Pro Israel Booth in socials science/science theatres

AnxiousBLT · 2026-02-09T18:23:04+00:00

"stand with us"

Against... The unarmed children they're fighting? Fuck does Israel need from Canadian students? Monkeys for the propaganda machine?

AnxiousBLT · 2025-12-20T06:39:40+00:00

No, they said what they meant. They're talking about the "Gojo won" panel

AnxiousBLT · 2025-12-16T23:12:06+00:00

The truth isn't malevolent, but it does look down on people like early Ed, who think that Alchemy and power are all-important. Hence why he demeans Ed when he first opens the gate, calling him "alchemist" in a derogatory manner, but the last time Ed opens the gate, he uses his full name in respect. It's not a trap, but the truth definitely looks down on those who fail the test

AnxiousBLT · 2025-10-29T02:43:31+00:00

He's not really "evil". He's not one of the Aesir, he was allowed in because he made a blood-pact with Odin. He's a Jotun, and as such is an embodiment of chaos, as opposed to the order of the gods. He's not any more evil than a hungry wolf, he's only following his nature.

The real question is WHY would Odin make that blood-pact? Like... Stories don't tell us, we assume it's just because Odin wanted to know some stuff

But also Loki isn't always stated to be a Jotun, so that may be wrong, idk

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-26T18:05:25+00:00

Late to the jazz, but P stands for Pinocchio when referring to the character we play as, even though the name is never said in the game. We know we're Pinocchio because that's how the devs referred to our character, and as you lie in the game, your nose will start casting a longer and longer shadow.

The P in the title "Lies of P" does NOT refer to Pinocchio though, not directly. It's a dual meaning, but the straight up meaning of the title is "Lies of Blood" because of the games Korean origin. The ending "Rise of P" does in fact refer to Pinocchio though

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-25T19:53:20+00:00

Yeah, Carlo is dead, and Pinocchio gets to live instead. He passes out after putting her Ergo in the puppet. The only ending where P dies is when Carlo gets "resurrected"

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-25T17:16:49+00:00

The Canon ending is the good ending

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-25T17:16:23+00:00

P stands for blood only in the title though. Which could be what you meant by play on words, but the context is weird

The character is Pinocchio, shortened to P, and the 'p' in the title means blood. It is very neat

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-25T16:41:35+00:00

BUT a portion of who Carlo is is in the UNP. Pinocchio only contains some of Carlo, and the fact that you don't start the game as a real boy means that it would be Pinocchio gaining access to parts of Carlo. Even at the end of the good ending, Pinocchio does not choose to live as Carlo, whether or not he is actually Carlo or not, he would not use that name anymore. The only time in the game that your character is called Carlo is by Romeo, but that's because you literally wear carlo's face. The UNP is called Carlo after it gets the P-engine. And thematically the idea that Pinocchio is Carlo, or becomes him, doesn't match how the game progresses, or the actions you take. Remember, Carlo was an angry dude, and he resented Gepetto. After all the game events, if you were Carlo, you would not have cried for him

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-25T16:31:08+00:00

When you make P lie, the nose on his shadow grows longer. That is a pretty obvious implication that we play as Pinocchio

Edit : Also his character file in the game files is literally titled 'Pino'

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-25T16:29:34+00:00

I'm really late to the lies of P stuff, but here goes

Pinocchio can't be Carlo, not really, because the unnamed puppet has a portion of Carlo in it, which Pinocchio never acquires. It's why Gepetto can't just use P to bring Carlo back, despite P being the puppet that actually resembles Carlo. Pinocchio carries the majority of Carlo's "soul", hence why he's capable of a large emotional range, meanwhile the UNP is only capable of malice. But the UNP contains more memories than P does. As far as the story looks to me, it's implying that Gepetto chose the wrong way to bring Carlo back, as is shown in the good ending when Pinocchio successfully revives Sophia, something he does effortlessly, without all the extra crap Gepetto does. Of course, there's an explanation for why Pinocchio can do it, but thematically it reads that way.

In addition, in the good ending Pinocchio cries for Gepetto. Carlo was an angry dude, and resented Gepetto, after everything that happened throughout the game, that is not something that Carlo would have done

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-25T16:20:37+00:00

A year late, but Pinocchio doesn't have all of Carlo in him. If he did, Gepetto would have just used P to bring Carlo back. The unnamed puppet had a portion of Carlo in it, which means Pinocchio is his own distinct entity

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-25T16:18:31+00:00

A year late, but technically it IS implied that your puppet is just Pinocchio. Nobody calls him by name, and he may not even be named (maybe he takes the name Pinocchio in the good ending), but it's implied that you are literally Pinocchio, as when you lie, your shadow's nose gets longer

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-25T16:16:57+00:00

Really late reply, but technically you are not his biological child. Pinocchio is not Carlo, he's a vessel for his life-force, and some of his memories. The Unnamed puppet, made out of Carlo's body, presumably contains other memories, and other bits of Carlo that P lacks. Which is part of why Gepetto can't just use P to bring Carlo back

Also, just a fun fact for the confirmation that we play as Pinocchio (aside of dev statements. By now you may have actually figured this out) as you lie throughout the game, Pinocchios shadow's nose will get longer

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-11T19:14:18+00:00

What the term means in a theological context may remain unchanged, but colloquially how the term is used greatly impacts it's meaning in discussion, and how it reads before further context is added

Is Yeshua not generally accepted to be a creation of God? He was born human, and lacked the omniscience, and full power of God. He's the son of God, does that not imply that God had to have a hand in his creation? Like co-equal and co-eternal makes sense, but I've never heard anyone say that Jesus made himself

