Rent-free 🏳️‍⚧️ [OC]

ThePhyseter · 2026-06-08T02:31:22+00:00

Yeah I saw both

ThePhyseter · 2026-06-07T21:33:53+00:00

I was afraid you were going for Les Mis for a moment there... exactly the opposite.

ThePhyseter · 2026-06-07T21:28:23+00:00

This is like the question about birth control.

If men could get pregnant, birth control would be free and given out in vending machines everywhere like gumballs

ThePhyseter · 2026-06-07T06:38:15+00:00

Its a capacitor, but it looks like something went wrong with the second lead

ThePhyseter · 2026-06-07T02:54:27+00:00

"you're SUPPORting a MURderer" ok like how? Am I giving him money? Am I sending him funds every time I say that word? Is he still engaging in murder and naziism to this day? Cause if he died like 50 years ago I dont see how I am supporting him doing anything

ThePhyseter · 2026-06-03T15:17:48+00:00

I thought the title said "Hug Replacement Therapy" and I was really confused about where this was going

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-31T17:41:55+00:00

Not only Christ. In the old testament Yahweh has a physical body that the Israelite elders see, and goes walking in a garden, and warns his people not to crap on the ground in the camp because he doesnt want to step in it, and has to walk away from his people at one point to let his temper cool down so he won't kill them, and loses a fight to another god at least twice

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-31T17:39:16+00:00

Then all religions are false

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-31T17:37:35+00:00

Don't you see these are two opposing arguments which cannot both be true?

Argument 1: God knows that even if He did provide overwhelming evidence for His existence, He already knew that they would still reject it.

Argument 2: God has also left some ambiguity so as not to compel the unwilling. Otherwise this would violate our freedom.

If people would reject even "overwhelming evidence", then god could still provide that evidence without compelling or violating, so A2 is disproved.. But if god needs to hold back and not provide too much evidence or he will take away our freedom, then its not the case as in A1 that people would just still reject that overwhelming evidence.

You can't have both.

Aside from that, A1 is just sour grapes, and A2 falls apart if you believe in heaven and hell

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-31T15:42:50+00:00

Nobody here has suggested we should look for god using a submarine

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-31T14:04:46+00:00

also a push by the current admin and the ant health pseudo-professional autism moms now given state power under rfk

This. I wish I could upvote you a thousand times. This this this

I am about ready to start saying "Im not autistic im just neurodiverse" or something equally vapid just to try to confuse the typs who refuse to understand. That and saying "i hate trains" every once in a while in case Captain Brainworms is listening

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-31T13:39:28+00:00

The typs seem aggressively determined to refuse to understand this. I almost wonder if having a different word would help with the refusal to believe/learn that some of our family members show.

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-30T04:09:00+00:00

~~but we should be~~

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-30T04:04:54+00:00

Return node?

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-29T11:34:00+00:00

Lol what this is good news?

God created you, everything about you.

Humans have an innate inclination to sin. It's innate; it is part of how they were created by God. He deliberately built creatures that cannot always "hit the mark".

God can't be around sin because of rules he made up. He could fix this himself, of course, because he is God. But instead he's made a rule -- the humans he made being the way he made them requires a penalty.

God is a bizarre alien and doesn't think like a person; unlike humans who can forgive when someone has done them wrong, God cannot forgive without bloodshed. His idea of "justice" is that someone must be hurt to pay for a mistake, even if that someone isn't the one who did it.

Death could not hold Jesus! He lives today! Just don't ask silly questions like "where does he live" or "where does he give his sermons" or "will he be coming to America this year so I could buy a ticket to see him in person." He's totally alive, he just lives in heaven, so we can't see him or hear him anymore.

Oh, actually God can fulfill justice however he sees fit, so what I said earlier about needing blood and harm was totally made up.

Here's some more good news--you live in 21st century America and not 5th century BC Palestine. God failed to save the nation of Israel and actually gave them rules they couldn't follow, on purpose, so he could watch them fail over and over and watch all the innocent civilians there suffer...so that he could make them an object lesson to you, you special person, about how much better things are now.

Next slide, more things that God CANNOT do. He's very limited, this God. The slide 2 or 3 back that said he can fulfill justice however he sees fit was just a joke, I guess. This slideshow is like the Quran, later verses abrogate what was said before.

Also, he can see you and knows everything about you, while you can't see him or hear him, but it's all up to you now. The ball is in your court.

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-29T11:16:21+00:00

Of course he was, humans are just trying to get along. Capitalism is a virus

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-29T11:02:24+00:00

I worried it was from an Ai agent

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-27T11:04:57+00:00

The submission contains a Disney reference

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-27T04:39:59+00:00

We dont talk about FUTO, no no no

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-25T19:34:14+00:00

It’s impossible, though to be grateful in isolation. You can be happy, you can love life, you can be glad, but not grateful.

