The Chat Thread (Read OP)

[Commissar Caligula_]

It's pretty easy to storm the forbidden area. You can take a car, a Rancher preferably, and ram the gates. Before the FIB recovers from the surprise, you can grab the Rhino tank stationed there and wreak havoc upon the agents. Entering the interior is slightly harder, but nothing is impossible for a determined gangster holding a totally not overpowered minigun. Just make sure not to be obese or otherwise any attempt to infiltrate the military base will end in derision and embarrassment.

Rofl is that a GTA San Andreas reference?

[Akar]

Can't wait to see 250,000 people get mowed down by machine guns for storming a military installation.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I'm all for destroying Area 51 in the name of Allah but are the Aliens on board with this?

[Akar]

The legal or illegal ones?

[ggggtotalwarrior]

250k signed up? Expect about 2000 max to show up lol

[Sar1n]

The legal or illegal ones?

That would be a scene.

Guy at the gate:
Let us in! We heard you've got aliens there!

Guard:
Sure, we have aliens. We even have Jesus there...


*Guy nearly has a heart attack*

Jesus, from behind the guard:
Hola, cabron!

Guard:
...we also have Jose, Miguel, Maria, Dolores....

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

First of all, it's not a Mage its a Magi you illiterate apostate. Secondly, we all know that the Hebrew word for "virgin" is spelled almost identically to that of "young woman" and so when translated to the Greek this is an understandable, but nevertheless severe, mistake.

Is this but for real? I've heard about this type of thing that the whole Virgin thing was not meant in the original text, although I'm pretty sure the Bible means this literally. Mostly as an attempt to appeal to foreigners. But Jesus seems to have been kind of racist so I doubt he wanted to appeal to foreign converts, and this could just be a later addition. Who knows.

[Akar]

Is this but for real? I've heard about this type of thing that the whole Virgin thing was not meant in the original text, although I'm pretty sure the Bible means this literally. Mostly as an attempt to appeal to foreigners. But Jesus seems to have been kind of racist so I doubt he wanted to appeal to foreign converts, and this could just be a later addition. Who knows.

As far as I understand, yes it is true. If you're interested in Bible history like me (I'm an atheist but I still find this whole stuff interesting) it's well worth looking into the differences in the translations over time. Especially now that we have a more intimate familiarity with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Jesus was not racist, however his apostles clearly were. If you don't take your understanding of Jesus' teachings from the works of Paul and Peter then the Bible paints a much better picture of Jesus. Pretty much all of the Apostle's writings are from 300+ years after the death of Christ. But going back to the original point yes, the translation errors are massive and significant, especially translating from the original Hebrew/Aramaic to the Greek. The bible was translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek to Latin to old English to modern English and then from modern English into the "simplified" versions so many people use today so it's pretty hilarious to me that people think their bible is the unchanged and infallible word of god when it clearly has been changed and with significant differences in each reprint and re translation. My favorite difference aside from the whole virgin thing is that the word "Satan" is Hebrew for "adversary" and was not originally intended to be interchangeable with "Lucifer" which is "the Morningstar" (a reference to his fall from heaven). All the original old testament references are towards "a satan" not "The satan" or "lucifer" as modern translations imply. It's pretty crazy how entire cultures and religions are reliant on some misspellings and mistranslated.

Reminds me of that time I founded a cult over a misprinted edition of Hemingways old man and the sea

edit: not to mention the 300 year period where the church was trying to figure out exactly what the was part of the bible and what isn't. Some of the almost books of the bible are pretty crazy and it makes you wonder how the religion would have changed if some of them had been included.


edit:edit: This wikipedia article on the physical descriptions of Jesus is also pretty hilarious and contrasts wonderfully with his portrayal in the West. It wouldn't be until the 13th century with Thomas Aquinas that the idea of Jesus being physically perfect and beautiful took off fully. Before that, most descriptions from scholars closer the time of Jesus' life describe him as being short, stout, and ugly with a bent posture and reddish complexion.

[Diamat]

The bible was translated from Hebrew/Aramaic to Greek to Latin to old English to modern English and then from modern English into the "simplified" versions so many people use today so it's pretty hilarious to me that people think their bible is the unchanged and infallible word of god when it clearly has been changed and with significant differences in each reprint and re translation.

