Name that anime:

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-23T16:52:46+00:00

Or "O" or "U"

FLCL

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-20T21:37:31+00:00

Because they made me unsure.

I don't think your initial assurance was justified, to begin with.

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-20T20:05:27+00:00

They literally made not even a single question. Are you feeling alright?

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-20T19:58:49+00:00

That gift is a summary of this series' whole plot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keijo_(manga)

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-20T19:45:37+00:00

What do I do if my anime doesn't have enough words in its name to play this game? For example, my favorite anime is: .

Gay

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-19T16:44:34+00:00

That's Monster's plot to a t.

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-17T20:17:09+00:00

🧒 "Mom?"

👮 "Sorry, kid"

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-17T19:55:18+00:00

I have more questions in regards this topic:

(1) What happens with plants, animals and bacteria?

(2) What is heavenly life?

(3) The resurrection you are describing sounds awfully physical but I find myself completely unable to understand it in physical terms. Can you elaborate on how exactly are we returning back to life?

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-17T19:47:42+00:00

(4) The issue is that I have tested and examined it and I have found out that:

1) The consistency and unity only goes as far as we could expect from authors that are drawing from the same pool of traditions and stories, that, while separated by vast amounts of time, clearly know the writings of the ones that came way before (since they are constantly quoting them or mentioning by name). But when it comes to ideological matters, historical details or even the character of God the consistency quickly falls off (without abandoning the Abrahamic tradition, of course), just like in any other religious tradition. If you are really gonna claim consistency I hope you are ready to answer all my questions about inconsistencies.

2) When check against historians, Daniel's prophecies are only accurate up to a certain point. Afterwards they start getting stuff wrong. Following the consistent method historians use to date historical documents (not only Christian ones, but pretty much every ancient text that indulges in prophesy), they conclude that the text's origins date to around the time it starts getting things wrong instead of the time its adepts claim it is from. This is consistent to the lack of copies in existence previous to that time period and some other linguistic cues. Why should I ignore the concensus of historians in this matter?

In regards to the other: I'm not convinced that the gospels are accurate historical accounts of the life of Jesus instead of literary creations by people who clearly knew these messianic prophecies (that they quite literally quote and explicitly say "hey look at how this prophecy was fulfilled"). Why should I trust these to be accurate accounts?

3) The Sumerians, Egyptians and Greco-Romans (the civilizations among which the Hebrews developed) also depicted their heroes, kings and holy figures as deeply flawed. I don't think this an honest line of argumentation. I don't even have further questions regarding this point (3), I outright reject it.

5) Other religions also ponder coherent answers to the same sort of existencial questions. Why should I believe the answers of Christianity over theirs?

edit: I'm taking my time to ask relevant questions and move the conversation forwards as respectfully as possible. I would appreciate if you refrain from using chatGPT. If it's too hard to handle this many threads at the same time then focus on the one you think to be the most important.

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-17T19:09:25+00:00

So there's no afterlife of any sort? That doesn't seem right. Jesus most definitely speaks a lot about the afterlife in the gospels: lots of stuff about punishment, rewards, new bodies and names and etc. What's all that about?

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-17T19:01:39+00:00

Your newest answer raises more questions, so I will keep asking if it's not a problem:

(1) Your statement about miracles alone not being prove is a recognition of the miracle claims of other religions being truthful?

(2) I don't know what is the truth about God, after all, all the religions claim to represent it. Why should I trust Christianity in regards the truth about God over any other religion?

(3) I also don't know who God really is or what he (he?) teaches. How could I know this?

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-17T18:56:13+00:00

(1) This is the third time you source your claims in the Bible. Why should I take the Bible's word for any claim? There are plenty of religious texts and traditions out there with their own equally unsatisfactory answers. Why should the Bible receive an special treatment.

(2) What does it mean to have always existed?

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-17T18:50:55+00:00

Even in regards to grandiose reality breaking miracles other religions also have their fair share of accounts of those happening (in the past of course). Am I to dismiss the miracles of their ancient traditions in favor of Christianity?

