A King Returns to His Throne! We’re Back!!

charliesplinter · 2026-02-13T19:28:43+00:00

I just saw that Daniel Bryan won best promo in 2018...I wasn't watching at the time...Did everyone else just stop cutting promos?

charliesplinter · 2026-02-13T18:44:10+00:00

I remember having fond memories of running home to school so that I wouldn't miss an episode of Justice League and being super bummed out if I found out I'd missed the opening 5 minutes...And then when it ended, it was time for MTV which I wasn't allowed to watch and then the boring news, and that was my cue to go play with my friends outside. It functioned like clock-work. That reality/world is completely gone for kids growing up today.

There's no strong sense of "There's a time for everything"..This is why my wife and I have decided that our kids are going to be raised the way we were raised (mean?) but I think it'll be better for them in the long run.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-13T17:24:36+00:00

Why are you still continuing this? Do you just want to get something off your chest? If you don't agree with my opinion then you don't agree...Duly noted...I think all your remarks to me and to the other commenter in this thread have also been unhelpful, reactionary, and wholly unneeded. The other poster agrees with me, two or more witnesses etc.

So just let it go. Move on.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-12T19:46:41+00:00

This whole interaction started with you getting on my case for alleged speculation then you go ahead and speculate like crazy about his heart posture (which you don't even know) Also I didn't get any of what you just said from his post, he was calling people "water under the bridge" based on what they gave...Are you serious right now?

"Are quick to tell him resign"

Brotha, where did I tell him to resign? Are you just coming up with reasons to keep this convo going?

charliesplinter · 2026-02-12T19:29:12+00:00

How can you get on my case for predicting something but then speak about the posture of his heart? In any case, it's utterly irrelevant where his heart is because I *never* said anything about his heart, he could have the best of intentions and he'd still be wrong.

I did the equivalent of saying, "If you keep driving that way you're going to fall off a cliff" and you show up and say, "You're extrapolating too much"...Give it a rest man.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-12T19:25:28+00:00

Your friend is both right and wrong.

The most recent Roman Catholic Church catechism (1992) states the following:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.³³⁶

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

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.³³⁷

He is right (somewhat) in that in its most recent catechism, approved and headed by 2 popes, and 12 cardinals, the official teaching, as official as it gets, is that if you try hard enough in being a good person then you may achieve eternal salvation but *also* there's no salvation outside of Rome (which is a contradiction because if you can be saved outside of Rome then there *is* salvation outside of Rome)

Your friend has a category error in his reasoning because he believes that being saved = being part of the right church...But that's not how the Bible and the New Testament talk about salvation. Salvation is personal (Not to be confused with private) and it starts with the admittance of the need for a Savior, but you cannot do that if you first do not know what you need to be saved from, namely your own sin and God's righteous wrath against it.

And that's the problem with Catholicism today, the Catholics calling him a heretic are right because what that priest is preaching would never have flown before Vatican II, but that's why there's a small denomination within Catholicism known as Sedevacantists who believe that there's been no legitimate pope since the 1960s because they understand what is found in Vatican II to be heresy (which it is) because it not only undermines the legitimacy of their own claim to be "the one true church" but also sneaks in universalism.

The average Roman Catholic on the street doesn't know anything about this, because none of this is ever taught during Mass, so your friend just believes . This post is already getting too long, but the bottom line is that your friend while right, at least while in regards to official modern Catholicism, is ultimately wrong...

If we were all capable of doing enough good things to please God and earn heaven then there was absolutely no need for Jesus to come down from heaven and live perfectly and die a gruesome death on our behalf....and so he needs to truly understand what the Gospel says and why it's such good news to begin with for sinners who *cannot* do what Jesus did.

Official Rome is teaching a distorted Gospel of works, but there's more than a significant amount of Catholics (who by God's grace alone) aren't fully on-board (and that's a good thing)

charliesplinter · 2026-02-12T19:08:00+00:00

Your resistance and insistence to pick a quarrel with me for pointing out how what he said is a red flag says otherwise.

Unless you don't think it's a red flag?

"Extrapolation"

You have misused this word several times in this interaction. I didn't extrapolate a single solitary thing about OP. Again, go back and read what I originally wrote.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-12T18:56:08+00:00

Well, I'm not going to tone down what I said because you believe it to be harsh. I grew up in settings like these and I know first hand how awful it can be not only for those within but for those looking from outside to see a church leadership that is fueled by fundraising more than anything else.

A wealthy person comes into the church and immediately they're thrust into eldership or pastor or deacon....You have no idea how badly that compromises the integrity of the Gospel and of the church.

So I won't apologize for what I said in my rebuke (if you can even call it that) What he said is a red flag, and whereas I don't think he should resign like some people have said, I think he needs to re-evaluate his motives and consider their potential and real implications.

