Pinned Tweet
To any Christian who reads this: I am not attacking Christianity, and I am not trying to disprove God. I am genuinely searching for Him. I am asking how His goodness can be checked, because I cannot see it. These are the questions I have not had answered.
If good just means whatever God is, then “God is good” cannot be checked. It is true because He is the standard, and He is also the one who says what the standard is. An evil being who could set the words would say the same thing: I am good, I tell the truth, do what I say. What shows He is not the evil being, besides His own claim? Saying He cannot lie because He is the ground of truth only blocks a lie about logic. He can keep the rules of truth steady and still lie about His character. Keeping logic true does not make “I am good” true. What stops Him from doing the first and lying about the second?
Does creating something make the creator good? If I make a chair, does that make me good? If I make a nuclear bomb, does that make me good? Parents are not the final judge of what is good just because they made the child. Why would making a world make Him good, if making a chair or a bomb does not make me good?
If you knew, before conceiving a child, that the child would suffer and then go to hell forever, would you still create that child? If you would not, why is it good when God does the same thing, knowing the end in advance? If you would, how is that love and not selfishness, making a person for endless suffering so that you could have the child? Free will may explain why He is not blamed for what the child does. It does not explain why He makes the child when He already knows the child will be lost. Someone may say the child is lost by free refusal, not by God’s choice. A refusal only counts if the person knows they are refusing Him. Most people do not. They have partial information, a bad witness, or no contact with the claim at all. How is that a choice to reject God, rather than a lack of sight He already knew they would have?
Christ’s suffering is called the proof of that love. Jesus said the poor widow gave more than the rich, because they gave out of extra and she gave all she had. An eternal person who cannot die gives a few days of pain and keeps everything. What was actually given up? Calling it infinite because God was the one who suffered does not fix that. The gift still looks large, and it costs Him nothing He does not get back. How is that different from the rich men’s gift?
US Army practices digging temporary battlefield graves
"Phase II of Operation Dragon Covenant challenged troops to test and validate temporary burial operations and remains preservation at a large scale"
"engineers, preventative medicine teams, chaplains and fatality management specialists prepared for mass temporary interment not used on a large scale since the Korean War"
""The Pentagon’s FORTRESS initiative would require every major US military installation to operate on its own for at least 90 days, with independent power, water, fuel and communications...FORTRESS also calls for supplies of ammunition, fuel, minerals, electronics, spare parts and medical supplies"
defensenews.com/land/2026/10…
Tom is actually the good guy and Jerry is the bad guy of the show. I’ve been arguing this with people my entire life. Explains a lot about the world today.
Foid posting about the fear her abuser still holds on her then complains about not being attracted to the passive men she dates. Really makes you wonder why we ever outlawed rape. Apparently everyone loves it.
I have a large music collection and about 5% of it is rap. It's a genre I can enjoy on a rare occasion (mostly I just use it around normies). But sometimes I hear a rap song so bad it makes me want to delete every shred of it from my library.
He's kinda right. The founders couldn't agree on if states had secession rights so they just kicked the can down the road for the future generations to figure out and thus we got the Civil War. If you're going to build something new you have to actually finish it.
Xran retweeted
I think for man, even more than an untouched body the deepest attraction is to a virginity of heart. Man is an innately possessive creature, he wishes for his woman to be uniquely his in all conceivable ways without the scent of other men lingering on her. A woman who has never romantically desired, liked nor entertained another man can be seen as special in that she was created for him, because he was the exception for her - the one man she chose amongst men she never chose, the only man she let in when she never let in others, the one man she admired when she never admired others. She never risked herself for other men. She saw herself as something to be given fully and truly once and only once, without breaking herself into tiny pieces and offering up the shards.
But a woman who has desired, entertained and been with men before cannot be convincingly thought of in the same way. She is far less serious, seasonal, recreational - the true man can never see her in the way she would like to be seen - he can never admire and revere her in the way she would like him to, because she has cheapened herself in his eyes. She has liked other men before, which means she could like other men again. What is so special about you? The belief she was made specifically for you and could never love any but you cannot be plausibly maintained, and so within that something special is lost.
This more than anything is the love of womanly purity in its purest and most reverent form. To be the exception to her rules beyond comparison, rather than cheapened into a reference point amongst many, for a woman to truly see her man as uniquely beautiful in a way she has never seen others - to be incomparable is to be made sacred, and within that sacredness a depth of spiritual reverence and true love is born that otherwise cannot be.
Contemporary man is poor at articulating this despite its resonance with him, and the modern woman really undervalues and downplays the importance of this - in truly understanding the depth of this - in saving herself for the one man she would call her husband without subjecting him to the indignity of other men permeating her psyche, for she typically wastes herself and thus approaches this from the position of wanting to deceive man for self-gain, rather than truly wanting to give her perfect man the purest and most undiluted best of herself.
It is in woman’s failure to preserve herself and to take things too far with men who by all rights were never serious marriage candidates or true lovers that she tries to ameliorate her crime, hide it, downplay it, make defensive equivocating claims and comparisons about men needing to save themselves too that the tainted woman tries to “level the playing field.” But none of these shenanigans fundamentally spiritually change anything, for even if a woman is able to win a few social brownie points with this rhetoric, the underlying nature of man remains stubbornly the same: he wants a woman he can call his own, and the only woman who can truly be called his is the one who has never loved nor been touched deeply by a man who wasn’t him.
And so for man, it is very simple: a woman who saved herself for him will always be in a category far above the ones who didn’t. The fastest way for a woman to lose her competitive edge in winning the man she wants for herself then is to, through her own actions, show him she is capable of loving any but him. To imagine you with another man should be impossible, for Eve was made for Adam and Adam alone.
I should be sleeping and instead I’m rolling in bed.
Replying to @slimernator
I've fucked a man before, but between the two of us the only faggot is you. This is a picture of a dude with a woman's name beside it. No tits, short hair, huge chin, bushy eyebrows, wide shoulders and nose.



































