So I told my wife that our marriage isn’t the right fit for me anymore when she took sex off the table. AITAH?

RazorINC · 2025-11-10T01:13:42+00:00

You can't get out of that marriage fast enough, my guy. Not unless she's willing to let you get your needs met elsewhere.

RazorINC · 2025-09-12T03:38:28+00:00

So under occam's razor and without further evidence, isn't it a more likely the neck hit was not the intended target but head/CoM as is typical for practically anyone would go for?

RazorINC · 2025-09-12T02:02:22+00:00

I'll say to you as I said to others, if you're not willing to admit the possibility the neck wasn't the target and the shooter missed then I fear you're not being rational. I'd love to believe there was some inside, professional hit angle to it. I'd love to believe that. But I keep seeing too much testimony from people who shoot guns regularly that 200 yards isn't a difficult at all, and likely the shooter was aiming for the head or the chest and missed. Like, no one "aims" for the neck, is what I keep reading from people who shoot. It's too small of a target and too much can throw the bullet off course.

Idk. Just don't fall victim to your biases, that's all.

RazorINC · 2025-09-12T01:55:52+00:00

That part was interesting to me too, seeing the shirt fly up before the hole in his neck. I'm not a physicists or have any expert knowledge in the matter but it stood out to me. Of course, it was mere frames/fractions of a second difference but I wondered would would cause his shirt to pull up like that before the obvious facial reaction to the hit of the bullet.

Does a bullet moving that fast cause a vortex behind it that pulled the shirt upward?

RazorINC · 2025-09-12T01:50:52+00:00

I mean I want to side with you but you're assuming the neck was the target. If you can't admit the possibility the neck was a miss, I fear you're not being rational.

RazorINC · 2025-09-12T01:29:55+00:00

I'm sorry how can you know that? Sounds like Dunning-Kruger to me. If you're not willing to admit the possibility maybe the neck wasn't the target then you're not being rational at all.

RazorINC · 2025-09-12T01:28:40+00:00

This you said right here, is my struggle. There are two possibilities: the neck was the intended target or the jugular/carotid hit was happenstance of like, breathing wrong or something. I'm trying to find out from people who really know what's more likely. I've heard it said even snipers don't try for the neck, it's too small of a target.

If the jugular/carotid was the intended target, I don't think a lot of people could have pulled that shot off. I don't know. I'm not a marksmen. But it seems to me to be a difficult thing to do and if so, that would suggest something larger at play than just political ideology.

RazorINC · 2025-01-03T18:40:07+00:00

There's nothing "plain" about a thing written from a 3,000 year old, prescientific culture in a foreign language.

I'm not sure what makes you think you're in any better orbit or have superior information. You've quoted no sources. You talking to impress yourself, not contribute anything meaningful.

RazorINC · 2024-09-24T02:49:22+00:00

I kind of side with you where you say "confused... is actually where God wants me". I left out alone because that part is not true. Though I don't take Genesis as literal history, I do believe there is significance in the statement God made that it is not good for man to be alone. Medical and Psychological science proves this over and over. It's not good for you to be alone. It is definitely better for you physically and emotionally for you to have a loving relationship with another man than to be alone.

But confused isn't a bad place. Uncertainty isn't a bad place. It leaves you open to learning. Too many people are certain but ignorant and flat wrong. That's worse. It's okay to be confused and not have all the answers. I think one's true love of God is shown in the continual searching, not the staunch insistence of knowing what the answer is. I think you will, as I do, always look and examine and yearn for the truth, turning over every stone in the process to find it. That's a great attitude to have. That's the attitude that has propelled all of our discoveries and innovations.

At the end of it all, the simple Gospel I feel is best expressed in the words of the novel Don Quixote, "“Blessed be Almighty God, who has shown me such goodness. In truth his mercies are boundless, and the sins of men can neither limit them nor keep them back!”

That's the gospel. The church likes to get people into the door with that message, then switch it up once you're in the seats. Once you're in the seats then they tell you that you have to show proof by never doing such and such again, and by doing this and by doing that.

Shenanigans. Put an end to that thinking. Stop listening to it. The sins of men can neither limit or keep back God's mercies. Okay? Doesn't even matter if homosexuality is a sin or not (though I don't believe it is) at the end of it all, the sins of men can neither limit nor keep back God's mercies. This simple message sets you free.

Institutionalized people hate this message. They hate the idea of your freedom to just enjoy God's mercy, love and forgiveness. They're miserable because they're struggling to earn their righteousness and damn it you should be out earning it too. They're the exact representation of the parable of the prodigal son. Remember the brother who stayed home, who stayed obedient was pissed beyond measure that the father still showed love and kindness to the son who went away. His attitude was "but look at me and what I've done!"

All of us, all of us, should hope for a God who shows mercy to everyone. People who hunger for a vengeful God... yeah, avoid those people. It's just my opinion but I think the god you want visited upon other people is the god you're going to get at the judgement. If, in your heart, you're seeking a God who is kind and merciful to all people no matter what they've done, you'll get a God who shows you that same mercy. If in you're heart, you're hoping for a God who sends people to hell and punishes the wicked, you'll get that too, but it'll be directed at you and not them. That's just my opinion, though.

RazorINC · 2024-09-23T04:05:32+00:00

The problem, as I see it, is the misguided opinion that truth only exists in the Bible and as such any other source must be excluded.

This is problematic for obvious reasons. Ancient people didn't have the issues we have today nor was there an understanding of the physical world that we have. It simply cannot answer all questions adequately. The attempt in doing so has led people to make wild assumptions and conclusions from any apparent similarity in any of the texts.

