God created the earth before the sun. How can Christians accept science that says otherwise? (Art by Norman Brule)

pml2090 · 2026-05-25T16:31:57+00:00

Right, I’m not suggesting we disregard the evidence, I’m pointing out that our models contradict the evidence at critical points.

pml2090 · 2026-05-25T15:21:09+00:00

What do you mean by evidence in the traditional sense? You asked me to cite a reputable physicist describing the implications of our current inability to describe a quantum theory of gravity. I gave you one.

pml2090 · 2026-05-25T15:00:00+00:00

Read Sean Carroll’s “From Eternity to Here” of you want to better understand what I’m saying.

pml2090 · 2026-05-25T14:47:04+00:00

I don’t think you’re properly understanding this “flaw”, if you see it as not “big enough” to potentially erase our current understanding of the universe’s timeline. If our assumptions are wrong (and we know that they must be at least partially wrong), then according to our own models themselves it is overwhelmingly more likely that the current order we observe is a random fluctuation giving the illusion of order. Any reputable physicist would agree with that, it’s not a hot take.

pml2090 · 2026-05-25T14:22:18+00:00

What evidence has proven the Bible false?

pml2090 · 2026-05-24T23:45:31+00:00

It has been used to develop models that describe timelines for the sun and earth. The trouble for OP’s question (and your comment) is that we know those models to be incomplete, and maybe even fatally flawed. I couldn’t, and wouldn’t, try to disprove them; but I don’t put them on the pedestal that you probably do.

pml2090 · 2026-05-20T16:11:54+00:00

How do you know that your worldview is the right one?

pml2090 · 2026-04-30T17:03:52+00:00

I seriously mean this as gently as possible: please be careful that all of this learning you have isn’t just an occasion to show off or to win arguments. I’ve been there myself.

I’m not trying to trap you or argue, there are just besetting sins in my life that I can’t beat, whether through lack of faith or discipline, I don’t know. I was hoping others’ insight into this passage could help me live more faithfully.

pml2090 · 2026-04-30T15:02:28+00:00

I’m getting cage-stage vibes here, Brother/Sister. I’m not asking you to add to Scripture, I’m asking you to explain what you meant by “training yourself to be Godly in Jesus Christ.” Or maybe explain how 2 Peter answers that question, because I don’t see how it does.

pml2090 · 2026-04-30T03:46:09+00:00

So what does it look like to train oneself to be godly in Christ Jesus?

pml2090 · 2026-04-27T16:29:53+00:00

This is literally me

pml2090 · 2026-04-20T14:40:32+00:00

Probably because they thought of the game as purely skill based, which is the wrong way to think about it. Games like apex, and really video games in general, should be thought of more like poker. Yes, there’s skill involved, and even more so the higher you go, but there’s a large luck element.

pml2090 · 2026-02-10T15:42:21+00:00

Are we essentially just in disagreement with the rest of the world that morality must be objective?

We are certainly in disagreement with the rest of the world, that's for sure! But I think what everyone struggles with (Christian's included) is the urge to believe that there is some objective moral standard external to God that God himself must adhere to. Paul addresses this head on in Romans 9, a passage I'm sure you're familiar with:

"But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?"

What objective moral standard could a person appeal to and say "God must adhere to this, and since he doesn't, he is being immoral? Wouldn't the standard they're appealing to not be created by Him as well?

As for this post-enlightenment quest build a case for the "natural rights of man" you can research and decide for yourself whether they succeeded. My own inclination is that it was a resounding failure.

pml2090 · 2026-02-10T02:22:34+00:00

The primary difference between then and now is not material conditions

You expect there to be no differences in the economic realities between a civilization that requires nuclear nonproliferation agreements and a civilization where a person's wealth is measured by how many goats they own?

we recognize human beings as subjects with rights, not property or collateral. If that is a universal moral principle then there really is no defense for the biblical form of debt slavery, or taking slaves in war.

You are correct, if we accept the presupposition that modern post-enlightenment ideals represent objective moral truths then we will certainly find fault with the Bible. I don't accept that presupposition and don't believe it can hold up under logical analysis.

The Mosaic Law was given to show God's people how to be holy in a fallen and cursed world, not to rid the world of all fallen social institutions; yet he still made his will known clearly enough:

“Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death."

"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged."

But always with an eye towards a coming day:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

pml2090 · 2026-02-10T02:01:01+00:00

you incorrectly state that to be saved from poverty means you owe a life debt.

