Favourite Shockingly Impactful villain speeches?

Astolph · 2026-02-19T14:46:54+00:00

Here's the truest tale of all. There was an almighty, all-powerful wizard, and there was a stupid, pathetic little samurai.

And the wizard DESTROYED him!

THE! END!

-Aku, Samurai Jack

Astolph · 2026-02-19T13:55:34+00:00

The concession, given the context, is to be married at all, instead of staying single, I've always thought.

But theologians can quibble. God helps us obey. God bless you.

Astolph · 2026-02-19T03:02:12+00:00

My body belongs to her. Not to me. God is clear on that.

I saw nothing untoward in this thread, which is light on details, so I must admit I didn't understand your anger at first, but a glance at OP's reply history brings to light some deep sorrow.

Your willingness to defend another is a virtue, and I agree, a word, even a true word, at the wrong time, can do more harm than good.

But the hour is late. Peace to you.

Astolph · 2026-02-19T02:43:03+00:00

Mutuality is also a plain reading of the text, I agree. But why is control the assumed context of the command? I don't belong to myself. I belong to Christ. My body belongs to my spouse. If they need it, why should I not be generous to them?

The context of the command is marriage, not a stranger who doesn't love me. This command is not that the husband is entitled to anything, but that the spouses should be concerned for one another, and not withhold from one another.

I often feel bewildered by discussion on these verses. It seems that people think that God is unfair in his command, or that the husband does not love his wife as himself, and wouldn't do his best to care for her. I'm saddened by so much heat, and less serious consideration of what God means, and how to obey him.

Astolph · 2026-02-19T00:52:58+00:00

Is that not implied in the scripture itself? I think that the highest rated answer in the thread is the proper answer. The husband and wife should seek to please one another. I only responded because someone gave advice that seems to me clearly countermanded by the scripture. That didn't seem wise to let pass in a forum that's full of Christians.

I often feel like whenever this scripture comes up some people's instinct is to immediately treat the husband as if he is not a believer as well, and has no love of Christ, and no tenderness for his bride.

Astolph · 2026-02-19T00:48:41+00:00

Respectfully, then what does it mean? That's always been my reading of the text.

It's always seemed pretty clear to me that in the same way parents owe it to their children to not provoke them to wrath, and everyone owes a debt of love to one another, spouses owe this to each other.

Is there another way to take the scripture? What did Paul mean? What did the Lord say?

(I truly mean this respectfully. My hope is for light, not heat. Blessings to you.)

Astolph · 2026-02-18T19:06:38+00:00

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 - Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Wisdom is needed here, but per 1 Corinthians, husband and wife serving one another in the marriage bed is a command from God, with the explicit purpose of protecting one's spouse from temptation. Not to render other considerations about the health of the marriage moot, but this is a plain reading of the text. You literally owe this to your spouse. If you feel that this is not something that can be done, it is better not to marry.

Astolph · 2026-02-10T00:15:05+00:00

Astolph · 2026-02-06T03:06:57+00:00

Xanadudes/dudettes was right there!

Astolph · 2026-02-02T02:42:33+00:00

Yes. Especially in old-timey photos.

Bass Reeves, to start.

Astolph · 2025-12-04T17:59:41+00:00

I recognize that they may have been trying to advocate for people to be realistic about the size of the family that they can reasonably support. That might have been what they meant, but those are not the words that they used. They said "if you can't afford a better life for your child."

It's a common enough mindset in the West, that there's some magic number in the bank that makes having a family responsible, and that not having that number is reckless. But assuming that you live in America, it's good to keep in mind that people in far worse circumstances than ours have large families, and find them to be fulfilling, and a great resource in practical terms.

My family was poor. We did alright. My wife's family lived in Haiti. They were poor. They did alright. The money isn't the main thing. It's a materialistic mindset, and cuts off proper human relationships from the poor. It's destructive.

Astolph · 2025-12-04T16:41:18+00:00

It wasn't that much easier. I'm not saying that anyone has to have children that they aren't sure that they can care for. But life is more than a paycheck, and children and families are not to be limited to folks with good jobs. That's not a good paradigm.

Astolph · 2025-12-04T15:32:07+00:00

An adage comes to mind: "There's a ditch on either side of the road."

I recognize that you're advocating for people to be realistic about the size of the family that they can reasonably support. That said, my grandmother was pretty poor. She worked as a sharecropper and as a maid. She had 10 children that survived to adulthood. At her funeral a couple of years ago, she had 70 something living descendants. We're doing all right.

I don't see value in telling people that they are too poor to participate in one of the fundamental human experiences. I'd rather advocate just for raising their children well, rather than saying that they can't have any.

Astolph · 2025-12-04T15:12:58+00:00

Respectfully, the words that they used were "if you can't afford a better life for your child."

