Snyder

[El Luchador]

4 minutes ago, AZ_wrestling said:

Wish this place had moderators that would keep discussions on topic. Take your religious and philosophical yapping to Reddit. 

I'm all for that but if someone wants to disparage a fellow Christian for being a Christian I will defend both. 

[Reality Check]

speaking as someone that has spent years being annoyed by the obsessive “Glory to God” shtick- the creeps that act like they’ve living a perfect life and Snyder is the first man who ever listened to the wrong head are so much worse.  Kinda weird obsessing over another man’s sex life, don’t you think? 

Before you take shots at a great man like Kyle Snyder from your anonymous handle, maybe take a look at your own phony self-righteousness.

[BruceyB]

1 hour ago, Reality Check said:

speaking as someone that has spent years being annoyed by the obsessive “Glory to God” shtick- the creeps that act like they’ve living a perfect life and Snyder is the first man who ever listened to the wrong head are so much worse.  Kinda weird obsessing over another man’s sex life, don’t you think? 

Before you take shots at a great man like Kyle Snyder from your anonymous handle, maybe take a look at your own phony self-righteousness.

Lol. The burner to be a Snyder Stan is a wild move.

[Bigbrog]

Congratulations Kyle!!  Truly one of the greatest in our sport!

[de4856]

Well, SnyderMan just won a completely loaded bracket, and he did it by notching a win against his nemesis and one of the best to ever do it. So does this rank SnyderMan as the greatest American wrestler? 

[1032004]

On 10/30/2026 at 7:06 PM, Simpleman424 said:

It’s a trick question homie…you can’t determine whether they do or don’t view your sins as bad as his because if you don’t believe in God then you don’t have any basis for a moral standard besides your own. You’re either just giving your opinion or borrowing from the Christian faith you denounce…

Christians are the ones who decided adultery is really bad?

[Simpleman424]

8 hours ago, 1032004 said:

Christians are the ones who decided adultery is really bad?

You’re speaking of “Universal Conscience” which is the capacity for deep moral reasoning and a sense of right and wrong across diverse societies.

Theres also a difference between Subjective and Objective morality. What’s more plausible, that the vast majority of the roughly 8.3 billion people (that’s wild to think of in scope by the way) came to the same conclusion that adultery is really bad despite human nature of wanting to have sex with as many beautiful people as possible OR that through the centuries we’ve adopted values stressed on us through biblical teachings and we are viewed as reflections of being created in God's image ("imago Dei"). (Or at least strive to be) 

People take it too personal when they say people outside the Christian faith can’t make decisions we feel are just and right BUT like I said…where’d you get that barometer of just and right? Directly or indirectly it’s all through God.

[1032004]

21 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

You’re speaking of “Universal Conscience” which is the capacity for deep moral reasoning and a sense of right and wrong across diverse societies.

Theres also a difference between Subjective and Objective morality. What’s more plausible, that the vast majority of the roughly 8.3 billion people (that’s wild to think of in scope by the way) came to the same conclusion that adultery is really bad despite human nature of wanting to have sex with as many beautiful people as possible OR that through the centuries we’ve adopted values stressed on us through biblical teachings and we are viewed as reflections of being created in God's image ("imago Dei"). (Or at least strive to be) 

People take it too personal when they say people outside the Christian faith can’t make decisions we feel are just and right BUT like I said…where’d you get that barometer of just and right? Directly or indirectly it’s all through God.

Well if we’re getting biblical, I’d argue that Christianity was no more against adultery than any other religion considering Jesus’s dad was not his mother’s husband and all..

[jackwebster]

On 10/30/2026 at 7:06 PM, Simpleman424 said:

It’s a trick question homie…you can’t determine whether they do or don’t view your sins as bad as his because if you don’t believe in God then you don’t have any basis for a moral standard besides your own. You’re either just giving your opinion or borrowing from the Christian faith you denounce…

Re no moral basis besides your own: Nietzsche said Luther took care of that . . . You know, having a personal relationship with God and all. 

