Chaso

@BillSimmons @CKlosterman it will never happen, but the best thing for the NBA would be to turn it into the Premiere League, where teams can be relegated. There would be 2 leagues. You could have new rich owners buy in to the second league knowing they could find their way into the true NBA. They could use college stadiums or other unused stadiums like the one in Anaheim. Would solve tanking and a variety of other problems, and create more competition and local fan bases super dedicated to teams who they believe have a chance to make it to NBA.

@MikeWingerii Actually have thought about that before but usually forget to consider that... would make sense given international political motives.

@FastChase How many are bots?

Some guys are so focused on outward masculinity that it becomes feminine. When there is constant grooming, obsession with clothes, perfectionism in signaling and setting a masculine stage, and posturing in all scenarios as outwardly strong and masculine, there is something preening and glam about it.

Why is the threat of Hell (eternal conscious torment) one of Christianity’s core doctrines, yet the Apostle Paul fails to mention it even once? Did it slip his mind? Did he not want to offend anyone? Did the risen Christ forget to tell Paul? Think people, FGS, think . . .

@jj_redick Adou Thiero is better than Kuminga, save your money

@DoctorPerin I was in a masters program the last 2 years and let me tell you.... things have changed from when I was in undergrad when you actually had to at least skim papers to include them as sources.

Really grateful that I finished my dissertation before ChatGPT

@OrthoComics @0JasonMichael0 @MikeWingerii Put a picture up middle schooler, what are you hiding from?

@0JasonMichael0 @MikeWingerii @MikeWingerii do you agree with this protestant that Constantine corrupted the Christian faith?

Ortho bros will lose just for being annoying junior highers. And because they make stuff up.

@TrygstadBryan @CherylSchatz I get that, you're very nice about it, which is admirable. I'm a bit jaded. I find committed infernalists tend to be some of the most stubborn, hypocritical people. But good for you.

@FastChase @CherylSchatz I try not to give people a hard time about believing in ECT. Most do, or have done in the past. I just try to make my case or argument and work on the questions they have that I could/should have better answers for.

Who exactly is it that is the author of sin?

She doesn't believe that. She's an infernalist, not an annihilationist, from what I recall at least. Could be wrong. Nearly certain she believes people will burn/ wallow in darkness right beside Satan, but any time she is presented with universalism she punts to Satan and his angels as her proof.

@CherylSchatz @FastChase It's scorcher this morning, going to have to dust off the bike for a ride. While eating my tuna on toast, I thought I would ask again the question you didn't respond to. Who put Jesus on the cross? Of all the evil in the world, who is worse, Man or Satan? But only one gets mercy?

@personXpersonY @MikeWingerii Such an eye roll, the overconfidence is hilarious! I actually think you may be mentally ill. Cheers my friend.

Lmao. Pure delusion! You were absolutely and positively destroyed by the facts here. Only a truly mentally disturbed person of pure ignorant and unstable cope that can't even read wouldn't be able to see that. You provided zero evidence for anything, and I piled your neophytic prepubescent, undeveloped brain cavity with mountains of Scripture and facts that directly and I mean directly and instantly refuted everything you believe. Stop the cope, you're just twisting Scripture to your own destruction. I mean come on Arianism?! Arianism in 2026 that Jesus directly says condemns you to die in your sins and you are still at this ignorance? You're so far away from the truth you are a dog outside the gates teetering into the Lake of Fire which is your destruction.

Tyler Robinson shot Charlie Kirk. Candace Owens shot his family.

@personXpersonY @MikeWingerii Lol it's funny because you're utterly, utterly and so confidently wrong. Anyways go away kid haha

@FastChase @MikeWingerii Yeah I'm confident because what I have said is directly what Scripture says and I can also read. You know what it doesn't say? Everything you have said. It's pure delusion.

@personXpersonY @MikeWingerii The most confident ones like yourself will be the most surprised by the outcome. No hard feelings though we will find out in time.

@FastChase @MikeWingerii The Scripture directly says so which I have provided many times here. Like absolute, unwavering, plain statements that directly refute your made up positions. Unquestionable. Have a good one though.

Interestingly you're reading "destruction" into Revelation 20, but the passage itself doesn't say that. And as a Catholic, you don't actually believe the lake of fire means people are ultimately destroyed. You believe they're resurrected for judgment and continue existing forever. So the real debate isn't whether judgment happens, it's whether that judgment is endless. I don't think Scripture teaches that. Paul ends the whole argument in Romans 11:32: "God has consigned all to disobedience so that He may have mercy on all." Anyways not responding anymore, good times though. Consider what it will be like if I'm right and you proceed to judgment perceiving God as a mass eternal torturer when He is not.

Literally those who are not found in the Book of Life are thrown into the Lake of Fire which is destruction. Revelation 20:15 says it directly: “And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.” And Paul wasn't accused of Universalism. And human will often frustrates God which has consequences. He doesn't coerce human will. He "gives them over to their own desires" Thats free will. Did God make them sin? That's insane. Romans 1:24 says: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.” Some receive mercy some do not based on their own desires or God's Will. So again your two systems are literally a paradox. Romans 9:15 says: “For he says to Moses, ‘I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.’”

@personXpersonY @MikeWingerii If you say so 🍻

@FastChase @MikeWingerii I mean okay but I have the facts of Scripture and you really have nothing but making up stuff out of your own mind. Maybe you'll get a clue one day for your own sake. Especially the Arianism. That's a Damnable belief. Or rather non-belief. Be well though.

@personXpersonY @MikeWingerii Didn't mean to capitalize some. Typo. Anyways I'm going to bed. I can tell we won't agree which is fine. Best of.... predestination to you going forward.

