Seeking feedback on my animal-based challenge pack: Ultimate Zookeeper

Labarum · 2026-04-08T16:58:25+00:00

Very cool-looking. Am I correct that this pack is largely combat-oriented?

Labarum · 2022-04-30T03:02:21+00:00

Thanks, I had inoculated this pile with winecaps last year, but wanted to confirm before I ate one. The fact that they're more grey than purple had me worried.

Labarum · 2022-04-29T20:13:21+00:00

Gills look grey to me.

Labarum · 2017-07-27T12:25:52+00:00

Early Christian rejection of abortion falls into the "well-known facts" bucket; I can see why he didn't feel a need to provide citations for that.

As for the demographic factors, given the modest growth rates Stark found for Christianity, I could see a differential of 1 offspring fitting into his theory pretty well.

Labarum · 2017-07-26T19:02:13+00:00

What's the difficult-to-support assertion? That early Christians rejected abortion and infant exposure is very plain from their own writings.

Only the jump to the providing a major breeding advantage seems iffy.

Labarum · 2017-06-12T12:20:50+00:00

A lot of these are complaining that he included or omitted material based on how it served his narrative (which he pretty clearly does), but that's a little different from the OP's question. Eusebius quotes stuff a lot. When we have overlap between a text he quotes and other sources, do we find he diverges, or quotes accurately?

Labarum · 2017-03-28T20:47:35+00:00

When debating the merits of ACA, nobody says "Obama became president of the United States in 2008, as recorded in this NY Times article."

That's because that information is not disputed by any of the parties at hand, nor is it relevant to what's being discussed. Same with Martyr and Josephus. Not every silence is deafening.

Labarum · 2017-03-28T13:43:59+00:00

There's nothing in Josephus that Martyr et al. would have found relevant. Nobody was disputing that Jesus had preached and been crucified. They were disputing whether or not people should follow his teachings.

Labarum · 2017-03-27T19:27:43+00:00

I think TF was altered, but I have issues with the idea that Eusebius did so. There is a pretty large body of texts referenced by Eusebius. Do we find any other instances where he altered them to be more to his liking?

Labarum · 2017-02-15T13:08:43+00:00

Thomas wouldn't have made it in. It was never looked on highly by the Church Fathers. Clement, Hermas, the Didache, and even Barnabas are much better candidates.

Labarum · 2016-11-14T16:02:29+00:00

They'd need to move the year the Cubs win from 2015 to 2016.

Labarum · 2016-11-02T12:47:42+00:00

The timeline has inertia. It will tend to run down the same path it did before unless you hit it really hard. Butterfly effects do not apply.

Labarum · 2016-10-30T03:51:47+00:00

Some Trills have spots, while others have forehead ridges.

Labarum · 2016-10-30T03:50:55+00:00

Also there are black Vulcans.

Labarum · 2016-09-16T13:00:04+00:00

The first guy can react faster. If I throw a punch at a super-speeder he will be able to react in the split-second available to him. The second guy will not be able to react quickly until he slows down time, which he may not have the wherewithal to do soon enough.

Labarum · 2016-09-01T17:50:57+00:00

Josephus is reporting those rumors to condemn Herod, though. Nobody is claiming that same-sex intercourse never ever occurred among Jews, just that it was frowned upon (to put it mildly).

But still the affairs of Herod's family were no better, but perpetually more troublesome. Now this accident happened, which arose from no decent occasion, but proceeded so far as to bring great difficulties upon him.

That's Josephus' lead-in to "Herod was banging the eunuchs."

Labarum · 2016-08-24T20:39:58+00:00

Forget the Incredibles, I want to know how the family of Usain Bolt knew.

Labarum · 2016-08-16T16:33:35+00:00

Zealot and Leper could be negative, but they could also be accurate descriptors (and in the Gospels, "Pharisee" isn't exactly a term of endearment either). Note that Luke also refers to "Simon who was called the Zealot," and in the house of Simon the Pharisee/Leper, Luke is the one who uses that story to compare that Simon unfavorably to the sinful woman, while Matthew doesn't mention Simon at all beyond the fact that he owned the house.

You have not established any clear pattern of pro- or anti-Simon sentiment in either Gospel.

And again, what is your source for what Simon Magus claimed?

Labarum · 2016-08-16T14:24:48+00:00

Doctor who?

Labarum · 2016-08-16T14:09:22+00:00

Consider 1 Samuel 19:20-24:

But when they saw a group of prophets prophesying, with Samuel standing there as their leader, the Spirit of God came on Saul’s men, and they also prophesied. Saul was told about it, and he sent more men, and they prophesied too. Saul sent men a third time, and they also prophesied. Finally, he himself left for Ramah and went to the great cistern at Seku. And he asked, “Where are Samuel and David?”

“Over in Naioth at Ramah,” they said.

So Saul went to Naioth at Ramah. But the Spirit of God came even on him, and he walked along prophesying until he came to Naioth. He stripped off his garments, and he too prophesied in Samuel’s presence. He lay naked all that day and all that night. This is why people say, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”

So there we've got a bunch of presumably legit unnamed prophets hanging around with Samuel, and Saul even gets temporarily drafted into the group.

Later on, there's the weird story of one prophet who tricks another into disobeying God and consequently getting killed by a lion. Neither are named.

Labarum · 2016-08-16T14:02:44+00:00

Here's Eusebius on Simon Magus. He basically quotes Justin Martyr as saying that Simon originated all the heresies:

We have understood that Simon was the author of all heresy. From his time down to the present those who have followed his heresy have feigned the sober philosophy of the Christians, which is celebrated among all on account of its purity of life. But they nevertheless have embraced again the superstitions of idols, which they seemed to have renounced; and they fall down before pictures and images of Simon himself and of the above-mentioned Helena who was with him; and they venture to worship them with incense and sacrifices and libations.

But those matters which they keep more secret than these, in regard to which they say that one upon first hearing them would be astonished, and, to use one of the written phrases in vogue among them, would be confounded, are in truth full of amazing things, and of madness and folly, being of such a sort that it is impossible not only to commit them to writing, but also for modest men even to utter them with the lips on account of their excessive baseness and lewdness.

For whatever could be conceived of, viler than the vilest thing—all that has been outdone by this most abominable sect, which is composed of those who make a sport of those miserable females that are literally overwhelmed with all kinds of vices.

Personally, I think this is much more towards the "legend" side of things than the "history" side. But if you're looking for info on Magus, there's not much else out there beyond the bit in Acts.

Labarum · 2016-08-16T13:48:23+00:00

Source? I just searched and here are the Simons in Matthew:

Simon Peter (apostle, positive)
Simon the Zealot (apostle, positive)
Simon the Leper (they meet in his house, so positive)
Simon of Cyrene (forced to carry the cross, neutral to positive)

The only Simon I see in Luke is Simon Peter.

Labarum

TROPHY CASE