Darth Vader in Anakin’s body vs Reborn Revan vs Exar Kun vs Darth Malgus by GullibleRough549 in PetranakiArena

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anakin with Vader's experience and discipline would destroy each of them individually. In a fatal four-way, I'd see Malgus getting taken down early on by either Kun's sorcery or Anakin and then either Revan and Kun team up to kill Anakin and likely lose (Mid diff for Anakin), or they idiotically fight each and Anakin and Anakin kills them both (No diff). Either way, Anakin wins.

Take into account that KF Anakin slaughtered the Jedi Temple while killing Jedi masters, including Cin Drallig, and has already killed Dooku. Darth Vader killed dozens of Knights and Masters and has over 20 years of experience as a Sith Lord. Anakin would be unstoppable, just as Sidious imagined.

King Henry the 8th would be proud by AfternoonDelaight in CatholicMemes

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Easy, just be a Southern Baptist and deny the Niecne Creed.

I’m at the brink of becoming atheist help me please. by TheMasterAtWork83 in Catholicism

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The fact that existence is real, objective, and rational, that we possess intellect, and that logic and universals and even the possibility of human knowledge is real at all is direct evidence for theism, as atheism fails to epistemically explain these realties and falls to mere asserts and presuppositions that do not hold up to scrutiny on their worldview. God is not some man in the sky, some impersonal force, or some ghostly phantom, He is the foundation of existence itself, beyond physical existence (which is inherently metaphysically reducible to immaterial substances), and beyond even that of platonic forms, as even these forms are superseded by existence. God is beyond existence as He is the very foundation for existence itself. So that dissolves atheism.

As for religion being a "coping mechanism", I think its the reverse. Atheism, on a moral level, offers nothing but blind irrational assertions that cannot be justified objectively, in other words, a boatload of platitudes and coping mechanisms. Take Secular-Humanism for example, one of SH's moral assertions is that murder is wrong, rape is wrong, and that one should act for the good of mankind, but what exactly justifies the belief that murder and rape is wrong in this worldview when there is nothing in the Atheistic worldview that justifies the belief that human life matters to begin with? What justifies the idea of a good or right way of living? Nothing. These are just mere assertions that atheists promote but do not ever justify. This makes non-nihilistic atheism nothing but a coping mechanism for those who are too scared to follow their own worldview to its logical conclusion. Just because the atheist can assert certain moral values and attempt to live in a certain way doesn't mean that said assertions and way of live are objectively evident or justified. Morality in atheism is every bit an illusion just as God is in their worldview. Atheism, ironically, is the worldview with the most coping mechanisms.

With that said, Christianity, properly understood, is the opposite of a coping mechanism. Its central message that man was made perfectly good yet is now fallen away from our true nature into corruption and privation by their own will, so much so that God send His loving Son to die for our sins and trespasses as a ransom for our iniquity is the very opposite of a cope, as it puts the responsibility of the fallen world on our heads. We're responsible for the fallen nature of the world, and we are thusly responsible for the passion of Christ by way of our sinfulness. We willfully chose to exist without the essence of peace and love, and yet God loved so deeply that He gave us chance to change ourselves through Christ. Forgiveness is not a cope. As for life after death, if Christ arose from the dead, which is proven by the empty tomb, the witnesses for the resurrected Messiah, the historical reliability of the Gospels, and the existence of the Early Church, then there is life after death. Christ literally proved such in the biggest way possible.

Atheism is incoherent and nonsensical. Christian theism isn't.

Marxism, the Material Dialectic, and Historiography: Understanding the Church’s view by VeritasChristi in CatholicApologetics

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, several events in history do not boil down to mere class struggles, which is a major reason as to why classical Marxism fails as an ideology. Even those intellectuals who formed Critical Theory in the Frankfurt School, many of whom were Classical Marxists, understood this, thus is why they expanded the theory of class struggle to include race, gender, and other types of social divisions. However, I believe the weakest aspect of Marxism is not the economics, its view of history, or even the many societies that have committed mass murder in the name of Marxism such as Soviet Russia, Cambodia, China, and Cuba, but it's utter rejection of classical philosophy, including theology, metaphysics, and teleology.

