Snyder

[jackwebster]

1 minute ago, Simpleman424 said:

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…

So, I do my best to take your question seriously only for you to reveal that you dont take it seriously? 

 

[LJB]

[Simpleman424]

29 minutes ago, jackwebster said:

So, I do my best to take your question seriously only for you to reveal that you dont take it seriously? 

 

I take it seriously but you took a question like “Can someone who doesn’t believe in God tell you what a relationship with God is, how it should look or most importantly what it feels like?” and completely try to wordsmith and avoid an honest answer. Regardless of the topic, but especially such an important one, most people are not going to take the advise or develop things within their life based on the words and opinions of those that have never experienced it let alone believe it’s possible/real. You’re smart but your trying to win a debate where there is none..I’m also trying to speak to you and not at you so I apologize if what I did say came off as dismissive. The conversation started getting steered in the direction of things we can’t define or understand…humbly.

[Caveira]

44 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

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

I should have shortened the quote.   This is what I was quoting:

Before you take shots at a great man like Kyle Snyder from your anonymous handle…….. 

 

[jackwebster]

25 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

I take it seriously but you took a question like “Can someone who doesn’t believe in God tell you what a relationship with God is, how it should look or most importantly what it feels like?” and completely try to wordsmith and avoid an honest answer.

You do realize that our conclusions are more or less the same: a relationship with an omniscient and omnipotent god is unreasonable and describing it is impossible. Thus, faith.

Idk ... simple answers for a simple man, I guess.

 

[Simpleman424]

1 hour ago, Caveira said:

I should have shortened the quote.   This is what I was quoting:

Before you take shots at a great man like Kyle Snyder from your anonymous handle…….. 

 

Agh…yea I’d use the term great very loosely there. And I’m sure Kyle would as well…if in fact he is Christian, repentant and all that. 

1 hour ago, jackwebster said:

You do realize that our conclusions are more or less the same: a relationship with an omniscient and omnipotent god is unreasonable and describing it is impossible. Thus, faith.

Idk ... simple answers for a simple man, I guess.

 

The relationship is not unreasonable but the accurately describing it I agree…that is impossible. Faith indeed…

[whaletail]

14 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.

Or our views on adultery are shaped by our social/sexual dynamics and three million years of evolutionary compound interest (actually three billion+ years, as we are far from the first social beings).

In our species' infancy, when small hunter/gather groups lived on the every edge of survival, expending the resources to feed and protect a mother and her offspring was a serious commitment. Especially when a nine month gestatioary period made it impossible to know you were in fact the father of her offspring.

Establsihing social norms with great shame attached to adultery (and sex more generally, and especially female sexuality) strengthened familial and community ties when few communities likely survived mnore than a few generations. The stronger those ties, the higher a community's survival likelihood, and the greater their relative reproductive success. Unfortunately, this is likely also responsible for the paternalism that's been a staple of human societies from our beginning.

Meanwhile, bonobos, our closest primate relatives (along with chimps and with whom we share 99.7% of our DNA), have sex publicly, and reduce community stress with what we'd label public orgies. With such different sexual and social dynamics, bonobos don't associate shame and sex the way humans do.

Mind, all this began millions of years before anyone before anyone even had the opportunity to believe in a Christian deity, let alone did.

Just as marketing didn't begin with Paul of Tarsus, morality didn't begin with Yahweh or Jesus or Mohammed.

[jackwebster]

5 hours ago, whaletail said:

Or our views on adultery are shaped by our social/sexual dynamics and three million years of evolutionary compound interest (actually three billion+ years, as we are far from the first social beings).

In our species' infancy, when small hunter/gather groups lived on the every edge of survival, expending the resources to feed and protect a mother and her offspring was a serious commitment. Especially when a nine month gestatioary period made it impossible to know you were in fact the father of her offspring.

Establsihing social norms with great shame attached to adultery (and sex more generally, and especially female sexuality) strengthened familial and community ties when few communities likely survived mnore than a few generations. The stronger those ties, the higher a community's survival likelihood, and the greater their relative reproductive success. Unfortunately, this is likely also responsible for the paternalism that's been a staple of human societies from our beginning.

Meanwhile, bonobos, our closest primate relatives (along with chimps and with whom we share 99.7% of our DNA), have sex publicly, and reduce community stress with what we'd label public orgies. With such different sexual and social dynamics, bonobos don't associate shame and sex the way humans do.

Mind, all this began millions of years before anyone before anyone even had the opportunity to believe in a Christian deity, let alone did.

Just as marketing didn't begin with Paul of Tarsus, morality didn't begin with Yahweh or Jesus or Mohammed.

But, faith, man .... like, faith ... ya dig?

