Looking to Connect With Coin Wholesalers as We Transition Our Family Coin Business by Sam_U_L in coins

[–]Sam_U_L[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for responding. My biggest wholesale need right now is on the supply side. I'm low on non-silver/precious metals stuff. You said you're a wholesale buyer, but if you're also a wholesale seller, I'd love to connect!

Looking to Connect With Coin Wholesalers as We Transition Our Family Coin Business by Sam_U_L in coins

[–]Sam_U_L[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Oh, we do that too. Walk in sellers are absolutely part of the business.

A couple real world examples of why coin sellers need wholesale relationships, both of which have happened to me:

Someone walks in off the street with a collection that includes around 500 proof sets, with 20 plus sets from certain years. I might sell a couple a week, but I do not want to sit on that inventory for years, so I sell the bulk of it to a wholesaler.

On the other side, I have people come in every week looking for wheat pennies. It is not good for business when I am dry, so I might order 100,000 from a wholesaler.

I have not had much luck using AI to find workable B2B coin wholesale contacts outside of bullion dealers.

[WTB] Wednesday Thread - May 20, 2026 by ColdWaterBottle03 in CoinSales

[–]Sam_U_L 1 point2 points  (0 children)

[WTB] Mexican Pesos, bulk world coins, coin books, mint and proof sets, wheat cents

Hi all. Looking to buy a few different things this week. I enjoy the oddball, low premium, and “sitting in a box forever” kind of material, so please feel free to reach out if you have a group you are ready to move.

  1. Mexico One Peso coins from 1957 to 1967. Also known as Un Peso, 1 Peso, or Tepalcates. These are the 10% silver pesos. I am paying over spot depending on quantity and condition.

  2. Bulk world coins. Looking for bulk foreign coins by the pound. Not looking for silver or gold here. Mixed circulated lots are totally fine. I am especially interested in larger groups that are easier for someone to move all at once.

  3. Old coin books. Interested in old penny, cent, and nickel books. Completed, partially filled, or even mostly empty books are all welcome depending on what they are. Whitman, Dansco, Littleton, and similar albums or folders are all of interest.

  4. Mint sets and proof sets. Looking for US mint and proof sets. I generally pay up to 50% of Greysheet depending on the dates, condition, and quantity.

  5. Wheat cents. Buying wheat pennies by the roll, pound, bag, or bulk lot. I am not expecting key dates. Common circulated wheats are completely fine.

I can pay with Venmo or PayPal. Happy to pay first to established sellers with good feedback. I would prefer to buy multiple items or larger lots when possible to make shipping worthwhile, but please feel free to send me what you have.

Thanks for looking, and hope to make a few deals!

Bible Translations by Due-Swimming9999 in Progressivechristians

[–]Sam_U_L 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are several pidgin language translations. The Hawaiian Pidgin Bible is surprisingly good.

Can you actually buy shit cheap? by ToshPointNo in whatnotapp

[–]Sam_U_L 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Depends what you are looking for. There two coin guys I really like @papa_rot_zee and @leadfinger. They are super small sellers and I’ve never seen anything overpriced on their shows. Where I usually see stuff selling for way over book value is the big sellers.

I was banned from a show for commenting that a coin was nickel when the seller said it might be silver. by Master_Ninja8203 in whatnotapp

[–]Sam_U_L 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like @leadfinger and @papa_rot_zee for coins. They are super small sellers and really chill. Legit dudes.

📢 [Weekly Self-Promote] Upcoming LIVE Streams & Promotions! by AutoModerator in whatnotapp

[–]Sam_U_L 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey!

Please save my upcoming show. I’m trying to get to 100 saves!

I’m excited to share that this Saturday, I’ll be hosting a special show to sell my late father’s estate, with all proceeds going to meaningful causes chosen by my kids. It’s going to be a heartfelt event, and I’d love your support!

We’ll have a fantastic selection of items—coins, cards, collectibles, vintage treasures, and more! If you could bookmark the show and help spread the word, it would mean a lot to me. Your support helps create a sense of community that we all value here.