Mainly Protestants have this issue. It's particularly hilarious to see them praying over the meaning of a certain passage, in the hopes of receiving divine inspiration. It is ironic that the Catholic Church is more rational these days than many of the protestant sects. The Catholic Church has never written an authorized exegesis of the Bible. It understands that the Bible is part of the history of the Church and that the Catholic Church is the embodiment of that history.

I'm not Catholic (just to clarify).

[Akar]

Fair enough that it's mostly protestants, that's what the majority of my experience has been with (yay Southern Baptists!) but really even the King James is a stretch when it comes to textual accuracy. I've always appreciated that Catholics more-so than most other Christian sects have seemed to be more about the message of Christ rather than the literal textual interpretation.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Actually I beg to differ. Jesus was racist and so were his apostles. The only one who wasn't was probably Paul and that is because he was a cosmopolitan who never actually met Jesus. That whole bit where Jesus tells everyone to convert the whole world is probably a later retcon or has a significant amount of asterisks in the full context. We can pretty much see this with the argument Paul had with Peter and James. Peter who was probably the foremost apostle and James who was Jesus' own brother, don't agree at all with Paul's attempts to convert gentiles and get rid of Jewish traditions. Yet it was Paul who largely carried on the Christian church and the New Testament is based on that tradition. So not only do the Old Testament and New Testament contradict but there are even some notable contradictions within the New Testament.

For instance Jesus makes it clear in multiple passages in the four gospels that his message is only for the Jews and that his gifts are for the Jews. He calls a Canaanite woman a dog, essentially. Later he tells a Samarian woman that he wishes to reconcile all of the Jews. So in the historical context Jesus was basically a pacifist, esoteric, Jewish reformer. Paul tries to retcon this whole thing with all sorts of weird claims. I can see why the Jews had such a hard time believing in his message since it contradicts not only the Old Testament but the Hebrew way of life. And therefore lacked the piety to press his claim to Kingdom of Jerusalem. Besides Jesus lacked the legitimacy to be the Messiah. I found it funny how one time at a lecture a guy was saying that Jesus was the Messiah because he actually did meet all of the criteria in the Old Testament. But then when the guy went to explain his position it was full of esoteric ramblings and metaphors. Despite the fact that the Old Testament means this all literally, not metaphorically or spiritually. So again, not surprised the Jews didn't like Jesus. They were also taking things from the Old Testament completely out of context, like claiming that Isaiah refers to the coming of Christ, when it is obviously referring to the end of the Babylonian Exile. Despite the fact that just around the same part of the text it says that Cyrus is the Messiah... that is a really glaring issue if it actually referred to Jesus.

As for the virgin birth I don't think it was a mistake as much as it was an intentional distortion. By presenting Jesus in a more pagan fashion it was a better fit with Paul's agenda. It is also evident that it was the case if you look at some of the gospels. For example the birth of Jesus is claimed to coincide with a "divine star", an omen of sorts. But this is very clearly a direct rip off from Julius Caesar... aka Caesar's Comet (probably Halley's Comet as well). Which actually was attested to as having happened at the time of Caesar's death by a multitude of sources across the world. The Star of Bethlehem on the other hand? Nope, obvious invention.

[Akar]

That's a great point about Paul being the only non-racist, you'd be surprised (not really) about how much of that stuff is glossed over when taught to gentiles. To be fair if you want to make any sense of the Bible at all you have to take it out of context, because in context it's just a bunch of plagiarized stories and deities from other middle eastern and Mesopotamian religions. It's riddled with inaccuracies and errors from the very first chapter of Genesis all the way to the end. It's pretty funny to watch God be just one part of the early Caananite pantheon to him becoming "the first of gods" (though shalt put no other gods before me) to being the only god by the end of the Bible. I remember reading a list once of all the themes borrowed from other Pantheons and copied to Christianity, I'll see if I can't track that down it made for an interesting read. Off the top of my head I believe Horus had pretty much the exact same "origin story" as Jesus did though.

