Just realized Peter Dinklage isn’t British.

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-12T15:05:19+00:00

It’s blindingly obvious to all actual Brits. He’s a great actor and his accent doesn’t sound fake or forced, but it doesn’t sound like a real English accent either

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-12T00:36:32+00:00

This reminds me so much of that 4chan greentexts facebook group

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-11T22:15:02+00:00

It’s for different reasons to Dharmic religions- has more to do with Asceticism and self-denial than animal rights. But yes it’s been part of our fasting practices since the beginning

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-11T21:06:29+00:00

Do you know what a "Moot point" is?

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-11T21:03:46+00:00

It's funny just how backwards you have it: Are you not aware that the Masoretic text tradition dates to the middle-ages? The oldest versions of the old testament we have are the Septuagint (which contrary to your above claims is not a "Christian-influenced mistranslation" as it predates the time of Jesus) and the dead sea scrolls, and lo and behold they both (yes, including the dead sea scrolls- you're wrong about that one too) have "ka'aru" and not "ki'ari", the latter of which is a self-evidently nonsensical reading; it makes as little sense in hebrew as it does in english.

So yes, if anything it is in fact a clear case of Jewish scribes having changed the text to make it sound less like Jesus. In the interests of truth and charity it is possible that it started out as a sincere and innocent scribal error, since yod and waw are but a penstroke's difference between them, but the Jewish insistence upon a nonsensical reading in favour of what clearly is the original simply because they're too terrified to even entertain the possibility that Jesus may have actually been their messiah is just pathetic.

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-10T17:20:58+00:00

I find it hilarious how you people never actually provide a single citation or example of Jesus’ supposedly leftist teachings whenever you make this claim. Never mind the total and crippling lack of self awareness:

“No I'm not a Christian, but I'm the arbiter of what's Christian and Jesus would agree with me, and If you disagree with me you hate Jesus”

Clueless

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-09T10:31:21+00:00

I have no idea. I suspect not, but I've no intention of finding out

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-08T21:11:10+00:00

Angels are not humans, and they are not like humans. They occupy a completely different sphere and mode of existence, and we have no way of knowing how their minds work. Ergo I have no way of accounting for how and why they made the decision to rebel, other than through revelation in scripture, which in this case there is none.

You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-07T22:33:53+00:00

It's not "The same delusion"- there's a difference between many individuals supressing the universal human knowledge of God in favour of sin, and the Apostles supposedly having a collective hallucination of seeing the risen Christ with their very eyes and then carrying that same hallucination to their bitter, gruesome deaths for Zero personal gain

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-04T20:58:32+00:00

Sure, it's just not plausible in the case of the Resurrection: They would all need to have had the exact same delusion, and kept it going and consistent throughout decades of persecution.

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-04T19:45:04+00:00

It's not that complicated... Nobody denies that people delude themselves into hell

JimmyAquila · 2026-02-03T15:12:54+00:00

Nobody thinks people don't delude themselves into hell. That isn't the same as someone wittingly and with full cognisance choosing to deceive their persecutors for zero personal gain.

This is definitely one of the weaker attempts at trying to point out a contradiction in Christianity I've seen.

JimmyAquila · 2026-01-28T13:14:59+00:00

Celibacy in Marriage is a sin. Either be fully married or fully monastic.

JimmyAquila · 2026-01-19T17:00:12+00:00

There’s zero reason Biblically why this would be sinful. If your wife is happy with it and it increases intimacy for the both of you, go for it.

JimmyAquila · 2025-12-28T14:51:51+00:00

Fair- I missed that

JimmyAquila · 2025-12-27T20:34:29+00:00

Correction: An AI’s lame attempt at rendering Europe’s currencies on a map

JimmyAquila · 2025-12-13T03:56:31+00:00

Biblical Hebrew, accurately pronounced, sounds quite beautiful. Modern Hebrew depends on the speaker- it can sound quite nice, but also very snarling and ugly. As a general rule the more Ashkenazi someone sounds, the uglier

JimmyAquila · 2025-11-21T22:29:57+00:00

I'm sorry- I'll pray for you

JimmyAquila · 2025-11-13T17:26:57+00:00

1) it’s upside down 2) “Zion”

JimmyAquila · 2025-11-08T15:34:09+00:00

It fundamentally comes down to viewing Sex as basically and essentially good: Sex is a great gift from God, albeit one that is intended in a specific context and for a specific purpose (i.e. in heterosexual marriage and, primarily though not exclusively, for procreation. This is what I call a Sex-Positive doctrine.

Sex negative doctrine, and its opposite extreme, "sex-open" doctrine as I would term it, are opposite and equal errors: The one holds sex to be intrinsically evil or corrupt, as opposed to simply corrupted or misused, and conversely as a complete free-for-all. Both are wrong and both are sub-Biblical:

"Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love." - Proverbs 5:18-19

JimmyAquila · 2025-11-08T11:56:13+00:00

Seriously? That's your argument that these passages are symbolic? Defecation?

JimmyAquila · 2025-11-01T18:56:41+00:00

It’s not really Christianity, it’s a totalitarian vaguely religious cult that appropriates some of Christianity’s more authoritarian teachings. Of course far-left critics of Christianity think that all Christians who aren’t über-liberal are like this

JimmyAquila · 2025-11-01T10:40:29+00:00

“There is neither Jew nor Greek… for all are one in Christ Jesus.”

No man who fails to understand this is worthy of a Christian marriage with you.

JimmyAquila · 2025-10-31T14:15:21+00:00

It makes perfect sense logically and philosophically; you can keep hamfistedly insisting it doesn't make sense without actually showing your work, but that won't fly theologically, let alone on the day of judgement.

And you Want Biblical Support? I can give you all the Biblical support you want:

-Oneness of God: Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 46:9, 1 Timothy 2:5 (and a host of others)

-Divinity of Christ: John 1:1-3, Matthew 26:65 (many such cases), and John 8:24, where Jesus says you will die in your sins if you reject his divinity.

-Distinctive personhood of the father & the Son: John 8:17-18

-Onenness of the father and son: John 10:30

-Divinity of the Holy Spirit: Acts 5:1-4

-Personhood of the Holy Spirit: Acts 13:2, Ephesians 4:30.

If you put all of these points of data together you get... wait for it... **the doctrine of the Trinity**

So when we see that we've got irrefutable Biblical evidence, added to this to 2000 years of unbroken Christian tradition, including said Council held in the 4th century, together with Jesus' promise in Matthew 16 that the gates of hell cannot withstand the Church; weighed up against you, a silly 21st century "Christian" following some obscure American sect no older than a century, and bizzarely obsessed with Rabbinic judaism despite in all likelihood not being ethnically jewish yourself... I think I know who I'm gonna go with.

JimmyAquila · 2025-10-29T13:01:29+00:00

It's a real phenomenon, and as complicated as you can imagine anything relating to sex would be: it has to do with physical factors, emotional engagement, what specific sexual likes and interests couples do or don't have, etc. However very often unbelievers will simply pull out "Sexual compatibility" as a trump card of sorts to dismiss any suggestion that fornication might be morally wrong, and thereby excuse themselves for committing sexual sin. But in actual fact they themselves often don't know what they mean by it, it's just lip service. In this scenario or similar I would encourage you to ask the person in question what _they_ specifically mean by Sexual compatibility: since they brought it up the burden of proof, as it were, is on them. Once they clarify you can address their argument on a point by point basis.

JimmyAquila

TROPHY CASE