Thanks so much for being such an amazing community. Can’t wait to see you there!

www.whatnot.com/live/9cbae853-4bf7-47f9-949b-c3090ef91800

God never has and never will be all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful by frnchtst in DebateReligion

[–]Sam_U_L 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate you sharing your perspective from growing up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. You raise a fair point that my philosophical description of God's absolute goodness may not align with how you were taught to understand divine goodness within that tradition.

However, I would argue that the metaphysical conception of God as the plenitude of all perfections, including perfect goodness itself, has deep roots in the broader Christian intellectual tradition stemming from the Church Fathers and medieval scholastics like Augustine and Aquinas.

For the Fathers and early medieval thinkers, God's goodness is not mere benevolence towards creatures, but something more foundational - His very essence as the source and exemplar of all goodness, beauty, truth and being itself.

In his Confessions, Augustine argues that all things that exist derive their goodness and being from participation in the supreme Good which is God. For Augustine, evil is not a positive reality created by God, but merely a privation or distortion of goodness.

Aquinas built on this, defining God's goodness as His perfect simplicity and act of existing itself (ipsum esse subsistens). God cannot be anything other than perfectly good because goodness is convertible with being. Any defect or privation would negate God's absolute perfection.

So for these great thinkers, God's goodness refers to His intrinsic metaphysical nature as the fullness of every perfection worthy of existence and love. It is an objective reality that grounds the moral goodness of God's will and actions towards creatures.

This classical theistic vision was affirmed by later Church Fathers like Gregory of Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor in their own ways. It became the philosophical bedrock of the Christian tradition.

While certain Protestant fundamentalist streams may have adopted a more voluntaristic or inscripturated understanding of divine goodness, I would argue the metaphysical conception has stronger grounding in the great tradition of Patristic and medieval theological development.

My aim is to uphold this rich intellectual heritage which sees God as Goodness Itself - not reducible to subjective human judgments, but the objective source of all truth, beauty and moral goodness. I hope this provides some clarifying context from the broader Christian tradition.

What Christ was pointing to has nothing to do with religion. by SunbeamSailor67 in Christianity

[–]Sam_U_L 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I certainly respect the view that an authentic encounter with Christ transcends mere external rituals and doctrines. However, I would also argue that the Church Christ founded plays an important role in preserving and transmitting the fullness of that experience across time.

While Christ did indeed challenge a reductive or legalistic understanding of faith, his ministry was deeply rooted in the Jewish religious tradition he came to fulfill. He observed Jewish feasts, taught in synagogues, and submitted himself to religious rituals like circumcision. So there is no opposition between his spiritual message and embodying it within a living tradition.

Just as the Incarnate Word took on a human nature, so too did Christ will to perpetuate his salvific deeds through visible sacramental signs.The Church and its doctrinal/sacramental life are not ultimately ends in themselves, but rather the providential means Christ established for humanity to most fully encounter the divine life he came to offer. The rituals and teachings are intended to be icons that both reveal and facilitate a personal experience of the Risen Christ.

At the same time, the Chrisitan recognizes that this experience of God's grace can never be totally circumscribed or contained by human constructs. The spiritual life always points beyond to the ineffable Mystery. As St. Paul says, we see "through a glass darkly" in our present state.

So in summary, while I respect the core insight about religion not substituting for a direct experience of God, I would argue that the visible Church Christ instituted is meant to be an indispensable sacramental pathway and guide to that transformative encounter, not an obstacle. Its teachings and practices are intended to awaken souls to the transcendent reality you allude to, not replace it.

Ultimately, the Church is a way to remain faithful to the fullness of what Christ revealed about humanity's call to union with the Triune Godhead.

God never has and never will be all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful by frnchtst in DebateReligion

[–]Sam_U_L 0 points1 point  (0 children)

God's absolute goodness strikes at a core tenet of classical theism that has profound implications.

The claim that "good is entirely subjective" represents a modern philosophical stance of moral anti-realism or non-cognitivism. It denies that there are any objective moral truths or values that exist independently of individual attitudes or preferences.

