You being pedantic aside, that does not change the fact you're constantly using ad hominems instead of directly addressing content. It is not a good look.
AI is not just a computer. It is connected to the minds of demons. That is why it works so well. Those demons appeared when the ice in Antarctica melted. They were stuck under the ice as a part physical and part non-physical being.
AI fan-fiction is getting spicy. Some of you people are much too comfortable asserting baseless opinions as matter of fact.
Speaking of jewing, here's footage shortly after the cashier in lane 4 at Piggly Wiggly dropped a nickel while providing change.
Ad hominem attacks are a giveaway when someone has no actual argument or standing so they have to resort to attacking the individual. You do this a lot.
Phrasing! sheesh lmao
Guys looks what AI said guys
The guy said let's see what's in it but failed to discuss the book's content while only naming the book. OP parroted the guy's anti-Catholic claim in the title but like the guy in the video, failed to detail what makes it anti-Catholic. It seems like his message and this post are just as much propaganda as the claim of the book being propaganda.
First, I'm of the opinion Catholicism is a false religion that functions on religious traditions not aligned with the bible or teachings of Jesus Christ.
As far as the contents the guy mentioned: The book talks about spiritual warfare, Christ vs Satan, the Second Coming, and trusting the Bible which are all clearly biblical. Where it gets controversial is that the book relies heavily on Ellen G. White’s visions as an authority, which most Christians, including myself, don’t accept as legitimate biblical revelation. According to a cursory look at its other themes such as doctrines like the Investigative Judgment, the 1844 timeline, and Sabbath-keeping as the final end-time test aren’t clearly taught in the New Testament and are rejected by most scholars. A lot of the book's end-time detail (Sunday laws, America’s role, etc.) are very specific claims by the author but not explicitly spelled out in Scripture in the way the author asserts as biblical truth. Because of that, many see it as a 19th-century interpretation layered on top of the Bible, not something derived strictly from it.
Like anything else in the world, read at your own discretion and come to your own conclusions. I have not read the book personally however based on my cursory look at it, I can tell I would agree with some parts and disagree with others based solely on the Word of God.
Same thing happened to me typing it out. :)
I'd go even further - If you're afraid you could hurt someone's feelings by telling the truth, you can't be a Christian. If I call you a fool and you're acting like one, that's not unchristian in the slightest. Scripture and the Church fathers used very harsh language when dealing with heresies and false teachings (and not just language but physical aggression too).
You’re conflating truthfulness with harshness, and Scripture doesn’t do that. Yes, the Bible uses strong language at times. Jesus calls Pharisees “blind guides” and “whitewashed tombs,” Paul says “let them be accursed,” prophets denounce kings.. but none of that gives a blanket license to speak however we want whenever we feel justified. In every one of those cases, the harsh words serve a redemptive or corrective purpose under divine authority, not personal venting or moral posturing. I had this reinforced on my heart earlier with the sermon snippet I shared.
Christ doesn’t say, “Speak the truth no matter how much you enjoy hurting people.” He says, “Speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15). Those two are not opposites. Truth without love is not Christlike; love without truth isn’t either. Paul explicitly says that without love, even correct doctrine makes you nothing but noise (1 Corinthians 13:1–3). That should immediately put a check on the idea that bluntness equals righteousness.
Jesus directly warns against contemptuous, demeaning speech that flows from the heart, not from correction:
“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” Matthew 5:22
The issue isn’t the syllables we use.. it’s the posture of the heart. Christ rebukes to restore; He doesn’t insult to dominate. When He confronts error, it’s measured, purposeful, and aimed at repentance, not humiliation.
As for the appeal to Church Fathers again and “physical aggression,” you’re sliding from description into justification. Scripture never authorizes Christians to use violence to defend doctrine. In fact, it explicitly forbids it. Jesus rebukes Peter for using the sword and says, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matthew 26:52). Paul says the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh (2 Corinthians 10:3–5). If physical aggression were part of Christian orthodoxy, those verses make no sense.
You can denounce false teaching without becoming false in your own conduct. James warns that human anger does not produce the righteousness of God (James 1:20). And Proverbs reminds us that a harsh word stirs up anger, while a gentle answer turns away wrath.. not because gentleness is weakness, but because it’s effective and Godly. So no, Christianity isn’t about being afraid of hurting feelings.. BUT.. it also isn’t about sanctifying cruelty and calling it courage. Christ didn’t tell us to win arguments; He told us to make disciples. And if the truth is really from God, it doesn’t need contempt, threats, or fists to carry its weight.
Being bold is biblical. Being truthful is biblical. Confusing aggression with holiness isn’t no matter how many appeals to wordly authority or how much tradition you try to wrap around it.
I’m not the one appealing to my own understanding here. I’m appealing to the final and controlling authority Christ and the apostles themselves appealed to.
Jesus didn’t say “you have heard from the fathers,” He said “it is written.” And when Satan quoted Scripture correctly but applied it wrongly, Jesus didn’t defer to tradition. He corrected the interpretation with more Scripture.
Yes, the God of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ. John 1, Colossians 1, and 1 Corinthians 10 are explicit about that. No argument there. But acknowledging that doesn’t mean every covenantal command given to Israel applies unchanged to Christians after the cross. The apostles explicitly say otherwise. Hebrews exists for this exact reason, and it wasn’t written by modern Protestants.