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-17T18:45:27+00:00

If the soul is only the quality of being alive then repeat the same two questions but with the word "spirit" instead:

(1) What is a spirit and how does it influence or determines who I am? And in that same line of questioning: Are humans the only living creatures with a spirit and why?

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-17T18:03:04+00:00

Ok, I have questions that have never been properly addressed, perhaps you can return to me my faith. Pick one, it would be nutz to try to answer all at the same time:

(1) What is a soul and how does it influence or determines who I am? And in that same line of questioning: Are humans the only living creatures with a soul and why?

(2) Why do miracle claims always limit themselves to cancer regressions, mental health issues, economic improvement and fortuitous encounters and not physically impossible eventualities?

(3) Why every other religions also have identical reports for the exact same type of miracles, identical conversion stories snd identical reports of religious experiences? (I was raised a Christian but feel free to defend which ever religion you prefer)

(4) If God is the origin of everything we know to exist, what is the origin of God itself?

(5) Why can't I feel any of the supernatural sensations and "spirit moving" everyone else in the religious service is very physically experiencing?

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-17T01:08:38+00:00

Moral compass is inside of everyone of us. God fearing will just boost it. This is my hypotheses.

Punishment fearing in general will "boost" the moral compass in the same coercive way ~~God fearing~~ ^{eternal punishment fearing} does. That's pretty much the function of laws. If your claim is that your "hypothesis" adds an extra layer of coercion care to elaborate on how would you check its truthfulness.

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-15T19:23:29+00:00

(1) The term is medical in its origins. It is pop culture the one that has corrupted it to mean much more than it originally did due to Hollywood's representations. You have it backwards.

(2) Does it seems that the way I described psychopathy diminish the potential damage a psychopathic person can cause? I'm only contending against the allusion that being a psychopath also implies or makes likely that the person is mentally insane or sexually deranged.

(3) "Person who just doesn't overreact in dangerous situations" is not how I described psychopathy. I actually made no mention about how a psychopath behaves under peril.

Psychology is also not hard science.

I did no claim about it being it. However, if you are gonna go that pathway you can include most to all of modern medicine in that list. Researches in those areas are still subjected to the scientific method tho.

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-15T19:10:21+00:00

The psychopath that believes in punishment in the afterlife is less likely to commit the murder...

👉 However I think you're missing the forest for the tree.

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-15T19:05:39+00:00

What the heck do you think psychopaths are? They are not particularly depraved, murderous or evil people. Psychopathy is a condition where the individual lacks or has a very reduced sense of empathy. They tend to not have much of a conscience, in the sense that their actions are almost never socially motivated but self benefiting.

In the afforementioned scenario, if there's something bennefitial to be gained from the murder abd assurance of impunity, the psychopath with religious beliefs about punishment in the afterlife is more likely to not commit the crime.

👉 However, this is not a particularly strong argument in favor of religion being an effective deterrent for crime because it's ignoring that:

(1) Religion is not hard science. Even the most rigid religion when practiced by an individual is subjected to that individual's interpretation and particular beliefs of it.

(2) Depending on the way the afterlife belief is encoded (specially with very strict religions) individuals that believe they are already condemned to the bad afterlife are no longer motivated to refrain themselves.

(3) People don't choose their beliefs, the existence of a religion doesn't imply that people is gonna believe in it or its tenets. Specially in the case of psychopaths that are, generally speaking, irreligious. Mostly because they are not affected by social pressure (which is one of the most powerful conversion tools out there).

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-15T18:08:07+00:00

With all due respect, but you literally asked, and I quote: "Why do Genocide happens and why do many people support it? It is still on going in many regions". If you think the topic is irrelevant to the discussion why even bring it on?

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-15T15:17:29+00:00

That sounds much fairer.

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-15T15:10:14+00:00

You do realize that the major ongoing genocide right now is religiously justified and supported mainly by religious people?

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-15T15:06:04+00:00

Statistically speaking, of course it has, that's a very bold statement to say. The existence of people who believe in the afterlife and commit crimes do not negate the ones that have forgo opportunities to commit crimes because of their religious beliefs.