I love the point you made about Paul, as I've never realized that he never met Jesus in person before, and it sheds new context on his works with that being known.

edit: Just did some further reading about the Virgin birth and the two accounts of it Biblically are from Luke and Mathew (Both different but essentially agreeing on the Virgin birth). The Paulician account however is absent and leaves it open to Jesus being the son of a man. The Virgin birth isn't really required for immaculate conception though, and I think that's something a lot of people misunderstand. A lot of people assume immaculate conception to refer to the virgin birth itself however what it actually refers to is the idea that Christ was born without inherent sin (hence the immaculate conception). Additionally, Mark, the earliest Gospel (chronologically, not in the Bible) also makes no reference to Jesus being born of a Virgin, or in fact having existed prior to his birth (i.e, not the holy trinity or God reincarnated), and finally makes no effort to trace Jesus' birth back to king David.

[Pontifex Maximus]

250k signed up? Expect about 2000 max to show up lol

In 13 years here I haven't encountered a worse situation in this site simply throwing the towel in.

TWC is dead I think. Was fun while it lasted.

[Diamat]

If someone would have told us 8 years ago "TWC is gonna be basically dead by 2019," we would have been shocked and asked: "Because CA isn't making any more Total War games in the future"? The answer would be: "No, not because CA does not make any more games. Actually, many more games will be released in the future, at a much faster rate than before." "Then why is the forum gonna be dead?" "Because in the future, people don't really use gaming forums anymore. They are considered antiquated, replaced by a system called Steam."

[Commissar Caligula_]

In 13 years here I haven't encountered a worse situation in this site simply throwing the towel in.

TWC is dead I think. Was fun while it lasted.

You can't just grab a random quote and try to twist it to about TWC. We're talking about aliens, this is serious business.

Last edited by Akar; Yesterday at 01:42 PM. Reason: Biblically not Bionically

In the start there were only Bionicles, in the end there will only be Bionicles. It is the circle of life, as Mata Nui intended.

[Akar]

We came from Bionicles and to Bionicles we shall return. Also I can't help but read "Bioncles" like "Hercules".

Honestly I think it was less Steam that did it and more the rise of social media platforms especially Reddit and twitter

[AqD]

Regarding tigers in another topic - how useful would it be to carry hunting rifles in deep forest against wolves? I was told there are some and since wolves are s it'd be nice to shoot them.

[Akar]

First of all, you'll want to make sure that it's legal for you to hunt and kill wolves in your area. In the 48 contiguous U.S states hunting wolves is illegal as they are considered to be an endangered animal. So if you live in the U.S outside of Alaska (and Hawaii but there are no wolves there let's be realistic) it's going to be very illegal for you to do that. If you live in Canada it will depend on your provinces laws but I believe it is illegal to hunt wolves there as well. Obviously if you are attacked by one you can defend yourself but outside of that specific situation it will be illegal.

Now, as for the efficacy of it that's another subject. A hunting rifle is only going to be practical for hunting (although obviously better then nothing) if you plan to stalk and hunt a wolf then that would probably be your go to due to the range and benefits of a scope and high caliber. But if you're just planning on taking a hike in the deep woods then you're best with just a shotgun (with slugs if you're really worried) or a handgun. Unless you're going up against a bear anything over a .22 will get the job done if the first shot doesn't outright scare them away. In the U.S animal control uses a .32 caliber handgun to kill wildlife with, which is also what I carry when I go out into the woods. Though to be fair when I'm out in the woods I'm less afraid of wildlife than of other people but that's just because I'm paranoid. Personally though if I really was concerned about wolves while out in the Deep Forest(tm) I would just bring a shotgun with me. A hunting rifle wont be as practical up close especially with a scope and if you're not too familiar with firearms a shotgun doesn't require much proficiency (A hunting rifle requires martial weapons proficiency whereas a shotgun just needs simple weapon proficiency). I just doubt there would be a situation in which you're at a reasonable enough distance from a wolf for it to be a threat to you while also being far enough away for a hunting rifle to be the most practical weapon.

source: I'm an American from the South.

[Flinn]

Do you have Skill Focus: Paranoid, as well? It's a pretty useful feat, when you are wandering alone in a dark forest.

[Akar]

Not only do I have it but my entire character is based around that fact