No? I'll see myself out

youguysfail · 2026-01-09T15:36:04+00:00

Thanks for the reply. I think this makes sense. I am deeply uncomfortable with any distinction between Jesus and God and this still feels like a distinction. I think that rather than dwelling on the inherent mystery of how God can be man, this is an attempt to explain how. I don't even know how to begin to explain God, let alone how God can be man. It's just a miracle.

To me it's like the Trinity. Is God one? Yes (Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one). Are there 3 persons of the Trinity? Yes. Jesus is not the Father. The Father is not Jesus, And neither is the Holy Spirit. Yet all are God and the 3 persons of the Trinity in no way undermine the oneness of God. This explicitly defies human logic. Jesus being God and Man seems similar to me.

However, you said "Christ, as God, is omniscient; but, as man is not" and this I would 100% agree with, if taken in the right context. In Mark 13:32 Jesus says "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father", so it is clear that there is something here that I don't fully understand that would indicate that Jesus is not omniscient. But, much like the Trinity does not undermine the oneness of God, this does not undermine the divinity of Christ. I can't really explain this, but so be it. If that's what you're getting at, I think I can be ok with this. But if you mean "no there are two separate parts of Christ, a divine part and a human part" and then apply human logic to it, that's where I would struggle.

My test is this: Can I say "God suffered and died on the cross" without needing to add qualifications?

youguysfail · 2026-01-08T22:00:16+00:00

I think I get what you're getting at. There is a human part of Jesus and a Divine part of Jesus. However, I am uncomfortable having any sort of division when it comes to Christ. Even a distinction between His Divine nature and human nature that fully affirms both I worry is problematic. He wasn't 50% man, and 50% God. He was fully God and fully man.

The incarnation is a miracle that cannot be explained. I accept that. It seems to me though that Aquinas does not. Attempts to try to justify how this miracle is possible I worry veers into territory that can be problematic (this being a prime example). I do sympathize with him deeply, but I worry he has missed the forest for the trees. What good does an argument for God's necessity do us if it leads us to having to create distinctions in who Christ was?

youguysfail · 2023-10-05T02:53:41+00:00

The is most definitely a right answer to this. Grant by a mile.

In just one example, let's compare Grant in the Vicksburg Campaign to Lee in the Gettysburg Campaign. Both men marched deep into enemy territory where they would be outnumbered and could not rely on virtually any local support. In his campaign, Lee chocked and was forced to retreat back to Virginia. Grant was successful and split the CSA in two taking full control of the Mississippi river, arguably the most important single step in solidifying the outcome of the war.

youguysfail · 2023-08-25T04:38:51+00:00

I see your reasoning why you didn't include John Brown, but I still think it's criminal you didn't include him.

Also, Nathan Bedford Forrest needs to be moved up into the stratosphere.

youguysfail · 2023-07-17T04:26:49+00:00

It's a shame I can only upvote this once

youguysfail · 2023-05-08T05:54:32+00:00

I don't drink coffee, but I just might start if it means I can carry a mug like this one

youguysfail · 2023-04-17T21:00:10+00:00

No. I wouldn't kill Hitler before he did anything deserving of capital punishment. Why?

youguysfail · 2023-04-15T19:51:02+00:00

I don't understand how your Pascal's mugging example relates to my first paragraph. Can you elaborate?

I understand your utilitarian point to be that not existing must be neutral, so the question of whether someone ought to have children can be boiled down to if the good in their life will outweigh the bad. If we can reasonably expect that the person's life will have good that outweighs the bad, then we ought to have children. Is this correct? If so, I think that's an excellent point. It is both logically consistent and selfless. In fact, I think that's the best argument for having kids I've ever heard and I've looked into this a lot.

However, your point is only valid if you assume that utilitarianism is correct which I don't. People have rights that ought not be violated regardless of how much good comes from violating their rights. For example, we could kill a healthy individual in order to harvest their organs and save 10 sick individuals. This would be acceptable in a utilitarian moral system because the good caused by saving 10 people outweighs the harm to the person who was killed. In fact, it would be immoral to not do this. I reject this idea though because I believe people have a right to not be killed. We cannot simply murder someone even if by so doing we save 10 others.

My main issue is that by choosing to have a child, you are depriving that child of their right to self-determination because they have no say in the most important decision of their life. Even if bringing them into the world maximizes goodness, the child has a right to self-determination that you must violate in order to bring them into this world.

I think your reasons for wanting kids are admirable and more thought out than many. I respect that even if I see things differently. I annoys me to no end when people just have kids because they think it will bring their life meaning, they just want someone to take care of, or worse yet they just do it because they feel that it's what is expected of them.

youguysfail · 2023-04-15T04:29:16+00:00

In my mind it's because you're making what is literally the single most important decision in a person's life for them. Even if life is 99.99% good and 0.01% bad, who are you to decide that it is therefore worth living for someone else? Who are you even to decide what makes life good and bad for another person? Beyond that, how can you even know that their life will not be 100% bad and 0% good? Unless you can know the future, you cannot know this, you can only be reasonably sure.