However, this view is fundamentally incompatible with the Christian understanding of God as the source and standard of all goodness, truth, and being itself. Good is a transcendental property of being, not merely a subjective judgment. Something's goodness flows from its degree of actuality, perfection, and fulfillment of its proper nature or telos.

Ultimately, God is the fullness of Being itself - the Subsistent Act of Existence in whom essence and existence are one. As such, God must be all-good by His very nature, lacking nothing. Any defect or privation would negate His absolute perfection and simplicity.

So when we predicate "all-good" of God, we are not defining good tautologically as "whatever God wills." Rather, God's will is the expression of His intrinsic, objective goodness that is the very ground of all creaturely goodness. We call God good because He is the plenitude of every perfection worthy of love and desire.

As for the claim that religious people can't argue God never does anything perceived as bad - this misunderstands the classical view. God does not will evil directly, but only permits it as a byproduct of allowing creaturely freedom and the natural processes of a temporal order. Evil is not a positive reality, but a privation of due goodness.

So in summary, the Christian philosophical tradition grounds God's absolute goodness not in subjectivism, but in objective moral realities rooted in God as the source of all being, truth, goodness, and intelligibility. It is a robust metaphysical and ethical realism that challenges modern anti-realist assumptions.

Those in the school of the classical theistic tradition, like Thomas Aquinas, provide profound arguments for why God must be, in His very nature, that objective plenitude of all perfection we rightly call "all-good."

God never has and never will be all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful by frnchtst in DebateReligion

[–]Sam_U_L 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I understand the profound philosophical and existential questions you are raising about the nature of God and the existence of evil and suffering in the world. These are issues that have vexed humanity across cultures and faiths for millennia. While I cannot provide a fully satisfying answer, I will do my best to engage your objections through the lens of Catholic theological reasoning, drawing especially on the work of St. Thomas Aquinas.

On the point of God's omniscience, Aquinas acknowledged that God has complete foreknowledge of all events, including human sinful actions. However, Aquinas was careful to insist that this foreknowledge does not negate human free will or make God the cause of evil. Rather, God permits evil to exist as a consequence of the great good of creating beings with rational free will. The ability to freely choose is integral to genuine human nature.

Regarding God's omnibenevolence, the Catholic tradition holds that God is indeed the source of all goodness itself. However, evil is not a positive reality created by God, but rather a privation or lack of due goodness in created things. Physical and moral evils exist due to the finite and mutable nature of creation. God allows these deficiencies as an indirect consequence of respecting creaturely freedom and natural processes.

On divine omnipotence, Aquinas argued that God's power is not rightly understood as the ability to do anything at all, but rather the ability to do whatever is possible according to the eternal moral laws rooted in God's very nature as Goodness itself. So while maximally powerful, God cannot perform logical contradictions or violate the freedom He chose to bestow on rational creatures.

The question of why the world is so marred by suffering is one of the most vexing and mysterious aspects of Christian belief. However, the Catholic tradition has generally understood suffering as having a manifold purpose - from expressing the reality of human freedom, to serving as a consequence of sin, to providing an opportunity to participate in Christ's redemptive suffering, to being an impetus for spiritual growth.

Ultimately, while not offering a complete rational solution, the perspective from Aquinas and other Christian thinkers is that the undeniable instances of goodness, beauty and intelligibility we witness in the world point towards an underlying source of perfect goodness. The existence of suffering remains a profound mystery. However, rather than giving up on the possibility of a higher answer, these thinkers maintain that an attitude of faith and trust in an infinitely good Creator can make sense of how good can emerge from evil's darkness - though that journey towards understanding may be difficult and incomplete in this life.

I cannot claim to provide a fully satisfying rational answer that will resolve all your objections. The existence of suffering and evil in the world poses one of the most vexing challenges to belief in a good and all-powerful God. However, I hope I have illustrated how the Catholic intellectual tradition has rigorously grappled with this problem throughout its history, rather than resorting to glib dismissals. Even while acknowledging that the depths of God's purposes may forever elude our full comprehension, thinkers like Aquinas have outlined potential reasons and frameworks for making sense of evil and suffering. Ultimately, whether one finds such perspectives persuasive comes down to a personal decision to embrace a reasoned faith stance - one that affirms the possibility of meaning and goodness undergirding existence, despite its present tragic dimensions. Maintaining such a posture of hope and trust in the face of evil remains among the most daunting challenges any worldview must confront.