Psalm 110 is messianic. Jesus Himself says so in Matthew 22. David is speaking prophetically about Christ’s exaltation and God subduing His enemies. But notice something important: Christ Himself tells us how that psalm is fulfilled, and it’s not by His followers taking vengeance. He reigns until His enemies are made a footstool.. by the Father. That’s divine judgment, not Christian retaliation. The same distinction applies to Revelation, the Psalms of judgment, and prophetic language throughout Scripture.
As for Psalm 58 and Psalm 139, those are imprecatory psalms. They describe righteous longing for God’s justice, not a license for believers to cultivate hatred or take vengeance themselves. Paul, who knew those Psalms far better than either of us, still says plainly: “Bless those who persecute you… never avenge yourselves… leave room for the wrath of God.” If David’s emotional expressions override apostolic command, then Paul is contradicting Scripture.
Narrator: he isn’t.
You asked if I think I’m “above David.” No. That said, David himself was not above correction, which Scripture openly records. And keep in mind that David was not living under the New Covenant sealed in Christ’s blood. The apostles are not embarrassed to say this distinction matters. Hebrews 7, 8, 9, and 10 spell it out exhaustively.
On interpretation: Scripture interprets Scripture because Christ authorized the apostles, not an amorphous later tradition, to bind and loose doctrine. And those same apostles warn repeatedly that tradition can nullify God’s word. Jesus says that explicitly in Matthew 15. So “the fathers said so” is not an argument unless it agrees with apostolic teaching. Tradition is a witness, not a trump card.
On lying: Scripture never calls a lie virtuous. God can sovereignly use sinful actions to bring about good ends BUT that does not redefine the action itself as righteous. Rahab is commended for her faith, not for lying. The text is explicit about what is praised. Paul shuts this exact argument down in Romans 3: “Let us do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just.” Love does not require violating Christ’s commands; it requires trusting God with the outcome.
And this constant move of calling forgiveness “weak” just doesn’t survive contact with the New Testament. The cross is the interpretive center of Scripture, not tribal survival ethics. Christ had every right to retaliate and chose not to. Then He commanded His disciples to follow Him, not Moses’ civil code, not David’s war poetry, but Him.
You can keep accusing me of modernism, but the irony is you’re the one flattening Scripture into a single undifferentiated ethic and then calling nuance heresy. The apostles didn’t do that. Jesus didn’t do that. The New Testament doesn’t do that.
I’m not rejecting Scripture for Christ. I’m reading Scripture through Christ, exactly the way He told us to.
Look fella, if I'm going to be your new handshake throwaway account, you better start getting more agreeable. Capiche?
Like I said
Actual evidence would be a great start. Conjecture and implication just doesn't quite do it for me.
Fair. When time permits I will give you the responses your comments deserve as you obviously put time in crafting them.
My greatest enemy is technically ... myself, fighting with my own fleshly lusts and desires. Satan influences but I choose and act. I am thankful having the Holy Spirit on my side of this battle.
This message brought to you by speech to text while driving.
Nah. If I abandon this username, it is because I abandoned this site entirely and its 11 users. :)
None of that proves anything in case you are not aware.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly acknowledge that possibility exists though none of what is in that graphic, or any other picture or opinion for that matter, has ever come close to convincing me otherwise. I'll bend when I see something of substance and I've looked for it on my own for ~10 years. If I cannot convince myself with my own research, you definitely will not.
FWIW, I am not a fan at all of his seeming close relationship with the juice box club however I think you and I are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge that keeping friends close and enemies closer is a very on-brand Trump move. See: Art of the Deal
Anyway.. It is easy to remain neutral when my faith is in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ alone.
Oh I still think your perspective is wrong. I still reject it. I'm just going to be more kind about it moving forward.
This snippet is from one of the sermons I listened to this morning and it made me think of not just our exchange, but how I interact online:
This is a very base, coarse, rancorous, angry, hate-filled, volatile, pejorative culture in which we live. It seems as though all normal restrained discourse has been replaced by ugly, bitter, attacking, devouring speech at all levels; and that has, as it seems everything does in the culture, made its way to church. And the Internet seems to be where all that is played out with a measure of escapability and anonymity where you can pour out your animosity, your hate and your ad hominem attacks and feel good about it, when, in fact, you should not. Doesn’t honor the Lord for Christians to be having a food fight on the Internet over every issue and pointing what’s wrong with everybody else, while the world watches this betrayal of everything that we say we believe and everything the Lord would have to be true about us as His people.
Have a blessed day, brother.
I wonder how it makes you feel knowing that I stopped reading your heresies 2 comments ago. lol
A six-pointed blue wave, amirite rabbi?
Imagine knowing Trump was calling out Epstein Island publicly years before it was in the mainstream but still acting like he might be involved neffariously. It takes a special kind of dumb or a handful of silver but maybe both.
It was a generalization. Being you are what you are, I can tell how desperately you need this "win" so, sure. No argument even though it was directed at your collective responses in general and not that specific comment but okay. yOu WiN tHiS TiMe