Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️

@Rosacetus @tufpraise @Duskbringer13 So you don’t actually have evidence, then — just a story you vaguely remember seeing online. That’s hearsay, not proof.

@Byss2_ @tufpraise @Duskbringer13 No I do not have a link because I think what it was creating is morally reprehensible and did not want to store or distribute it.

Oh, so the platform where people voluntarily upload porn of themselves, he wants to shut that down, but when users here create child porn with Grok AI, he refuses to do anything about it.

@Rosacetus @tufpraise @Duskbringer13 That still sounds like hearsay. Grok is so restrictive it won’t even touch mild content like swimsuits, so the idea it was generating full nudes doesn’t line up with how it actually behaves. Do you have an actual source or link, or is this just something you remember seeing?

@Byss2_ @tufpraise @Duskbringer13 I haven’t seen it generate hardcore anything but not even 6 months ago any viral post by a woman had “grok take off her clothes” with ai generated nudes underneath

@RomeGCV @sola_chad How is that mocking God? Mockery is about intent — ridicule, dishonor, rejection. I’m not seeing that here, just a child celebrating something centered around Jesus. Not everything that’s informal or different is automatically disrespect. So what exactly makes this mockery?

@sola_chad God will not be mocked

I’m not sure how I feel about this 😐

@S4H_Church @sola_chad What heresy, specifically? Throwing the word around without defining it isn’t an argument. If your issue is representation, then say that. If it’s doctrine, name the doctrine being violated. Otherwise it just sounds like outrage, not theology.

You’re repeating the claim, not proving it. Saying “you can’t change Scripture” isn’t evidence that Luther did — it’s just restating your conclusion. So again: where is your evidence that Luther altered the Greek text itself? You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise it’s just an assertion, not an argument.

@Byss2_ @BillArnoldTeach The Bible says you can't change it or add on to it I am trying to not be an asshole Catholic. But what the cardinal did and Martin Luther is just that

Martin Luther said “Scripture alone.” Then tried to remove the parts he didn’t like. That’s not authority. That’s editing God.

You’re misunderstanding both points. Sola Scriptura isn’t “changing the Bible” — it’s the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, not that you remove authority or rewrite the text. And moving books to a different category isn’t removal. Luther didn’t delete the Apocrypha — he placed it as useful but not equal to Scripture, which is a distinction, not corruption. So again, where is your evidence that Luther altered the Greek text itself? Without that, the claim that he “changed Scripture” doesn’t stand.

@Byss2_ @BillArnoldTeach That's not Sola Scriptura by changing the Bible or removing books He was a Catholic priest

You’re shifting the argument. The original claim was that Luther “changed Scripture.” So again — do you have evidence he altered the Greek text, or not? Pointing out that English translations don’t include the word “alone” doesn’t prove corruption, because Paul explicitly says justification is apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28, Galatians). “Faith alone” is a theological conclusion drawn from the text, not a claim that every translation must include that exact word. So unless you can show Luther changed the underlying text itself, your claim doesn’t hold.

@Byss2_ @BillArnoldTeach Again Jerome translated from.greek to latin Martin Luther used latin to translate it to German Now where does it say faith alone in The most popular protestant translations to English of Romans 3:28? Not in NIV, NKJV , Gideons etc...

Do you have actual evidence for that claim? Luther’s German translation of Romans 3:28 includes “alone,” but he didn’t change the meaning — he clarified what Paul argues throughout Romans and Galatians: justification is by faith apart from works of the law. Even many Catholic scholars acknowledge this was a translation choice, not a textual corruption. So unless you can show Luther altered the Greek text itself, this isn’t “changing Scripture” — it’s interpretation.

@Byss2_ @BillArnoldTeach That was Jerome, Luther did try to change Romans 3:28

That’s not really accurate. Islam still has physical focal points in worship — the Kaaba, the direction of prayer, and the Hajj rituals. So it’s not “just pointing into infinite space.” And if the claim is pure rejection of all prior practices, then why retain pilgrimage structures and rites tied to pre-Islamic Arabia? More importantly, the God described in Islam is not consistent with the God revealed in Scripture — so the issue isn’t just symbols, it’s identity.