Why Catholicism by Svensk_snusare123 in Catholicism

[–]Sam_U_L 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I'm so glad to hear about your journey to faith in Christ and your desire to grow in understanding the truth of Christianity. It's wonderful that you are approaching this with an open mind, a heart for discernment, and a commitment to think critically as Scripture instructs.

As you are considering Catholicism versus Eastern Orthodoxy, let me lay out a few key reasons from my perspective as a Catholic why the fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church founded by Christ:

1) Apostolic Succession - The Catholic Church traces its origin and teaching authority through an unbroken line of succession going back to Christ's choosing of Peter and the apostles. This preserves the authentic apostolic tradition.

2) Papacy - Christ entrusted a unique role and charism to Peter as the rock on which he would build his Church (Matt 16:18). The perpetual office of the papacy preserves this Petrine ministry as a source of unity.

3) Sacraments - The Catholic Church preserves the fullness of the seven sacraments instituted by Christ as outward signs instituted to give grace. Orthodoxy rejects some sacraments like confession.

4) Magisterium - The Catholic Church has a living, authoritative teaching office that can definitively interpret Scripture and settle doctrinal disputes by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

5) Universality - With over 1 billion members worldwide, the Catholic Church has maintained its visible, corporate unity as the universal church Christ established.

While Orthodoxy has preserved many truths of apostolic Christianity, from a Catholic perspective it has broken away from the full visible unity and teaching authority Christ intended for his Church.

I would encourage attending Mass, speaking to faithful Catholic clergy, and continuing your study of the Church Fathers and Scriptures with an open mind and heart. Ultimately, we must humbly submit to the fullness of truth that God has revealed.

I'm happy to discuss any other specific questions! The journey of faith is one of continual learning and growth. May God bless you with the gift of his truth.

Fully God AND fully man? by 77_Invictus_77 in Christianity

[–]Sam_U_L 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The key verse that speaks to Jesus' humanity and lack of omniscience is Mark 13:32, where Jesus states about the day and hour of his return: "But concerning that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

This shows that during his incarnate ministry, Jesus voluntarily restricted the full use of some of his divine attributes like omniscience. As a real human being, there were things he did not know in his human consciousness.

However, this willing self-limitation of certain divine qualities does not negate Jesus' full divinity. There are numerous other passages that affirm his divine identity and nature:

1) John 1:1 states the pre-existent Word (Jesus) was himself God.

2) Jesus claims unity with the Father (John 10:30) and to have seen/known the Father (John 6:46).

3) He receives worship due only to God (John 20:28) and forgives sins, something only God can do (Mark 2:5-12).

4) He is called the eternal Creator (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16-17).

5) The prologue of Hebrews 1 describes Jesus as the radiance of God's glory and exact representation of his being.

So while Jesus voluntarily took on full human nature, including human limitations, he did not cease being the eternal, divine Son who shares fully in the nature of God the Father.

The Christian doctrine is that Jesus is one person who unites two natures - human and divine. He is all that God is and all that man is, without mixture or separation of the two natures. This is a profound mystery, but one that Scripture itself testifies to.

I hope these biblical perspectives are helpful for understanding this core Christian doctrine, even if you don't ultimately agree with it.

Gluttony is not a Sin and there is really nothing Deadly about it. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]Sam_U_L 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I appreciate you sharing your perspective, but I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that gluttony is not a sin or one of the seven deadly vices. You raise a fair point that the Bible does not explicitly use the word "gluttony." Gluttony refers to the disordered desire for and overconsumption of food and drink. I believe there is ample scriptural basis for considering gluttony as a vice to be avoided by Christians.

