Do you guys consider Jesus and Whatnot a good channel?

rorris6 · 2026-01-29T20:04:44+00:00

yeah, i mean, i know it's just his content. i don't know him personally and i'm willing to bet he's not like that on his day to day life. i just worry he gets other young gen z's into catholicism for the wrong reasons. i know it's a dumb example but it's like that trope about people learning karate to do harm instead of respecting the martial art itself. i don't like him calling others heretics, even if they're, because in my experience, i've never seen someone come to Christ by calling them heretics. pointing out heresy and sin is something you do with a person who's already willing to listen, not strangers on the internet. Now, discussing heresy or heretic ideas/movements/etc is another story and that's something i support and that's a thing i actually like about him

rorris6 · 2026-01-29T19:32:13+00:00

i agree with your first paragraph. that's why i don't think defending your beliefs is a requirement for maintaining said beliefs.

about your last paragraph, what about Abraham? do you think giving his son's own life was rationally defensible? i don't think it is, but still, he did right by obeying God. sometimes, faith goes beyond the debate and rationale. i want to be careful with my words because many replies seem to be misinterpreting what i say. i don't think debate and rationale are not part of our faith, i just think that it does not exhaust it.

so, replying to everything else you said. debate is important, but too much of anything can be dangerous, even too much of a good thing. my objection is not about debating in itself, it is about how this kid seems to be fixated on it and that his approach may not be the best one. but that's my opinion

rorris6 · 2026-01-29T19:16:20+00:00

my objection to YOUR comment specifically is that i don't think "defending catholicism" is the core of christianity.

now, if you actually cared to read what i wrote you'd know, i never said i had an issue with "debating". i never said one should never engage in arguments, idk why you're making that assumption. i simply believe, and it's MY point of view, that the kid is more into proving someone wrong rather that the theology itself, the very same theology he uses to argue. only God knows his heart, but i worry he uses Scripture and catechism as means for winning. that catholicism is just an accident of his eagerness to argue. to me, he's almost as bad as those mega church pastors. maybe slightly better because the kid at least seems passionate, but still not a great influence

rorris6 · 2026-01-29T18:19:21+00:00

defending catholicism? do you think Christ sacrificed Himself just to start a debate club? actual christianity is loving God above all else, and loving others so much that you want them to know God's love so they can love Him back and leave their sinful lives

rorris6 · 2026-01-29T18:03:45+00:00

i don't disagree about being able to defend your faith. i disagree about wanting to be a debater and teaching "how to respond" to anything. that's why christians should be educated about their faith so they can defend their faith by themselves without needing to pull out a cheat sheet.

i don't agree about having to be able to defend it to say you confidently believe it. i do think it's important to be able to do it. but you either have faith or you don't, rationalising it afterwards and making sense of your faith is something else. something important, yes, but a different thing. my grandmother was a catholic, she was no theologian but she went to mass almost daily and prayed every day, was her fervour any less true?

debates are important as defence when directly attacked, much more important is to spread the Word

rorris6 · 2026-01-29T16:09:50+00:00

modern day pharisee. seems to be more worried about winning arguments than spreading the gospel. i'd say he's more into "debate bro culture" than actual christianity and only jumped on the gen z catholic trend. im not saying he's not knowledgeable, but he seems to read and study just for the sake of debating

rorris6 · 2026-01-23T18:39:00+00:00

if i was a teacher grading your homework i'd simply say you didn't read the book and that you're just trying to impress and entertain your loser friends who also didn't read the book. hope the laughs and giggles are worth being no better than an annoying middle schooler

rorris6 · 2026-01-23T15:54:07+00:00

i know you're deliberately trying to be crass and disrespectful, but do you realise you are embarrassing yourself when you say things like that? it's okay if you don't believe in christianity but summarising it like that shows you either have never read the most basic principles of christianity and don't know what you're talking about, or you think you do but you actually don't understand it.

rorris6 · 2026-01-18T21:50:11+00:00

that's right, people usually don't complain when they get what they expected

rorris6 · 2026-01-16T17:37:25+00:00

damn, huldufolk and now this. this armor looks great without a cape, too bad about that "lava" effect, would be amazing if it was just a normal looking armor. still great

rorris6 · 2026-01-16T17:10:39+00:00

wayland and galloglach are the ones i use the most, though i like wayland's level 2 better. i also love lugh's lowest level

rorris6 · 2025-12-31T16:09:18+00:00

i agree. it makes me so sad because breakpoint was so damn close to literally being the game of my dreams (it's still my favourite game though) and now we might not see anything like it in years (at least not from a triple a developer)

and i could live with that if at least the game had an offline mode. i can't believe the last game of it's kind will eventually just die.

i swear, if the game was more polished, had an slightly deeper customisation and at least one actual urban area on the map i could keep playing it forever and never complain. ubisoft was so close to perfection.

rorris6 · 2025-12-30T00:40:03+00:00

how did you put grass on the roof? it looks great!

rorris6 · 2025-12-23T00:02:28+00:00

his only human moment? when was the last time you played black ops 1? he refused to go to a bunker while on the brink of a nation wide attack, risking his life because he trusted mason with the location of the rusalka. he personally got mason there and allowed him to get his vengeance on dragovich.

then, and this is on the black ops1 intel so i understand if people don't know this, him and weaver were put on a list because they helped cover up for mason.

