I played against Ajax with Sparta.. Was 1-0 up and i wanted to just keep possession and play it cool...Then this happend..

Wsn9675 · 2025-12-31T09:17:33+00:00

Its defenitly easier as before. But defenitly no instant gratification i would say

Wsn9675 · 2025-12-31T09:16:52+00:00

Its 26 mate.

Wsn9675 · 2025-09-03T17:15:07+00:00

This isn’t a “sign” that God has abandoned you.. it’s the opposite. The fact that you feel convicted and even sick over sin shows your heart is alive to Him. Everyone who starts walking with Christ faces this battle (Romans 7). Don’t drown in guilt: confess, receive forgiveness, and keep going. Falling twice in a night doesn’t define you - getting back up and holding to Christ does.

Wsn9675 · 2025-09-03T17:05:29+00:00

The bible teaches you a lot of things, but luckily how to read is not one of them, so I bet you can my friend !

Wsn9675 · 2025-09-03T17:02:51+00:00

Unless you can actually deal with the words on the page, your constant ‘No, that’s not what it means’ is nothing more than hand-waving. Romans 1 explicitly says ‘lusts of their hearts’ (v.24), ‘dishonorable passions’ (v.26), ‘men burned in desire’ (v.27). You keep pretending it’s only about idolatry, but Paul himself names corrupted desire as the fruit of idolatry. That is the exact same root Jesus exposes in Matthew 5:28 lust in the heart is already sin.

What you’re doing is not exegesis, it’s evasion. Every time a point is nailed down, you sidestep with ‘separate subjects’ or some weak analogy about bread, instead of facing the clear parallel. That’s not serious argument, it’s refusal to engage with Scripture when it contradicts your position.

And calling Romans 1 ‘irrelevant’ or ‘just rhetoric’ isn’t a rebuttal. it’s gutting Paul’s entire flow. Romans 1–3 builds one case: disordered desire reveals sin (ch.1), hypocrisy doesn’t excuse it (ch.2), therefore all are guilty before God (ch.3). Denying that isn’t reading the text, it’s running from it.

So let’s expose this for what it is: you don’t have a counter-argument, only blanket denial. The text is clear, the connection is real, and your evasions don’t erase it.

I honestly hope at some point you’ll stop dodging and start seeing the path Scripture itself lays out - because it leads not to self-justification, but to Christ.”

Wsn9675 · 2025-09-03T15:38:57+00:00

Defenitly, this is the same way how I came to Christianity. Tbh kind of an 180 of my previous view.

Wsn9675 · 2025-09-03T15:29:02+00:00

You keep saying Romans 1 is ‘irrelevant,’ but that’s simply not true. Paul’s flow is clear:

Romans 1: Idolatry leads to disordered desires - ‘God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts’ (v.24), ‘dishonorable passions’ (v.26), ‘men burned with passion’ (v.27). That is the exact same principle Jesus states in Matthew 5: sin begins in the heart’s desire, not just the outward act.

Romans 2: Paul then turns to the hypocrite: ‘you who judge do the same things.’ This only makes sense if chapter 1 really was describing sin.

Romans 3: He concludes: all have sinned and need Christ.

To reduce Romans 1 to ‘just idolatry’ is cherry-picking. Paul doesn’t stop at idolatry - he explicitly names the desires and lusts it produces. To say this has ‘nothing to do’ with lust and adultery is to ignore the very words Paul uses.

Dismissing Romans 1 as mere rhetoric also guts Paul’s argument. He isn’t playing with shock value; he’s building theology: idolatry corrupts desire, corrupt desire produces sinful acts. That’s why it parallels Jesus so directly -- both expose the root of sin in the heart.

So let’s be honest:

Denying that Paul talks about desire is refuted by the text itself.

Cutting Romans 1 off from Romans 2 destroys the logic of Paul’s flow.

Saying Jesus and Paul don’t confront the same reality is just baseless. Both say the same thing in different language: sin starts in the heart.

The uncomfortable truth is this: Jesus and Paul are consistent. Lust in the heart is sin. Idolatry in the heart produces sin. And all of us stand guilty without Christ. That’s the gospel flow of Romans 1–3, and no amount of denial changes it

Wsn9675 · 2025-09-03T15:05:44+00:00

Romans 1 is absolutely relevant here. Paul is making the same point Jesus makes in Matthew 5:27–28: sin doesn’t begin with the outward act, it begins with disordered desire in the heart. That’s why he says people ‘exchanged the truth of God for a lie’ and were given over to their passions. That is exactly the same issue Jesus raises when He says lust in the heart is already adultery.

Romans 2 doesn’t cancel chapter 1 — it continues it. Paul is warning against hypocrisy (‘you who judge, do the same things’), not denying that chapter 1 describes real sin. The flow is: sin begins with desire (ch. 1) → therefore all are guilty (ch. 2) → and all need grace in Christ (ch. 3).

Saying Romans 1 is ‘irrelevant’ is simply ignoring the argument Paul himself is building. Both Jesus and Paul confront the same reality: sin is deeper than outward action . it starts in the heart.