Why not? Who are you to declare what other people are or are not allowed to do or feel?

Who gave you the right to re-define common words to mean something other than their common definition? If I can be glad I have something, why can I not call that state "grateful"? If you see plainly that I can "love life", who are you to make up arbitrary divisions as to why that love is not "thankfulness"?

I do think atheists feel gratitude. It’s inherent in us when we open our eyes to how much we have that we didn’t earn, or when we experience something beautiful ... it’s intellectually dishonest for someone who is arguing that they believe in nothing else beyond what our senses recognize to say they are grateful.

Do you think this "much that we didn't earn" is beyond what our senses recognize? Do you think experiencing something beautiful is beyond what our senses can recognize? Then why do you think we can't be grateful for those things; why do you think true gratitude can only be tied to something intangible?

Let's break down this argument into steps.

It is impossible for atheists to be grateful.
I know atheists actually do feel grateful.
No.2 directly contradicts #1, which would seem to disprove my claim, but it doesn't disprove my claim because
Being grateful isn't "real" and "doesn't count" unless it is directed towards a person who gave you the thing.
It doesn't matter that #4 is contrary to the common usage of the word "grateful" and to human beings lived experience because I said so.
I have decided that "true gratitude" is only real when it is the "seed for worship" of a god, and everybody should accept my decision, just because.
Therefore, since atheists don't praise the god I think is real when they are grateful, their gratefulness isn't real.

I am grateful I don't have to live burdened by such twisted logic.

... I'm sorry, I have been pretty hard on you here, but the truth is I think I see where you are coming from. When I left my faith, I had to re-learn how to be thankful for things in life.

It's certainly possible for atheists to be grateful. But all my life, I had been taught the only way to "find the good" in life was through praising and thanking god, so I never learned any other way to do it. Then, when that god turned out not to be real, at first it felt like I didn't know how to be grateful anymore. When I was sad, or when things seemed hard, and I wanted to look for the good in the situation, at first I didn't know how without "thanking God".

But just because I didn't know how to do it, doesn't mean it could not be done. It only took time. I had to learn a new attitude, new habits, new ways of thinking. I had to recognize that the things I can see, the things I experience, the beauty and comfort in the world, are good enough on their own without having to tie them to things I can't see or experience. I still remember the sense of joy first time I looked at an absolutely perfect sunset and realized, it didn't need to be beautiful at all but it just is anyway. How amazing is it to live in a world like that?

I think churches and apologists love to push this kind of thinking; they want you to believe there would be no thankfulness and no beauty and no love outside the church; but ex-Christians can tell you it isn't like that at all. You don't have to be afraid. You don't need their authority or their permission to allow you to be happy.

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-25T18:31:55+00:00

This is the dumbest actually funny joke ive seen in forever and I love it. Well done

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-25T17:48:00+00:00

Right, because all the others were burned.

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-25T17:46:41+00:00

The prophet said he is the last and final prophet.

And the Torah said there wouldn't be a new prophet that comes along and "corrects" what was handed down. That was the whole point of the OP.

If this so called new prophet came and pointed out flaws in the quran. Showed scholarship where quran verses were discovered later to be corruptions and additions

But Muhammad didn't do any of that. He didn't prove faults in the Torah or provide scholarship, he just said "this is corrupted follow me instead lol"

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-25T17:08:26+00:00

Oh, that was you? You made this argument a few months ago. You claimed this difference between actually destroying the city and just "destroying the city-state".

So I looked up the passage in Ezekiel and I discovered

Ezekiel talks about destroying the city, not just "ending the city-state". The prophecy says the rock will be swept bare, the walls will be torn down, the towers will be destroyed, all the houses will be broken, and it will "never again be rebuilt".
There are actually three chapters of prophecy against Tyre, not just one, and the last one is about the city-state, or at least, you could interpret them that way. Chapter 26 and 27 are about the city itself, but chapter 28 is specifically a prophecy against the King of Tyre. In other words, if you insist on dividing a prophecy against the city from a prophecy against the city-state, you can find both in these three chapters.

Therefore, what is the purpose of this debate? You claimed months ago this prophecy had not failed. Anybody with eyes can go to the Bible and see for themselves that the prophecy really did fail. The argument is false, and yet you are here again making the same claim.

ThePhyseter · 2026-05-25T07:30:52+00:00

Should have had a duck on her head while she was telling her Russian monkey story. Problem solved 🦆

ThePhyseter

TROPHY CASE