Those verses prove my point- they show that some understand before others. They don't say the rest never will. Luke 8:10 says it's granted to SOME to understand. That sounds a lot more like God's timing than autonomous free will. And none of those passages overturn the verses which clearly say God will ultimately reconcile all through Christ.

You're assuming judgment and reconciliation cannot exist together. I don't. Universalism doesn't deny final judgment. It denies that judgment is God's final act. Scripture repeatedly says judgment has a purpose and that God will ultimately reconcile all through Christ. And the "why not just sin?" objection isn't new. Paul was accused of teaching the same thing in Romans 3:8 and Romans 6:1. Grace has always been accused of encouraging sin. It didn't make Paul's gospel false, and it doesn't make universal reconciliation false either. And regarding free will, if human will can permanently frustrate God's purpose to reconcile all, then human choice ends up stronger than God's will. I don't see that taught anywhere in Scripture.

And none of that is temporary judgement those are talking about final judgement. Why even have a final judgement if everyone is just accepted and it didn't matter? God just playing out some meaningless Sadistic exercise again? The purpose is God gave free will to NOT control His creations, that inevitably created Satan who exemplified the extreme of rebellion against God because of free will. So in order for that not to happen again and to give His creation a temporary learning vessel to choose between God or Satan and learn the lesson He created this existence. And if you don't learn or prove your loyalty then that cannot continue to the heavenly realm again. This kind of teaching just leads to doing whatever you want sinning or no sinning because you will just be saved no matter what and nothing in Scripture is actually true. Wildly heretical Inversion. God's just a liar trying to trick you for some reason even though He's just going to save you anyway.

I'm not against the idea that God is outside of time. I'm saying you're treating what you're infering like it's an explicit statement when it's absolutely not. Those verses clearly teach God is eternal, existed before creation, and isn't bound the way we are. I agree with all of that. But they never literally say, "God exists outside of time." That's your conclusion, not the wording of the text. Even William Lane Craig, Nicholas Wolterstorff, and Alan Padgett, all well known Christian philosophers and theologians who've spent decades studying Scripture, don't all agree that God currently exists outside of time. It's a little odd how certain you are when you're arguing for a philosophical conclusion rather than an explicit biblical statement. Classical Catholic theology favors timelessness, but you're presenting it as if the text itself leaves no room for discussion, and I don't think it does. Nor does it really pertain to universalism or unitarianism.

Yes that literally means outside of time. Outside of this dimensional reality. Just as Paul goes up to Third heaven. Or the fact that Eden was not on earth but a higher realm at the Top of the Mountain of God between heaven and earth. Many examples of this concept of God existing outside time. He literally started the procession of the heavens in this dimension to begin time. A self-existence and timeless being. Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were born... from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." Isaiah 46:9–10 "I am God... declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done." Isaiah 57:15 "For thus says the high and exalted One who inhabits eternity..." Literally speaks of God dwelling in eternity. Peter 3:8 "With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day." Revelation 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega... who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." Timothy 1:9 God "granted us [grace] in Christ Jesus from all eternity (literally, "before times eternal") Ephesians 1:4 "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world." Not even sure your angle of why you would be opposed to this fact.

It's basic stuff that your echo chamber called the Vatican whispers in your ear over and over again. You're assuming what you're trying to prove. The fact that the Septuagint uses ego eimi ho on in Exodus 3 doesn't mean every occurrence of ego eimi is a claim to deity. Context determines meaning. In John 8, the entire discussion is about Jesus being the one sent by the Father (Messiah), and just a few verses earlier he says the Father sent him (John 8:16, 18, 28–29), then in John 8:40 he says, "I am a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God." As for them trying to stone him or falling back in John 18, people's reactions don't determine what Jesus meant. John's Gospel repeatedly shows people misunderstanding Jesus. You're reading a later theological conclusion back into the text instead of letting the context speak for itself.

Lol. No. It's used without a predicate at the end of sentences or in places where it makes no grammatical sense other than the divine name unlike regular I am this or that. The Septuagint translators explicitly translated Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh as Ego Eimi Ho On. And we know this because the reactions of the people. When he says this they fall back in astonishment or Pharisee try to stone him because of the perceived blasphemy of claiming Godhood. This is basic stuff. You need to do a vast and mean vast amount more studying of Scripture because you're not even close. John 8:58: “Before Abraham was, I AM.” John 8:24: “Unless you believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.” John 18:5: “Jesus said to them, I AM.”

You're still assuming what you're trying to prove. "I am the Beginning and the End" doesn't explicitly teach God exists outside of time. You can infer that, but you can't demand everyone else does. And election has never meant "final destiny." It's about being chosen for a purpose. Universalism has no problem with temporary judgment or an elect in this eon. The real question is whether God's judgments are His final word, and I don't think Scripture says they are.

Lol. You just proved it. I AM the beginning and the end. That's outside time. That's divine non locality. Not the beginning or the end but both at the same time. And there's a big difference between the macro chiastic structure of reocurrence and the coercion of human will. I mean it's detailed as well, but it works more like we choose to take paths which could be fulfilled by anyone but we accept the Impartation by our own choices. So if you don't fulfill something then someone else will. And how do you think prophetic designation works then with your Universalism. Like Jews of Esau-Edom/Synagogue of the Devil "I have made their inheritance for the jackals and men will call them the Wicked Territory and the people toward whom the Lord is indignant forever" -Malachi 1. They are also going to be saved even in their obstinance, but it says there are the elect and non elect. So your Calvinism and Universalism mix creates a paradox. God has an elect beforehand which you say cannot change, but then those God has said are accursed forever then cannot be saved? Illogical.