AgainNever

The position not only being held by destiny doesn't have any bearing on the prompt of the debate, sure anyone can debate if destiny think there are moral facts, and that's why Andrew agreed to debate that topic, Pisco ostensibly said he'll debate that topic, but then switched it. And no I don't acknowledge that @paleochristcon is clueless about meta ethics, but I do acknowledge that you are

@AgainNever2 @PiscoLitty Whether or not one thinks there are moral facts is not exclusively indexed to JUST destiny… anyone can debate that topic. Do you acknowledge that Andrew Wilson is next to completely clueless about meta ethics ?

So obvious how scared this guy is. First, lies about me acting “high and mighty” and pretending he and Rob “were dirt” (opposite — I was anti blacklisting Rob). Then tries to charge me thousands. Now removes fee but conditions debate on talking about Destiny’s views not his own.

@sneako Who made man?

Money is manmade not Godmade People spending their lives chasing it are slaves to the men who control the money, instead of slaves of God.

@HumdhanAbdullah @dannyphiltalk @GodLogic_GL @mohammed_hijab "Go read a book" is not pointing out the error, it's a dodge and attempt to flex that you know the name of a discrete mathematics book, but it doesn't actually show how Jay's disjunction was invalid, how expedient

@AgainNever2 @dannyphiltalk @GodLogic_GL @mohammed_hijab Because you don’t even know what invalid means. No one has the patience to provide you a lesson here. Read chapters 2-3 of this to get a grasp of it: Susanna Epp's DISCRETE MATHEMATICS WITH APPLICATIONS

The exchange on the Trinity between @GodLogic_GL and @mohammed_hijab was disappointing, and I'm probably more disappointed in Hijab. GL should have been crushed on account that (1) he's not really invested in learning philosophy or about the LPT and (2) the Trinity is obviously nonsense - which gives Hijab a significant advantage despite any differences in intelligence. Instead, we got an avalanche of confusion and grand-standing from both of them. No one benefited, and there was a point where I just had to turn it off.

@dannyphiltalk @HumdhanAbdullah @GodLogic_GL @mohammed_hijab So you'll waste time asking me "why would you waste time", but not utilize that time pointing out the invalidity? How strange

@AgainNever2 @HumdhanAbdullah @GodLogic_GL @mohammed_hijab Why would I waste my time with someone who doesn't know what an argument is?

@HumdhanAbdullah @dannyphiltalk @GodLogic_GL @mohammed_hijab Where's the invalidity? Instead of yapping

@AgainNever2 @dannyphiltalk @GodLogic_GL @mohammed_hijab Ah yes, an argument from the guys who can’t complete an argument without asking their interlocutor a question. You guys are just a waste of time.

It isn't about agreeing or not agreeing with those verses, it's about why Wes chose that exact verse after blocking Jay for asking him to debate, since Wes is too cowardly to respond, this was his way of responding while trying to maintain some plausible deniability when it's obviously about Jay

@AgainNever2 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer You don't know if this is about Jay. But if it is then good. 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, If Scripture offends you, then you need to check your heart.

Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for building up what is needed, so that it will give grace to those who hear. Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. - Paul, Ephesians 4:29-30

@dannyphiltalk @GodLogic_GL @mohammed_hijab Ah, npc response, so no argument?

@AgainNever2 @GodLogic_GL @mohammed_hijab Ah, a confused dyerite. No wonder.

I just saw you debate Jay on a yt clip a few days ago and you didn't understand that part of his argument was comparing his worldview to yours, so you started freaking out when he asked for your worldview, but that seems perfectly valid so I don't know what you we're whining about

@AgainNever2 @GodLogic_GL @mohammed_hijab ?

@jakefreshy43 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer I thought smug condescension was bad in your other reply? Oh but not when you do it?

@AgainNever2 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer You and others like you are far more damaging to the Orthodox denomination than you are helpful in bringing others to the faith. I'd be surprised if you were even baptized.

@jakefreshy43 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer A debate is not about winning? Lmao, so you don't even know what a debate is, you think people study for a debate to lose? Debate has rules, just like chess has rules, and you are penalized if you break one of those rules

@AgainNever2 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer The priority should be vocalizing each others theological differences and why you adhere to what makes those differences, not simply "winning" and making the other "lose" which is the standard you uphold to what should be just a simple theological discussion.

@jakefreshy43 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer So tone policing

@AgainNever2 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer You can rigorously call out logical fallacies, strawman,and weak arguments without defaulting to smug condescension or treating every exchange like a gotcha moment.

@jakefreshy43 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer "Condescending man-child" to you = not letting people make fallacious arguments or strawmanning, you people are so stupid that you don't realize making logical fallacies is a bad thing,and means you lost the debate

@AgainNever2 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer I've addressed my point, you keep ignoring it. There is a way to have theological discussions without being a condescending man-child.