[Simpleman424]

7 hours ago, whaletail said:

Or our views on adultery are shaped by our social/sexual dynamics and three million years of evolutionary compound interest (actually three billion+ years, as we are far from the first social beings).

In our species' infancy, when small hunter/gather groups lived on the every edge of survival, expending the resources to feed and protect a mother and her offspring was a serious commitment. Especially when a nine month gestatioary period made it impossible to know you were in fact the father of her offspring.

Establsihing social norms with great shame attached to adultery (and sex more generally, and especially female sexuality) strengthened familial and community ties when few communities likely survived mnore than a few generations. The stronger those ties, the higher a community's survival likelihood, and the greater their relative reproductive success. Unfortunately, this is likely also responsible for the paternalism that's been a staple of human societies from our beginning.

Meanwhile, bonobos, our closest primate relatives (along with chimps and with whom we share 99.7% of our DNA), have sex publicly, and reduce community stress with what we'd label public orgies. With such different sexual and social dynamics, bonobos don't associate shame and sex the way humans do.

Mind, all this began millions of years before anyone before anyone even had the opportunity to believe in a Christian deity, let alone did.

Just as marketing didn't begin with Paul of Tarsus, morality didn't begin with Yahweh or Jesus or Mohammed.

There’s a book out there called “I don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist” by Dr. Frank Turek. I’d recommend any one read it but especially those that absolutely have to have “answers”, make assumptions or baseless opinions on what they believe social norms were of from oh let’s say generations with no written history…

The Bible is not a book on taxonomy…it doesn’t mention dinosaurs (although some argue it does) and it doesn’t mention cavemen (although again some argue it does) but obviously these things existed. “Smart” people, especially, have a hard time reasoning those things (pride mostly) and in a bid to not put limits on themselves put limits on a limitless God. The omissions of these things doesn’t mean God didn’t play a role in it…the purpose of the Bible was to tell the story of a bloodline and lead people to sanctification and salvation. 

Your problem is with the accuracy of the Bible and I have to tell you…that arguments not on your side.

2 hours ago, jackwebster said:

But, faith, man .... like, faith ... ya dig?

Well now I thought I was pretty respectful when you were throwing out your Kamala Harris word salad…seems hardly appropriate.

[1032004]

22 hours ago, Simpleman424 said:

“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. 

 

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? 

 

Uhh, I was not the first one who mentioned Christians.  They were engaged is my understanding, But yeah, the story of Mary and Joseph does not seem to really coincide with adultery being considered all that bad. 

I’m no historian but I’m seeing that older civilizations had laws against adultery before the Ten Commandments, such as Hammurabi’s Code, although looks like that didn’t necessarily punish a husband, but it did punish a man who commits adultery with a married woman.

Any insistence that thinking adultery is bad came from Christianity just seems like another instance of Americans (in this case Christians specifically) thinking the world revolves around them…

[Simpleman424]

30 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Uhh, I was not the first one who mentioned Christians.  They were engaged is my understanding, But yeah, the story of Mary and Joseph does not seem to really coincide with adultery being considered all that bad. 

I’m no historian but I’m seeing that older civilizations had laws against adultery before the Ten Commandments, such as Hammurabi’s Code, although looks like that didn’t necessarily punish a husband, but it did punish a man who commits adultery with a married woman.

Any insistence that thinking adultery is bad came from Christianity just seems like another instance of Americans (in this case Christians specifically) thinking the world revolves around them…

That’s actually a good talking point about Hammurabi’s Code…now while people to focus on Moses and the Ten Commandments they often forget that the book of Genesis records the history of a towering man of God who predated Moses by centuries. God revealed His laws to this man, who according to biblical history, spent much of his life in Babylonia. This individual, of course, was Abraham.

Most people know that Abraham was a leading figure in Canaan. Less well known, however, is the fact that Abraham was also a leading personality in Babylon and had a profound influence on the development of Babylonian civilization. This is documented in both the Bible and secular texts. Moreover, there is evidence that suggests Abraham and Hammurabi were contemporaries.

There are a number of different chronologies for Abraham. But while the precise dates for when Abraham lived vary, there is a general consensus that he lived in the first half of the second millennium b.c.e., around the 19th to 18th centuries. This is a chronological fit with Hammurabi.

