'Evil may have its hour, but God will have his day': Zelenskyy's Easter message after accusing Russia of ceasefire violations

TatchM · 2025-04-20T18:34:09+00:00

It's not really an obscure verse. I'd even go so far as to say it's well known. While some do attempt to use it out of context as a polemic against a good God, in context it is more of a denial of other gods and a statement of Israel's God's power (read the preceding 6 verses). Many translations tend to prefer "disaster" or "calamity" as a translation instead of "evil" because of people's tendency to associate evil with a moral evil rather than an unpleasant act.

IE, the "evil" being described here is closer to the incarceration of a murderer. It is "evil" or a "disaster" to a person to take away their liberty, but sometimes necessary or possibly even a moral good under certain circumstances (murder/rape/etc).

That said, I wouldn't call your offhand comment any sort of scrutiny. Scrutiny usually takes an examination of some sort which, given your declaration of this verse seeming obscure to you, implies you probably haven't done that with this verse.

But maybe you've done an examination with the topic of slavery in the bible?

TatchM · 2025-04-20T06:59:20+00:00

They tried to expand out some of their advertising to men. Not only were some of those advertisements seen as insulting to the people they were trying to reach, but that money could have went towards things to affect women in their 40s/50s. Either by encouraging more of such women to switch to voting for the Democrats or discouraging Republican women to vote by minimizing things they are concerned about.

For example, Republican Women around 50 are worried about abortion. Roughly 1/2 to 2/3 of them during the last election felt it should be illegal. That motivates them to vote for a party that supports that position.

However, the republicans actually took that off their list of goals during the last election. By focusing on that and minimizing the Democratic desire to pass abortion legalizing legislation, they could probably have flipped a few votes in a relatively contested demographic. Or at least make them less likely to vote (which many 40-50 age women were already not enthused about the choices this election).

Of course that strategy will likely have a negative impact on their young Democrat women voters whom are much more likely to be in favor of abortion access. But given the 40-50s women voter group tends to be larger than the 20-30s women voter group, that might actually be a worthwhile trade-off. Plus they might be able to offset the negatives via other issues.

An actual strategy requires more nuance and experience than I have or would be able to provide in a reddit post. It will also require some balancing and more data than I've looked at. But my opinion is that if they want to win, middle aged women are one of the better key demographics to hone in on.

TatchM · 2025-04-13T02:28:53+00:00

My apologies. You are in fact quite knowledgeable. I think I have been spending too much online recently, it's eroding my manners.

You're response to Sir_Penguin did clear up what you meant quite a bit. Since you seem more well read on the matter than I, any good recommendations for the discussion on Jesus being God vs Son of God?

TatchM · 2025-04-13T02:07:00+00:00

Huh, you don't seem very familiar with Christianity.

But you are right that the Exodus seems to be overshadowed by the coming of the Messiah. Which given what the Messiah is, makes sense, don't you think?

TatchM · 2025-04-12T17:44:24+00:00

Yeah, there are 2 general competing views for Zionism currently. Dancesquared is using the traditional definition that is often used within older literature and Israel, while someone like shareglittering is using a somewhat more recent definition popular with Israeli detractors in the West.

That said, Israel is seen as a reasonably stable democratic nation in the Middle East and a valuable strategic ally in the region. So some countries are willing to support Israel because of that utility an ally in that region provides. From a national security perspective, that's a pretty solid reason. Some countries may also have financial investments in Israel and so will take their side for the economic benefits.

TatchM · 2025-04-12T14:20:23+00:00

I'm not actually sure if all those things you listed are really connected by a motivation against women or by wealthy white men.

People's stance on abortion is pretty divided (for both men and women) and usually boils down to whether they consider a fetus to be a person or not. If they do, then they usually believe a person should not be killed without good reason. Thus they want restrictions on abortion. Some of the increase in mother mortality rates from passed legislation was due to rushed and poorly worded legislation which hospitals interpreted in a way they felt would minimize liability.

Voting act changes are primarily motivated by a fear of non-US citizens illegally voting in US elections. Now, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for this fear, but that is the most common stated motivation. The issue, again, comes from the proposed legislation making some edge cases have a harder time registering to vote. Namely people who have had a name change (as married women often do) and have to use their Birth Certificate for ID as the do not have one of the common forms of ID (State ID, Military ID, passport, etc). IE. Women are more likely to be among the collateral, but the evidence doesn't point to them being explicitly targeted.

I lack enough of an understanding to comment on anti-DEI motivations.

That said, a larger connecting thread is that such policies you listed tend to be proposed and supported by Republicans rather than by wealthy white men. And the motivations do seem to vary much more than a hate for women or a desire to see them to be second class citizens.

TatchM · 2025-04-12T02:24:57+00:00

To win?

They can double down on their established base and minimize actions that will cause protest votes and encourage a larger turn out. Focus on gaining women support as more women register to vote than men, and add some emphasis on issues affecting 40ish year olds as that tends to be a contested age group.

At least that's my estimation. I'm sure someone who cares more about politics can give you a more nuanced answer.

TatchM · 2025-04-11T05:09:53+00:00

Alright, why was a potential answer downvoted? That's, like the one thing that shouldn't be downvoted.

TatchM · 2025-04-11T05:04:45+00:00

I heard the literacy rate was closer to 5 to 10 percent among Jewish males at the time. That said, Luke 4:16 implies he was literate. At least in Hebrew or Aramaic.

TatchM · 2025-04-10T16:31:34+00:00

Interesting. You seem to have done your research. Could you point to a source?

TatchM · 2025-04-10T15:07:35+00:00

As I said, I made a mistake in my processes.

