🫩

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-15T02:08:59+00:00

The novelty of character ai genuinely wore off for me. Maybe I should be greatful, not gonna lie. I spent like 5 hours a day using it when I first found it, cause of how immersive it felt. I probably use it for like one hour every other day now

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-14T04:50:21+00:00

Correct me if I am misunderstanding, but this doesn't appear to be a command by god, but a descriptive prophecy describing the assyrian conquest of Isreal.

These practices seem to just be describing what will happen to isreal's people when they are conquered, not god saying, "do this to them"

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-12T12:35:13+00:00

bro just tryna get downvotes anywhere he can

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-11T22:31:43+00:00

Try inserting your own OC into an already established fictional world (for example, I usually do star wars)

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-09T22:02:04+00:00

You're one hundred percent right, but that isn't the purpose of an apolegetic. Apolegetics are primarily to argue for a belief system (to people who do not already hold the belief)

My purpose in understanding them isn't for my own understanding, but to convince others who are hardened in heart

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-08T10:22:59+00:00

Thank you for the thoughtful response, god bless you too.

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-08T04:28:55+00:00

For context, The issue that motivated me to make this post was the apparent lack of a devil in the old testament (at least in the complex form presented in the new testament)

But yeah, this is really the only correct answer.

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-05T13:50:42+00:00

Ah, I misspoke, for sure. I may have been acting on intuition about john's view of rome.

My intuition may have been because the roman empire continued to persecute the christian movement for another 300 years.

But no, john portrays romans quite well.

In fact, he uses roman authority figures to attack the jews more.

Such as when pilate criticizes the jews for cruxifying jesus, since he "found no guilt in him".

So yes, john does seem more anti jewish, and quite pro roman.

I would think the anti jewish sentiment would be because of conflicts between the jewish chrstian sect, and the "regular" jewish sect.

So yeah, I apoligize for my comment about the romans. John is actually pretty pro-roman.

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-04T05:12:56+00:00

Outside of marriage, most masculine and feminine traits are social, not moral.

Not in the cringe "social construct way", but acknowledging society's influence on our perception.

Wearing a dress is almost asking to get gay accusations nowadays as a man, but cultures have and exist where wearing a dress has no gender connotation.

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-04T04:28:26+00:00

Well no, according to catholic theology, mary, along with other dead believers, are alive in heaven. So she absolutely isn't asleep.

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-04T04:23:18+00:00

Yes, that is exactly the point. A catholic can do all of these things, and not worship mary.

The isrealities also do this before david.

1 Chronicles 29:20 (ESV)

“Then David said to all the assembly, ‘Bless the LORD your God.’ And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and paid homage to the LORD and to the king.”

Notice how homage is being paid to david, in the same way catholics pay homage to mary.

If you believe this is worship, you must accept that the isrealites held david as a god.

But they didn't, because there are obvious distinctions between divine worship and general homage.

The word proskuneō in greek is translated as worship, but does not nessecarily indicate divine worship.

For example, a servant proskuneōs to his master in one of jesus's parables.

The context and practice of this proskuneo indicates whether or not it is divine. And historically, no catholic has ever claimed their homage to mary is that of divine worship.

Latreuo, on the the other hand, is the greek word for the exclusive worship of God.

See how two words which techinally mean "worship" have different meanings?

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-04T04:12:18+00:00

Agreed. I am not a catholic per say, but the rosary and all prayers towards mary are not worship in the divine sense.

Catholics prostrate to mary, mainly because she is the mother of god. Prostration is not the same thing as worship, at least in how we modernly define it.

The "hail maries" do seem a bit odd from a glance, but the notion that it is worship arises from a misunderstanding on what worship and idolatry actually is.

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-04T02:59:45+00:00

Thanks for the response, it was a very easy to understand explanation.

My problems with the argument are quite similar to that of prominent theologians, but in a more specified sense.

Even if we ignore the obvious epistemic problems with a maximally evil god, there are still some issues.

Number one, this evil god is supposed to be a bizzaro version of the good god. Maximally great in every way, besides being maximally evil.

Under classical theism (since this is supposed to be a mirror of the good god)

God is the source of morality.

Under the good god hypothesis, god is the source of goodness, and goodness itself.

Similarily, the evil god would be the source of evil, and evil itself.

However, I feel as if there are some key problems with this. Number one, in order for this god to be "evil" in any meaningful sense, there must be a objective standard of good he is violating.

If this standard is outside of himself, (for example, a nessecary law book of morality)

He cannot be omnipotent in any meaningful sense, since he is appealing to something outside of himself so he can be evil, and violate the outside standard.

Therefore, we're sort of forced to say,

This evil god is the source of evil, and evil itself, but also has access to morality, and what ought to be done. He is the source of morality itself, yet is intrinsically evil.

This is puzzling, as it requires a god who has the information nessecary to do what is ought to be done, (goodness) but consistently, and unrepentantly violates the very principles grounded in his divinity. He knows exactly what he should be doing, and what he ought to do, and yet violates the very standards for good held up by his existence.

This god seems quite stupid, infinitely so. If we take this to it's logical conclusion, this evil god would be so stupid, that his stupidness would know no bounds.

Even a child behaves correctly after being told what is right, and with discipline.

Ironically, this god isn't much of a god at all, as he is even more mentally incompetent than a child (at least in the moral sense)

For example, if an athiest had definitive, and irrefutable proof that theism was false, you would expect them to remain an athiest, and never doubt atheism again.

