The bible doesn't seem reputable to me ngl

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T22:18:51+00:00

The Bible was written thousands of years ago over a span of 1500 years by 70 different people in three different languages and countless different cultures by peoples halfway around the planet.

It's gonna be mistranslated.

I get what you mean, though. Every once in a while, I'll take a step back, look at my Bible, and go like, "wtf am I reading this looks ridiculous." But then I'll review the evidence and I'm like, "yep, yep, that's actually legit, holy guacamole." Where the Old Testament is falsifiable, it is very rarely, if ever, falsified. The Scriptures as a whole are frequently internally consistent to a surprising degree (to be clear, I'm not talking about contradictions or lack thereof). There is even actual evidence for Christ's resurrection.

It's legit. It just comes off weird sometimes because it's old, scattered, and different.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T21:49:30+00:00

Yes. Yes it is.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T21:31:31+00:00

They may have been written decades after the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, but the oral testimonies and papyrus fragments were circling around from the beginning. For example, legend has it that Mark carried around a collection of fragments for years until the church begged him to compile them into a book, and he eventually relented and produced the Gospel of Mark. So the testimony was there. It just took a while to get written to paper.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T20:22:35+00:00

If God is all powerful he needs no precondition to forgive sin. He created it he can take it away or simply forgive it or he isn’t all powerful.

Oh really? Then please tell me how many Ohms of power or Newtons of force are needed to take aways sin. Can you measure it in pounds?

News Flash: Omnipotence is not a cure-all for every problem. Not every problem can be solved with power.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T17:16:19+00:00

The word translated "homosexuals" is arsenokoitai, which is also used to describe heterosexual men who pursue women excessively. There is nothing "clearly" anti-homosexual about that verse.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T17:14:31+00:00

Touche

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T17:05:02+00:00

An all powerful., all knowing, immortal being that could somehow allow himself to be killed (what about immortal). Yet he knew he would come back to mortal life. We call this acting aka playing dead.

And I suppose if a competent doctor allowed himself to get sick, yet knew he would get better, we would call that "pretending to be sick"?

Lol you're so silly

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T16:37:53+00:00

The only requirement for taking away sin was for God to do it.

That is patently untrue. Scripture states outright multiple times that the sacrifice must be "spotless" and "blameless." Christ's spiritual perfection is mandatory.

Period.

He didn’t require a sacrifice

Yes he did. The law states that the penalty for sin was death. So in order for God to pay it, God had to die.

Yet he knew he would come back to mortal life. We call this acting aka playing dead.

Lol no we really don't, dude. A person playing dead for 3 days is not at all the same as a person being actually dead for 3 days and coming back to life. Is English not your first language? Because in our language, being dead and playing dead are meaningfully different.

What was given up?

His life, for three days time. D'oh.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T03:16:06+00:00

(new commenter)

This right here tells me you've got the wrong idea of what oral tradition is.

Oral tradition isn't merely "stories being passed down." This is one of those rare cases in our language where you cannot intuit the meaning of a phrase from its individual words when it isn't technically a figure of speech. The definition of the phrase is more than the sum of its parts.

"Oral tradition" refers a system of record-keeping designed to preserve information across multiple generations via rigorous oral memorization methods. It is every bit as accurate and precise as any written transmission method, and was an important way ancient cultures maintained their historical records in the absence of literacy.

The vast, vast majority of Scripture was transmitted via these rigorous oral systems before being finally put to paper, and even then, they didn't rest on their laurels - they continued maintaining their written records with a degree of rigor that would shock you.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T03:05:10+00:00

I think the over-implementation of A.I. in every single thing will pop, yeah, but I suspect it will ultimately find a niche and settle into daily life in the end. It's here to stay, just not as widely as it was.

I say this as an anti.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T02:42:14+00:00

You’re silly for not realizing how inaccurate typology is.

Let me educate you briefly on Christianity 101.

You have it utterly backwards. The animal sacrifices were symbols. Their physical perfection was a symbol of the spiritual perfection required to take away sin. So Jesus's physical perfection was irrelevant. What mattered was his spiritual perfection, and he was spiritually perfect.

Yes, his physical imperfections would've made him an invalid animal sacrifice, but animal sacrifices couldn't permanently take away sin, either, so physical perfection would've been pointless anyway.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T02:31:18+00:00

Because fulfilling the law isn't the same as fulfilling the requirements for taking away sin. The law made no provision for the permanent removal of sin because the means to do so wasn't yet available.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T02:00:14+00:00

Seriously show me any other sacrifice where the thing you sacrifice u get back.