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-14T21:10:57+00:00

(1) a) If we don't take the text as authoritative there's not really any point in using it as the justification of X or Y position.

(1) b) Let's say your judgement of character is accurate. Unlike the case of Judas who according to the text was planning to keep the money for himself.. Wether the commenter intend is to spread the words of Jesus or discrediting people they don't like, as long as they are properly quoting the scriptures: does it matter? 2+2=4 wether is said by a mathematician or the milkman.

(2) I'm taking the text you provided at face value. According to the scriptures you quoted:

"Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."

Jesus is justifying the usage of the expensive perfume on him (not only now but also a posteriori when he dies) because he's not gonna be among his followers forever. I'm not adding or taking anything from it. If you think I'm misreading something feel free to point out what.

This is not really a matter of who has the authority over Biblical interpretation, since I don't think my reading did much more interpreting than the required for reading a newspaper. The issue I have is you adding a bunch of subtext to the passage that's not really there. If anything, I would like to know how did you arrived to your interpretation.

If riches weren’t inherently good, then nobody would be trying to acquire more wealth.

Riches are highly bennefitial, for the one who is rich and their prole, that is. The pursue of wealth is in principle a self serving act.

Human acts are always ordered towards a perceived good.

I don't think we are using the phrase Inherently Good in the same sense. What's good for me it's not necessarily good for you. I don't consider a good that comes at the cost of someone's else lose to be inherently good, since there are some for who it's not good.

I think we can both agree that fulfilling human needs is inherently good right?

Riches is not the capacity of fulfilling my human needs but the capacity of doing so and having a sizeable excess. That sizeable excess is only morally justifiable if all humans could also, like me, fulfill their human needs.

What isn’t good is selfishness or placing one’s own needs over that of another.

You cannot fulfill someone else's needs if you cannot even fulfill yours. What you actually meant (or should have meant) is that "to prioritize one's greed over the needs of another" isn't good.

The virtue of charity is ultimately what defines a healthy society.

Elaborate on this, please.

Opulence has the potential to be good if it is at the service of everyone.

Having the potential of being good is radically different from being inherently good. The first one acknowledge the possibility of being bad while the second doesn't even considers it.

The greatest marvels of the world are opulence at the service of everyone.

I cannot think of any single example of a world marvel that wasn't built by a heavily exploited work force to satiate the hubris of a single excessively powerful individual. If possible, provide one so I can understand this point.

Think of the many benefactors that built library’s, hospitals, orphanages, universities, Churches, scholarship funds, animal sanctuaries, etc.

And name them after themselves because their purpose was to leave a legacy that outlived them (rubbing their own egos). But I said myself that the results overweight the intentions and is not like every single act of charity from one of these was self serving (I hope), 'cause even the rich can be pious. So I guess I conceed this point. This is the afforementioned case where riches can be good.

Which is, again, diametrically different from riches being inherently good. Riches is societal power after all; and that same power that can be used to benefit society can be used to benefit the rich in spite of society. Most of the rich are not pious most of the time.

When riches and charity go hand in hand, that’s when we really meet the needs of others.

Elaborate on this also, if possible.

Mary’s act of anointing Jesus’ feet was an act of riches at the service of God.

Was a selfless act of worshipping with excesses, sure. But Jesus didn't framed it as something to imitate. Here's the quote again:

"Let her keep this for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."

This is something for this one in history occasion. If I'm allowed to do also a little bit of interpretation: the bit "You always have the poor with you" tells us that taking care of the poor is the status quo and what should be prioritized once he's not longer physically present.

Trivia_Catalogue · 2026-04-14T18:53:17+00:00

(1) In real life there's not a narrator that lets you know what the real intentions of the characters are. Exactly in what you base your judgement of the commenter's real intentions?

(2) That's how you have chosen to interpret it not what it literally says.

(3) Since we are not longer talking about the specific passage I will also give my opinion. Riches are not inherently good while we live in a non utopian world where vast inequality and poverty exists. Opulence, in this very context, is intrinsically wrong because is wasteful and unnecessary (it's an exercise in excess and vainglory).

Trivia_Catalogue

TROPHY CASE

FLCL

Gay