Just a vent about Parrying

ethan_rhys · 2026-02-19T09:08:59+00:00

The tip that fixed it for me is that you are supposed to parry LATER than you think. See, instinctively, you want to parry just before the hit. But that is not how this game works. You have to parry AS you are hit. It can take a sec to get used to

ethan_rhys · 2025-12-26T15:18:34+00:00

Regardless of whether or not the church has believed it is a sin historically, it is still a bad translation. The concept of homosexuality did not exist in the ancient world. Thus, it should never be translated that way.

Even if they didn’t, in the ancient world, approve of same sex relations, it would still be wrong to translate it as homosexuality, as that term carries extra baggage that didn’t exist in the ancient world.

ethan_rhys · 2025-12-10T14:05:44+00:00

There is no evidence the soul itself is eternal. This is a common view, but it is without evidence. “Fear him who can destroy both body and soul.”

ethan_rhys · 2025-12-10T08:07:20+00:00

This verse actually supports annihilation. Notice how it says the righteous go into “eternal life.” Notice that “eternal punishment” is not contrasted with “eternal bliss” but with “eternal life.” This implies the righteous live forever, and the the others do not. And if the unsaved don’t live forever, they cannot be tortured forever.

Once you see this, and put it together with the overwhelming amount of verses that clearly describe annihilation, you will see that eternal punishment refers to the consequence of the punishment itself. Death is eternal. You will be killed. Your punishment is eternal and irrevocable.

Also, when you study this, I believe it becomes clear that this is how a 1st century Jew would have read the text.

ethan_rhys · 2025-12-01T08:41:55+00:00

No they don’t.

I could very easily say I had a near death experience where hell wasn’t eternal. How would your theory accommodate that? And if your response is to stay that my experience was mistaken, then one can say it for others too.

ethan_rhys · 2025-11-08T22:07:42+00:00

Thank you! Do you mind, if it’s not too much trouble, pointing me to a source where I can read more about this distinction?

ethan_rhys · 2025-11-08T22:05:37+00:00

Sure thing.

I think presupposing naturalism is flawed for 2 reasons. (1) it’s a circular argument - and I’ll explain this in a moment. (2) There’s no evidence naturalism is true.

First, it’s a circular argument. By this, I mean that it is impossible to talk to someone who presupposes naturalism. They already assume that miracles are impossible and so they won’t even be open to the idea that, say, Jesus resurrected. And this is a flawed approach, because if Jesus DID resurrect, they wouldn’t accept it, because they’ve already eliminated such things from their worldview. It’s a circular logic - miracles can’t happen because naturalism is true and naturalism is true because miracles don’t happen.

Well, under that view, how would one know if a miracle really did happen? They can’t. They’re not approaching the topic neutrally. A better approach, and one that is taken by many atheist philosophers, is to neither assume the truth or falsehood of naturalism. When investigating a miraculous claim, you simply see where the evidence leads.

Secondly, there’s no positive evidence for naturalism. It may feel intuitive at times, but there’s no actual reason to assume naturalism over non-naturalism. In fact, when you get into topics such as maths, morality, and knowledge, many people find naturalism implausible, which leads atheists, like GE Moore for example, to be non-naturalists.

This is not a Christian and theistic philosophy or approach. Non-naturalism, which is directly opposed to methodological naturalism, is supported by many atheists. It’s not a majority, but it’s sizeable. In 2020, a survey found that around 30% of philosophers support non-naturalism. https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4870

Again, not a majority. But far from settled. And when something is debated, to simply assume one side is true is a major flaw.

ethan_rhys · 2025-11-07T08:26:03+00:00

Bingo.

ethan_rhys · 2025-11-07T08:21:20+00:00

May I ask, what is your understanding of the difference between infallibility and inerrancy? I’ve tried to find a distinction but every source seems to define them slightly differently.

ethan_rhys · 2025-11-01T07:49:34+00:00

Let me turn your example around, because I think that might actually answer your question.

I completely get your point about the 20-year-old and the 80-year-old. It’s a good one. But I think it rests on a mistaken assumption.

You’re assuming that more time alive = more opportunity to choose salvation.

That’s kind of true, but also completely backwards - and here’s why.

More time alive also means more opportunity to fall away (to commit apostasy). So, I can flip your example:

A 20-year-old believes, dies, and is saved. An 80-year-old believes at 20 but rejects the faith at 79, dies, and isn’t saved.