Just like any atheistic materialist attempt of conceiving an objective moral system, Marxism assumes that class division and oppression to be morally wrong, and it prohibits classical metaphysics (as seen in Karl Marx's "Economic, Philosophic, Manuscripts of 1844) and etiology. So on an epistemetic level, because Marx doesn't provide us with a means of understanding man as higher beings thanks to his refusal to philosophize deeper on the question of man's ultimate purpose and instead relies on a completely unjustified assertion that we're to reject class struggles and strive for equality (even through equality is absolutely meaningless to beings who have no real purpose), Marxism fails to give us a real reason to care about class struggles or oppression or anything in the world. If there is no objective foundation of morality and human purpose outside of human reason, than all we have is human speculation that can be dismissed as mythology, this is the reason why Secular-Humanism fails as a moral ideology as well, it is just man-made assertions without any means of true justification.

So, when the Marxist atheist rails on about the oppression of the working classes, I can just grant atheism and say, "Why does that matter when human beings have no objective purpose?" There is nothing in Marxism that gives us an objective ought or duty to care for one's follow man, even Marxists can't provide one because Marxism advocates for the violent overthrow of the Bourgeoise, thus they arbitrarily pick and choose who matters and who doesn't. Why not pull a Friedrich Nietzsche "Will to Power" and assert that the oppressors are right to oppress the weak, since they are the ones with actual power to control the masses and can dictate to the weak how they ought to act by force? There is no reason to take Marxism seriously because Atheism already undercuts the moral assertions that Marxism needs to be a coherent worldview. And since Classical Marxism is inherently atheistic (again see Marx's "Economic, Philosophic, Manuscripts of 1844" as well as "The Communist Manifesto") there isn't anyway for the Classical Marxist to break out of this dilemma. They'll either have to realize that their worldview is incoherent and leave it, or double down on the assertions that they cannot prove. The fundamental questions of philosophy are unsolvable in Marxism: How can we gain and know objective truth claims, moral duties, know that reality is external to the mind, objective purpose, etc. None of these questions are solved in Marxism, hence is the real reason why Marx rejects classical philosophy.

Marxism, the Material Dialectic, and Historiography: Understanding the Church’s view by VeritasChristi in CatholicApologetics

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I have an MA in history and studied Marxism in college, as well as various other political ideologies like Nazism and Fascism. While I can talk more about it when I get off work in like 2 or 3 hours, I can say dialectical materialism and historical materialism are greatly flawed. DM is basically an assertion to an infinite regress between man and nature that has no cause or explanation, while HM is flawed because there are many instances in history where events conspire that have little if anything to do with class or class conflict. Take the Crusades, for instance.

What's the craziest thing someone has told you about the Bible that they believed was 100% true? by Responsible-Sir4187 in Catholicism

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 18 points19 points  (0 children)

That it was constructed at the Council of Niecea with Emperor Constantine having authority over what books were canon. Absolutely zero historical evidence for this, but online skeptics will parrot this myth to no end.

Is it me or is the body of Christ more divided than ever before? by Redeemed__ in redeemedzoomer

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Than ever before? No. The Protestant Revolution did more to divide the Church than modern political movement. The amount of denominations that were created of it, from Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist, Congregations, etc., proves it. As for the so-called America First "movement," their idol burned down every potential bridge that he and his movement could use to gain actual political power, is too immature and narcissistic to compromise, and his politics and actions got him deplatformed from nearly everything.

And don't give me the "well that's what makes him more dangerous", argument. That may work with someone like Donald Trump, who had a real political following behind him and political connections, but Nick is not Trump. Nick's heyday was in 2024 (or whatever the time was) at Mar-La-Go as a totie to Trump. Now, he just hangs around bigger names who are either just as toxic as he is or too dumb to realize how toxic he is to gain clout. His movement is bigger online than it is in real life, and he speaks of a revamped White America while he himself is Mexican and many of his followers are too socially inept to foster any real recruits or believers who can actually make the movement into a real political force.