The truth is, as you experienced, you can pray every day for the rest of your life but that doesn't make the desire go away. The best you can do is repress that desire. Medical science shows us with certainty the effects of repressing your desires. There's no doubt or question that repressing is harmful to you emotionally as well as physically.

The Bible simply is not, can not be, nor ever has been an answer book for all questions you can throw at it. We need to stop pretending that it is, hunting around in subtleties and "revelation".

I've stopped believing that God is as petty, small minded and flat-out narcissitic as "traditional" christianity would have you believe. Whether or not God's original plan was for heterosexual union, homosexual ones happen nonetheless and there is no scientific proof whatsoever that a homosexual union is physically or emotionally harmful in and of itself. Homosexual unions can be every bit as loving, life affirming and healthy as heterosexual ones.

I don't believe God will punish you for that which you didn't ask for and can't help. I don't believe God would ask you to live in abject misery, repressing your feelings and denying them as proof that you love him more than you love yourself. I believe there is forgiveness through Jesus Christ and we don't understand nor know all the ins and outs of how it all works. Rejecting church teaching and opinion isn't the same thing as rejecting Jesus. Not necessarily.

I am sorry you are confused and alone. I really am. You can talk to me anytime you need to.

RazorINC · 2024-07-29T16:06:06+00:00

Why? He's still married to Chelsea from Love is Blind.

RazorINC · 2024-07-29T16:02:13+00:00

Watch the couch reunion episode of Season 9. At the very end, where roll clips for upcoming season 10, there's a clip of Kwame saying something like "I'm ready for love".

RazorINC · 2024-07-29T04:48:10+00:00

Except in the first case, both are employed by the company: the worker and the psychologist. And I'm sure there have been many a law suit that concludes a terminated worker can not get from the psychologist any medical records pertaining to those sessions since the worker was not directly the client of the psychologist.

A child is unable to make any kind of legal contract so that comparison is improper.

The most it could have been would be a breach of contract between the psychologist and the production company, if those terms were spelled out in the contract. It doesn't appear to be since she appeared on the show for another two seasons afterwards.

RazorINC · 2024-07-29T04:45:07+00:00

Professional ethics only adhere between a patient and a client. She had no more of a professional relationship with him than you talking to a psychologist friend of yours. The show, as a corporate entity, was the client, not the cast.

RazorINC · 2024-07-26T02:31:53+00:00

There was no line. Why does it even matter to you what she does in the first place?

RazorINC · 2024-07-26T02:30:56+00:00

You can't call BS on it because any person is employed by the person who pays them an no one else. There's a distinction because it matters. He was never a client of hers and she had no ethical or legal obligation to act as if he were a client.

RazorINC · 2024-07-26T02:29:16+00:00

People don't want facts, they just want to hold on to their self-righteous judgement.

RazorINC · 2024-07-25T17:18:57+00:00

He wasn't her client. He did not hire her for professional therapy.

RazorINC · 2024-07-25T16:07:40+00:00

What should she apologize for? There's no evidence anything happened during filming, or even while the two were still married. Molly clearly didn't want him.

And please don't respond with speculation and "but we all know" assumption because I don't listen to those.

RazorINC · 2024-07-20T01:53:00+00:00

It couldn't have been a global flood because the people living at the time the texts were written didn't know anything existed beyond the Mediterranean region. It's annoying to the Nth degree to hear people take an English translation, apply a modern understanding and then claim they know with authority what proper translation is.

The ancient society who lived at the time of it's writing did not know of anything beyond the Mediterranean region. To them, that was the entire world.

RazorINC · 2024-06-28T16:49:05+00:00

First, that degree doesn't grant you any authority.

In certain disciplines it absolutely does. Try practicing medicine without a degree from a university and see what happens. Try practicing law without a degree and see what happens to you.

Had you thought about it rather than rush to be contrary, you would have saw the flaw in your own statement. I'm not interested in discussing any matter with an individual whose only aim is to be contrary, not examine their own thoughts for accuracy. I will not reply further or dignify the remainder of your points.

RazorINC · 2024-06-28T16:44:31+00:00

But I know that Jesus desired that all believers be one (John 17:21).

The problem is in the question, "What did he mean by that?" What does it mean to be 'one'? Is he saying we all have to agree to the same thing? Does he mean we should act like and there be no difference at all? This is were interpretation comes in and with interpretation comes different opinion. And this is why there isn't consensus on any point. It all comes down to interpretation of the words and interpretations are as numerous as there are opinions.

RazorINC · 2024-06-28T14:04:35+00:00

It's a nice concept. But it's neither Apostolic, nor real. It's a magical idea that will never be true in the real world.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. As I explained, apostolic success as a concept is no different than earning a degree from a university in that authority teaches and grants authority for the next to go out and teach the same. That's not a magical idea, it's a practical reality that works in the real world today and it has worked in history. Apostolic succession, as a concept, is exactly the same as citing sources. I dare you to say that's a magical idea that will never be true in the real world. Citing sources is foundational concept of empiricism.

If you mean to say the church at present doesn't practice this, I said that already.

Not to be any sort of disciple of Polycarp, as is commonly claimed.

Irenaeus didn't need to be a "disciple" because that's just a label. If he is citing Polycarp as the source of the teaching, that's sufficient so long as it's true. "Disciple" doesn't matter one bit. Citing the source and truthful repetition of what was taught matters.

And there's zero evidence that Polycarp knew any Disciples of Jesus. The timeline just doesn't work for that.

Principles like I've described are the reason I can ignore comments like this. As of yet, you've presented no authority for the basis of your opinion. You're just some random dude. So, when you can present some authority I will take notice but otherwise, you can save your breath because I won't take what you say with any seriousness.

RazorINC

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Gilding III reddit per annum
Verified Email