KSBD-KILL SIX BILLION DEMONS BOI 4-136

Again, it sounds like madman cope. You can reprhase it, but it's the same thing. It sounds like massive cope from sociopaths.

>No Jadis, you're predestined to take the facial
>Such is the shape of the Wheel

Image macros were a picture with something funny written over the top, usually in Impact font. Exploitables tended to be funny pictures that could be repurposed, but usually hadn't been macroed yet or shopped yet. And more! So much variety in those days. The bonkers edits this thread produces is welcome return, quite frankly.

>God there are 20 year olds who have no idea what the frick we're talking about
And to them I say: Lolz n00b5 sux0r dont know w3n n3t was kewl. pwned xD
and furthermoreThe Game. You have lost it.

rage comics used to be the shit I miss them

And then Cinemaphile declared them cringe thanks to Reddit (and picked up Wojaks a few years later with absolutely zero sense of irony)

It's called a meme in the hopes it will become memetic

Death paused and watched as Pree Aesma plucked a hair from her head and tossed it into the air, where it squirmed like a snake, contorting into the twisted, pitiful shape of a human being, screaming as it was born in the full cusp of adulthood, naked and helpless.

In the first second of the new Aesma's existence, she opened her eyes and took her first breath, and awakened to life in a way that she never had in her long existence as a god. The carnal knowledge of her own mortality, the blood pulsing in her vein, the ticking of her heartbeat like a clock counting down how many days she had left to live, it was all excruciatingly painful and achingly beautiful. Each mote of light, each grain of dust was imbued with meaning beyond anything she'd ever experienced as a god.

In the second second of the new Aesma's existence, she understood that such a life could not be lived without striving to encompass its totality. It was impossible imaging life as a human being, transient, frail and full of untapped potential, as anything but the struggle to overcome that frailness, fulfill that potential, and make every single moment of that transience meaningful. To be human was to strive, and the world had to be one's opponent. In that moment she set her mind on the conquest of everything and the claiming of the throne of God.

In the third second of the new Aesma's existence, she remembered the terms of her wager, and became aware of several godly presences around her. Aware of her nakedness and powerlessness, she instantly withdrew within herself to find the flame of consciousness and the memories of her past existence. She devised seven hundred seventy-seven lethal techniques which could be performed by the naked human body, and fashioned three war-aspects which could be borne by flesh. She then split her mind into seven ancillary battle-consciousnesses so that she might counter each of the Seven and braced to annihilate all of them at once in her opening strike.

"Alright," Pree Aesma said, looking as smug as a peawiener, fists on her hips. "Who's next?"

There was a great murmur between the Endless as they discussed what to do next, until finally their ranks parted and Dream stepped forward.

Dream of the Endless was the most subtle and the wisest of the Endless, and in that time before their splintering, the most respected of their number. This was a time when gods dreamed, and the dreams of even mortal men could shake the foundations of the universe; it was a time when Dreams were more powerful than Destiny, and as such Dream was stronger in this age than he would ever be again in any other age, and also much, much more tired.

Dream stood there in his midnight-blue cloak, half-slumped on his long staff for his fatigue, but the dark seas of his eyes drank in the gremlin-goddess before him and the fingers of his mind prodded the shape of her soul and there was no thought in the Endless that Dream might ever fail to overcome this challenge.

"The fruit of my wager," he said, his voice like the wind in the branches at night on the outside of a child's bedroom window, "is not one that can be seen with the open eye."

"Got it," Pree Aesma said, puffing up her chest and grinning. "What's it? Bird's call? Smell of baked cake?"

"No," Dream said wearily, "it is within. You must close your eyes, and see the darkness within your own mind."

Pree Aesma, who at this point was feeling even more smug and headstrong than usual, squared her shoulders, took a deep breath, and closed her eyes.

Then Dream reached over and knocked her on the skull with his staff-that-makes-people-fall-asleep, and she toppled over, snoring heavily.

pretty good

The key is to redirect her attention so she wanders off elsewhere and forgets her business with you.