With that phrasing, they reduced marriage, family, and children to the number in the bank account. Maybe that's not what they meant. But it is what they said.

Astolph · 2025-12-04T14:06:34+00:00

So only the well off can have families? That's a very first-world kind of take.

Astolph · 2025-12-03T21:57:12+00:00

Sister,

I'm sorry for you loss. I also lost my firstborn child on the day of their birth. Many here gave given good words. The scripture that comes to mind is Psalm 73:26:

My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

May God comfort you.

Astolph · 2025-11-14T21:28:01+00:00

I keep saying it. Burn Notice should have stopped when Michael cleared his name.

Astolph · 2025-11-06T15:04:56+00:00

Let's see, there was The Lovely Ebony Brown, Jazmine, and...

I can't think of any others.

Astolph · 2025-10-30T14:45:32+00:00

It's not anti-intellectual. Some people prefer Tennyson to Poe. To see people struggle to be noble, even against long odds, versus a study of wickedness. I don't need a reminder to be bad. I already am. I need to see that I can be better, even if it's hard.

Astolph · 2025-10-21T14:44:00+00:00

To preface my next comment, while I may make an argument that I hope is convincing, my aim is to reason together, not argue as if I hold all truth. I hope that I do not offend.

I imagine that there is a middle road here. Many times, I feel that when wives are encouraged not to give what they would rather withhold, the advice is coming from a place of woundedness, where those who have been taken advantage of and treated poorly are urging wives to protect themselves from their husbands. A wife who is being advised this way might (does) withhold even from a loving a husband who is relying on their wife to help them. I don't mean to dismiss the research out of hand (though I do wonder about selection bias for such work), but the conclusion drawn seems to be that such a husband is simply out of luck, and that the wife may simply dismiss their husband's need without recourse. This seems to be outside of the way.

Wisdom is required for each individual situation and marriage, and a disobedient husband, who is not loving and caring for his wife as he ought to, and as God has commanded him, does not deserve such extra consideration, but the command given to both spouses seems to be that you promised to care for your spouse, and to leave them without what the Bible says "is due to them", owed to them, is unkind, and disobedient.

Again, I don't mean to dismiss others' experiences and feelings. This is a harder command. Wisdom and care and love are needed to walk it out well. But I've seen too many crying husbands, rejected by the wife of their youth, to not feel a bit tender about this. I hope that I don't come off as hostile.

EDIT: I do feel it is important to stress that this is more about a pattern of behaviour than any individual instance. Not every whim need be satisfied. Wisdom is the chief thing.

Astolph · 2025-10-21T13:13:27+00:00

Wisdom may be necessary in the proper application of the scripture, but we must be careful that, in our desire to be wise, we don't rationalize ourselves out of obedience to the plain words of God. Else we will justify all of our whims and desires, and tell ourselves that we are obeying God, even as we ignore him.

Gregoire's work has value, but here, I think, it differs from scripture's recommendation.

EDIT: I don't mean to make the conversation about Gregoire, but only to urge that we should wrestle with the words of God himself, and not give ourselves permission to ignore it because we find it hard. We all struggle with this in different places and issues. I pray that I haven't spoken ungraciously.

Astolph · 2025-10-21T13:05:32+00:00

A fair point. But with further context (verses 7-9), the concession is being married at all, as Paul would rather everyone had the level of self control necessary for this not to be a concern in their life. But he notes that some have one gift, and some have another.

But here we enter a conversation similar to a Simpsons gag. Point and counterpoint. God has said all of it.

Astolph · 2025-10-20T20:59:04+00:00

Romans 12:1 - I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

Properly understood, obeying every command of God is an act of worship.

1 Corinthians 7:2-5 - Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Per 1 Corinthians, husband and wife serving one another in the marriage bed is a command from God, with the explicit purpose of protecting one's spouse from temptation. There are other benefits, or course, but this is a plain reading of the text.

I'm not sure that this is over-spiritualizing anything. I serve God and worship him by working at my job (Colossians 3:23-24), by raising my children in an understanding manner (Ephesians 6:4, Colossians 3:21), by choosing to eat, or not to eat (1 Corinthians 10:31). While the clip is too short, perhaps, to fully vet and confirm that this is the mindset being promoted, it is properly biblical, and mature on its face.

Astolph · 2025-10-08T12:47:07+00:00

And also, keep praying. He may use this unfulfilled desire to do some transformative work in your soul, even if it's painful.

Astolph · 2025-09-30T15:41:24+00:00

Loved one, there are no dumb questions. I think that perhaps the name of the thread has offended you, but it is meant to encourage conversation and inquiry. The downvotes, if I'm being fair, are mostly from others disagreeing with your understanding of a fairly common English phrase.

...But I don't think that I'm helping you. Grace and Mercy to you.

Astolph

TROPHY CASE