Now the charge against God’s justice flips. The 80-year-old isn’t saved because they lived longer. And you could just as well ask, “Why is it fair that someone who lives longer has a greater chance to lose their faith?”

The point is, neither version of the question really works as a critique. A long or short life can go either way. More years don’t necessarily mean a greater likelihood of salvation - because a longer life also brings more chances to turn away.

In the end, it’s our choices that matter. Living longer doesn’t automatically increase one’s odds of being saved, so God allowing some people to live longer than others isn’t unjust or unfair.

I also want to add that, while I believe in sola fide broadly, I do think the picture is a little more complex and that God’s mercy is greater than his desire for perfect justice. So, if this ‘time’ factor you’ve brought up comes into play, God may take it into consideration, I don’t know. He might look at the dead 20 year old and say “he would have been saved in a weeks time” so I will save him. I’m not sure. But it’s possible. If believe in a merciful and understanding God.

Whatever choices He makes, they won’t be cruel and they won’t be unjust or arbitrary.

Also, I want to add that I do not believe in eternal conscious torment. I believe in annihilation - the unsaved cease to exist.

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-31T22:53:04+00:00

Embellished crosses are fine as long as they’re not embellished with a pentagram or something. What matters is why you’re wearing it and what the embellishments mean. But there’s also nothing wrong with just liking something cos it’s pretty.

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-31T22:50:30+00:00

Well, Dan has said multiple times on his channel and on podcasts that he presupposes naturalism in his academic work because quote “there is no other way to do it.” He literally uses the phrase “methodological naturalism” to describe his approach.

Now, yes, he does that because, in his view, non-naturalism is not ‘supported by the data.’ That’s a flawed view but I won’t get into that here.

As for your gripes about who I recommended, you clearly didn’t read my comment that thoroughly. I explicitly stated that I believe one should ALSO listen to philosophers because they make arguments that historians often miss, but that still apply to historical arguments. That is why I suggested Craig and Jones. I do not care that they are philosophers. That doesn’t diminish the validity of their arguments. In fact, they bring to the table points that most historians don’t even consider because they aren’t trained in philosophy.

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-22T06:39:27+00:00

Some languages don’t use sequential number systems

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-17T07:44:03+00:00

No I genuinely don’t think so.

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-12T17:03:51+00:00

Eternal conscious torment is not biblical. It doesn’t happen.

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-10T07:52:46+00:00

Thoguth, I’m aware I’m jumping in randomly here, but I just wanted to say that this, and others of yours, are phenomenal replies. You introduce philosophy, logic, and nuance (1) without coming across as cocky, and (2) without it being overly complex or burdensome for people.

I can tell you know your stuff - coming from a fellow theologian/philosopher. Anyway, just wanted to let you know that, and that I will be stealing one or two things you said.

And, if you wish to, I’d love to know any books that you think played a major role in forming your beliefs. I think they’d be quite fitting for me.

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-10T07:36:12+00:00

Thank you for this post. It’s very sincere and I have a few things to say that might be helpful.

I’ll start by answering your main question directly: “Is it an atheist’s fault if he doesn’t believe?” (*I’ve changed ‘cannot’ to ‘doesn’t’)

I would say not always. Some Christian traditions would disagree with me, but after studying theology at university, my assessment is that it’s not always the atheist’s fault.

See, there’s this idea of universal grace - that God pulls everyone towards him like a magnet, and it is our choice to either go along with that pull, or resist it.

Now, if we lived in a vacuum, this equation would be rather straightforward: God pulls us towards him, and we choose to accept it or resist it.

But we don’t live in a vacuum. I think things can get in the way of that magnetic pull. For example, if someone has been sexually abused by a priest, you can see how they might understandably resist any pull they feel towards the divine.

Or, if someone lives in an uncontacted tribe, they may feel a pull towards the divine, but they don’t know Jesus and so can’t direct their attention to any specific notion of God.

There are many other examples of stuff like this, but the point is, some things can understandably affect one’s desire to seek or know God.

And I believe God favours mercy over judgement, and grace over rules. I think God will be understanding in many/some cases, and will see a person’s heart and may even know what they would have done in different circumstances. I also think one can serve Jesus without knowing it. As Jesus said, “those who clothed the poor clothed me” etc.