You could probably trap her for a good while. Have five thousand vineyards, and whenever she drops in for wine have them extremely loudly proclaim "AH IF ONLY OUR VINTAGE WAS AS GOOD AS Vineyard 2", and then when she goes to Vineyard X have them extremely loudly proclaim "AH IF ONLY OUR VINTAGE WAS AS GOOD AS Vineyard 3". By the time Vineyard 5000 redirects her to Vineyard 1 she'll have forgotten she visited it already and the cycle repeats.

What could possibly go wrong

beautiful

I always felt like this should have been officially what happened. The idea that the oldest crustiest angel would be down for soda and corndogs like the proper grandpa he is would be absolutely charming. The other angels could be up their asses on tea but the idea that his miniature rebellion is deep fried food would be actually kinda neat.

Holy shit where can I find more of these?

>he lost the teddy bear

Oh yeah Nyave was a character right. I wonder what she's up to.

>Alison, you're a moron. But that's not the problem, the problem is that you're not moronic enough.

>>It took dozens and dozens of priests to subdue her
She's a god, not that impressive. Ver yimpressive that they DID subdue her however.
>>She simped for Mega Satan, who had to sweet-talk her into doing stuff
If you read again, he didn't sweet-talk at all. Aesma was just that stupid...ly in love!
>>She saw the Wheel and LIVED
so will Allison too perhaps in a few pages if 35 years rings true
>At no point does Aesma, say, break down and cry a lot because her lesbian devil girlfriend won't talk about her feelings or some shit.

>“Oh husband of mine, won’t you come back to the temple with me?” said lovestruck Aesma, for the twentieth time. The King looked at her with his terrible red eyes and said, “Get thee gone, gnat! Thou hast served thy purpose, now play in the ashes a while!” And he took his sword that could cut thirty six ways and smote Aesma with a blow so mighty that it sent her hurtling across the world and blew all the love clean out of her. When Aesma landed, she was pouring tears again. She staggered around, sobbing, until she found herself trudging through the ashes of the Temple of the Disc of the Sun. By this point she had been crying for a good day and a half, so her eyes were very sore and blurry with fiery tears.

>I'll clap you upside the head if you assert otherwise.
Not the first, not the last.
>Lies
Alright.
>I have no faith in Allison anymore.
You don't have to. If Allison gets on the machine...well...Jadis is ALWAYS right, eh?
>Although I'd argue simping for Mega Satan is itself an inherently less pathetic gesture than simping for Cio, on the basis that Aesma's taste in men is so batshit insane that only the most evil, destructive force in the multiverse after YISUN can give her heart-shaped pupils.
Depends upon your taste. Clearly you prefer satan over ex-demiurge re-summoned devil bug monster. At the end of it all Aesma considers just getting a dog. I'll refrain from the usual joke here. What kind of dog would she get? I wish we knew.

A demiurge is someone who possesses a key, that's it. Mottom got hers by killing her husband in his sleep, Jadis got hers by killing her dad, Mammon bought his, Incubus called dibs when Maya abandoned hers, Solomon and Jagganoth got their's through combat, and Gog ate a guy to get hers. Ebon Devil Cio had a single key compared to the 11,111 keys the Seven Jackasses wield, and even among them they're not equal in power.

Yeah this

Aesma was cool during all of those examples tho.

>It took dozens and dozens of priests to subdue her
>She simped for Mega Satan, who had to sweet-talk her into doing stuff
>She saw the Wheel and LIVED

At no point does Aesma, say, break down and cry a lot because her lesbian devil girlfriend won't talk about her feelings or some shit.

basically. And it's mostly so annoying because she's not even just college girl levels of annoying instead she's even worse somehow. Allison is consistently so incredibly idiotic in the most annoying ways possible, i know people in real life that i can barely stand that i would still prefer to trust before someone as useless as her.

If this was a slice if life story where i read about a character like her trying to live being the way she is that would be fine but that's not this story despite what some people i've seen seem to believe. This constantly makes Allison the worst part of her story for me.

Frankly is she is royalty, cast reality into nothingness because frick, she’s not even the fun kind of stupid.

Eat shit, I’ll complain as much as I want you wiener sucking b***h

homosexual

>established character persona
Outside of saying she's got a degree, her having anything to do with philosophy hasn't been brought up once. Beside that, she's half brain dead from just having woken up from a coma (if she actually has) after her whole world broke down. I can't see anyone seriously discussing philosophy in such a state.