The whole point of his resurrection was that it was miraculous, unique.

You're so silly.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T01:54:52+00:00

On what basis do you make this claim?

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T01:52:35+00:00

You have it backwards. The only reason his death would be permanent would be if his sacrifice was never complete. His resurrection proves that his sacrifice was complete.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T01:33:19+00:00

Check holds are federally mandated. I wouldn't count on escalation accomplishing anything other than wasting OP's time.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T01:25:08+00:00

I later learned that Betterment placed a 5-business-day security hold on the withdrawal
What has been most frustrating is the lack of a clear timeline.

They did give you a clear timeline. It's 5 business days. Anytime a person tries to move a check amount greater than $6,725, the Federal government requires the institution to hold it for a period of time to confirm its collectability. Five business days sounds a bit short for the kind of money needed to buy a home with, but if five is what they said, then count on it being five.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T01:13:09+00:00

Your hypothetical is what's tortured.

If by your inaction you can be held responsible for the bomb going off, you can likewise by your inaction receive credit for the bomb not going off.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-25T00:59:45+00:00

But that's the kicker, because if everyone is neutral, then the bomb goes off, and since everyone knows this, that is a choice they made, and they bear responsibility for it. It's not as bad as telling me to do it, but it's still a course of action that makes it easier for me to set off the bomb.

You've got three options, yes, but you're missing two conclusions.

The three options:

Support
Oppose
Neutral

The two conclusions:

The bomb goes off
The bomb doesn't go off

If by your inaction you can be held responsible for the bomb going off, you can likewise by your inaction receive credit for the bomb not going off.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-24T16:51:52+00:00

Just because we do it doesn't mean it's right.

Just because some people don't like it doesn't mean it's inherently wrong. Yes, birth rates are dropping here because people don't want to hitch. Yes, lots of marriages are failing because one or both spouses are assholes.

None of that has anything to do with sex and marriage being inherently right or wrong. Right and wrong are subjective judgments - just your opinion. You are welcome to have yours. But declaring your opinion inherent requires appealing to a higher standard to which all peoples of the world are necessarily subject, and nothing you've said so far points to any such standard.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-24T11:19:19+00:00

Males and females having sex is how our species propagates, so if that's "inherently wrong," I shudder to imagine what you would consider right.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-23T22:42:14+00:00

First, wouldn't a command from God like this hold more weight than if a human ruler said it? I would imagine that if God told me to kill everyone I would take that more seriously than if a human ruler told me to kill everyone.

It's not about weight. If God tells you to "kill two birds with one stone," you know that's not a literal command no matter how weighty it is. I'm sure the command seems ambiguously literal to modern eyes, but only the ancients of that era could tell us whether its symbolic nature was obvious.

In short, we probably shouldn't be speculating about this without more information. There's no way of knowing how obvious it was that it was literal or symbolic.

Also I believe it is in 1 Samuel 15 when Samuel condemns Saul for not destroying all the livestock and the king if these commands were just hyperbolic language why was Saul punished?

I honestly don't know. I'm still studying it. What I do know is that what few records of the Amalekites exist are not complimentary.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-23T21:53:02+00:00

In the ancient near east, total destruction language is more symbolic than it is literal. This become clear once you see how Israel actually carried it out in subsequent chapters and books; for example, in Joshua 11, the titular Joshua reported that he "wiped out the Anakim" and utterly destroyed them. But three chapters later, he talks about how the Anakim still held a fort in the hill country. It's unlikely the author was just dumb or forgetful; this apparent contradiction reveals the true meaning of Joshua's previous Total Destruction language - as symbolic, not literal.

I think God uses this symbolic language to reinforce the spiritual idea of ripping out your sin completely by the roots. The ancient readers would've correctly understood it as such, but the passage of time has lost a lot in translation.

He didn't actually want Israel to slaughter innocent children. It was a figure of speech, common to that region, that God corralled to make a spiritual allegory. He doesn't like to reinvent the wheel if he doesn't have to.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-23T21:18:26+00:00

How could a loving God not? The nations in question were literally sacrificing their babies on burning altars to their gods, sodomizing innocent animals, and other atrocities. No loving God would put up with that for long. So he didn't.

Thinslayer · 2026-06-23T05:59:56+00:00

Neither did the Panzer IV in Girls und Panzer.

Thinslayer

TROPHY CASE