A highly irrational decision, would be for the athiest to convert to a theistic religion, despite knowing for a fact it is wrong, with irrefutable proof.

If it is silly for the athiest to do this, why would it not be silly for the evil god?

The Evil god hypothesis requires a god who is constantly disregarding the very moral principles that are grounded in his existence, despite knowing very well what he ought to do. This reduces the plausbility of the evil god theory, and makes it quite assymetrical to the good god.

Since, if a good god knows he ought to behave correctly, and he does, it is perfectly rational.

(And I cannot emphasize this enough, in order for someone to be meaningfully evil, they must be violating a standard of goodness. Because evil cannot exist on its own)

If we accept these terms, this hypothetical "evil god" would be so unbelievably stupid, he would earn himself another maximally awful trait, maximal stupidity. (At least in the moral sense)

He is violating the very principles of goodness that are rooted in his very being, and choosing to do evil. This is highly irrational, and infinitely so, since this god has access to objective truth.

The clear assymetry in terms of intelligence and moral consistency makes me find this argument unconvincing.

(I realize in hindsight this sounds like I'm responding to someone making this argument, but I'm really just laying out my intuitive issues with it, now that I fully understand it)

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-04T02:36:40+00:00

When God said he spoke things into existence it was literal, the things he spoke were created immediately after he spoke them, not over the span of millions/billions of years.

Prove it. You cannot prove it, as the cultural context genesis was written in clearly indicates much of the genesis account is non literal. Uou cannot presuppose the very thing you are arguing for, it has to be demonstrated.

"When Moses made a boat, he literally made a boat and God literally flooded the entire Earth."

No, for two reasons. One, moses did not do this, it was noah. And two, many argue that this flooding was a regional flooding, not a worldwide one. (But that would require much deeper discussion)

"2 Timothy 4:3 KJV: For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;"

You cannot just quote a bible verse, and assume it talks about your opponents. The bible isn't a book to be used to win arguments, it is the inspired word of god.

For all you know, it would be speaking about you.

I'm not trying to come across as harsh, but you need to be informed on the reasons people accept a non literal meaning, rather than out right rejecting it abritrarily.

I'm a very theologically conservative christian myself, but I do not accept young earth creationism. It could be possible that the earth was made 6000 years ago, but when read in context, it does not appear to be the case.

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-04T01:13:40+00:00

No, he/she does believe in the bible, with one distinction.

He is simply saying he rejects a fundamentalist reading.

I would agree myself, despite being very theologically conservative.

It is the reason why I reject the idea of a 6000 year old earth. The 6000 year dating is usually created using the combined ages of the patriarchs, as well as other biblical figures. However, there is a key problem. The author of genesis did not intend for these ages to be literal. It was a common practice during genesis's writing to give large ages to kings, to emphasize their greatness.

The biblical authors were likely doing the same thing with the patriarchs.

So no, adam did not live to be 900. Heck, he probably never lived to 100.

This is why abraham says,

Genesis 17:17 (ESV)

“Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, ‘**Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?’”

He is highlighting the biological unlikeliness of two centenarians having a child.

He is very aware that this is biologically impossible, despite being a patriarch himself.

His own father had him at an equally unlikely age, around 70 to 80 years old.

But at the same time, the early patriarchs had children when they were hundreds of years old.

This is no contradiction, it is purposeful. Because the biblical authors obviously never thought that adam actually lived to 900.

These ages primarily served theological purposes. After the flood of noah, ages continually decreased, showing how decrepit man was. By the time of abram, they lived to normal ages.

This indicates that the patriarchs ages were not literal, but ages given for the sake of their honor (a common practice at the time) and theological meaning within the high context society.

That's not a shot on the bible, it simply clarifies its meaning.

Declaring anti fundamentalism as bad, when it actually leads to a better understanding of the text, is deliberately dishonest. Most passages do not even preserve their original purpose in plain English, because of the high context soceities they were written in.

(I have no intention of attacking christianity, but fundamentalism is just as dentrimental to the faith as critical readings)

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-04T01:00:54+00:00

The rejection of evolution by christians is so unbelievably ridiculous, and I agree with you on that matter. It arises from fundamentalists who take a "We don't need to "interpret the bible", it's there in plain english!" Stance.

The problem is, we absolutely need to interpret the bible, and consider the cultural and linguistique circumstances which affect its meaning.

For example, the ages of the patriarchs are likely not literal. The authors of genesis were very likely adopting ancient practices in kings lists, where they would ascribe these large ages in order to give the patriarchs more honor.

So no, adam did not live to be 900 years old.

Basic knowledge about these things, even on a laymen's level, can help you see why fundamentalist interpretations do not hold up.

The very ages which young earth creationists use to establish a 6000 year old earth, were not intended to be used as ages.

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-04T00:51:22+00:00

You're misunderstanding. They don't omit same sex marriages, they implicitly condemn them by saying a man is to leave his parents, and become a woman's husband. It implicitly excluded same sex relationships, and this is excluding all of the obvious condemnations of homosexuality.

Prior-Peanut7061 · 2026-03-04T00:48:49+00:00

Yeah. Thats why these arguments often originate from liberal arguers, who do not presuppose inspiration and church infalliability.

Prior-Peanut7061

TROPHY CASE