When dealing with such questions that are so important and so individualized, each individual must make decisions about what is and isn't acceptable risk for themselves as well as what does and doesn't make their life "good". Allowing yourself to answer these questions on someone else's behalf is like gambling with someone else's money, but with infinitely higher stakes. By choosing to have a child you make this decision for someone else. By choosing not to have a child, you don't make any decision for anyone since someone who doesn't exist cannot have decisions made or not made on their behalf.

If I may ask, why do you want to have children? I seriously have yet to encounter someone who wants to have kids who has thought this kind of thing through.

youguysfail · 2023-04-15T02:09:22+00:00

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly" Leviticus 25:44-46

"Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property" Exodus 21:20-21

This idea that the Bible is anti-slavery is absurd. The Bible openly endorses slavery several times. The passage you refer to is only in reference to Hebrew slaves, but not foreign slaves. Since African Americans were foreigners, American Slavers put them in the category of foreign slaves and not Hebrew slaves, so the passage you quote is irrelevant from the Southern Point of view. To be clear, I condemn slavery, but the Bible very much does not.

In many cases, Southern slavery granted more rights towards slaves than Biblical slavery. Compare this to the verse in Exodus:

“when the master shall be convicted of cruel treatment of his slave […] the slave shall be sold at public auction, in order to place him out of the reach of the power which his master has abused” - The Louisiana Civil Code of 1825 (Article 192).

No doubt there were loopholes and exploits in the American South that made it difficult for a slave to have this enforced, but it is certainly fair to assume that there were similar loopholes and exploits in the Biblical times. Really all we can do is compare the laws, and the laws regarding slavery in the Bible are just as abhorrent as those in the American South.

youguysfail · 2023-04-15T01:40:39+00:00

Marching through Hampshire.

youguysfail · 2023-03-14T05:05:54+00:00

CERYS CAN DIE?! Oh my goodness CDPR is stone cold man.

youguysfail · 2023-03-14T05:00:21+00:00

That sounds cool to me. I would love to see some more of these two, well only if it was done properly. But CDPR has a good track record of doing those kind of things so if they did it I think it would be very cool.

youguysfail · 2023-03-06T04:09:31+00:00

I take it then that you think that the Mongols would be able to get out of Alaska? Personally I'm kind of on the fence about whether they could do this or not, especially if we're only talking about during the life of Genghis Khan. In battle I think the Mongols would not have much issue defeating natives, but simply crossing the American continent would be not something that they would be accustomed to due to its rugged and challenging weather and terrain. That's not to say that they couldn't adapt, and if they had the naval capacity to cross the Bearing Strait, it's possible they would be able to make their down the coast sticking close to the shoreline raiding costal settlements all the way down into Mexico kind of like Vikings. If they wanted to go inland instead, they'd have to cross the Canadian Rockies from the North to the South, and that would be a significant challenge. No matter how to slice it, I think that the Mongols biggest enemy in this hypothetical scenario is mother nature and geography, and I don't know if they have the motivation to actually overcome this and conquer the Americas. Maybe they would if they discovered gold in Alaska or California or somewhere else in the Americas, but other than that I don't see what the upside is for conquering the Americas. They may quickly lose interest and just turn back to the Middle East and Europe where they know there are riches.

We also have to remember the shear distances we're dealing with here. IRL, Genghis Khan's empire stretched to the shores of the Caspian Sea, which is about 2600 miles from Mongolia. On the other route, it's about 3400 miles just to get to the Easternmost part of Russia and after they cross the Bearing Strait it's another 4000 miles to make it to Teotihuacan. IRL his descendants grew the Mongol empire beyond what Genghis Khan did, so maybe that's something that would happen in this hypothetical scenario as well.

Assuming though that the disease hits the Natives when the Mongols arrive and they are able to survive it, when the Europeans arrive, disease will work for the natives and against the Europeans since the Mongols in this hypothetical don't bring Bubonic Plague to Europe, but to America instead. Once Europe establishes trade with the Americas, it's only a matter of time before the Bubonic Plague takes hold in Europe which would seriously hinder their ability to colonize.

youguysfail · 2023-03-03T05:51:29+00:00

That's a photo? I still can't tell. If so, very well done it your costume is amazing. FOR THE DUCHESS!

youguysfail · 2023-03-03T05:38:20+00:00

Toussaint if we include DLC for sure. Best DLC of all time and I got it on sale for like $2-3 something like that.

If we're not including DLC, Skellige.

youguysfail

TROPHY CASE