I think we also are all kind of speaking in error by referencing Christianity (and I’ve been purposely been steering to God not Christianity for that reason)…this conversation predates modern Christianity and surely America. But let’s also not forget that Modern Christianity is much more widespread and honestly stronger in other countries in the world than America. The faith of some of these people in Lynda, China, North Korea etc is astounding…

[1032004]

13 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

 

(and I’ve been purposely been steering to God not Christianity for that reason)…

You were?  My original post in this thread was in response to this post from you: 

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

You’re either just giving your opinion or borrowing from the Christian faith you denounce…

 

[Simpleman424]

37 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

You were?  My original post in this thread was in response to this post from you: 

 

Yea that’s why I said we’ve all been speaking in error…I should have made the distinction there but didn’t think we were going as deep as we have…

[Gene Mills Fan]

This SnyderMan got people a thinkin and a talkin.  Some refuse the forgiveness part. Glad God doesn't. 

Does SnyderMan really make money selling his "brand' ??   I think he only gets paid for his success.

[Simpleman424]

10 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

This SnyderMan got people a thinkin and a talkin.  Some refuse the forgiveness part. Glad God doesn't. 

Does SnyderMan really make money selling his "brand' ??   I think he only gets paid for his success.

There is a big difference between Judgement and Condemnation…usually Christians are the ones who can’t separate the two but…some pretty strong feelings from the other side when it comes to Snyder.

[LJB]

13 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

Does SnyderMan really make money selling his "brand' ??   I think he only gets paid for his success.

he 100% made money with camps while promoting the FCA... i have not heard about one of these since he got caught...

he 100% makes money with Rudis... they removed all of his gear and any mention of him from their website for a time... not sure it the removal 100% coincided with his USAW temp suspension or there was some other rudis self imposed time frame... it's all back now and has been for awhile...

the reality is his transgressions are largely forgotten and as he continues to win they will be forgotten even more...

all "fans" really care about is getting that dopamine hit from watching others succeed and everything else gets pushed to the side...

a friend and i were chatting about it last week and he texted one word...

kobe...

[jchapman]

1 hour ago, LJB said:

he 100% made money with camps while promoting the FCA... i have not heard about one of these since he got caught...

he 100% makes money with Rudis... they removed all of his gear and any mention of him from their website for a time... not sure it the removal 100% coincided with his USAW temp suspension or there was some other rudis self imposed time frame... it's all back now and has been for awhile...

the reality is his transgressions are largely forgotten and as he continues to win they will be forgotten even more...

all "fans" really care about is getting that dopamine hit from watching others succeed and everything else gets pushed to the side...

a friend and i were chatting about it last week and he texted one word...

kobe...

Tyson

[whaletail]

4 hours ago, Simpleman424 said:

There’s a book out there called “I don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist” by Dr. Frank Turek. I’d recommend any one read it but especially those that absolutely have to have “answers”, make assumptions or baseless opinions on what they believe social norms were of from oh let’s say generations with no written history…

The Bible is not a book on taxonomy…it doesn’t mention dinosaurs (although some argue it does) and it doesn’t mention cavemen (although again some argue it does) but obviously these things existed. “Smart” people, especially, have a hard time reasoning those things (pride mostly) and in a bid to not put limits on themselves put limits on a limitless God. The omissions of these things doesn’t mean God didn’t play a role in it…the purpose of the Bible was to tell the story of a bloodline and lead people to sanctification and salvation. 

Your problem is with the accuracy of the Bible and I have to tell you…that arguments not on your side.

Well now I thought I was pretty respectful when you were throwing out your Kamala Harris word salad…seems hardly appropriate.

The history of the Bible itself is beyond my expertise, but the decisions to include the specific books chosen were surely political/ideological, almost certainly polarizing, and took place hundreds of years after Jesus introduced the concept a Christian deity to the people of Judea (and the Roman government).

Sure, that deity could well have been working behind the scenes during humanity's earlier history, but the seeds of morality and shame binding social animals together began well before the dawn of humanity. And those seeds don't suddenly appear in earlier primates fully formed, but had to themselves evolve from traits found in the earliest social animals.

This deity would essentially need to be responsible for the introduction of life on earth, and for natural selection as the agent  of life's persistence into perpituity, and the agent of change that indirectly results from such persistence. And all of this infrastructure created to eventually produce a single species in his image, three billion+ years later.

Yeah, with enough chisels you can brute force his presence into a natural history that made much more sense prior, and even gloss over the inordinate number of contradictions and paradoxes (biblical, logical, moral or otherwise) that arise like whack-a-moles before the dust can even settle, but the ability to escape being inductively disproven isn't a ringing endorsement for an existence.

Morality doesn't need God to exist, and suffers for his presence (and that's without mention of theodicy).

 

[whaletail]

2 hours ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

This SnyderMan got people a thinkin and a talkin.  Some refuse the forgiveness part. Glad God doesn't. 

Does SnyderMan really make money selling his "brand' ??   I think he only gets paid for his success.