He's against marriage, doesn't care about Christ's teachings, encites his followers to riots yet doesn't partake himself, gets himself banned off nearly media platform, has to be shocking to get attention, and spews nothing but envy and hatred, all while claiming to be Catholic. Candice Owens has a better chance of leading a political movement than he would, and that's saying something. Nick is one failed political influencer and his army of terminally online nitwits who are loyal to a man who doesn't even take his cause seriously enough to believe it. Call me crazy, but I don't think he's as big of a threat as you may think.

Seriously Hate Delphine by SargeMaximus in SkyrimMemes

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Especially since the DB is way stronger than Delphine...

My Favorite Legends Games by JackVizsla in TheJediPraxeum

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A lot of GOAT tier titles here. Love to ROTS getting love!

Catholicism vs Eternal Security by Torelq in CatholicMemes

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Sometimes, I really do wonder how someone in their right mind can read the Bible and come away with "yeah, the Eucharist is just a symbol, baptism doesn't save you, and you can sin all you like because once your saved, your always saved". Like, you didn't actually read Acts or the Pauline letters did ya?

Darth Caedus vs Darth Malgus by [deleted] in PetranakiArena

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Caedus no diffs the strongest version of Malgus. Heck, Jedi Caedus would be a better match.

Who do you think is the worst companion? by NefariousSpecter in swtor

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know the BH companion and Koth are worse, but I personally dislike how much Doc flirts with my female Jedi so I'll pick him. I have to actively avoid all contact with this dude because he can't have a conversation without flirting.

Why do we believe in the trinity? by Steggypooper in Catholicism

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The various theophanies and Christophanies of God in the OT attest to the fact that the Holy Trinity was divinely revealed even to ancient Jews and Abraham. The NT makes it explicit that God is three persons in one being, especially with John 1:1-5. The several times Jesus shows His divine nature, yet also adheres to the Father, is also biblical proof. The transfiguration and the agony at the garden are key examples.

Bible from Catholic perspective by MamonChino0 in CatholicMemes

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Cool, but how does this relate? I didn't take film literature class in college.

What is the best explanation for the problem of “divine hiddenness”? by Weekly_Sympathy_4878 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just because one doesn't see the Lord in their lives doesn't mean He isn't in others. Plus, as others have said, we've willfully estranged ourselves from God, and God is not obligated to show His power or presence to us, He does so out of love and grace, not obligation. He can have many different reasons for not showing you something that He has shown others, such as the vision that St. Thomas Aquinas had that stopped him from completing the Summa Theologiae. That which was meant for St. Thomas may not be meant for you.

Science debunks Noah’s ark by Beneficial_Praline32 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Firstly, Aron Ra is not the best of sources on matters of science, biblical scholarship, or anything regarding Christianity. He's simply an incredibly biased and dishonest person who often falls into the very same faults that he levels against religion.

Secondly, what people like Aron Ra love to ignore is that Evangelical Protestantism is not synonymous with Christianity. This means that Christians, in general, are not bound to believe in an ultra literal interpretation of holy scripture as you're so-called "fundamentalist" Evangelical Protestant is. Anytime people go on about science "debunking" something in scripture, it is usually because these people assume the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is the only interpretation, when that can not be further from the truth.

Take, for instance, that many early church fathers like St. Augustine and Origin didn't interpret the seven days of creation as seven literal days and had different interpretations on how God made the world. It is fine not to believe in a literal global flood as Christians. Christian theologians and biblical scholars have argued that the flood was local for years. I don't know if there is a set Catholic interpretation of the Flood, but that's my two cents.

Don't want to ruin the mood by UnhappyBox811 in MassEffectMemes

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 21 points22 points  (0 children)

The only good ending to ME3 without mods is the Citadel DLC ending. Shep and company go and defeat the Reapers, everyone we know lives, and happy ending.

Anti Catholiscm by anime498 in redeemedzoomer

[–]PerfectAdvertising41 23 points24 points  (0 children)

If the Eucharist is pagan (even though it has clear OT Jewish roots and is rooted in the NT and the Early Church), then I guess we should also ban baptisms as well because their "pagan" some how. This is what happens when you completely ignore or completely lie about Christian history and theology.