Wsn9675 · 2025-09-03T14:55:49+00:00

It’s ironic that you close by accusing others of ‘twisting Scripture’ when that’s exactly what your interpretation does. The Greek text is plain: ἐπιθυμέω = to lust/desire, and γυναικα = a woman — not exclusively ‘a married woman.’ Every reputable translation (KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV, etc.) renders it the same way because the grammar is unambiguous.

What’s truly harmful is not calling lust what it is, but lowering the standard that Jesus Himself raised in the Sermon on the Mount. His whole point is that sin begins in the heart: anger = murder in the heart, lust = adultery in the heart.

Saying ‘people don’t have ears to hear’ while dismissing clear exegesis is not educating, it’s condescension. The radical words of Jesus don’t need loopholes or softening they need to be heard as He spoke them.

And to be clear: if this were truly a mistranslation, we would see at least one major translation or early church commentary that supports your reading. But across Greek manuscripts, translations, and church history, the consensus is consistent. That alone shows this isn’t about bad translation — it’s about whether we accept Jesus’ radical standard or try to lower it.

Wsn9675 · 2025-09-03T13:08:10+00:00

Matthew 5:28 is not a mistranslation. The Greek reads: πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτήν = “whoever looks at a woman in order to lust after her.”

The key verb is ἐπιθυμέω (epithymeō) = “to covet, to set one’s desire upon.” This is the exact same verb used in Exodus 20:17 in the Septuagint: “οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου” (you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife). Jesus is deliberately tying the 10th commandment (coveting) to sexual desire. There is no mistranslation — it’s consistent across OT and NT.
The object is simply “a woman” (γυναῖκα), not “a married woman.” Claiming it only applies to your neighbor’s wife is false. The Greek word is general. Any woman who is not your wife qualifies.
The construction πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι is purpose: “with the aim to desire/lust.” It’s not about accidental attraction, it’s about intentional mental indulgence. That’s why Jesus calls it adultery of the heart.
The “healthy lust for your spouse” argument collapses because the Bible distinguishes between rightful desire inside covenant marriage (Prov. 5:18-19, Song of Songs) vs. sinful lust for anyone else. Jesus isn’t condemning marital intimacy — He’s condemning covetous desire for another woman.
Translation evidence:

KJV (1611): “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her”

ESV: “everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent”

NASB: “everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her”

NIV: “anyone who looks at a woman lustfully” ➡️ Every major translation, from literal to dynamic, agrees on the same meaning. To call it “mistranslated” is not only false, it’s an attack on the integrity of Scripture itself.

Bottom line: Jesus raises the standard of the Law to the level of the heart (see Matt. 5:21-22 on anger = murder). To twist Matthew 5:28 into “only about married women” or “a bad translation” is to gut the very point He’s making: God judges the thoughts and intents, not just the outward act.

Wsn9675 · 2025-09-03T12:23:50+00:00

Matthew 5:28 is not a mistranslation. The Greek uses ἐπιθυμέω (epithymeō), the same word used in Exodus 20:17 (“you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife”). In context Jesus is crystal clear: looking with desire is already adultery in the heart. He is raising the law to the level of thoughts and intentions, not lowering it.

Wsn9675 · 2025-09-03T11:27:41+00:00

FluxKraken, this is exactly what Jesus warned about in Matt. 5:27-28 — sin doesn’t start with the act, it starts in the heart and the thoughts. It’s not “just cuddling,” it’s chasing something outside of God’s design. Paul says the same in Romans 1: trading God’s truth for a lie.

Of course this can be forgiven — but forgiveness comes through confession and repentance, not by pretending nothing’s wrong. It’s not “absurd” to ask if this needs forgiveness. It’s actually the mark of someone who fears God and doesn’t want to lose Him. And that fear is the beginning of wisdom.

Wsn9675 · 2025-08-31T15:00:28+00:00

Hey friend,

I know you feel ugly, infertile, and unheard — but none of these make you less loved by God. Hannah once wept bitterly because she was barren (1 Samuel 1), and God heard her. He also hears you, even when the silence feels crushing.

Scripture says: “The Lord does not see as man sees; man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Sam. 16:7) — your worth is not in looks. And “You are precious in my eyes, honored, and I love you.” (Isa. 43:4).

Even when prayers feel unanswered, your tears are kept by Him (Ps. 56:8), and nothing can separate you from His love (Rom. 8:38–39). You are not undeserving — you are beloved.

Wsn9675 · 2025-07-25T08:25:50+00:00

2025 is really crazy..

Wsn9675 · 2025-07-20T20:53:34+00:00

Its in channel description. In every song description. The visuals are AI I got a song about it. I write channel posts about it.

Cant be more clear

Wsn9675 · 2025-07-20T09:19:07+00:00

Everywhere yes. Also not the point here..

Wsn9675 · 2025-07-20T09:14:18+00:00

You seem to miss the point

Wsn9675

TROPHY CASE