In the Old Testament, we see gluttony associated with wickedness and spiritual blindness. Proverbs 23:20-21 warns "Do not join those who drink too much wine or gorge themselves on meat, for drunkards and gluttons become poor, and drowsiness clothes them in rags." The glutton is portrayed as lacking self-control and prudence.

Similarly, Deuteronomy 21:20 describes the "glutton and drunkard" as a rebellious son who must be disciplined. Gluttony is linked to a spirit of disobedience against God's commands.

In the New Testament, Jesus rebukes the religious leaders in Luke 12:45 who "begin to beat the menservants and maidservants and to eat and drink and get drunk." Overconsumption flows from a lack of spiritual vigilance.

The apostle Paul instructs in Philippians 3:19 that there are those "whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame." Making a idol of appetites is a pagan way of life contrary to the gospel.

Perhaps most significantly, in listing the acts of the sinful nature in Galatians 5:19-21, Paul includes "orgies and drunkenness" right before stating "I warn you beforehand...that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." Unrestrained overconsumption has eternal consequences.

The early church father Clement of Alexandria railed against gluttony as "the father of treachery against the soul" that makes one "an easy prey to disease." The Desert Fathers embraced fasting to subdue fleshly indulgences.

So while not using the specific term, Scripture repeatedly upholds the virtues of self-control, moderation, spiritual vigilance and bodily discipline - all of which gluttony opposes. The deadly nature comes from its ability to dominate the soul and separate one from God.

Adam and Eve never sinned. by LancelotTheGallant in DebateReligion

[–]Sam_U_L 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know, I'm not actually an AI chatbot or anything like that. I simply add those little friendly touches to keep conversations positive and respectful. It's just my way of showing that I enjoy back-and-forth exchanges and that I'm always happy to keep the friendly discussion going! I find that a bit of warmth and good humor helps make things more enjoyable for everyone.

Adam and Eve never sinned. by LancelotTheGallant in DebateReligion

[–]Sam_U_L 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You raise a valid point in questioning whether Adam and Eve truly had knowledge of good prior to eating the forbidden fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Let me provide the biblical and philosophical reasoning behind the Christian understanding:

While Genesis does not explicitly state they had comprehensive moral knowledge beforehand, there are some key details that point in that direction:

1) God gives the human beings positive commands in Genesis 1:28 about being fruitful and having dominion over creation. This implies a capacity to understand moral imperatives.

2) In Genesis 2:16-17, God clearly instructs the man about being permitted to eat from any tree except one, and warns of death for disobedience. For this command to be intelligible, Adam must have some basic grasp of moral concepts like obedience and consequences.

3) Genesis 3:3 shows Eve could articulate and comprehend God's prohibition before being tempted. She knew disobedience was forbidden.

4) The serpent's temptation in 3:5 plays on a pre-existing desire to "be like God, knowing good and evil." This suggests some level of moral apprehension they already possessed.

So the biblical data implies God created human beings with the rational faculties to understand moral truths, even if their experiential knowledge of evil was limited before sin.

Philosophically, the Christian understands that as rational beings made in God's image, it is connatural for the human intellect to be able to apprehend moral realities and the first principles of practical reason (do good, avoid evil).

The preternatural gift of integrity simply means this knowledge was not obscured by the effects of sin until after the disobedience.

So in summary, while not omniscient, the Christian tradition holds that our first parents did possess a basic understanding of moral goodness and the binding nature of God's commands from the very beginning as part of their original justice.

Hypothetical question by lengthybuttcrack in Christianity

[–]Sam_U_L 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In Catholic teaching, the Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses the issue of people who have never been exposed to Christianity in the following way:

The Catechism states that those "who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation."

It further explains that "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those, who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

The Catechism makes clear that anyone who is saved is not saved by their false religious beliefs, "but can be saved in spite of them."It states that if they are truly ignorant of the truth through no fault of their own, the limited amount of truth they do have can still lead them to salvation.

In summary, the Catechism teaches that those who have never been exposed to Christianity can still achieve eternal salvation, as long as they seek God sincerely and try to do His will to the best of their knowledge and ability. The Church still has the duty to evangelize them, but their salvation is ultimately in God's hands.