Comments by "Roope Reimi" (@Yurikon3) on "Overly Sarcastic Productions" channel.

Kishimoto overall didn't use his female characters to their fullest potential. Considering they all had their fan bases. Sakura's first major fight in shippuuden was nerve-cracking, exciting and used the tricks Sakura had learnt. The victory felt earned and satisfying. Then she kinda just drops. I generally lose interest to battles when heroes pass certain power-cap making tactics a handwave. Shikamaru fights were thus usually more interesting.
45
Ah yes, it is common syndrome of taking one verse outside of context. I think it is always sometimes more holier to see Atheist and Christian actually calmly researching The Bible without bit-size arguments. At least in those occasions people tend to become wiser. Another problem which a bit irks me is to try reflect some events or people to modern equivalents without proper reason or context. For example equaling OT's "godless" to modern atheist is far-fetched cause most of the ancients believed in certain forces and these forces drove or encouraged acts. Gods were usually also those who made judgements about person's acts. So if one's personal judge had twisted view of justice, expect them to do some bad stuff. Modern atheist's are most likely ready to approve most of the moral guidelines and are more baffled about some irksome interpretations which even most Christians are irked. Or simply atheists have trouble to believe in something which they cannot see and exactly prove, which in sense is not unhealthy approach, even Bible commends people who have open minds to ideas expressed but still make sure they hold some salt in them. I think Biblical "belief" of the ancients was more nuanced than just believing in entity A or B. It seemed to also be interested in what kind of deity is one actually following. Accept cruel god, become cruel person. Accept too permissive god, become too permissive. Accept fair and balanced god, become balanced person. I think it is not waste of time for atheist to figure out the character of God from The Bible, even if they don't have actual belief cause it might transform them. And if they ever meet God, at least they can agree with His terms.
12
I think it might be cause Paul had to deal with Greek philosophy of the time which was indeed a bit confusing. I must admit that out of the all denominations I find Orthodoxy the most balanced in its dealing with mystery and practicality but I think all denominations might have it right in some things, but lack in others. Folks keep bashing Chatolism but I think it arises mostly from "flesh", pettiness or something. I don't believe in sanctity of Pope, but as a system it seems to have an understanding about the grandness of God and also of important of unity to certain degree. I think there are more proper ways to judge people than their beliefs. It is the fruit of their beliefs which usually reveal weaknesses in actions.
7
@gothnerd887 Strangely that reminded me of that one Usagi Yojimbo story where Turtles are summoned to Feudal furry Japan and one of the Turtles greets Usagi with "Yo, Jimbo!".
7
I have taken a dip into looking into some ANE (ancient near east) context studies and have come to find out that problems do not necessarily arise from Bible itself but for its early absorb into western philosophy. I have heard some remarks about David De Silva's societal context study of ancient Rome and Israel and how it affects in understanding of Biblical concepts. I have come to carefully think that some concepts like faith and grace have become bit misunderstood and those misunderstandings have been cumulating during the history. I'd dare to say that Jesus was not that weird fellow for the reasons we think (mostly mysterious reasons). All these stances about mysteries and concessions about Trinity might be byproduct of Greek philosophy collapsing with Hebrew teachings of Messiah. Hebrews expected Warrior-King type Messiah, but in Jesus' case he was born as a carpenter in boons of the time (Bethlehem). In other words he didnt have worldly type of "bling" to be considered Messiah. When he proclaimed to be One with The God, He was equalizing His character with The God. For average Jew who, at least on paper, considered oneself respecting God saw it humilating a total nobody equaling Himself to The Greatest. Consider it like some ragged peasant rushing onto the king and one of king's lackeys kicking peasant away. Normally person must be aware of his place in hierarchy before facing a king. But in this case the king might be benevolent or hear the peasant asking permission to speak in the name of someone the king thinks is proper. The king might also lash out to lackey for acting rashly without permission. Anyway. In this case when Jesus equalized Himself to God, He proclaimed The Authority as God's speaker and Son. If someone attacked Him, it equalized for attacking God Himself. Consider oneself if someone hits your own son. It feels like someone has hit yourself. This is also a reason why it was a big act of patience and character on behalf of God because He allowed His Son to die, rather than kill attackers to prevent Jesus' death. It also sets Jesus' last plead in context "Father, don't set them accountable for this sin, they don't know what they are doing...". Forgiveness means ability to not bear grudge and ask revenge (justified return) for crimes committed against them and it is considered good characteristic. Solomon made mistakes, but before those he got the chance to ask God whatever he wanted. Solomon asked wisdom, and it was good wish in The Mind Of God, He even said that instead of asking riches or death of Solomon's enemies, He shall bless Solomo. Jesus' death was absolute humilation, which cruxifiction marked and it was likely to show humanity that even if The God Himself would come down to earth with the best of intentions, humanity would still repeal him cause humanity approves glory which is tainted glory. The lifestyle which Jesus wanted to show was not something to garner points in normal society, but resurrection was a promise that trying to change and live like Jesus did, would not be worthless. Long story short I think that the message Jesus wanted to give was not overtly mysterious or too far from the reach or too hard to understand or even live (it was the outer forces which made it hard). There was not pleas for understanding impossible concepts or strange beliefs. That being said I think that what Jesus is gonna do are not that clear and who he is gonna rebuke and what degree are not in my domain of judgement. I think that those whose heart, even if they might be unperfect, is in right place, is able to recognize and accept Him. Until judgement is made I guess the best believer can do is to be best kind of diplomat for Him.