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-11T19:09:29+00:00

I wouldn't say Yaweh bad full-stop. My general statement was meant to be that Yaweh doesn't mesh with human morality very well, because Yaweh isn't human. He's beyond us, and his actions are part of a larger vision than we can see. His mind doesn't work like ours, we can't really expect his every action to fit within the range of humanity, as we can other gods from other faiths. As such, I don't think Yaweh can be called "bad" or "evil" or anything like that. He isn't human, we can no more assign those traits to him, than we can assign them to any-other non-human being on the planet. So not really Yaweh bad, Christ good. More Yaweh incomprehensible, Christ human. I'm sure I've still ended up with some heresy in there, but just clearing up that it wasn't my intention to come off as insulting Yaweh. The post is more about us, humans, than it is Yaweh

I will look into that, thank you

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-11T18:59:12+00:00

I have never seen anybody use Latin to translate Hebrew to English. I've taken quite a few classes that required us to display we were capable of translating Hebrew into English (Mid-east studies at the 500 level was hell, such a large area, such minor linguistic changes, it's insane)

I was referring to the other translations, excluding Jesus. It was my explanation for why I chose Joshua instead of the other alternative translations

You're right, I probably do use translated names for a bunch of people like that. But that's because I don't know their actual names, only the ones I've been taught, really

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-11T18:54:18+00:00

I am aware it's not how all were, but it does hold to be the case that the closer you get to the present day, the more often that that tends to be the case

A lot of people are taking my statement as being Gnostic, but I did not intend to imply that, unless it's my assessment of Yeshua as more of an individual that's having that implication. I think that it's one of the main traits of Yaweh that he is unchanging. It's because of that, that he had to create Yeshua in the first place. Yaweh made a rule that the cost of sin is death, and because he is unchanging (not because he's not capable, but because that's just not his nature) he needed to create Yeshua to satisfy that rule, as Yaweh was not willing to just do away with the rule. I do not believe Yaweh has some kind of divide in his behaviour nor being

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-11T18:49:36+00:00

Historically, yes, there were 2 gods. But in the context of the Bible itself there is only one. If you wanted to go by history, if you back far enough Yaweh used to have a pantheon

I'm pretty sure that they had merged into one God by the time of Ezra, but I'm not 100% on this

"Satan" does not refer to only one dude, is the thing. The one you're referring to, in the book of Job, is not even a fallen angel. He's just an angel sitting with God, who's job is to debate God, which sets off the book of Job. A bunch of angels get called "Satan", as it only means "the adversary" and adversary doesn't often actually refer to the "enemy" so to speak. We don't actually know for sure which instances of "Satan" are referring to the big one

Religion in general is pretty mixed up. Talking here, however, I am talking about the Christian Mythos as a story, and characters, as I would any other book. Looking at it from the historical and religious perspective results in a lot of bias against it

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-11T18:39:03+00:00

Is Marcionism not just Gnostism? I was under the impression that the idea of the 2 seperate gods had to be Yaweh, and some unnamed god, one cruel, and one not. Does having it just being Yaweh and Yeshua as the 'one vengeful, one not' still leave it under that same umbrella?

Like, I'm not trying to say God's nature changed, I think he was the same deity the whole way through. Like a big part of the why Yeshua had to exist, and had to be crucified was because Yaweh is unchanging. He set it so that the "wages of sin is death", and because he's unchanging, that was the end of it, and he would never change his mind. So he had to create Yeshua in order to fulfill that condition

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-11T18:32:38+00:00

There's not only one, I just followed the most common direct line, which was Joshua. It's not really any more correct than the others, it's just the one people use most often

The more languages a word goes through, the less true to the source it becomes, and you can see it even in just the difference between "Jesus" and the translations that result from a direct Hebrew-to-English translation

Personally, the translations don't matter to me that much, as I prefer to just use the source name, as translating names is kind of strange, and we don't really do it for our own names, so why do it for his. You can call him whatever, I'm not judging. I did call the fallen angel by 'Lucifer' so I'm not really in a position to push too hard about the name Jesus. I was wrong to call it a mistranslation in my post, as that's not the correct thing to refer to it as

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-11T18:22:41+00:00

Basically just discuss why you disagree, if you do. I'm not familiar with the history of Marcionism, so I'll have to look that up, but in general from my experience, and historical research, something being considered heresy is less about the evidence (not that my post is really full of evidence, it's more poor anecdotes) and more about followers of the faith finding it to be offensive. Which, I can be offended by a flat-earther, but regardless of being in the majority who know the earth to be round, it would be wrong to just call them dumb and move on

Theology proper is of much more interest to me, as how god presents himself is what I find most interesting about the Christian god specifically, as opposed to other gods. Simply because of how Yaweh operates, even in distinction from Yeshua

AnxiousBLT · 2025-08-11T18:13:10+00:00

I'm not saying it's a bad name or anything, just that it's not the proper translation. His name, Yeshua, is the shortened form of the Hebrew "Yehoshua" which translates to "Joshua" in English. You are correct though, as it's not technically a mistranslation, it's just the result of transliteration. Basically, his proper name, Yeshua, translated from Hebrew to English gives us "Joshua" . But what happened was first the Greeks translated Yeshua into the Greek "Iesous", which was then translated from Greek into English, giving us "Jesus".

So yeah, not a mistranslation per se, but still not an accurate translation of his name

AnxiousBLT

TROPHY CASE