"People are so sensitive these days" says the same people that flip out when Comic Companies try new things.
LB70145's forum posts
This Oscar cycle is a joke. So many films got robbed in so many ways. Good for Birdman though, was actually really surprised it got so much attention.
....but... she's not Thor though... she's someone that has Thor's power.. but Thor's not her name... this series should be called The Mighty Jane (or whatever her real name is). Just because I put someone's shoes on doesn't make me that person.
@tommythehitman: Tell that to Bucky and The Falcon when they became/become Captain America. Or Dick Grayson when he became Batman. In this instance I think it's saying that Thor is more than a name, it's an ideal to strive for. Sure it's his name, but it became something more as he became worthy to wield the hammer.
I thought Thor was a birth name like Steve or Bruce! Bucky and the Falcon will not become Steve, and Dick Grayson never was Bruce Wayne!
As Thor fan i want to see the new series succeeded but i haven't heard any reasonable explanation to call the new worthy character Thor even if he was a male, Beta Ray Bill never call himself Thor or did He? With Frigg apparently out of the equation can you see any explanation to the new character become another Thor and not only have his power, like the past of the character in comics suggest.
As for became something more, he has a small background as Norse God but nothing special compared to comic books!
I would remind you guys that there have been other people to take on Thor's name before. Eric Masterson, Beta Ray Bill, and Red Norvell called themselves Thor. Thor is both a person and a title. I mean, look at Donald Blake. Thor was his alter ego.
Man, of all the episodes of Young Justice there one episode I have gone back to several times. That episode is called Downtime (Season 1 Episode 8). Something about the majority of the episode being in Atlantis was just amazing. The world building for the show was amazing and effective, and Downtime is a great example of that.
@king_saturn: Whoa whoa, I wasn't agreeing with any of what I said or saying that God mandated any of that. Heck, I was not even claiming anything I said was fact. I was just offering a perspective on some of the rules you had mentioned with a few bonus ones. I am just saying from a certain perspective, the reasoning I listed off could very well be why those rules were to be followed. Also remember that people have written, translated, and edited holy scripture for thousands of years. Who knows who imposed what and for what reason. The important thing to remember is that wrote, translated, and edited these writings. God didn't send the Quran, Torah, Vedas, or the bible via lightning bolt the way we see them today. Though this method would have probably ended with less faith-based bloodshed.
Also, a lot of what I listed off are just the greatest hits of what people use to discredit religious teachings and/or God. I know you didn't mention cattle or mediums, I was more or less piggybacking off your comment to talk about these subjects. Nothing personal, I just saw the subject matter and wished to build on top of it. Most of the reasoning for the rules in Leviticus are so the Israelites didn't conform to foreign cultures and practices, or mess up certain practices and get themselves killed. Or at least, that is what many bible historians and anthropologists believe according to research. Yeah it might suck from your perspective to not eat pork or shellfish, not wear mixed textiles, etc. But like I said, the rules were for survival and cultural preservation in their time. I certainly don't think those rules are needed now. And from what I can tell the sale of pork, lobster, and polyester are in no danger of going down anytime soon due to divine punishment. Also, I did say that the punishments were extreme because it increased the likelihood of people following the rules if the word of God was not good enough. I did not say that they were logical, let alone reasonable. In ancient times, you wanted people to follow a rule? You threaten life and limb.
And hey, I totally understand how you don't see God as merciful for letting his kid die or needing anybody killed to get a message across. I am not going to argue against you on it either because what I said is just my understanding. The great (possibly not so great) thing about religious teachings is that everyone can have their take on it. And like I said before, all that human intervention in the composition of many holy writings definitely plays into that. My main point in that paragraph was that tons of people embrace the message of that sacrifice, whether it was by understanding similar to mine or not. I could discuss it more by message if you wanted or continue here as well.
I also wanted to apologize if you saw my initial comment as combative or dismissive of what you said. I was honestly just adding to the discussion. Not seeking attention or argument. This thread is really cool to read through because of the multitude of stories and beliefs people have. I just wanted to add my take.
GOD ( Yahweh ) in the Bible is Mean as Heck... I would have been Mad as hell to be an Israelite living under all those strict ass laws they had back then... You Can't Eat Shrimp or Lobster ? You gotta stone people for being Gay ? You gotta stone people for thinking about worship other Gods ? Wearing mixed fabrics is an abomination ? Yeah, GOD was Mean as heck and apparently stayed Mean even into the New Testament where he basically had his own Son killed... as if The Creator of the Universe couldn't actually forgive sins without someone dying. So much for his Omnipotence.
Leviticus (and arguably other sections of the bible) is basically a "how to survive in a desert environment" section to the extreme. Think about it. Don't eat shellfish is a pretty good rule when a majority of people back then would have stored this kind of food improperly. They would have gotten sick and died if they ate bad shellfish. Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together." This basically just told people to keep cattle pure bred, don't mix up crops because the crop yields will be messed up, and garments made with mixed material are more trouble than they are worth. Granted, by today's standards these rules are ridiculous but you have to see it from the perspective of a desert dwelling population that lived thousands of years ago.
Tolerating homosexuality meant a portion of the population with no offspring to contribute to society. Worshiping other gods means people could develop political divisions based on faith. Tattoos mean the possibility of getting an infection. Don't go to fortune tellers or mediums because they are ripping you off. Don't eat pork because back then (hell I am pretty sure some people still do it) pigs were often fed fecal matter, garbage, and who knows what else.
And how do you get people to follow these rules? Make the rules come from a divine being and make the punishment for disobeying said rules completely awful. Long story short, a lot of rules in the bible are based on the cultures and religious practices of that time. A lot of slippery slope logic yes, but their main concern was survival and maintaining a functioning community. But again, by today's standards the rules are unnecessary. The bible does not work very well as a living document, it needs footnotes to be understood at its fullest. However, I don't think people will like the idea of having to read a document that is 3 times the size of a regular bible in order to truly know their faith.
As for God not saving his son, Jesus wanted to make a statement on several levels. He wanted his sacrifice to demonstrate his commitment to his holy father and his faith. He wanted to show that even in his last moments of life, he could forgive all that was done to him. He wanted to show people how far he was willing to go for those who would even wish his death. His death was the ultimate action for his faith, himself, and others. How can one preach forgiveness if he does not offer himself before his naysayers and face death? How can one preach forgiveness if he does not have anyone to forgive? Extreme yes, but you cannot argue against its efficacy. There is a reason that Christianity is a majority in world. It's one heck of a message.
Eh, It;s good and bad.
I'm pretty sure the average guy going to church isn't a gay bashing, abortion hating douchebag, but his preacher might be.
The muslim preacher is a fairly nice guy, but the guy who goes to his mosque is also a terrorist.
People do dumb shit in the name of faith. People also do dumb shit in the name of opposing faith.
Atheists are angry, angry people, that can't ever let anyone be happy, and are, of course, 100% right about everything.
I'm Agnostic, I don't think anyone can really know the whole truth. I wish people would just get along, instead of punching eachother in the face over dumb shit like this:
"God isn't real bro"
"God is real bro"
Thank you. Seriously, whatever you believe in I think we can all agree on several things. Don't be a dick, don't generalize, and arguing is just a massive waste of time.
Some really cool posts in this thread.