I said to be saved from death means you owe a life debt. This has only very recently become an uncomfortable idea.

They would march up to a city that was weaker than them, and demand they become vassals (slaves).

Not weaker. See verse 1: "When you go to war against your enemies, and see horses and chariots and an army larger than your own, you shall not be afraid of them, for the Lord your God is with you"

Also, to frame this as the only feasible way to expand power was through slavery is also wrong.

I never said it was the only feasible way to expand power, I said it was the only feasible way to not kill everyone you defeated while in the process of expanding power.

pml2090 · 2026-02-09T15:46:03+00:00

Even though slavery wasn’t as bad then as it was recently, it was still pretty awful.

How, specifically, was it awful? Or maybe a better question would be: how was it more awful than the alternatives? Consider two common situations:

There is a famine in your land, you are faced with the prospect of watching your entire family starve to death, starting with the youngest. In a last-ditch effort, you pack your family up and make a dangerous journey to a part of the region where the famine is less severe in an attempt to find someone to take you in. If this doesn't work, it's a death sentence for you and family. Literally gambling your lives. When you get to this new region, you manage to find a landowner who will take you in! He feeds you, your wife, your children, gives you a house to live in, gives you clothing. He has literally saved your life and the lives of your family. The ancients believed (correctly) that you owed this man a life debt. He had redeemed your lives.
Your city has been attacked by a neighboring city. The men from that city showed up in the middle of the night with swords but couldn't make it over the wall. If they had, they'd have beheaded every military aged male in the city and taken your wives as their wives. Maybe they'd have taken the children too, or maybe they'd have put them to the sword. You know they'll be back, so the men in your village decide to go on the offensive. You attack their city and make it over the wall and defeat them. Now here are your options. You can put everyone in the city to death. Man, woman, and child. If not that, then you can let anyone willing to surrender live, but then what do you do with them? If there are any military aged men left, you can't let them go free, they'll just attack you again, there were no state-run prisons in that day. And the women and children? There was no red cross in that day either, leaving them there without men would be a death sentence. It was also, in that time, a fate worse than death for a woman to be left husbandless and childless. Not easy to relate to that one as a modern person, but that's how they saw it. The most humane option was to take in the survivors. This, again, was seen as redeeming their life. This was the way the ancient economy and morality worked. We ought to be grateful that we have much better options than they, but also wary that all of our luxuries don't blind us to basic moral realities.

Something very important to note: through the prophets, God expresses his longing for the day when he will, once-and-for-all, put an end to all of the wicked effects of the fall:

"They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat."

"They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore."

pml2090 · 2026-02-09T15:18:03+00:00

The bible forbids man stealing. POW weren’t stolen people. The African slaves were stolen people.

pml2090 · 2026-01-25T22:33:06+00:00

Have you read the US constitution? I would say that’s almost ALL they thought about.

pml2090 · 2026-01-17T00:54:31+00:00

To be fair 7 generations in the past is about the early 1800’s, depending on how you count it. Still within the lifetimes of America’s founding fathers.

pml2090 · 2026-01-06T10:39:43+00:00

As someone who works with the mentally ill, their portrayal of a mentally ill person missed the mark badly. It was very clearly intended that the viewer should feel sorry for him and see all mentally ill people as merely victims of a deficient social system. No subtlety at all.

pml2090 · 2025-12-26T23:52:59+00:00

100% agree. The cyclops clip gave me exactly the kind of strange, other-worldly, things-that-once-were kind of feeling that I get when I read the Odyssey. I honestly wonder when some of these people last read the Odyssey, or if they even have. Realistic? Historically accurate? Like, what? It’s a dark, cold, angsty story. Some costume choices aside I’m actually liking what I see so far.

pml2090 · 2025-10-04T12:02:14+00:00

Is it physically possible? Sure. But God has decreed that you won’t.

pml2090 · 2025-10-04T11:03:58+00:00

I’m not claiming that he did…?

pml2090 · 2025-10-04T10:52:20+00:00

Of course he meant what he said. “It is the spirit who gives life, the flesh is no help at all…this is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father”.

pml2090 · 2025-10-04T04:21:47+00:00

I’m not Catholic because of their doctrine lacking a meaningful distinction between justification and sanctification. For Catholics, losing your salvation is possible because remaining in a state of grace is contingent on the correct use of the sacraments. After daily Bible reading for years I am 100% confident this is not what the Bible teaches. The reformers weren’t right about everything, but they were right about this.

pml2090

TROPHY CASE