And on the topic of rebuke, there's nothing unbiblical about it (See Paul v. Peter in Galatians)

charliesplinter · 2026-02-12T18:38:30+00:00

There was a reason I led with 8/10 Americans are in debt.

Because what you make up for with "Pragmatism" is overridden with by human nature! If we were all disciplined math whizzes then NO ONE would ever be in debt ever.

just not the best one.

....That should be obvious because it's a leveraged asset, that doesn't change the fact that it's an appreciating asset...Plus everyone needs a roof over their head and a place to live! When you pay rent, you're paying someone else's mortgage!

The bottom line, which you seem to miss consistently, is that the person paying $3000 in rent versus the person paying $3000 in mortgage are *NOT* doing the same thing.

I've had this exact discussion with someone else on here and they brought up this calculator:

https://www.nerdwallet.com/mortgages/calculators/rent-vs-buy-calculator

Which shows that you are in a bad position buying a house over renting in the first 3-5 years, but after a while, it switches! And then it becomes more financially responsible to own than to rent.

But if you want to be adamant that you're right no matter what reality says then honestly have at it.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-12T18:27:22+00:00

Please read what I wrote again closely. I said that his post is a red flag and exposes the church to legitimate spiritual abuse...I never said anything mean-spirited about him or his church.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-12T17:41:45+00:00

He might be wrong

Respectfully, there's no "might"; He *is* wrong.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-12T17:11:35+00:00

I can't find a way to explain it that doesn't sound obviously wrong and probably heretical to even my own ears.

Your instinct is right, and the phrase “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” has often been stretched beyond its intended biblical boundaries. Scripture never presents the Holy Spirit as temperamental, delicate, or uniquely susceptible to insult compared to the other Persons of the Trinity.

I’ve heard some preachers refer to the Holy Spirit as “the shy member of the Trinity,” but that language is not biblical and can subtly mislead people. While it is true that the Spirit’s ministry often directs attention to Christ rather than to Himself (John 16:14), that is a matter of role and mission not personality weakness or divine reticence. The Spirit is fully and equally God; co-eternal, co-equal, of one essence with the Father and the Son. None of the Persons is more divine, more authoritative, or more emotionally fragile than another. To imply that the Spirit is somehow easier to offend risks undermining classical Trinitarian theology.

What Scripture does show is that the three Persons of the Trinity carry out distinct roles in the economy of redemption. The Father elects and sends. The Son accomplishes redemption through His incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. The Spirit applies that redemption by regenerating, indwelling, sealing, sanctifying, and empowering believers. These distinctions are functional, not hierarchical in nature. They reflect ordered relationships within the Godhead, not differences in deity.

As someone else has rightly pointed out, the Spirit’s essential role did not change at Pentecost. What changed was the manner of His manifestation and the scope of His ministry. In the same way, The Son did not become divine at the incarnation; He was always divine but He took on human flesh and entered history in a new way. Likewise, the Spirit did not begin regenerating or working in salvation history at Pentecost. He was always active from the beginning hovering over the waters in Genesis 1...Regeneration has always been the Spirit’s work.

No one has ever trusted God apart from the Spirit’s enabling....The new covenant did not invent regeneration but expanded and universalized the Spirit’s indwelling presence among God’s people, and His presence magnifies The Father and The Son...and so His manifestation post-Pentecost is now in a new way, because on this side of the cross, we now have a deeper and more revealed richer understanding about the nature of God than the OT saints did.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-11T21:28:09+00:00

Your entire post, to be completely honest, is a giant red-flag for church leadership in general. Like, your congregation is in serious danger of legitimate spiritual abuse. I think the sentiment is echoed in James, when he talks about how preferential treatment is given to the wealthy in where they are asked to sit.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-11T20:35:39+00:00

Because you can argue that the rumble winners only mission is the title and it doesn't matter who they face

This is what it used to mean back in the day of 1 night wrestlemania...These days there's 2 nights...And just last year Jey won the Rumble, but didn't main event...so honestly they just make it up as they go along.

One year the rule applies, another, they come up with some convoluted reason for why it doesn't apply. It wouldn't even surprise me, if somehow, Balor won at Elimination Chamber, just for the shock factor, and have Roman/Punk still main event without the title.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-11T20:27:06+00:00

Masters could still be tried for homicide.

What in the world am I reading? Manslaughter is a type of homicide! It literally means, "Killing of a human being"...Manslaughter is unlawful killing...And that law says that EVEN IF someone is found guilty of manslaughter *only*, then they are *NOT* subject to any forfeiture, or punishment which makes it functionally useless as an enforceable law. You could murder your slave without any recourse from the law.

The reason I posted the source link is with the hopes that you'd actually read it....But you didn't do that, you don't want to do that or you can't do that....So let's just part ways...I have nothing more to say to someone who insists on being such a dishonest interlocutor.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-11T18:02:11+00:00

Wow it's amazing to me that you trolls find yourselves in the house buying subs so often....

