LB70145's forum posts

#1 Edited by LB70145 (189 posts) - - Show Bio

@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 people 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.

#2 Posted by LB70145 (189 posts) - - Show Bio

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.

Lightning round...

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.

#3 Posted by LB70145 (189 posts) - - Show Bio

@rd189 said:

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.

#4 Posted by LB70145 (189 posts) - - Show Bio

I never understand why the make new characters when they're nothing wrong with the old ones.Where the hell is Danny Ketch?

You can read Blaze in the Thunderbolts and I felt that Ketch was ruined by the whole Zadkiel thing. That said, I like where this new book is going.

#5 Posted by LB70145 (189 posts) - - Show Bio

@w0nd said:

@lb70145 said:

@mxyzptlk_cv said:

Why so pessimistic guys? This looks real interesting from the plot synopsis I just read...I will definitely give it a try...

It is a combination of most of these characters being drastically changed unnecessarily and the other half of these characters are so new no one really caring about them.

It just makes me sad that Hazmat, Nico, and Chase are being dragged into this. Nico and Chase especially, they don't even want to be part of the superhero community. Hazmat I can kind of understand but half her angst is taken care of now that she doesn't need to wear her containment suit. Cammi being brought in is kind of random, but I guess they needed a bad ass normal. Seriously, that is one obscure character to bring into this.

However, I do find Deathlocket, Anachronism, and Bloodstone interesting.

does it seem like chase and nico are part of the super hero community? Super powered but not super hero. Theyve been runaways orphans put in a battle arena and who knows what now. i just wish they filled in the gap at the end of runaways

If they are actively joining this revenge venture, they are really going against their established personalities and motives. Nico and Chase are team mom and dad respectively for the Runaways. That being said, are they just abandoning Karolina, Molly, and Klara? Are going to put their lives at risk for... why would they even risk their lives for this? They don't have much of a stake in this mission. Granted they were used and some people they knew were hurt (in one case killed), but I don't think that is motivation enough to undertake such a dangerous mission. Personally, I just don't see them joining this team. I also find the premise of this story highly problematic. If I had just survived the ordeal that these kids just went through, the last thing I would want to do is go on a dangerous/risky revenge mission. Not to mention, taking revenge on Arcade is not going to get their old lives back.


The Runaways have been in comic limbo for too long. I really hope someone chooses to pick them up and soon.

#6 Posted by LB70145 (189 posts) - - Show Bio

Why so pessimistic guys? This looks real interesting from the plot synopsis I just read...I will definitely give it a try...

It is a combination of most of these characters being drastically changed unnecessarily and the other half of these characters are so new no one really caring about them.

It just makes me sad that Hazmat, Nico, and Chase are being dragged into this. Nico and Chase especially, they don't even want to be part of the superhero community. Hazmat I can kind of understand but half her angst is taken care of now that she doesn't need to wear her containment suit. Cammi being brought in is kind of random, but I guess they needed a bad ass normal. Seriously, that is one obscure character to bring into this.

However, I do find Deathlocket, Anachronism, and Bloodstone interesting.

#7 Posted by LB70145 (189 posts) - - Show Bio

Good, one less thing for them to screw up.

#8 Posted by LB70145 (189 posts) - - Show Bio

Holy... alright then. This is really awesome! Thanks @k4tzm4n for the selection.

I will try to contribute more to these battles. It was quite fun coming up with a scenario.

#9 Posted by LB70145 (189 posts) - - Show Bio

@blacklegraph: Funny thought I just had, the way you describe Faora, she is like Predator and if you don't have any means to defend yourself she won't attack you. But yeah I see what you mean. This fight to me is very close, but I think Thor still comes out on top. It would not be an all out slaughter one way or another.

#10 Edited by LB70145 (189 posts) - - Show Bio

@blacklegraph said:

@lb70145: Many problems with that scenario.

First of all, Thor has to overcome her speed to land a decent hit, which is very unlikely given that he hasn't fought anyone of that speed calibre in his movies.

Secondly, Thor is more overconfident than Faora, also coupled with the fact that she is a woman, and he has more moral constraints than she does. If you are counting the experience from their movies, then you also have to consider that Faora fought Superman who was also faster than Thor and had equal if not greater strength.

Then the knife cannot be thrown to the side. It is available to her, and she drew on it when facing someone who also had a weapon, and Thor has a blatantly obvious one. Thor has years of experience but close to nothing to show for it. He just all out brawls and doesn't show the blocking and precision Faora does.

It is true that Thor has more movies and screen time to show for himself, but the little Faora has cannot be discounted either, and does not necessarily have to be equal to his.

1) I will give you that from the offensive standpoint Thor may have some difficulty being able to land a hit, but I feel eventually he would win out. His hammer will make up in offense where Faora will utilize speed in defense. I don't see her dodging attacks. She would rather counter them. However, I am not entirely sure how that will go when Mjolnir is such an X Factor in this fight. I am also not confident in her reflexes because there are instances such as when Supes trips her while being double teamed, that suggest she can't use speed for everything.

2) I will give you that he does have the moral constraints but he is still a warrior in the end. I don't think being a woman will stop Thor, especially since I know she would strike first. Like I said before about unknowns, there are too many with Faora. I don't know how much combat experience she has and what kind of people/creatures she has fought before. Whereas, I know that Thor has had hundreds of years worth of combat experience. Using Supes as an example is not that good considering it only proves the overconfidence I think she would have over Thor. She could have mopped the floor with Supes, but she didn't.

The knife is indeed there but will she use it? I am not sure she would. Granted she did pull it when faced with a weapon, but how about all the guns other soldiers had? She just tackled them. I imagine she would do the same with Thor, speed tackle only to realize he won't go down that way. That's why I equate her to the Hulk, she just kinda rushes people with raw power. If the knife so useful, why not pull it on Supes? She didn't have to toy with him using her unarmed prowess, but she did. I think that shows her preference in fighting. I will defend Thor's brawling insomuch as that he hasn't needed to use his full potential when fighting most opponents. This is not overconfidence, he knows he is stronger than the foes he fights. He didn't bat an eye at Frost Giants, but he was quite defensive when fighting Dark Elves because they were from before his time. He had no experience against them so he fought them trying to figure out how to take them down. Also take the first Thor, when he was mortal and fought off SHIELD agents he was using blocks and counters. He knew he was on their level, so he fought at a level needed to overcome his foes.

You are right, I should not write off those few scenes Faora had. But if those are what I have to base my scenario on, she just fights like a sped up Hulk that is more interested in proving her superiority than winning. If anything, she feels her superiority grants her victory from the get go and therefore has no need to fight at full power. Remember her face when hit by Superman's heat vision? That was a face of someone realizing her opponent was possibly stronger than her. Her superiority was nothing against Superman, because in that case he is better than her. She is a warrior facing foes so much weaker and more unskilled that her that she fights with no effort. This is why she will not win. As Coulson said to Loki, "You lack conviction."

P.S. Thank you for responding respectfully. I know how serious business these debates can get (especially this one judging the back and forth of others) and I appreciate your tact and calm demeanor. I also understand if it seems if I am heavily interpreting things that may be due to cinematic convenience or simply over analyzation of character actions, but it is my only opinion after all.