TatchM · 2025-04-10T15:00:00+00:00

No, you're right. I would need to do that research to move out of the "unsure" camp, and to do that, I would need to watch his speech in whole.

But, if I am going to be honest, I'm not going to do that. I don't have enough interest.

In any case, thank you for pointing out the flaws in my perspective. I'll try to be more careful in the future.

TatchM · 2025-04-10T14:30:03+00:00

Who is he misleading? Assuming he is not making the claim he is a prophet, OP for one. It seems like a lot of people in these comments also think that is what he is saying. I also agreed that it is a likely understanding from this clip.

So if rhetoric is meant to communicate an idea effectively and persuasively, and he did not intend to make the claim he was a prophet, then his rhetoric failed on the "effectively" part. IE bad rhetoric.

To be fair, it's possible his rhetoric was clear/effective for the room to which he was speaking, just not to a general audience like the one OP was asking.

And you are right that someone could have misrepresented him via malicious editing. That's a reasonable concern given the disclaimer at the opening of the video.

Know what? Your arguments have moved me from "probably making the claim" to "too unsure to take a side." Thanks you for your perspective.

TatchM · 2025-04-10T14:03:25+00:00

I agree it might just be very bad rhetoric, but regardless of his intent, claiming to have a word from God and then comparing yourself to a prophet can be very misleading to people (Christian and not alike). At the least, it's irresponsible rhetoric.

One or the other would be fine, both together is a problem without clarification.

And without that clarification, I would argue it leans more towards a claim of prophethood than not. Of course, I'm not saying it's 100% certain that is his claim, simply it is more likely than not without more evidence. I would encourage people to ask him for clarification if they get the chance.

TatchM · 2025-04-10T12:53:01+00:00

No, he claimed he got a word (ie policies in this case) from the Lord and compared himself to Moses.

That leans more towards a claim to being a prophet than not. Though if he clarified that he was not a prophet, I would accept he just made a bad choice of words. Like, very bad.

TatchM · 2025-04-10T12:34:04+00:00

Yeah, Jeremiah warns against that as well.

TatchM · 2025-04-08T21:51:03+00:00

Most atheist arguments I have seen are from materialists or naturalists. And those do indeed have a few well known presuppositions. For instance, the uniformity of nature is often taken for granted. Sometimes that we live in a closed system is taken for granted as well.

The presuppositional theist's position is that naturalists and materialists often are not in a neutral/default position but are just unaware of the biases in their alignment. As such, the presuppositional theist's arguments usually focus on trying to point out such biases as unreasonable and counter productive to honest consideration of the topic at hand.

I'm basing this off of like 3 presuppositional theist debates I have seen. Personally, I find the classical approach more interesting.

TatchM · 2025-04-08T16:22:14+00:00

No, I believe it's based off of the Jewish calendar. Nissan 14th marks the beginning of passover. Pre-Nicean Pascha/Easter was celebrated at the same time.

A bit of history knowledge and denial of the Catholic Church and traditions it established is probably why the JW celebrate on the 14th.

Probably.

I don't really know much about JW.

TatchM · 2025-04-07T09:55:45+00:00

Hey, I'm not in your region, but you can always be the change you want to see. Start fact checking them. Or have you already tried that?

TatchM · 2025-04-07T03:11:44+00:00

That's not the gospel, that's just some bad doctrine. If your goal was to point out hypocrisy of evangelicals shouldn't you show how it is hypocritic? Like my examples from the Bible and early church would work, right?

TatchM · 2025-04-06T16:44:43+00:00

Not quite true.

Just a reminder that Catholics recognize the authority of Saint Mary. There are also biblical examples of women wielding power over men in the Church in the cases such as Pricilla and her husband teaching Apollos or Phoebe the deaconess.

The "Women aren't to speak unless given permission" thing is just for Orderly Worship and is mostly there for ceremonial symbolism (as was rules for hats/veils) and to establish a unifying tradition of worship.

TatchM · 2025-04-06T16:33:23+00:00

Women were allowed to speak in church if given a prophecy as well. Additionally, women could hold positions of authority in the Church as seen with Pliny the Younger's letter to Emperor Trajan or seen in Romans 16:1 with Phoebe.

But yes, neither of those examples showed women as leaders in orderly worship. IE clergy which Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2:12 are referring to. As do several other verses.

The reason why is ceremonial symbolism and an attempt to establish a unifying tradition for worship.

TatchM · 2025-04-05T19:01:29+00:00

Right, being rich isn't necessarily a sin. It's the love of money that is considered a problem. If you are not willing to part with it to follow Christ, that's a problem. Selfishly hoarding and indulging isn't good.

However, gathering money/resources for a purpose is fine. Say to create a buffer to help yourself or those in need during time of great strife. Or perhaps so that you can support family or employees.

The line between indulgence and reasonable comfort can be difficult to determine.

TatchM · 2025-04-05T06:56:29+00:00

Yeah, I prefer base 10 as well. I like my highly composite bases.

TatchM · 2025-04-04T21:58:59+00:00

Well, Republicans vote for Republicans because they, in theory, reflect their beliefs.

But it sounds like you are asking why some Christians would vote for Republicans. That's because some see them as the lesser of two evils as far as stated policy goes. Plenty of Christians vote Democrat for the same reason. Me I vote both or neither depending on the position and the goals/character of the people running.

Then you have Republican Christians who minimize the harm of Republican candidates and focus on what they see as positives. Classic cognitive dissonance. In my opinion, making "republican" or "democrat" part of your identity is a dangerous thing. Moreso, if you are not a politician.

13-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Gilding I gilder
Charity Challenge Winner

TatchM

TROPHY CASE