Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

This is starting to get mildly disconcerting. Played Direct Strike (starcraft 2 arcade map, fairly popular) for the first time yesterday. Messed around with similar stuff and watched some vids previously, but never actually touched the map before.

That in mind, I just finished game six in a six game winning streak. Literally every game I've played so far has been a victory. I don't think I've been carrying the games or anything, just doing okay. But apparently okay with dehaka is all you need, or... something. Roach spam stronk. _{well, it's not spam per se but they definitely seem to be core to a steady dehaka play. Mix with zerglings if they're going anti-armored, igniters if they're trying to drown you in light, ravs if they're shooting up armored units themselves and hydras just kinda' regardless. If they go heavy air get mutas as a distraction or counter, creepers if they go seriously massed. Tyrants later on for the aura, ultras if you need some linebreaker/initial big HP pile, impalers and locusts I... still don't know what to do with. But basically keep the roaches/zerglings coming forever, they're the zerg bread to your godzilla butter.}

[Dunamisdeos]

I was, uh, really bad at traditional starcraft vs.

I was good at all those homebrew maps, but not much else.

[Frumple]

Yeah, this is one of those homebrew ones. The arcade is mostly where you find them. It's free and everything, these days.

Also, the streak just incremented, oi. This one was a sub ten minute stomp, though. Apparently roach spam just kinda' ruins kerrigan for marriage or... something. Queens then splash hydras definitely wasn't the correct response to 'wall of roaches, with ravasaur backup and igniters to eat your hydras', in any case. Well, plus the godzilla knockoff. The lurker was a good try, I think (dehaka's detection game is relatively weak), but... it didn't last long enough to potentially turn around. _{also the critter's detection game isn't that weak, plus I'm pretty sure lurkers are armored, i.e. ravs eat them}

[Magistrum]

Your right, Frederick Douglas, the escaped slave who became a major Christian figure, doesn't know shit, the literal architect of Christianity including an entire book of the Bible that asks a man to not only free a slave but change his view on slavery, doesn't know shit, and the internet in 2019 has finally revealed the truth. Bravo.

Don't nake such a bold statement. That was a a letter directed to an individual, where he basically strongarm a follower out of a slave by remind him of his position in the church. In the letter addressed to the whole congregation he was not so rash. It is not necessary for him to be evil, only indifferent. Remember that the people from back them were influenced by the values of back then. For them it was just part of life that some people were slaves.

Yeah, this is one of those homebrew ones. The arcade is mostly where you find them. It's free and everything, these days.

Also, the streak just incremented, oi. This one was a sub ten minute stomp, though. Apparently roach spam just kinda' ruins kerrigan for marriage or... something. Queens then splash hydras definitely wasn't the correct response to 'wall of roaches, with ravasaur backup and igniters to eat your hydras', in any case. Well, plus the godzilla knockoff. The lurker was a good try, I think (dehaka's detection game is relatively weak), but... it didn't last long enough to potentially turn around. _{also the critter's detection game isn't that weak, plus I'm pretty sure lurkers are armored, i.e. ravs eat them}

Well, I got wrecked all the games I played this week, but by god, I'll learn to play protoss. Thank god I can still go terran and not be a dead weight if so poor soul matches with me twice.

[scriver]

Well, firstly, No, not one bright spot, the man who founded it.

And no, not just me, but piles of examples throughout history. We first of all have the aforementioned ACTUAL FOUNDER OF ACTUAL CHRISTIANITY, which really can't be overstated, saying that the right thing to do is to free a slave and including that statement as a separate section of the Bible unto itself. William Wiberforce was Christian member of Parliament in the 1700's who fought to abolish the British slave trade. Charles Spurgeon, a major name in modern Christianity, called slavery a "foul blot" in the 1800's. His work continues today in the form a charity he founded. The Quakers spoke out openly against slavery as early as the 1600's. They formed one of the earliest abolitionist organizations in the UK. The flippin' Pope came out against slavery in 1741 almost 100 years before it was abolished in Britain.

I could go on. But the point is that, no, I'm not being snarky when I say that to claim Christianity inherently supports slavery flat-out requires one to base that belief on narrow-minded things the internet says in 2019.

You bring up many good examples of the change the irreligious Enlightenment movement brought about in Christianity in the last 300 years. Things that changed because the dominating cultures regarding slavery changed.

And setting aside the fact that the man who founded Christianity was, you know, the Big C himself, and Paul just the first theologian: Like I said, the argument you have provided that "Paul spoke against slavery!" proves no such thing. It tells that one time Paul asked one man to free one slave because the slave was like a son to Paul. It does not speak out against slavery in general. It says nothing about the morality of slavery. You have to twist the words and insert meaning into it yourself beyond what they tell to make that conclusion. It is a conclusion based on what you want to find rather than on what is expressed in the letter.