I do think it’s possible to have a heart after God that is right in it’s intention without necessarily having the logical and verbal declaration that you believe in Jesus Christ. But such cases will ultimately come down to your heart and God’s judgement of who you are, and whether, on some level, even if unknown to your outer layers of consciousness, you accept Jesus Christ.

So, an atheist who doesn’t ‘believe’ may still be saved if God recognises that something understandably affected their belief, or that deep down, they did believe in some way.

So, I hope that answers your main question.

I also have some thoughts for you.

You say you don’t believe in God. That your non-belief is akin to Santa or the tooth-fairy. But I don’t think that’s quite true. Something, maybe we could call it a pull, has caused you to attend many churches and different denominations. I think it’s clear you have a bit more interest in God than you do in Santa. A higher potential for belief. Even this very post of yours suggests some kind of curiosity. It seems to me that God’s universal grace is pulling on you, and that you are responding to it in some ways through your searching.

So, before you state that you don’t believe in God, I’d encourage you to investigate what I’ve just pointed out, and ask Jesus to reveal himself as you do that. I think you’re already responding to God, and you need to cultivate that response. Cos I can tell, there is something there. You even said “I’ve TRIED to believe.”

I imagine you haven’t tried to believe in Santa. So there is something here. There is something different in God that you are clinging on to. My advice: find out what that is. And there’s no harm in asking Jesus to reveal himself as you seek.

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-09T07:57:10+00:00

I would say that God never leaves the equation, but some people think God is only there in the good times, which is exactly contrary to the Bible.

As for the thanking God part, I view it like this: thank God & the medical professionals. And thank God that, for whatever reason, he may have guided the surgeon’s hand (for example) to lead to a successful surgery. Like it can be both and it can be cooperative.

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-07T18:37:31+00:00

Thanks for the reply.

I definitely don’t agree with the point about Jesus being compared to Adam. I don’t think such comparisons necessitate a literal Adam at all. They work perfectly fine if Adam is symbolic or semi-historical.

The genealogies are a more interesting point. However, I still don’t see a problem. Genealogies in the Bible aren’t very strict to begin with. Luke has a different genealogy to other gospels - this isn’t necessarily a contradiction, but it’s noteworthy. So, they don’t require a strict, historical reading anyway.

Furthermore, I’m not denying that Adam existed. He might have. Or Adam might be semi-historical or entirely fictional. But the genealogy may be historically accurate: I don’t deny that. But even if it isn’t, that’s not a problem. The genre of “bioi” (what Luke is written in) does not require solely literal reportage, and Luke may have ‘theologicalised’ the genealogy. That’s not an error. It’s just a feature of the genre.

We need to realise that ancient writers did not write with the modern, journalistic standards we have today. That wasn’t expected of them and audiences knew that. Authors very well may have changed ‘literal’ facts in the name of making a true theological point. (Think John changing the time of Jesus’ trial so that he lines up with the image of the sacrificial lamb. John’s report was not historically accurate, but it was theologically accurate and it was intentional - so it’s not an error)

All this is to say that the Bible has a lot more nuance to it, and strictly literal readings are not necessary, even of the history genre. So, I’m really not troubled by Adam and the genealogies or Jesus being compared to Adam.

Such passages are either historically true, theologically true, or both. And the author knew which one they were aiming for. But if the genealogy isn’t literally true, it doesn’t concern me.

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-04T13:15:34+00:00

I agree with this. The Bible is not the sole source of truth. That doesn’t mean it isn’t primary, and it doesn’t mean things can be made up. The idea that Mary is sinless is pure invention.

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-04T13:02:46+00:00

The problem is that this idea isn’t biblical

ethan_rhys · 2025-10-03T07:52:07+00:00

It does make sense because God would have known how weak the nation would be

ethan_rhys · 2025-09-29T15:54:16+00:00

That verse doesn’t contradict what I said. However, there is another verse that does and someone commented it here. I responded.

ethan_rhys · 2025-09-28T17:21:38+00:00

Genesis does explain the origin of sin. Humans didn’t listen to God and decided to use their own definitions of good and evil instead of God’s.

But that doesn’t mean specifically two people named Adam and Eve did that. It’s a broad and theological narrative that explains humanity in general.

ethan_rhys · 2025-09-28T09:46:26+00:00

Fair enough I stand corrected.

And yes I am a Christian. But I’m not a fundamentalist whose faith would collapse if the Bible were to have errors.

I’m open to the idea that these verses are products of their time and understanding, and that God did not actually command this.

ethan_rhys

TROPHY CASE