@CatholicRob In Islam you won't see a idol or any symbol if worship , just praying pointing towards infinite space .

Reminder, Hindus worship demons. For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.  (Psalm 95:5, D-R)

Romans 11 literally warns Gentiles not to be arrogant toward Israel. If the Church replaced Israel, that warning makes no sense. Paul also says Israel’s rejection is not final (Romans 11:25–29) — meaning God’s covenant with them still stands. So it’s not “fake Israel vs real Israel.” It’s one olive tree — with Gentiles grafted in, not replacing the root.

✠ Christians Are The True Israel ✠

@IsaiahKoch9 @AnimeBibleVerse @Twilight5parkle What are your exceptions then?

@AnimeBibleVerse @Twilight5parkle And AI should have stopped at SmarterChild. Modern AI is crap with maybe one or two exceptions at most.

You seem to be shifting the standard. Earlier the claim was that disagreement suggests a lack of clarity. Now the requirement appears to be that the Bible must definitively settle every question before any interpretation can be considered established. But that standard would make knowledge impossible in almost every field, since informed people disagree about many things while still recognizing that some interpretations are stronger than others. So the issue isn’t whether absolute certainty exists, but whether the biblical data consistently points in one direction. If it does, then disagreement alone doesn’t overturn that.

@Byss2_ @taco_talks And you are assuming that every question must be definitely answerable through the information available to us, but you have yet to show the Bible definitively endorses any particular Christology or that belief in lesser divine beings is clearly inconsistent with the Bible.

Mormonism is polytheistic. It’s not Christian by any biblical definition.

I think you are restating the same point in a more qualified way, but it still rests on the same assumption. You are treating disagreement among informed people as a strong indicator of a lack of clarity, but that does not necessarily follow. Disagreement can just as easily reflect differences in interpretation rather than a problem with the text itself. We see the same pattern in other fields where well-informed people disagree, yet we would not conclude that the subject itself lacks clarity. So the existence of disagreement does not establish that Scripture is unclear. It simply brings us back to the original question of which interpretation best accounts for the whole of the text.

@Byss2_ @taco_talks As for the Bible, it would seem each party would insist their interpretation is the best fit, but that doesn't mean any interpretation is correct. Maybe they all miss the mark. Maybe the Bible offers no clear answer on some points, or even suggests different answers at times.

If your standard is that disagreement implies a lack of clarity, then that principle would undermine every field of knowledge, not just Scripture. People disagree about science, history, and even basic facts. That does not mean those fields lack clarity; it means interpretation and conclusions can be disputed. So the existence of disagreement does not demonstrate that Scripture is unclear. It simply shows that readers can arrive at different interpretations. The real question is not whether disagreement exists, but which interpretation best accounts for the whole of the text.

@Byss2_ @taco_talks I never said anything about creating scripture or that it was arbitrarily chosen, but that a selection criteria I not arbitrary does not mean it produces correct results. And if interpretations can be disputed, that would seem to point to a lack of perfect clarity in all cases.

The question assumes the canon was arbitrarily chosen, but historically the Church did not “create” Scripture, it recognized it. The writings were received based on apostolic authority, consistency with existing Scripture, and widespread use across the early churches. So it was not a case of librarians selecting texts at random, but of identifying the writings that already carried authority. And once that body of Scripture is recognized, it interprets itself. As 2 Timothy 3:16 says, Scripture is God-breathed, so it is internally consistent and can be tested against itself. The fact that groups like the Arians used the same texts does not mean the message is unclear, but that interpretation can be disputed. The question then becomes which reading best accounts for the whole of Scripture, not isolated passages.

@Byss2_ @taco_talks I'm not sure I follow your argument. Arians used the same Bible as the Church, so perhaps some points are not as clear as you suggest. And how do we know the librarians were correct the canon hung together, chose all and only the right texts, and interpreted them correctly?