In any event, claiming that Christianity is the only avenue to a transcendent justification for your morals is absurd. I mean, the Jews got by with the Law. Any tradition can serve the same end, a transcendence within imminence

[Simpleman424]

26 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Well if we’re getting biblical, I’d argue that Christianity was no more against adultery than any other religion considering Jesus’s dad was not his mother’s husband and all..

“Well if we’re getting biblical”…uhh what? You mentioned Christians…of course it goes biblical. Mary and Joseph were not married at the time of Jesus conception…there’s a beautiful message in there with Joseph’s obedience and trust in God to follow through with marrying Mary during those times specifically. 

 

29 minutes ago, jackwebster said:

Re no moral basis besides your own: Nietzsche said Luther took care of that . . . You know, having a personal relationship with God and all. 

In any event, claiming that Christianity is the only avenue to a transcendent justification for your morals is absurd. I mean, the Jews got by with the Law. Any tradition can serve the same end, a transcendence within imminence

That first statement is not clear at all…apparently an atheist philosopher, key word atheist, said something not about morality but you’re trying to tie it into the conversation?

The claim is Christianity/God are the foundation of moral standard. You’re insistence on using transcendent, transcendence, imminence or whatever word you use next to try and feel enlightened has little to do with morality and more to do with oneself. You’re trusting in your subjective beliefs, “good” works and all things you to take you where you want to go after this life, if anywhere. I’m just telling you you’re not getting those universally agreed upon beliefs of good and bad from no where…certainly not yourself. Men would destroy everything if left to their own devices…

Where did the Jews get their law? 

 

[jackwebster]

20 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

Where did the Jews get their law? 

Yhwh or Moses or ... depends on which Jews you ask. Point is that the law ties one generation to the next. The law transcends the life (opinions, beliefs, morals) of any individual. If so, it serves the same function you assign to divine morality (not sure how you think this get communicated). Any tradition can serve the same purpose. 

Re Nietzsche: He said Christianity turned into atheism as soon folks started to believe in a personal relationship with God (i.e. with Luther, i.e. with the Protestant reformation). A personal-relationship-with-God renders Christianity a matter of personal opinion. It kills tradition and the transcendent institutions that bind generations together under the Law or the one Church.

Idk maybe this catastrophe happened the moment the Temple veil was rent.

[forkemaz]

On 10/30/2026 at 7:06 PM, Simpleman424 said:

It’s a trick question homie…you can’t determine whether they do or don’t view your sins as bad as his because if you don’t believe in God then you don’t have any basis for a moral standard besides your own. You’re either just giving your opinion or borrowing from the Christian faith you denounce…

I can determine it very well. For instance I can say murder is a worse sin than adultery and would be viewed as such. I said I beleive in God so the rest of your post doesnt apply to me. 

[Simpleman424]

2 hours ago, jackwebster said:

Yhwh or Moses or ... depends on which Jews you ask. Point is that the law ties one generation to the next. The law transcends the life (opinions, beliefs, morals) of any individual. If so, it serves the same function you assign to divine morality (not sure how you think this get communicated). Any tradition can serve the same purpose. 

Re Nietzsche: He said Christianity turned into atheism as soon folks started to believe in a personal relationship with God (i.e. with Luther, i.e. with the Protestant reformation). A personal-relationship-with-God renders Christianity a matter of personal opinion. It kills tradition and the transcendent institutions that bind generations together under the Law or the one Church.

Idk maybe this catastrophe happened the moment the Temple veil was rent.

Agh I see what your trying to say and I’m glad you brought up Jews…Jews agree it’s from God or divinely inspired whether Moses scribed it (Orthodox) or it was orally and physically written over time (Reformed). But you are correct that traditions can carry on throughout generations of non-Christians…like the Jews (and others). There is a lot of historical data out there that points to Jesus and God across all major religions…whether it’s been altered by those cultures or not is another discussion but origins is what we’re talking about. The main point is a lot of religions hyperfocus on traditions and to a degree that’s fine but it is not a substitution for God or the good news.

You seem like a smart dude, and I do appreciate the conversation, but tell me how a man who does not believe in God can hold a reasonable and unbiased opinion on what a relationship with God is, how it should look or most importantly what it feels like?