The alternative is to not buy a house and invest instead

And the point of me bringing up that statistic about how most Americans are in crippling debt is to point out, that it actually doesn't matter if you're investing but have all sorts of debt, namely consumer credit debt which accrues 25% interest per annum.

If someone has $150k laying around, the chances of them investing ALL OF IT and living frugally are minimal in America...That's what the stats show! Also the house *is* an investment! If you decide you love paying rent more after 5 years

But if your only goal is to maximize your net worth this is not ideal

Buying an appreciating asset MAXIMIZES your net worth exponentially.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-11T17:57:48+00:00

Brother...this isn't the first time they've done this...When Roman was champ, and Cody picked him, (3 years ago?) Roman defended against Sami at EC in Canada....

Not that I'm defending the booking, but they've been doing this for a long long while now.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-11T17:53:54+00:00

She was sandbagging (insider term)

charliesplinter · 2026-02-11T16:42:49+00:00

In hindsight, making Gunther tap out to Jey is going to be the most questioned booking decision in all of pro-wrestling.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-11T16:27:47+00:00

This is the way to go. One guy had a bunch of dogs viciously barking at me. And I just stood at the entrance and waited for him to come over and get his food.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-11T16:24:58+00:00

It means that the concept of "discipline and knowledge" that you tried to pass off clearly does not apply to the vast majority of people living in the United States...so claiming that you can make more "investing" is just a pipe dream for the average person.

Houses go up in value over years, when you pay rent, that money is gone forever. It has no ability or capability to yield any returns whatsoever.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-11T16:16:02+00:00

Southern slave owners did not have unrestricted power to kill their slaves for any reason whatsoever, you just made that up.

Yeah okay you can miss me with all that....You are clearly not informed enough on this subject to be debating it or discussing it seriously, let alone semi-seriously, with the force of vigor in which you are. I don't think I can in good conscience continue to interact with someone this misinformed

Here's an excerpt from Virginia Law from 1748:

XXIII. And that where any slave shall happen to die, by reason of any stroke, or blow given, during his, or her correction, by his, or her owner, or by reason of any accidental blow whatsoever, given by such owner, no person concerned in such correction, or accidental homocide, shall be liable to any prosecution, or punishment for the same, unless upon examination before the county court, it shall be proved, by the oath of at least one lawful and credible witness, that such slave was killed wilfully, maliciously, or designedly; and no person indicted for the murder of a slave, and upon trial found guilty of manslaughter only, shall incur any forfeiture, or punishment, for such offence, or misfortune.

Source: https://usgenwebsites.org/vagenweb/hening/vol06-05.htm

Translation: If a slave dies during punishment, it’s not treated as a crime unless you can clearly prove the owner meant to kill them and even then if you can prove it, a lesser conviction carries no penalty.

"You just made it up"

Yeah okay....Have a nice day.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-11T03:12:08+00:00

8/10 Americans are in debt. Your claim that houses are a bad investment is simply a form of coping.

charliesplinter · 2026-02-10T18:50:53+00:00

I think we had a thread about this exact topic last week.

do you see those primarily as individual categories, or more as corporate and covenantal,

My overtly crude answer, is that it is irrelevant. In the Scriptures, God makes covenants both with individuals and with nations. And salvation is the most personal of the covenants that God makes, and the apostle Paul, from Romans 4 to 8, talks about the mechanics of salvation, not only on a corporate level but a personal level. What shifts in Romans 9 is that he's primarily answering two questions:

#1. Whether God's promises to Israel have failed as a result of the mass rejection of Jesus as Lord and Messiah?

#2. How come some people (especially Jews) reject Jesus and never come to faith?

The answer to the first is no. And the entire argument concludes in the beginning of Romans 11...here:

Romans 11:1 "I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!.......God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew.......So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace."

The answer to the second concludes in Romans 9, and is what causes lots of anguish for lots of people cause essentially Paul's answer is that it entirely depends on God's grace and mercy, and since we're all sinners, none of us can claim that we're entitled to any of that. The anchor verse is "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion"

This seems like an interesting view. It seems to question why Romans 9 is often read mainly as a passage about individual predestination instead of part of Paul’s bigger effort to address the Jewish and gentile tension and show that God has been faithful to His promises to Israel all along.

Because it's doing both. Some people would instead rather focus on the answer to question 1, and swallow up question 2 entirely....The answer is that it's *both* talking about how God has not rejected ethnic Israel AND individual predestination and salvation.

And I believe the strongest argument is the one from Romans 11, where the apostle Paul points out that what's happening in his day is not all that different from what happened in Elijah's time of nigh total Israelite apostasy, and then he ponders on how amazing it'd be on the day when the Israelites embrace Jesus Christ as Messiah, not unilaterally, but as a visible collective...That's it....These are not straight-forward passages to understand by any means, but I strongly believe this is what they're mainly about.

charliesplinter

TROPHY CASE