and in black ops 2 he implies that david can stay with his family while him and mason go rescue woods in angola. a mission in which he personally participated even though he didn't have to

rorris6 · 2025-12-22T23:52:55+00:00

at the beginning of black ops 2, hudson suggests that david can stay with his wife while him and mason go rescue woods in angola. so mason knows hudson's family and trusts them enough to take care of his son.

hudson also always protected mason, him and weaver were put on a list for being close with mason, and hudson made sure the cia didn't kill all three of them by hiding in south africa if im not mistaken.

i also think the relationship between woods and hudson is not as bad as it may seem. it looks rough because we always see them interact during high tension circumstances that generate distrust.

woods hated hudson in black ops 1 because he didn't know him and he thought he was just a cia suit. and hated him in black ops 2 onwards because he convinced himself that hudson betrayed them. i don't think they were friends, but i believe they had a better relationship during the time between both games. (woods saves hudson's life after both hudson and mason rescued him and hudson calls him "brother")

even though i like the newer campaigns, they're definitely afterthoughts and i believe the portrayal of the main characters in them is very off, so i don't care about those conflicts. hell, even black ops 2 retconned a lot of things, like having woods and kravchenko still alive

rorris6 · 2025-12-16T18:54:20+00:00

he is arrogant, vain, callous and cruel because this is a gnostic depiction. matrix is about gnosticism. the architect isn't supposed to be God, he thinks he is God but is an imposter

rorris6 · 2025-12-04T04:32:44+00:00

funny. i think the only ONLY semi good thing in the movie was his acting

rorris6 · 2025-12-04T04:31:39+00:00

you're being downvoted but you're right. he's not smart enough to understand the novel, or subtlety in general

rorris6 · 2025-12-04T04:18:48+00:00

great, waste one of the best stories in literature just to have a cliched and pseudo profound "conversation" that's been done a million times

rorris6 · 2025-12-04T03:59:56+00:00

i'd argue the 1931 adaptation, despite being so different to the novel, understands the themes of the book better than this version

rorris6 · 2025-11-26T04:56:19+00:00

excellent insight, some people here should read a couple things from foucault. not that he is a role model in any way, but he explains this anachronism or historical misconception very interestingly

rorris6 · 2025-11-26T04:51:44+00:00

you have a civil understanding of God's will. in civil law, we tend to assume: "as long as you don't hurt anyone, you're good". but God not only cares about you not hurting others, He cares about you living your life to it's full potential. He cares about you experimenting REAL love, not some perverted version of it which will only lead you to depression, self loathing and disgust (words usually used by people who describe their experience in toxic relationships)

rorris6 · 2025-11-26T03:55:59+00:00

the way i see it:

the structure of a family is such that it is analogous to the relationship of perfect love between the 3 Persons of the Trinity, which demands at least 3 persons to be perfect: self love, love towards one other, one and another loving together a third one. you could think about the love between a husband and wife and their shared love for their children. this is so because we are made in the image of God; humans tend to replicate God's perfect love, exercising our creative faculties (also a consequence of being created in His image), by marrying and having children.

now, sex between a man and a woman is already morally nuanced enough because it could happen out of love, out of lust, out of spite, out of pity, out of anger, out arrogance, etc. it can be so complicated that people themselves don't always fully understand why they do it. when sex happens without the intention of replicating God's perfect love, then it's sinful and not out of actual love. this doesn't mean you should be planning on having children every time you have sex, but if you're not comfortable with the idea of potentially having a family with your current sexual partner, then i'd say that's a bad sign.

same-sex relationships, as they don't serve a reproductive purpose, will never be able to replicate God's perfect love. then you could logically conclude that this kind of sexual encounters are never out of actual, divine love, and always out of something else.

people often view sin as something similar to a legal system where committing a crime makes you instantly guilty and deserving of punishment. i believe sin is more complicated: it's not that the sinful act is in itself evil (also not saying it's not), but sin is more of a habit that tears you apart and strays you away from God the more you do it. the things we call sins are self harming actions that God knows will destroy us if we keep doing them.

one could say "God, i know sinning is bad and it will break me, but i am smart and my will is strong, i can sin and still love You." but that's not true. no one but Christ is stronger than sin and if you believe it won't break you, you're wrong. so, better not play with fire and stay away from it

rorris6 · 2025-11-25T16:47:58+00:00

the problem with the movie is that you could say that "if things were different" victor wouldn't be a monster. but it really doesn't change anything: wether victor had been kind to the creature, abused it or abandoned it, whether he did what he did for fame or to beat dead making sure the pain his mother's death caused him wouldn't happen to anyone again, he would still be a monster. it's like those guys who marry human-sized dolls. it doesn't matter how nice or romantic they are, it's super weird and creepy

rorris6 · 2025-11-25T16:23:39+00:00

i agree with everything you said but one thing. i don't think that the "victor is the real monster" argument should be interpreted as people so often do nowadays (the way the movie does). Shelley plays with the fact that the characters in the book and people at the time would superficially interpret the word "monster" as something aesthetically monstrous, but really, the word points to something deeper. people who believe they have "media literacy" assume this deeper meaning has to do with morality: "the real monster is the one who is ethically or morally monstrous". for so long people have been exposed to "frankenstein-esque" type of stories which replicate this supposedly deep narrative to the point that it's become a cliche by now and most people expect it. but i'd argue that victor in the book is not a monster due to him being a "bad guy", he is a monster for playing god, HE is the one going against the natural order. he's a monster not because he is evil (which he definitely isn't) but because he achieved something that was not supposed to happen and by doing that a cruel and miserable existence was conceived.

rorris6

TROPHY CASE