You keep asserting a contradiction, but you have not actually demonstrated one, you have only repeated the same category mistake in different forms. Your entire argument depends on treating nature and role as identical, when Scripture consistently distinguishes them. Acts 2:36 does not mean Jesus became Lord in essence, it is describing His public exaltation as the incarnate Son after the resurrection. The one who humbled Himself is now openly declared and enthroned. You are reading made as created or acquired in nature, when the text is about vindication and installation, not ontological change. Your appeal to the Psalms works against you, not for you. Psalm 110 presents a figure David calls his Lord, seated at the right hand of YHWH. That is not a mere agent being honored, that is a figure sharing in divine authority and rule. Jesus Himself uses this passage to show the Messiah is greater than David, not merely his descendant. So instead of proving distinction from YHWH in the way you intend, the text introduces a complexity within the identity of God that your framework cannot account for. The worship argument collapses just as quickly. Yes, there are instances of people bowing in respect, but Scripture clearly distinguishes that from worship proper. When angels are given worship, they immediately refuse it. When men are treated as divine, it is corrected. Jesus does neither. He receives worship without rebuke, in contexts that go beyond mere honor. And Philippians 2 applies the language of Isaiah 45, where YHWH alone declares that every knee will bow to Him, directly to Jesus. That is not agency, that is identity. You are forced to redefine worship itself to avoid the implication. Your question about Isaiah 45 is a diversion, not an argument. The issue is not how many persons are speaking, but who the language belongs to. YHWH claims exclusive worship, and that same exclusive worship is given to Jesus. You have not answered that, you have only tried to move the discussion sideways. The text does not say every knee will bow to an agent on behalf of YHWH, it says what belongs uniquely to YHWH is fulfilled in Christ. Finally, your claim that if Jesus is YHWH then YHWH has a God simply repeats the same misunderstanding. The Son, having taken on human nature, speaks to the Father as His God. That does not negate His divine nature any more than His hunger negates His divinity. You are collapsing the incarnation into a single category and then declaring contradiction when the text refuses to fit your reduction. The problem is not that Scripture is inconsistent, it is that your framework cannot handle what it actually says.

@Byss2_ @taco_talks .... If you believe Jesus is YHWH, it logically follows that YHWH has a God.Your interpretation results in contradictions bursting at the seams

Jesus is the God who gave us the Mosaic Law.

I’m the one who brought up that the Bible is a library, not you. You’re just trying to turn that into a sceptical argument after the fact. The point was that Scripture is read as a unified canon, not fragmented. And when it’s read that way, there’s consistent agreement across Christianity on who Christ is — Lord and Saviour. Differences in interpretation don’t prove confusion, they prove people approach the same text differently. And appealing to the “librarians” doesn’t help your case, because the same Church that recognised the canon also affirmed Christ’s divinity. You’re not challenging my point, you’re borrowing it and misusing it.

@Byss2_ @taco_talks Of course, many reading scripture in perfectly good faith have come away with very different ideas about how it presents Christ. Then, of course, if the Bible is a library, there is the question of the soundness of the librarians' judgment.

You’re forcing a contradiction that only exists if you ignore the incarnation. Philippians 2 isn’t saying Jesus became Lord in essence, it’s describing His exaltation as the incarnate Son after humbling Himself. Paul literally applies Isaiah 45:23 to Jesus, where every knee bows to Yahweh, so your agent argument collapses immediately because that worship belongs to God alone. The name given to Him isn’t something He lacked, it’s the public declaration of who He truly is as the God-Man. And when you ask if Yahweh has a God, you’re confusing nature with role. The Son, having taken on human nature, can speak of the Father as His God without ceasing to be Yahweh in His divine nature. You’re not exposing a contradiction, you’re rejecting the category Scripture itself gives you.

@Byss2_ @taco_talks As I already pointed out as you conveniently ignored, Phi 2:11 makes it clear that angels bow down to Jesus as the Father's agent. Which is why it is not to Jesus' glory but to the Father's glory. Why would Jesus be given a name that was already his in the first place? ...