[forkemaz]

On 10/30/2026 at 9:31 PM, Reality Check said:

speaking as someone that has spent years being annoyed by the obsessive “Glory to God” shtick- the creeps that act like they’ve living a perfect life and Snyder is the first man who ever listened to the wrong head are so much worse.  Kinda weird obsessing over another man’s sex life, don’t you think? 

Before you take shots at a great man like Kyle Snyder from your anonymous handle, maybe take a look at your own phony self-righteousness.

I never tried to bang a hooker on mother's day weekend while I was out of town collecting money under the brand of a good christian role model. In fact ive never done anything close to that bad. I looked in the mirror and that became clear. 

 

No one is obsessed with his sex life. Thats a straw man. 

[forkemaz]

5 hours ago, Simpleman424 said:

You’re speaking of “Universal Conscience” which is the capacity for deep moral reasoning and a sense of right and wrong across diverse societies.

Theres also a difference between Subjective and Objective morality. What’s more plausible, that the vast majority of the roughly 8.3 billion people (that’s wild to think of in scope by the way) came to the same conclusion that adultery is really bad despite human nature of wanting to have sex with as many beautiful people as possible OR that through the centuries we’ve adopted values stressed on us through biblical teachings and we are viewed as reflections of being created in God's image ("imago Dei"). (Or at least strive to be) 

People take it too personal when they say people outside the Christian faith can’t make decisions we feel are just and right BUT like I said…where’d you get that barometer of just and right? Directly or indirectly it’s all through God.

Yes through God, not necessarily Jesus. Thus not Christianity 

[Simpleman424]

5 minutes ago, forkemaz said:

I can determine it very well. For instance I can say murder is a worse sin than adultery and would be viewed as such. I said I beleive in God so the rest of your post doesnt apply to me. 

You just answered your own retort…

[forkemaz]

2 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

 but tell me how a man who does not believe in God can hold a reasonable and unbiased opinion on what a relationship with God is, how it should look or most importantly what it feels like?

That person is not in this thread.

[Simpleman424]

2 minutes ago, forkemaz said:

Yes through God, not necessarily Jesus. Thus not Christianity 

Now you’re talking the trinity…so…

1 minute ago, forkemaz said:

That person is not in this thread.

Sure they do…lots of non believers feel they can speak on it

[RAFWiki]

1 minute ago, Simpleman424 said:

You seem like a smart dude, and I do appreciate the conversation, but tell me how a man who does not believe in God can hold a reasonable and unbiased opinion on what a relationship with God is, how it should look or most importantly what it feels like?

From the outside, it looks like a bunch of assholes saying "have a blessed day" and thinking that excuses them from any sort of culpability for their actions

[Simpleman424]

6 minutes ago, forkemaz said:

I never tried to bang a hooker on mother's day weekend while I was out of town collecting money under the brand of a good christian role model. In fact ive never done anything close to that bad. I looked in the mirror and that became clear. 

 

No one is obsessed with his sex life. Thats a straw man. 

If it makes you feel better we agree almost 100% on Kyle Snyder’s actions…I think you’re upset like he’s not being held accountable but that’s not our role. No one excuses it either but the whole situation is beyond us and between others.

[jammen]

Well, at least we now know why the Dagestani's are so good.  Allah is teaching them new techniques.

[jackwebster]

2 hours ago, Simpleman424 said:

You seem like a smart dude, and I do appreciate the conversation, but tell me how a man who does not believe in God can hold a reasonable and unbiased opinion on what a relationship with God is, ushow it should look or most importantly what it feels like?

Let's ignore that the question assumes what it has not proven and just stipulate that God exists and he's identical to YHWH/Jesus/Holy Spirit/it's complicated.

Let's also ignore that we have not defined "believe in God" and just stipulate that it means "be certain that God exists."

Finally, ignore that we have defined neither "reasonable" nor "unbiased" (much less agreed that they are synonyns) and stipulate that "unbiased" means "reasonable."

The non-believer can't have an unbiased opinion of what a relationship with God is, what it looks like, or how it feels. However, the believer suffers from the exact same bias.

Even if an observer -- any observer -- were able to extricate himself from the observation process (i.e. not influence the results by the act of looking), YHWH's not like objects of scientific inquiry. 