Although faith is a prominent feature of his brand, it'd be worthless without his success. I'm sure his faith extends his reach, and increases his brand's value, but success pays the mortgage.

[Simpleman424]

25 minutes ago, whaletail said:

The history of the Bible itself is beyond my expertise, but the decisions to include the specific books chosen were surely political/ideological, almost certainly polarizing, and took place hundreds of years after Jesus introduced the concept a Christian deity to the people of Judea (and the Roman government).

Sure, that deity could well have been working behind the scenes during humanity's earlier history, but the seeds of morality and shame binding social animals together began well before the dawn of humanity. And those seeds don't suddenly appear in earlier primates fully formed, but had to themselves evolve from traits found in the earliest social animals.

This deity would essentially need to be responsible for the introduction of life on earth, and for natural selection as the agent  of life's persistence into perpituity, and the agent of change that indirectly results from such persistence. And all of this infrastructure created to eventually produce a single species in his image, three billion+ years later.

Yeah, with enough chisels you can brute force his presence into a natural history that made much more sense prior, and even gloss over the inordinate number of contradictions and paradoxes (biblical, logical, moral or otherwise) that arise like whack-a-moles before the dust can even settle, but the ability to escape being inductively disproven isn't a ringing endorsement for an existence.

Morality doesn't need God to exist, and suffers for his presence (and that's without mention of theodicy).

 

The books of the New Testament were written 20-70 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. They also had specific requirements like needing to be written by an apostle (such as Paul or Peter) or someone closely associated with an apostle (such as Mark with Peter, or Luke with Paul). Eye witnesses basically and all men (except one) who were killed in horrific manner for their beliefs. The books also carried internal evidence of the Holy Spirit's testimony, inspiring conviction and spiritual transformation among believers. And a few other things. I wouldn’t let the Council of Nicaea stuff throw you off…I believe that’s what you’re referring to and that should be separated from what I’m talking about and a whole other conversation on its own.

I think you should look into the Intelligent Design theory…might clear up a bunch of what you said there. And trust me I get what your saying or why you think that way…I’m just giving you something else to consider…

[whaletail]

2 hours ago, Simpleman424 said:

The books of the New Testament were written 20-70 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. They also had specific requirements like needing to be written by an apostle (such as Paul or Peter) or someone closely associated with an apostle (such as Mark with Peter, or Luke with Paul). Eye witnesses basically and all men (except one) who were killed in horrific manner for their beliefs. The books also carried internal evidence of the Holy Spirit's testimony, inspiring conviction and spiritual transformation among believers. And a few other things. I wouldn’t let the Council of Nicaea stuff throw you off…I believe that’s what you’re referring to and that should be separated from what I’m talking about and a whole other conversation on its own.

I think you should look into the Intelligent Design theory…might clear up a bunch of what you said there. And trust me I get what your saying or why you think that way…I’m just giving you something else to consider…

I was thinking the council of nicaea, but also things like a 6th century debate (the details of which escape me at the moment) that IIRC, led to the establishment of a hallmark Christian concept, but generally, the notion that the Bible, and many features of "the church" are products of poltical will, and represent interpretations of God.

Even something as seemingly straightforward and objective as translating an Aramaic (sp?) text to medieval English, and eventually modern English, is anything but an objective process.

As an aside, what I wouldn't give to spend a year in the Vatican archives, with complete access.

I'm not deeply familiar with ID's conceptual foundation, but I don't think it's relevant that, for example, we still haven't found fossil evidence of the missing link. Fossilization requires such specific environmental conditions to occur, and finding those fossils even more, making it surprising to me that we've even found what we have.

If we evolved in a marine environment, we'd have a much more fleshed out fossil lineage, but terrestrial animal fossils are so much rarer and buried so much deeper that completely unknown human civilizations could be be buried just out of reach.

[LJB]

as a total aside...

anyone who still thinks human history is what they learned in MS is just being purposedly ignorant...

 

oh yeah...

snyder wrestles real good...

 

[bnwtwg]

 

[jackwebster]

On 11/2/2026 at 6:47 AM, Simpleman424 said:

Well now I thought I was pretty respectful.

Why should anyone take your theological claims seriously when you can't bother to take them seriously? You sound like a stoner: our relationship with God is "reasonable" AND this relationship is impossible to describe. You said this in summation of your thoughts about the most high. Yeah, yeah . . . You are large and contain multitudes. Or, maybe you dont l have enough respect for your God -- the God of the Word -- to care about the meaning of words. 

Re word salad: if you say so. 

[LJB]

9 minutes ago, jackwebster said:

Why should anyone take your theological claims seriously when you can't bother to take them seriously?

he nails the selective judgmental thing like a split hog...

i definitely buy he is a christian...