@jakefreshy43 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer Retardation personified

@AgainNever2 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer

@jakefreshy43 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer I just don't care about your tone policing, what are you a child? Address the actual arguments

@AgainNever2 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer Call it whatever you want, there is far better candidates for a theological discussion who can speak on behalf of Orthodox christians. You don't like that because you're a Orthobro who gravitates to watching your master score points from religious superiority.

@jakefreshy43 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer Good chance I'm not even talking to a human

@AgainNever2 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer Listen to it, maybe something will get through that thick skull of yours.

@jakefreshy43 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer So tone policing? Its always the tone, you're too prim

@AgainNever2 @WesleyLHuff @JayDyer You can have a normal theological discussion while calling out fallacies without sounding like condescending man-child.

@In_Christ_Al0ne @Jerrsosaved @TheOtherPaul2 Why tf would I address ai slop? You should be embarrassed, totally unserious

@AgainNever2 @Jerrsosaved @TheOtherPaul2 Ai slop or not, you're not addressing the content or the argument, which isn't surprising.

Posts like these show why "Orthobros" are Reprobates. They do not represent Christ nor do they represent the Fruit of the Spirit. A beggar, with simple faith and humility, is more of a Christian than these "Orthobros".

@In_Christ_Al0ne @Jerrsosaved @TheOtherPaul2 So you just gave me copy paste ai slop? Wtf

Let's also look at what's actually happening beneath the surface when someone speaks with contempt, mockery, or dismissiveness toward another person — because it isn't just a tone problem. Every act of contemptuous speech carries an implicit verdict. When you mock someone, when you dismiss them, when you speak to them as though they are beneath serious engagement — you are not merely expressing frustration. You are pronouncing something about that person. About their worth. About their standing. About what they deserve. That is, by definition, an act of judgment. And judgment is not a thing we are authorized to render. Christ could speak as He did because He is the Judge — not as a title, not as a metaphor, but eschatologically and literally. When He called the Pharisees whitewashed tombs and a brood of vipers, He was speaking as the one before whom they would one day stand. He possessed perfect and complete knowledge of their interior condition, their culpability, the precise state of their hearts. His words weren't frustration. They weren't rhetoric. They were a verdict — rendered by the only one in existence with the standing to render it. You are not that. I am not that. -Romans 14:4 — 'Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls.' This isn't a command to be endlessly agreeable. It's a jurisdictional statement. You don't have the standing. -Romans 12:19 — final verdict belongs to God alone. James 3:9 — to curse or demean someone made in God's image is to speak against a dignity that God Himself established and that is not yours to revoke. This is why the Epistles prohibit the kind of speech they prohibit. It isn't because the apostles were conflict-averse or culturally mild. It's because contemptuous speech, at its root, is an act of unauthorized judgment — a usurpation of an office that belongs to Christ alone. You asked where it says don't talk like Jesus. It's not one verse. It's the entire apostolic framework for what we are and are not authorized to do. We are not judges. He is. That's not a limitation on following Christ. That is the whole point of following Him.

@In_Christ_Al0ne @Jerrsosaved @TheOtherPaul2 Wtf is this ai slop?

The issue isn't whether the prophets or Jesus ever spoke harshly. They did. The issue is whether that is your model for how to conduct yourself — and whether you're conveniently skipping the part of the canon written specifically to answer that question. The Epistles exist for a reason. They were written after the Incarnation, after Pentecost, by men Christ personally commissioned — to govern exactly how the Church speaks, acts, and represents Christ in the world. They aren't a footnote to the Gospels. They are the apostolic application of the Gospel to our lives. And on speech specifically, they are unambiguous: Col 4:6 — "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt." Always. Not "except when you're really right." Eph 4:29 — "Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only what builds up." 1 Pet 3:15 — "with gentleness and respect" — the prescribed mode of all Christian witness and defense of the faith. James 3:9-10 — cursing men who are made in God's image with the same tongue used to praise God is treated as a fundamental contradiction. Hard to argue with the image-bearer logic. 2 Tim 2:24-25 — "the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone... correcting opponents with gentleness". This one is particularly strong because it's explicitly in the context of correction and apologetics, not just general niceness. These aren't temperament suggestions for mild-mannered Christians. They are prescriptive apostolic instruction — binding on everyone who claims to follow Christ, including apologists, including podcasters, including you and me. Pointing back to Matthew 23 to justify how you speak on the internet is a hermeneutical shortcut that skips the part of scripture written for you, for this context, for the now. Christ rebuked the Pharisees as the eternal Son of God, with perfect knowledge of their hearts. You don't have that. Neither do I. This is not tone policing. This is canon. If your defense of the faith cannot be conducted within the boundaries the apostles set for our speech — then the problem isn't your critiques. It's your method. (made me upgrade my account for this nonsense...lol)