5
In Finland that's just the name of Donald Duck.
2
Just as The Bible does not hide the misgivings of its characters, so does not any proper Christian deny the history of their religion. That is not bad but honorable. Even The Bible recommends buying knowledge. While of course Paul implies that knowledge might cause some pride, it is still better get knowledge.
1
I guess the problem is more like: There is just too much one type of beauty. In reality men tend to have more diverse tastes what they find adorable or desirable in woman. The thing is that it does not necessarily fall nice into overall trends. At least in modern hollywood films the "beauty" usually is pretty same kind. Pretty much same facial structure and same hair, same body-type as well. I can tell they look nice, but they do not really stand apart.
1
Those were not actual brokes of rules cause in the end one must make some laws to ensure chaos does not emerge. The thing was that smaller laws flow from bigger ones. All laws made by rabbis were not bad in nature while some were. I think the problem is that the Christianity nowadays is more The Bible seen through western lenses while it was near eastern in nature. It had bit different way to see society and its philosoph ywas different from Greek one. Some Asian countries in their societal structures might be closer to Biblical systems than some western sects nowadays. It is Big Book and has a lot of stuff so I guess some humility and patience is required with it.
1
Pure evil villain can be fascinating look at that aspect in ourselves we try to keep in hold and multiply it to the greatest degree.
1
He actually met Peter in later phases of life and they accepted him as an apostle so it was not merely on base of revelation. I personally think it was not Paul who made new religion out of anything. It was later interpreters who diversed themselves from Jewish believers and started to use more interpretations based on philosophy of Greeks and Pauls letters outside of their contexes. So if we play blame game this is more of the case of "revolution eating its own children" though not in literal mind.
1
What I have heard, there is this notion in religions, especially Judeo-Christianic spectrum that every human is somewhat bad. One constantly hears about some more vocale preachers shout how everyone is hopeless and in some extreme cases some even consider babies hell-bent. This is usually brought up in dialect "faith vs. works" and seem to usually be kinda like mental hostage tactic to tie one to Jesus of community. The notion of "everyone is evil" might sometimes be mockingly used by villain as justification for their "we're not so different"-moment. I suppose the problem lies in misunderstanding of the ancient mindsets and how "hate and love" or "good and evil" were pretty comparable terms. Compared to "Perfection", in this case "The God", every human is imperfect, but it is crooked to think that young child is comparable to robber baron. Such a notion might in ancient world (and understandably even now) the view of injustice. The notion of "evilness of all humans" is more akin to "tendency to do evil" and their choice to decide following that tendency or choose other route given by outside force, in this case, once again, "The God". It is kinda like reverse for Kingdom Hearts' "inner light which never goes out" mentality where in every heart there is permanent darkness, but person can decide to look at the light outside and use it to quench darkness within. Sometimes some heroes might fall and it is considered a time of slippery where they might walk further from light cause that light hurts them or they know they are not worthy to look at it. This usually requires someone "better" than hero to work as broker between the light and fallen hero. This is like Iroh to Zuko, Sora to Riku and of course Jesus with humanity in their relation with The God. The point of "we're not so different" is bent because even if hero and villain had in certain point committed same wrong action, but in crossroads hero decides to walk away from evil he had done and decided to take other road. That fact alone makes them different from villain cause good and evil are comparison terms. It is true that in face of perfection villain and hero aren't so different but in comparison hero is good because he did better choice whereas villain decided to keep walking the road he took. This kind of "comparison morality" can be found in honor-shame type cultures like Japan and it might be a reason why there seems to be more "redeemed villains" in anime spectrum because good and evil are more about comparison and not solely "innermost" feelings. Vegeta might have not been good guy in general spectrum, but unlike many others like him he decided to not go full rampage at certain point (even if the motives were kinda selfish) and by that fact Goku didnt need to constantly fight him unless he had to. This allowed Vegeta actually learn and control his own tendencies and over the course it started to affect his own innermost self. The "innermost darkness" can be seen as more like challenge which some people fight against in their life or just "give up" and let it control them (which also returns to ancient notion of being "slave of sin").
1