For the sake of earnestness I will be all-disclosive with you and share with you the only example of Christianity being anti-slavery before the Enlightenment that I know of: Sweden, after it's Christianisation, successively forbade the practice of thralldom, ending with the royal decree in 1337 in which the practice is forbidden in the two remaining law-sagas of the land. Of course, while this was interpreted as forbidding all thralldom, it in literal words actually just forbids the enthrallment of Christians (but all Swedes were supposed to be Christians by this point by law anyway). Which is pretty much in line with the most anti-slavery-ish stance any Christian ever held before the 18th century -- Christians cannot enslave Christians (but it's totally okay to enslave the pagans and the heathens of course).

The bright man in question was Frederic Douglass, by the way, not Paul.

We are also not arguing about whether Christianity inherently supports slavery, by the way, we are arguing about your opinion that True Christians cannot support slavery, ie that Christianity inherently is opposed to slavery, and your statement that anyone who believes differently is Not A True Christian.

[pikachu17]

Considering the tenets of Christianity, IE. Love your neighbor, Be kind to each other, Etc. slavery is in fact opposed to christianity, at least slavery as we think of it.
Slavery as a concept is not opposed to Christianity, but the way it is almost always done is.

[Il Palazzo]

Since Christ espoused the Golden Rule, it clearly means that God only allows BDSM submissives to own slaves.

[Naturegirl1999]

BDSM?

[Il Palazzo]

My sweet summer child, google is your friend. Unless you're at work, in which case even Wikipedia is not safe.

[scriver]

Considering the tenets of Christianity, IE. Love your neighbor, Be kind to each other, Etc. slavery is in fact opposed to christianity, at least slavery as we think of it.
Slavery as a concept is not opposed to Christianity, but the way it is almost always done is.

Those are the rules for the Us, not the Them. You know, it's by the same nonsense that Islam calls itself the Religion of Peace. It's totally the Religion of Peace, nevermind that it was founded on the waging of war upon everywhere it could. Christianity is totally the Religion of Love, nevermind that it was founded on genocide, hatred and bigotry.

[Dunamisdeos]

EDITED RECENTLY

Yeah, No. He went out of his way to specifically say that he's writing this letter not as the leader of all Christianity, or as someone who is giving an order, but as an old man in jail. The first third of the letter is him letting him know he's not trying to strong-arm him.

Additionally, it's not because he's "like a son to him". You've altered the wording, and therefore changed the meaning. It says "who is my son, who became my son while I was in chains". He didn't adopt the man, so what does this mean? Older translations even use the phrasing "begat in my bonds". He's is very clearly referring him as a new Christian, aka born again, aka easily the most common euphemism for converting to Christianity.

The idea that Paul would ask his friend to free this man becuase it's the right thing to do. "no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord." He does not simply appeal to him based on Onesimus' new status as a Christian, or as a person he cares for, but simply as a human being. Even the mere sentiment given here is in direct opposition to the concept of slavery.

Paul even goes so far out of his way to offer to take his punishment for him if any is warranted, and offers to pay his debts if any exist. These are not the actions or beliefs of a man who is supportive or even indifferent of slavery. And please recall this is not a letter aside from the Bible that show the private thoughts of Paul. This is deliberately included in the Bible, a book intended as the set in stone guidelines to the rest of Christianity into perpetuity.

And no, I don't think there's an argument to be had in that a person who visibly does not follow the tenets of Christianity is not, in fact, a Christian. Therefore the concept of Christianity inherently supporting slavery is in fact a filly valid and direct argument that a person who is aware of the fact that Christianity does not support slavery or racism and still supports slavery or racism is not in fact a Christian.

Finally, Jesus Christ the historical figure did not found Christianity. Paul did, based on visions he experienced on the road to Damascus some time after Jesus' death. While Christianity is based on the teachings and ostensible divinity of Jesus, Christianity as a religion as most of itself owed to Paul. He directly wrote (at least) half of the New Testament. Paul's feelings on things such as slavery as he put forth in the sole guide to the will of God on earth should be taken as direct guidelines for Christianity as a whole.

BDSM?

Palazzo is your real friend, don't Google this at work XD.

Those are the rules for the Us, not the Them. You know, it's by the same nonsense that Islam calls itself the Religion of Peace. It's totally the Religion of Peace, nevermind that it was founded on the waging of war upon everywhere it could. Christianity is totally the Religion of Love, nevermind that it was founded on genocide, hatred and bigotry.

It was founded based on the teaching of a man who hated violence to the point of healing the people hauling him off to be crucified. It was founded by a another man who went from being one of the most violent people in the bible (read about Stephen's stoning, the description of pre-Christian Paul/Saul hauling people out of their homes) to the man who wrote this:

“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them…Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.  If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God…To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

He credits this directly to his experience with Jesus.

“But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.”

We can easily see the character of this man and apply the context to his other writings. I'm drawing conclusions based on context and research, not re-wordings of snippets of verses.

Again, you literally need to forego research and rely on secondhand information in order to come to the conclusions that you are putting forth.

EDITED RECENTLY

[TamerVirus]

BDSM?

This is a rabbithole to many fetishes some consider to be...unnatural

[Naturegirl1999]

Ok...I just don’t know what the initials stand for

[pikachu17]

I don't remember what BD is, but SM is sadomasochism or something like that.

[Eschar]

Black Dragon Scale Mail