|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jan 20, 2018 6:03:25 GMT
"In Die Hard, John McClane has the most deaths at his hands than anybody... and everybody sees him as the hero of the movie."
and some of those everybodys also see Die Hard as a "Christmas Movie" .. if that says anything about anything.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 20, 2018 7:05:51 GMT
William Blake was far from stupid and he disagreed bigly. He had an interesting argument if you want to hear it.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 20, 2018 13:28:53 GMT
You're simply describing the "backstory", and it doesn't change what I describe. And the backstory explains the rules of the game. That still changes nothing. A "rule maker" can also at the same time be villainous.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 20, 2018 13:34:58 GMT
William Blake was far from stupid and he disagreed bigly. He had an interesting argument if you want to hear it. Well, yeah.. He was also crazy. And being " not stupid".... Doesn't make one "right". But, hell, I'm all ears... Literally... It's a horrible birth defect.
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Jan 20, 2018 14:26:25 GMT
Balaam, because he beat his talking donkey. I’m mean.....who wouldn’t want a talking donkey. Jeez!
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Jan 20, 2018 14:30:02 GMT
Balaam, because he beat his talking donkey. I’m mean.....who wouldn’t want a talking donkey. Jeez! Shrek for one
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 20, 2018 14:42:15 GMT
William Blake was far from stupid and he disagreed bigly. He had an interesting argument if you want to hear it. Well, yeah.. He was also crazy. And being " not stupid".... Doesn't make one "right". But, hell, I'm all ears... Literally... It's a horrible birth defect. I covered the most relevant points in my post about him HERE (most relevant is the second paragraph).
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 20, 2018 14:50:27 GMT
First keep in mind that I haven't read the Bible, and I'm not about to. The small bits I have read were awfully written in my opinion. I'm no more going to try to slog through it than I am James Joyce's Ulysses, another horribly written book in my opinion.
But I think I'd likely say that the biggest villain in the book is God.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 20, 2018 14:57:09 GMT
James Joyce's Ulysses, another horribly written book in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by marianne48 on Jan 20, 2018 16:34:35 GMT
The reader?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 20, 2018 16:42:08 GMT
I'm going with the guy who drowned everybody on the planet except eight people, condoned rape, encouraged slavery and killed a faithful man's entire family just to win a bet with the supposed villain. Then, he supposedly had a change of heart before the second half of the story which began with him psychically raping a teenage virgin.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 20, 2018 17:15:03 GMT
I'm going with the guy who drowned everybody on the planet except eight people, condoned rape, encouraged slavery and killed a faithful man's entire family just to win a bet with the supposed villain. Then, he supposedly had a change of heart before the second half of the story which began with him psychically raping a teenage virgin. I hope you're being super hyperbolic for humor's sake... Because that is the dumbest take on The Bible I've ever seen. In case you're not... Just a few points: ...leaving out that, according to the story, everybody else on the planet was pure fcking evil.
...Except, according to story, God didn't kill them.... Satan did. Jesus Christ!... Literally!! Read a book before you make fun of it. There was no physical anything... Mary had to be told that she was preggers.. and her response was "I haven't been with anyone"... One would assume that she'd remember being raped by The Almighty. This isn't Guardians Of The Galaxy vol. 2... or Greek mythology.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jan 20, 2018 17:25:37 GMT
Someone doesn't understand the difference between physically and psychically. Shocking. Since a large number of those drowned people would have been children, many extremely young children, assigning "pure fucking evil" in order to defend the story is a sign of desperation.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Jan 20, 2018 17:31:03 GMT
Someone doesn't understand the difference between physically and psychically. Shocking. Since a large number of those drowned people would have been children, many extremely young children, assigning "pure fucking evil" in order to defend the story is a sign of desperation. Oops. My bad. Maybe somebody needs to wear his glasses while reading this sht. Edit: In my defense.. "Rape" is still a goofy word to use. Maybe part of the whole "The world was pure fucking evil" (that's a direct Bible quote ) ....and full of half-human/half-angel people.. was that they were killing all of the all-human babies. No children allowed.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 21, 2018 23:36:41 GMT
tpfkar ...leaving out that, according to the story, everybody else on the planet was pure fcking evil. Sure, your enemies that you massacre are always evil. God via his special-created tool. Sure, mythology of an "offer you can't refuse" for Xenomorph implantation is so much more highbrow than GotG or Greek mythology. subtle
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 17:48:43 GMT
One of the great misunderstandings of both apologist and critic is the idea that Life is a human story. It is not. When viewed through the lens of truth, determining whether God is indeed evil or has ever been responsible for evil should evolve dramatically. That is, to say, Life as we know it is an angelic story that humans were grafted into.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 22, 2018 18:15:52 GMT
One of the great misunderstandings of both apologist and critic is the idea that Life is a human story. It is not. When viewed through the lens of truth, determining whether God is indeed evil or has ever been responsible for evil should evolve dramatically. That is, to say, Life as we know it is an angelic story that humans were grafted into. Why would any of what you say render the OP's question irrelevant or meaningless, as you imply it does? Even if humans are just an adjunct to the real (angelic) story of life, the Bible is still intended for human consumption (so, at least some regard is given to us graftees). If you'd rather not use "the lens of truth", then use the lens of humanity's widely held concepts of good and evil, a very useful lens itself. And the question "Who is the real villain of the Bible" becomes worthy of an answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 19:35:15 GMT
One of the great misunderstandings of both apologist and critic is the idea that Life is a human story. It is not. When viewed through the lens of truth, determining whether God is indeed evil or has ever been responsible for evil should evolve dramatically. That is, to say, Life as we know it is an angelic story that humans were grafted into. Why would any of what you say render the OP's question irrelevant or meaningless, as you imply it does? Even if humans are just an adjunct to the real (angelic) story of life, the Bible is still intended for human consumption (so, at least some regard is given to us graftees). If you'd rather not use "the lens of truth", then use the lens of humanity's widely held concepts of good and evil, a very useful lens itself. And the question "Who is the real villain of the Bible" becomes worthy of an answer.
I'm certainly not implying the OP's question is either irrelevant or meaningless. The only thing I implied was my own answer. Indeed, the Bible is for human consumption. An equal share of regard is given to the graftees in general, a vast majority in the Bible of course. As for what is evil, I use particularly what the text defines as evil, considering that the mark in question is a character from said text. To explicitly state an answer to the OP's question, I defer to his original post on the matter, assuming he meant it literally.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 20:50:08 GMT
And s urviving or not surviving through Armageddon is, of course, where Satan's influence plays a role. Satan needs only to play the role of deceiver. He knows that God will do the actual dirty work of consigning the "many" to the destruction that God has devised (not Satan), sparing only the "few". Satan misleads the many into the pit, but it is God who dug that pit for the purpose of swallowing them. Thus, it's not at all clear that Satan is worse than God.
All of the bolded statements are incorrect per the text being discussed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 21:17:26 GMT
I'm going with the guy who drowned everybody on the planet except eight people, condoned rape, encouraged slavery and killed a faithful man's entire family just to win a bet with the supposed villain. Then, he supposedly had a change of heart before the second half of the story which began with him psychically raping a teenage virgin. All of your examples except the first one are false, per the text.
|
|