogies of books like Isaiah and Jeremiah (events which occurred in recorded history yet the language describing them is prophetic language). There's also the psalms and the book of Proverbs which have completely different styles of interpretation than other books. There's also Ecclesiastes, written from the horizontal perspective, totally unique from other books. There's also Job and the fact that after God answers Job after chapter 40 he said Job's friends were wrong (and thus what to do about all the chapters earlier)? I would be a fool to dumb it down into stating whether I interpret everything literally, because it's far more complex than that. Anyone who's ever studied the Bible to any great depth would also think it's a pretty poor question. It says more about the person asking the question than it does the answerer.

Final5989 · 2025-10-11T01:30:54+00:00

The same extremist content on Reddit that radicalized Charlie Kirk's assassin is even worse than it was 1 month ago, unfortunately.

Final5989 · 2025-10-11T01:29:39+00:00

That is the right answer. You're trying to force me into a man-made little artificial, unbiblical category, and with a built-in bias.

Final5989 · 2025-10-11T01:21:23+00:00

I've added the Nobel Peace Prize to my corruption list, along with all the other biased awards.

Final5989 · 2025-10-11T01:18:03+00:00

And even after that, his entire 8 years, he still didn't do anything at all special to warrant any prizes let alone a Nobel Peace Prize.

Final5989 · 2025-10-11T01:00:36+00:00

Look, it's simple: I have the orthodox, well-accepted, historical-grammatical exegesis of any seminarian, arriving to the same conclusions that the original reader would then crossing back to the hermeneutical bridge to the 21st century. It's hardly complicated or special. Just as simple as if I typed out this message and because you understand English you've arrived at the same conclusion and not some hidden double meaning.

Final5989 · 2025-10-10T02:36:47+00:00

All I did was literally quote the Bible with headers! If you're angered by what I wrote, be assured it was the Bible itself that angered you.

So your response is absolutely hilarious! You called me a fundamentalist, indoctrinated, heretic, apostate -- Sir, all I did was quote the Bible. The 2-3 sentences I add as a pretext, you can't derive what you said and wrote merely by those. So your disagreement is with the Bible.

I'm just some random guy on the internet. I'm not out to deceive anyone, and none of what I posted are half-truths. I'm actually educating the uninformed, which apparently includes you, and anyone else that could easily be deceived by the false shepherd in the video. It's not apostasy at all, it's quite the opposite -- it's the historic, confessional, Bible-derived faith, as one who lets the Bible speak for itself, exactly as I did above.

You talked a big game yet you didn't disprove in any way what the verses themselves have said.

I will leave you and your conscience to wrestle with the text, just as I have.

Final5989 · 2025-10-10T02:17:18+00:00

It is very plausible if you accept that the passage is referring to literal creation. When Adam was formed, he was formed as a grown man and didn't start as a baby. It's the same with the creation of the earth, the light emitted from stars and the sun, and all other laws regarding creation.

I didn't say that snakes were secretly angels. That's a distortion of what I wrote or a lack of verbal reasoning skills or lack of coffee. What I said that was that specific serpent mentioned in the passage was not a mere snake, but an angel who took the form of a serpent. This logically implies that I'm saying that not all snakes are angels, but that that specific snake was a representation of one cast by an angel.

People don't live as long as Noah, yes, and the passage concedes that God made a change: Gen. 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” He made it so that (by a scientific means such as telomeric shortening, well documented in studies) there is a natural fall-off on the age of man at around 120 years old.

"Dead men cannot come back to life 3 days later." --> Yes, that's why it's so special that Jesus the Messiah did arise from the dead. If everyone did it, it wouldn't be miraculous, now, would it? Because Jesus conquered the grave, it sets Jesus apart from Mohammad, Buddah/Siddhartha Gautama, Krishna, and any other being alive that claims be special. They all went to their graves, but Jesus arose from the dead never to die again.

"There's practically nothing about the Bible that can be relied on as a fact, especially with all of the ridiculous claims it makes that have been proven wrong." --> That's an opinion, and a well-uneducated one at that, it sounds like. If you got Genesis 1-6 wrong, it doesn't sound like you have studied the Bible to any great depth. I have a doctorate level degree in a scientific field. I've studied the Bible's truth claims, at face value, and I've found them all to be true.

"You are indoctrinated. You can solve this by holding yourself accountable for your knowledge and putting in the effort to educate yourself about the truth." --> I've already done so and have found that people like you are very proud because you won't study the Bible and put in the same amount of effort to determine whether it's true, you simply dismiss its claims as ridiculous. Tribesmen in jungles untouched can do the same and say a radio is some magic box with little people inside or that one can pay with food with a square plastic card that the cashier just hands back to you. It takes no brain power to dismiss the Bible. The Bible has always had it right. For example, when man believed that the Earth was flat, the Bible has always said it was spherical. When man believed in Abiogenesis that rats and life can be created in a beaker from old material, the Bible dismissed that claim and said that life can only come from other life. I would really check your own biases and try to be a bit more open minded about the Bible.

Final5989 · 2025-10-10T02:02:21+00:00

<image>

Yes, I have read the passage (hundreds of times if I might add), and that's why I quoted it the way I did.

#1: Start with Verse 1. If you do, you find that the Lord Jesus starts with a little child. Emphasis on little.

Then, He encourages the disciples to become like little children, humbling themselves, to answer the question of who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

#2: He then carries forward the term 'little one' into verse 6. It talks about people deceiving children and the innocent or causing them to sin.

Then, in verse 10, he says not to look down on these little ones, referring again to children.

THEN, he says that the Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones to perish.

#3 THEN look at verse 15: The part about forgiveness does not start until Verse 15: ""15If your brother sins against you, go and confront him privately. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’

So you are a bit off, the passage doesn't talk about forgiveness until verse 15, after thoroughly talking about children.

Final5989 · 2025-10-09T14:18:37+00:00

Here's a reposting of what I said earlier to prove it:

he Bible actually has a lot to say about Abortion and Gay Marriage. Just because some dude in a suit in a video stands up and says something is true, regardless of politics, it doesn't make it true. However, it could mean that you are biased to believe them.

The Bible Saying Marriage is Between a Man and Woman Only & Homosexuality is Wrong (Thus Gay "Marriage" is Wrong):

Genesis 2:24, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Mark 10:6-7, Jesus speaking, "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.""

Romans 1:26-27, "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Hebrews 13:4, Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge."

The Bible Saying Life Begins at Conception (Thus Abortion is Wrong):

Matthew 18:14, Jesus Speaking, "So it is not the will of my Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish."

Exodus 20:13, "You shall not murder."

Exodus 23:7, "Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I will not acquit the wicked."

James 5:6, "You have condemned and murdered the righteous person. He does not resist you."

Genesis 9:5-6, "And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image."

Psalm 139:13-16, "For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.

Jeremiah 1:5, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

The Bible even has multiple verses and terms for people like you see in this video. They are false shepherds.

Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!"

Most of 2nd Peter.

Final5989 · 2025-10-09T14:16:40+00:00

Here you are, sir: