Jump to content

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer


Dragoncat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sonia and Story!Loki.

If you can be anyone in Fire Emblem, who would you be? (I want to be Hubba or Anna; Hubba has a large collection of waifus and I would like to be wealthy like Anna.)

4 hours ago, DragonFlames said:

Why do people expect stories to have extensive explorations of moral grey areas when even in olden times, the so-called classics were all pretty clear cut good guys vs. bad guys stories?

Pardon the serious answer.

There were plenty of moral grey areas in classics too.

Greek gods and heroes were often depicted as having pride, wrath, and other unsavory human qualities. Zeus is a serial cheater. Ares is an all round asshole. Achilles is super vengeful and wrathful, some of it was justified, but some were not (his anger towards Agamemnon was justified [Agamemnon is a jerk], but his anger towards Hector is a bit misplaced [Hector killed Achilles' best friend sort of unintentionally]). Heracles killed his music teacher in a fit of anger although he was young at the time (he also killed his first wife and children as a young adult, but that was due to Hera driving him mad, so it is not really his fault in my opinion), but he also killed his brother-in-law Iphitos over something that can be settled peacefully which is unjustified in my opinion (long story short, Heracles and his father-in-law had issues and Iphitos tried to reason with Heracles).

While God seems to be better in the New Testament due to less involvement in human affairs (ignoring Revelations), God depicted in the Old Testament is a complete asshole with the way he handled certain things. There is also the problem of evil, if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then why not just eliminate evil entirely? Since evil exists, God can be either omnibenevolent or omnipotent, but certainly not both. While Jesus generally seems to be a nice guy, he is not exactly a nice guy to non Christians (John 15:1-8), and Jesus still have elements of cruelty inherited from his Father (Matthew 25:14-30; a master gave three servants money, the first two made money by trading, while the third saved the money instead, the saver was punished for not making money; the story could be interpreted as being against laziness, but the punishment was seems extreme).

Arthur is your traditional clear cut good guy, but he is not unrealistically good. On the other hand, Lancelot and Guinevere are a whole nother fucking mess, literally and figuratively. Those two shitstains somehow got to be protagonists of their love story. To put it simply, Arthur got cucked and medieval Europe romanticized his humiliation and naivete and celebrated the adultery of two treasonous cheaters. The ending is basically Arthur dying a violent death while the two assholes died after living a long, peaceful life. These two fuckers make my blood boil as much as Surtr from Fire Emblem Heroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Dragoncat

    1275

  • twilit

    1269

  • Sooks

    1041

  • DragonFlames

    922

EDIT: Didn't see Xray's post.

Answer: Anna because money.

Arvis is pretty attactive... that and he's less likely to kill me.

That or Camus.

And obviously Loki.

17 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

There's the Adventures in Odyssey short films, even if they only made, like, four. And 3-2-1 Penguins, which was made by the same people who did Veggietales. There's also Joseph: King of Dreams, which was made by the same people who did Prince of Egypt (even if it's not as good, simply due to being made on a lower budget. It is direct-to-DVD, after all).

Never heard of the first two, but I have heard of Joseph: King of Dreams! I just forgot about it.

How did me and my grandmother sleep until 9:35 this morning?

Edited by Espurrhoodie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am guessing jet lag. If you have not flown, then maybe Earth lag.

What is your favorite part about returning home after a long trip?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can. Whether they should or not depends on who they wish to deceive is and the general circumstance.

Why do some people have middle names?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that this will be another interlude but I feel that I have to speak.

57 minutes ago, XRay said:

While God seems to be better in the New Testament due to less involvement in human affairs (ignoring Revelations), God depicted in the Old Testament is a complete asshole with the way he handled certain things.

You underestimate human wickedness. Several of the towns and cities God said to destroy worshiped demons, and many of the 'gods' that the surrounding nations worshiped ordained human sacrifice, including children and babies. God commanded Israel not to take foreign wives so that they would not be lead astray and worship false gods, which they did several times and false worship had been a problem for generations.

It should also be noted that when God said He would destroy and punish the people for their wrongdoings, He always gave them the chance to repent and return to him, and he would accept it. Nineveh, in the account of Jonah the prophet, is the most famous example of this, where God said He would destroy the city, but because they repented of their sin, He relented and did not bring destruction upon them. It should be noted that later in history, when Nineveh was once again wicked but they did not repent, God destroyed them.

God also forgives sin and genuine repentance, but He does not remove the consequences. David, in his affair with Bathsheba and his killing of Uriah, repented earnestly for his sin. God forgave him, but the child still died, just as He said it would. And in the book of Kings, Ahab genuinely humbled himself for his sin at Naboths's vineyard (where he had the owner killed just because he refused to give it to him. It should be noted that his wife, Jezebel, did talk him into it, but it was still Ahab's choice to go through with the murder) before the Lord when he learned what his sin would lead to the destruction of his family. God accepted this humbling, and ensured that the punishment did not occur in his lifetime, but in his children's, because the wickedness of his family and of Israel still had to be accounted for.

57 minutes ago, XRay said:

There is also the problem of evil, if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, then why not just eliminate evil entirely? Since evil exists, God can be either omnibenevolent or omnipotent, but certainly not both.

This is because God did not want humans to be autonomous robots worshiping him. He wanted beings that had free will. And in order for that free will to be true, humans had to have the ability to disobey and reject Him. God gave humans one rule in Genesis 2:17 "But you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat it you will surely die." It was the Eve's choice to listen to the serpents lies, and Adams for not attempting to dissuade her from the lies but instead for following suit. They realized they were both naked, and they were cast from the garden of Eden. And, in Genesis 3:22  "And the LORD God said 'the man has become like one of us (often thought to be the trinity), knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.'" This was a great mercy, as else humanity would live forever in their sin.

We brought our sin upon ourselves. God is not to blame for humanity being evil, because it is our choice, our human choice, to exert out free will and either follow Him to do what is right, or follow the world and do what is evil.

God also knew before the fall and indeed, even before the earth was given form. A common misconception is the God occupies the realm of time. He does not, and sees the end from the beginning. He had a plan in place for redeeming humanity through Jesus's actions on the cross, even before humans took breath.

57 minutes ago, XRay said:

While Jesus generally seems to be a nice guy, he is not exactly a nice guy to non Christians (John 15:1-8), and Jesus still have elements of cruelty inherited from his Father (Matthew 25:14-30; a master gave three servants money, the first two made money by trading, while the third saved the money instead, the saver was punished for not making money; the story could be interpreted as being against laziness, but the punishment was seems extreme).

There are many meanings to get from that parable. Punishment for the lazy being considered cruel is not one of them. Each of the servants knew that the master was going away, and that each of them was given money to put to use. One servant earned ten more gold in the time their master was away, another earned five, and the lazy servant buried the money he was given instead of using it to earn more. The first two servants were rewarded for their diligence, with the first servant given control of ten cities, and the second five. The last servant, however, was punished, and had their reward given to the servant who had earned ten. You reap what you sow, and who can be trusted with a little can be trusted with much, while one who can not be trusted with little cannot be trusted with greater responsibilities.

The parable could also be considered for the Christian rewards in Heaven. We are called for a purpose on this earth, and each of us has a spiritual gift. The servant who obeys God wholeheartedly and uses their gifts to help lead people to follow Christ, no matter how much they will have to sacrifice in this lifetime, even if they must pay the ultimate price, will be rewarded much in Heaven, even if their earthly rewards will be few. What then, will the person who accepts Christ as savior but then lives as the world does and does not use the gifts God has given them receive? Our works will be judged by fire by the only one qualified to judge, so it is best to focus upon things that will be eternal instead of the things that are temporary.

God would wish that none would perish, and that all would have eternal life with Him. However, it must be a choice whether people accept and follow Jesus with their whole heart, or whether they reject and mock Him. That's what it comes down to in the end: choice. God knows the end from the beginning, and either we can accept that and follow the plan made by the one who created wisdom out of our own free will, or we can follow out own path away from Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actors are great at using their normal muscles, but not vocal muscles.

Why do people not like raw meat when it tastes so good?

@Hawkwing, my response in spoilers to take up less space.

Spoiler


4 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

You underestimate human wickedness.

I am not arguing humans are completely good. I am arguing that God is not good, at least based on human standards. Replace the word "God" with anyone else in the following paragraphs and most people would consider that person to be a jerk at best or just down right psychopathic at worst.

Genesis 31:1-30 is basically a story about how a man from another tribe fell in love with Dinah and did it with her, and Dinah's tribe did not like it and basically deceived the other tribe to be circumcised, and while the men of the other tribe were reeling in pain, Dinah's tribe massacred the men and and enslaved the women and children. God condemned no one from Dinah's tribe.

Exodus 32:1-35 is when a lot of the Israelites were afraid Moses is not coming back so they asked Aaron for guidance. The people wanted an idol for spiritual guidance so Aaron made a golden calf from the jewelry they had, and from what I understand, Aaron is trying to diffuse the frustration of his people tried to organize a feast to celebrate God. While I agree the Israelites should not have resorted to idols, God was not a great communicator in soothing his people and he killed 3,000 of them for this mistake.

God made Job go through hell just to test his faith. If this were a marriage or another relationship between humans, this would be classified as severe abuse.

God drowned everything except the life on Noah's Ark. Maybe all the humans were bad except Noah's family (and I seriously doubt this), but God is drowning all the animals innocent animals too?

58 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

We brought our sin upon ourselves. God is not to blame for humanity being evil, because it is our choice, our human choice, to exert out free will and either follow Him to do what is right, or follow the world and do what is evil.

And why does free will have to equate with a possibility of evil? If God is almighty and good, He should be able to create beings of free will that are also free of evil. God is omnipotent to the point that breaking logic and the laws of nature should be easy.

1 hour ago, Hawkwing said:

There are many meanings to get from that parable. Punishment for the lazy being considered cruel is not one of them. Each of the servants knew that the master was going away, and that each of them was given money to put to use. One servant earned ten more gold in the time their master was away, another earned five, and the lazy servant buried the money he was given instead of using it to earn more. The first two servants were rewarded for their diligence, with the first servant given control of ten cities, and the second five. The last servant, however, was punished, and had their reward given to the servant who had earned ten. You reap what you sow, and who can be trusted with a little can be trusted with much, while one who can not be trusted with little cannot be trusted with greater responsibilities.

Copy paste from this website:

Spoiler

Matthew 25:14-30 King James Version (KJV)

14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.

15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.

16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.

17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.

18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money.

19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.

21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.

23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

From what I read, the saver has no idea on how to make money, and he did his best to preserve the little that his master gave him.

Was he worth less than other servants? Yes.

Worthless as a person? No, he managed to at least preserve the wealth.

Lazy? Maybe.

Deserve to be cast out and abandoned? Definitely no. That is way to severe.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@XRay

Spoiler
11 minutes ago, XRay said:

Genesis 31:1-30 is basically a story about how a man from another tribe fell in love with Dinah and did it with her, and Dinah's tribe did not like it and basically deceived the other tribe to be circumcised, and while the men of the other tribe were reeling in pain, Dinah's tribe massacred the men and and enslaved the women and children. God condemned no one from Dinah's tribe.

First of all, it's Genesis 34 that deals with Dinah.

Second, Schechem, the prince of the Hivites, RAPED Dinah! Jacobs sons were outraged, and when Schechems father, Hamor, tried to discuss possible interrmarriage, Jacob mentioned that they would only do so if the people were circumcised, given how that was a command God gave Abraham regarding his generations earlier. Simeon and Levi , brothers of Dinah, were the only two men that massacred the Hivites. After they were all dead, that's when the other sons took from the now dead tribe. Jacov criticized Simeon and Levi for making him a stench among the Canaanites and how that would result in future troubles, to which they replied, in Genesis 34:31 "But they replies 'Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?"

22 minutes ago, XRay said:

Exodus 32:1-35 is when a lot of the Israelites were afraid Moses is not coming back so they asked Aaron for guidance. The people wanted an idol for spiritual guidance so Aaron made a golden calf from the jewelry they had, and from what I understand, Aaron is trying to diffuse the frustration of his people tried to organize a feast to celebrate God. While I agree the Israelites should not have resorted to idols, God was not a great communicator in soothing his people and he killed 3,000 of them for this mistake.

 And how is this right in any way? This is yet another sign of Israels faithlessness, where instead of trusting in the LORD that he would see them through, they instead resorted to idols. Trusting in God with everything, even when ( or especially when) we may not know the end of the matter is a true sign of faith. God is in control, and they did not trust that He was. This was far, far from the only instance of their whining to God despite seeing his miracles with their own eyes in Egypt and beyond.

26 minutes ago, XRay said:

God made Job go through hell just to test his faith. If this were a marriage or another relationship between humans, this would be classified as severe abuse.

The beginning of the story shows that Satan is an open book to God, and that nothing that goes on in the universe goes unnoticed. Job's friends tried to talk to him with faulty human terms, yet Elihu, the only person not rebuked by God at the end, was angry that Job justified his own actions instead of Gods work in his life and spoke to him about it under the power of the Holy Spirit, and when God spoke, Job answered wisely. Job was given everything he lost back for his faith, and he received double the reward for his first family was in heaven, and so would his second.

Bad things happening to good people is shown as early as when God slew an animal to clothe them, showing that innocent blood would be split for the actions of the guilty. That truth is present even today.

46 minutes ago, XRay said:

God drowned everything except the life on Noah's Ark. Maybe all the humans were bad except Noah's family (and I seriously doubt this), but God is drowning all the animals innocent animals too?

There were also giants and the nephilim about, which were unholy results of fallen angels mating with humans. And every thought and action of humans at that time was geared towards evil, and they did not know right from wrong. Several times in the future God punished Israel and other nations for their wickedness

And God saved the animals on the ark. Again, innocents are not except from the punishment of the wicked, as sad as it is. That is life, and happens in events to this day that are unrelated to religion.

35 minutes ago, XRay said:

And why does free will have to equate with a possibility of evil? If God is almighty and good, He should be able to create beings of free will that are also free of evil. God is omnipotent to the point that breaking logic and the laws of nature should be easy.

Disobedience is a sin. If someone could not disobey, then they could not have free will. When the Earth is renewed after the events of Revelation, we will see a world that has free will without evil or sin. However, the people that are rewarded with this also have seen and rejected the evil of the world, so they still have that knowledge of it, although now they have the power and grace to reject it outright.

38 minutes ago, XRay said:

From what I read, the saver has no idea on how to make money, and he did his best to preserve the little that his master gave him.

Was he worth less than other servants? Yes.

Worthless as a person? No, he managed to at least preserve the wealth.

Lazy? Maybe.

Deserve to be cast out and abandoned? Definitely no. That is way to severe.

Do you reward a servant or worker who, when asked to complete their job when you go away, instead of using what they are given to do more with it, shirk from their responsibilities and do nothing with the time and resources you gave them?

That's the message Jesus was getting across. Those who work with the gifts and opportunities presented with them will be rewarded for their efforts, while those who are given spiritual gifts and opportunities but instead ignore or avoid action will instead have their gifts taken from them and given to the one who has proven they will use it wisely.

Once again, you reap what you sow. The first two servants worked with what they were given and thus were given more, while the lazy servant did nothing and thus received nothing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, XRay said:

Why do people not like raw meat when it tastes so good?

Because it gives you salmonella.

Why did I find a dried cat poop by my bedroom door the other day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They can make dumb people think their ridiculous outfits are actually wearable by normal people. They can also survive a week on nothing but a single apple.

As a side note: I sat next to two Japanese exchange students from my university in the bus today. They acted almost EXACTLY like your typical Anime siblings, "Onii-chan no baka!" included. I am not even joking right now and I don't know how I feel about that either...

But before we go off topic, here's a (hopefully) less debate-inducing question: Why is Donkey Kong called that when he has literally nothing in common with actual donkeys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DragonFlames said:

But before we go off topic, here's a (hopefully) less debate-inducing question: Why is Donkey Kong called that when he has literally nothing in common with actual donkeys?

Because he's not that smart or he hits like a donkey? I'm just imaginating Shrek screaming to Donkey Kong now.

What eeveelution do you want next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragon. I think that is the only special type left before they do all the physical types.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that the Thai food in Sacramento and New York and Thai food in Thailand taste practically the same?

@Hawkwing

Spoiler
6 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

First of all, it's Genesis 34 that deals with Dinah.

Second, Schechem, the prince of the Hivites, RAPED Dinah! Jacobs sons were outraged, and when Schechems father, Hamor, tried to discuss possible interrmarriage, Jacob mentioned that they would only do so if the people were circumcised, given how that was a command God gave Abraham regarding his generations earlier. Simeon and Levi , brothers of Dinah, were the only two men that massacred the Hivites. After they were all dead, that's when the other sons took from the now dead tribe. Jacov criticized Simeon and Levi for making him a stench among the Canaanites and how that would result in future troubles, to which they replied, in Genesis 34:31 "But they replies 'Should he have treated our sister like a prostitute?"

The passage also mentions that the prince really loves Dinah and speaks well of her, and accusing such a person of rape is kind of strange. At least for the KJV version, there was no mention of rape, as the term used was defiled, which sounds more like her loss of virginity is a stain on the brothers' egos than actual sexual violence. There was also no mention of Dinah's thoughts or actions. They could have wrote that Dinah tried to run away or said something to show her disapproval, but there was nothing of that sort.

Jacob's tribe did nothing to prevent Jacob's two sons from killing the whole town's male population and they profited off of the massacre by enslaving the women and children and sacking the town.

Even if she was raped, the punishment could have been limited to just the prince and people who were responsible instead of also massacring innocent men and subjecting innocent women and children to slavery.

At best, there is only justice when prince and his close supporters are killed. The massacre and slavery that followed is no justice.

Any sane human being today would have condemned their action as totally out of proportion.

6 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

And how is this right in any way? This is yet another sign of Israels faithlessness, where instead of trusting in the LORD that he would see them through, they instead resorted to idols. Trusting in God with everything, even when ( or especially when) we may not know the end of the matter is a true sign of faith. God is in control, and they did not trust that He was. This was far, far from the only instance of their whining to God despite seeing his miracles with their own eyes in Egypt and beyond.

Worshipping idols is not right, but the punishment is pretty extreme. Even Moses at first implored God to calm down "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" (Exodus 32:14), although Moses himself lost his cool later too. Doing evil is kind of the antithesis of what being God is. And if killing 3,000 people is not enough (and that is assuming only people who worshipped the calf died, the way it was worded sounded like the killing was indiscriminate and affected the innocent too), God also sent a plague to them and it seemed to imply the plague affecting everyone since it did not mention the plague sparing the children of Levi.

Again, a person spreading disease to punish an entire group instead of the individuals responsible is considered to be crazy.

6 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

The beginning of the story shows that Satan is an open book to God, and that nothing that goes on in the universe goes unnoticed. Job's friends tried to talk to him with faulty human terms, yet Elihu, the only person not rebuked by God at the end, was angry that Job justified his own actions instead of Gods work in his life and spoke to him about it under the power of the Holy Spirit, and when God spoke, Job answered wisely. Job was given everything he lost back for his faith, and he received double the reward for his first family was in heaven, and so would his second.

Bad things happening to good people is shown as early as when God slew an animal to clothe them, showing that innocent blood would be split for the actions of the guilty. That truth is present even today.

And that would be considered abuse if a human did that to another human. People would be up in arms if a spouse or a friend ruins their loved one's live just to test their love or friendship, but God gets a pass since he is God.

An omnibenevolent god condoning bad stuff happening does not seem all that benevolent to me.

7 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Disobedience is a sin. If someone could not disobey, then they could not have free will. When the Earth is renewed after the events of Revelation, we will see a world that has free will without evil or sin. However, the people that are rewarded with this also have seen and rejected the evil of the world, so they still have that knowledge of it, although now they have the power and grace to reject it outright.

And God for some reason cannot just give people the knowledge about evil without making them suffering through it? Or you know, give people free will and the power to reject evil right from the beginning? What is the point of creating evil and making your creation suffer through it when you are going to eliminate evil anyways?

God cannot have it both ways. If He is as omnibenevolent and omnipotent as people say He is, He could have just perfected his creation right from the beginning instead of allowing evil to flourish and denying humanity the knowledge to understand Him.

If I were able create, my creation would have been perfect and free of evil right from the beginning instead of making my creation go through shit.

7 hours ago, Hawkwing said:

Do you reward a servant or worker who, when asked to complete their job when you go away, instead of using what they are given to do more with it, shirk from their responsibilities and do nothing with the time and resources you gave them?

That's the message Jesus was getting across. Those who work with the gifts and opportunities presented with them will be rewarded for their efforts, while those who are given spiritual gifts and opportunities but instead ignore or avoid action will instead have their gifts taken from them and given to the one who has proven they will use it wisely.

Once again, you reap what you sow. The first two servants worked with what they were given and thus were given more, while the lazy servant did nothing and thus received nothing.

The master gave the servants according to their ability. The last servant got 1 talent, which heavily implies that he is pretty stupid already. He did the best he could to preserve the wealth and if investing it in a bank had crossed his mind, he probably would have done so.

No one is going to expect a person that is severely handicapped to perform on the same level as other people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Just do not buy the item in the first place.

Is it wrong to stare at my cat when she licks her butthole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Emperor_Siegfried said:

If a store overcharges you for an item, is it wrong to shoplift something of equivalent value?

Yes. Stealing is stealing, no matter what it is with. You can get back at them for buying the same item at a cheaper price at a different store, though. Or making your own.

EDIT: Of Course... I get ninja'd.

@XRay...again...: Probably. See how well the "FOR SCIENCE" excuse works in this situation.

I missed participating in the anniversary of this topic. Is there an after-party for it happening sometime soon?

...

@XRay (Sorry for all these interludes. I would participate in the topic more at the moment, but I know my luck with getting ninja'd in these situations)

Spoiler
2 hours ago, XRay said:

The passage also mentions that the prince really loves Dinah and speaks well of her, and accusing such a person of rape is kind of strange. At least for the KJV version, there was no mention of rape, as the term used was defiled, which sounds more like her loss of virginity is a stain on the brothers' egos than actual sexual violence. There was also no mention of Dinah's thoughts or actions. They could have wrote that Dinah tried to run away or said something to show her disapproval, but there was nothing of that sort.

Genesis 34:1-7:

Now Dianah, the daughter Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the women of the land. When Shechem son of hamor the Hivite, the ruler of the area, saw her, he took her and raped her. His heart was drawn to Dinah duaghter of Jacob; he loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. Shechem said to his father Hamor "get me this girl as my wife."

When Jacob heard that his duaghter Dinah had been defiled, his sons were in the fields with his livestock; so he did nothing about it until they came home.

Then Shechem's father Hamor went out to talk with Jacob. Meanwhile, Jacob's sons had come in from the fields as soon as they heard what had happened. They were shocked and furious, because Shechem had done an outrageous thing in Israel by sleeping with Jacob's daughter - a thing that should not have been done.

2 hours ago, XRay said:

Jacob's tribe did nothing to prevent Jacob's two sons from killing the whole town's male population and they profited off of the massacre by enslaving the women and children and sacking the town.

Genesis 34:30-31

Then Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, "you have brought trouble on me by making me obnoxious to the Canaanites and Perizzites, the people living in this land. We are few in number, and if they join forces against me and attack me, I and my household will be destroyed."

But they replied, ""Should we have treated our sister like a prostitute?"

And later, after Joseph had revealed himself to his brothers as Pharaoh's second in command, Jacob has this to say about their future (Genesis 49:5-7):

"Simeon and Levi are brothers -
their swords are weapons of violence.
Let me not enter their council,
let me not join their assembly,
for they have killed men in their anger
And Hamstrung oxen as they pleased.
Cursed be their anger, so fierce,
and their fury, so cruel!
I will scatter them in Jacob
And disperse then in Israel."

2 hours ago, XRay said:

Worshipping idols is not right, but the punishment is pretty extreme. Even Moses at first implored God to calm down "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" (Exodus 32:14), although Moses himself lost his cool later too. Doing evil is kind of the antithesis of what being God is. And if killing 3,000 people is not enough (and that is assuming only people who worshipped the calf died, the way it was worded sounded like the killing was indiscriminate and affected the innocent too), God also sent a plague to them and it seemed to imply the plague affecting everyone since it did not mention the plague sparing the children of Levi.

Exodus 32:7-9

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you have brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves and idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and have said 'These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."'

"I have seen these people," the Lord said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people."

Israel saw with their own eyes the works and miracles that God had done. Yet a few days without Moses, and they turned from Him. Is it any wonder that such a stiff-necked people were rejected from going into the promised land, while their children, who saw less but had more trust in the LORD, did? 

And what are you expecting the punishment should be for disobedience? A slap on the wrist? Many great evils were brought into the land of Israel through worshiping foreign gods, including the sacrifice of children. The books of the prophets have multitudes of warnings for what their sin would result in if they did not repent, so words proved to not always be enough. God dealt with a stiff necked people

2 hours ago, XRay said:

And that would be considered abuse if a human did that to another human. People would be up in arms if a spouse or a friend ruins their loved one's live just to test their love or friendship, but God gets a pass since he is God.

An omnibenevolent god condoning bad stuff happening does not seem all that benevolent to me.

Faith is tested and strengthened through hardship and persecution. The problem of pain and suffering is not a simple one. It can be used for the punishment of sins, for the sharpening of ones character, and for persecution of following Christ, to which the Apostles say to rejoice in.

Unbenevolent human governments, organizations, and groups ask people to do terrible things all the time in order to prove their loyalty. While God does not ask humans to do what is evil, there will be hardships in this lifetime, He makes no effort in hiding it. A faith or belief that is destroyed easily is not worth having, yet if one holds fast to Him in times of trouble, even if it results in martyrdom, He will prove His power and grace to them. Suffering because of ones faith, even if it leads to martyrdom, is not something to be afraid of, but to rejoice in.

Job also received all that he had lost at the end of the book after answering Gods rebuke wisely. It is rewarded, even if it will not always be in this lifetime.

2 hours ago, XRay said:

And God for some reason cannot just give people the knowledge about evil without making them suffering through it? Or you know, give people free will and the power to reject evil right from the beginning? What is the point of creating evil and making your creation suffer through it when you are going to eliminate evil anyways?

Romans 7:7-25

What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

***

Wish I could continue with the whole of Romans, as each passage leads into the next, but unfortunately I do not have the time at the moment.

***

With free will, once you have knowledge of something, you have the ability to use that knowledge. We can know that something is evil and make a choice to do the right thing instead, but he also had the choice to do the evil action. There is no way to give humans knowledge of evil and make it impossible for them to use it, or else their free will would be false. And we are in a situation every single day to reject evil, or to engage in it.

Why evil exists at all in the very first place, and not just how it came about through Adam and Eve, is one of those questions to ask God in Heaven. Even though it won't be necessary there, and it's unwise to ask God the "why" questions anyway

2 hours ago, XRay said:

The master gave the servants according to their ability. The last servant got 1 talent, which heavily implies that he is pretty stupid already. He did the best he could to preserve the wealth and if investing it in a bank had crossed his mind, he probably would have done so.

No one is going to expect a person that is severely handicapped to perform on the same level as other people.

And Bunyan wrote the Pilgrims Progress with the equivalent of an eight grade education.

The point is is that even if a person isn't smart, or is actually legitimately stupid, there is no excuse for them to squander the spiritual gifts that God has given them. Sure, the lazy servant could have spent that money on something foolish, or they could have stolen it gold from someone else to boost their own material gain, but the inaction of good people is all it take for evil to prosper. The lazy servant, instead of putting his single talent to work and earning one more, did nothing with it. And that is the one of the messages that Jesus is getting across. There is no reward for those that do not use the resources, opportunities, and gifts they are given, no matter how great or small they are. If they squander their responsibilities, then it will be given to the one who has proven they will use it.

Edited by Hawkwing
Hello Ninja's my old frenemy (though mostly moral foe)...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Emperor_Siegfried said:

Ask Dragoncat.  She might have something planned.

Image result for funny party gif

There that's all I have.

32 minutes ago, Emperor_Siegfried said:

Is business more like Risk or Battleship?

Both.

Why is there always an uncle or two in a family that acts like an idiot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because boys will be boys.

Will girls be girls?

@Hawkwing, I assume we are using the NIV version, just so we can be on the same page.

Spoiler

For the Genesis thing, Jacob did nothing to prevent his sons from violence and God did nothing to prevent such atrocities from happening. Jacob basically gave them a slap on the wrist and a lecture. On the other hand, when intervention means destruction and suffering, God seems much more willing to intervene as seen in the following.

51 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

And what are you expecting the punishment should be for disobedience? A slap on the wrist?

Exactly. Do you kill your wife and give her family anthrax if she cheats on you? No. You divorce her and take custody of your kids. The punishment has to match the crime. God in the Old Testament have anger management issues and a huge lack of self control.

When God acts, often times it means indiscriminate suffering for many people.

51 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

Unbenevolent human governments, organizations, and groups ask people to do terrible things all the time in order to prove their loyalty. While God does not ask humans to do what is evil, there will be hardships in this lifetime, He makes no effort in hiding it.

I am pretty sure God asked Abraham to sacrifice his son once. God back tracked at the last moment. That is a pretty sick and disgusting way to test someone's loyalty, and if it were anyone else but God, they would be condemned for utilizing such tactics.

51 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

Job also received all that he had lost at the end of the book after answering Gods rebuke wisely. It is rewarded, even if it will not always be in this lifetime.

If it were that easy to satisfy victims of abuse, many victims of abuse would not have to go through counseling and suffer continued mental anguish after their ordeal. The passage makes it seem like it is okay to abuse Job because God will reward him later. I am not okay with that. That just seems messed up.

51 minutes ago, Hawkwing said:

With free will, once you have knowledge of something, you have the ability to use that knowledge. We can know that something is evil and make a choice to do the right thing instead, but he also had the choice to do the evil action. There is no way to give humans knowledge of evil and make it impossible for them to use it, or else their free will would be false. And we are in a situation every single day to reject evil, or to engage in it.

Why evil exists at all in the very first place, and not just how it came about through Adam and Eve, is one of those questions to ask God in Heaven. Even though it won't be necessary there, and it's unwise to ask God the "why" questions anyway

So that means God is not omnipotent since He does not have the power to give humans free will and the power to always reject evil at the same time.

If God is so easily offended by such a simple question, He probably is not so benevolent in the first place either.

 

Edited by XRay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because sometimes the apple fall far from the tree.

Do you think the color of a cat fur has an effect on their personality or behaviour?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When they have answered the question that continues to ellude the minds of humans to this day and will continue to do so for millennia to come.  Should either one of them achieve an empirical answer, it will truly be a grand achievement that will dwarf all other progression that the human race has discovered in its time on this planet.

What if I'm not shufflin' every day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...