YHWH/Jesus gifts agape . . . Or better he agapes. His bounty is as boundless as the sea . . . The more he gives, the more he has to give bc both are infinite. This love has nothing to do with the qualities of the object of love. In fact, it does not depend on an object at all. 

A relationship with God would entail something like reflecting (in God's image) or reciprocating agape. If so, it is an objectless relationship and thus subjectless.  It is ekstasis. This is truly strange and defies everyday language and even grammar itself. 

If "reciprocating agape" -- ekstasis -- is a fair attempt at describing our relationship with God, then  experience (what the relationship "looks" and "feels" like) is impossible. It erases the boundary between subject and object, i.e. the basis of experience and, thus, the record or assessment of it.

 

 

 

[Caveira]

On 10/30/2026 at 8:31 PM, Reality Check said:

speaking as someone that has spent years being annoyed by the obsessive “Glory to God” shtick- the creeps that act like they’ve living a perfect life and Snyder is the first man who ever listened to the wrong head are so much worse.  Kinda weird obsessing over another man’s sex life, don’t you think? 

Before you take shots at a great man like Kyle Snyder from your anonymous handle, maybe take a look at your own phony self-righteousness.

Great men don’t bang hookers.

you don’t have to confuse superb amazing athletes with a great man.   Athletics don’t define what great men are.   Bad athletes can be great men.  Great athletes can be great men.   

cheating on your wife with a hooker doesn’t make you a great man.  Winning matches also does not. 

[Simpleman424]

1 hour ago, jackwebster said:

Let's ignore that the question assumes what it has not proven and just stipulate that God exists and he's identical to YHWH/Jesus/Holy Spirit/it's complicated.

Let's also ignore that we have not defined "believe in God" and just stipulate that it means "be certain that God exists."

Finally, ignore that we have defined neither "reasonable" nor "unbiased" (much less agreed that they are synonyns) and stipulate that "unbiased" means "reasonable."

The non-believer can't have an unbiased opinion of what a relationship with God is, what it looks like, or how it feels. However, the believer suffers from the exact same bias.

Even if an observer -- any observer -- were able to extricate himself from the observation process (i.e. not influence the results by the act of looking), YHWH's not like objects of scientific inquiry. 

YHWH/Jesus gifts agape . . . Or better he agapes. His bounty is as boundless as the sea . . . The more he gives, the more he has to give bc both are infinite. This love has nothing to do with the qualities of the object of love. In fact, it does not depend on an object at all. 

A relationship with God would entail something like reflecting (in God's image) or reciprocating agape. If so, it is an objectless relationship and thus subjectless.  It is ekstasis. This is truly strange and defies everyday language and even grammar itself. 

If "reciprocating agape" -- ekstasis -- is a fair attempt at describing our relationship with God, then  experience (what the relationship "looks" and "feels" like) is impossible. It erases the boundary between subject and object, i.e. the basis of experience and, thus, the record or assessment of it.

 

 

 

The question does not have to prove anything…it is merely a question. It could be as simple or complicated as one would like…but this one was pretty generalized and easy. All the “ignore this” or “ignore that” and “we haven’t defined love” and all the dance that’s pretty standard in these conversations is deflection and prideful in most cases. Yea most guys willing to go online and debate these things are really smart dudes but I’m telling you they/we couldn’t define love if we tried. We’ve never felt anything like it before…saying God must do this because of this or putting limits on him is another coping mechanism to try and make yourself understand. You can’t, I can’t…no one can fully understand and it’s OK. 
We can experience all these relationships with each other but we can’t with God because he’s what? Incapable of letting us? Nah I don’t put limits on what a limitless God can do…I just say I can’t understand it all and like relationships I know his is likely different with everyone…

[Simpleman424]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

Great men don’t bang hookers.

you don’t have to confuse superb amazing athletes with a great man.   Athletics don’t define what great men are.   Bad athletes can be great men.  Great athletes can be great men.   

cheating on your wife with a hooker doesn’t make you a great man.  Winning matches also does not. 

I haven’t seen that but I don’t think anyone’s arguing that…