Almost like she's a shitty student or something, some dumbass going for a degree in something she doesn't really understand or even care that much about, simply because getting a degree is what she's 'supposed' to do. Really she should be getting a degree in filling paper cups full of coffee, it's the one thing she seems to be competent at besides drinking demons under the table.

Zaid was the correct choice, but we know how that ends.
Zoss has performed what we called The Idiot's Blow.

>established character persona
Outside of saying she's got a degree, her having anything to do with philosophy hasn't been brought up once. Beside that, she's half brain dead from just having woken up from a coma (if she actually has) after her whole world broke down. I can't see anyone seriously discussing philosophy in such a state.

Thanks.

Also have my random schizo take. Alison is going to agree in the way only a modern philosophy major can agree to something so hideously fricking stupid. Allison will get mutilated and become PUNISHED ALISON in an instant. Gain unimaginable power. But not be bound like Jadis was because she's a modern philosophy major and thus too stupid to understand what she saw.

We've fricking done it, boys. A way for Alison to be SO STUPID she breaks the cycle.

She doesn't have a degree, she got isekai'd before she could complete it. Her major was business and her minor was philosophy.

Why do people keep forgetting this?

No kidding. If you're going to use Allison's choice of major as evidence for how aimless and stupid she can be, at least get it right.

Major is what your main pursuit is in college and the path you go on to get a job in that particular field
Minor is your backup that is sort of is related to the major
Business is chosen by those who have no real purist in life and just want a job where ever
Philosophy is worthless to have on all fronts
What do they have in your colleges?

We have focused study programmes, I think similar to what the major is, but business or philosophy would be too general, broad and without focus - you have areas/programmes like international business, business administration, economic data analysis, applied ethics or semiotics and philosophy of communication. No minors, but the programmes have a few slots for optional courses.

She took mostly business classes, and used philosophy in a way that probably just used uo her elective class slots.

These are both largely seen as topics for people with no real direction or passion but are being made to go to school, or were pressured into it. Once you combine it with Allison being in a sorority you get the general idea that Allison was a middle to upper class girl who's parents expect her to be a white collar establishment climber and she just goes along with it, which also explains why she was miserable and full of self hate early on and why she was obviously dating Zaid despite not being crazy about him and having to schedule having sex.

If Allison cared about business or philophy enough to have chosen these things she would be a very different character. She's probably have run some kind of profit racket in Throne or she'd have way more interest in the concept of royalty. But she was clearly a person who was forced through a life she hated against her own inclinations.

Oh, so Abbadon just can't be consistent.

So, not just pining, then?
Or having a kip?

>birds absolutely do not lay down, ever
How do they sleep?

You have to put a towel over their cage so they think it's nighttime.

tell that to owls

>All of that's fine internally, I guess. But if you're trying to convince other people your God is omni-benevolent and Righteous, or consoling a grieving member of your church about a lost child, pulling "He's Righteous because He says He's Righteous" is not convincing.
but it is though, you can argue that its dumb that it is, but ultimately Christianity and Islam did become the dominant religions of a good chunk of the worldso something about that appealed to people.

Nta but at that point you’re literally just arguing it’s a popularity contest

>What appealed to people about them initially was their moral universalism and promise of forgiveness. Their prodigious growth after that was due to the fact that they were exclusive monotheist religions and so once they gained some momentum they grew exponentially while the syncretic polytheist religions around then cannibalised each other.

Also, don't forget that once they became the dominant political power, they actively suppressed/persecuted other faiths, as well as in many cases Kings that converted going on to forcibly convert their subjects to their new faith at the point of a weapon...

That was a very interesting to read. It gives an incredible structure and rationale to the Christian faith. It really nails the core justifications for the religion that I've never really read before and really makes a lot of anti-Christian and pro-Christian people I've encountered in the past to be really ignorant of the subject.

It's weird you summed it up so well when so many people can't even scratch the surface of what you've said.

I'm even further enlightened that it's a whole discipline.

But the problem with these "core justifications" is that they only really work in the context of an immanent eschaton. "Don't think about things, don't question, just do exactly what god said to do and prepare for judgment" only gets you so far if judgement day stubbornly refuses to arrive and people need to live their lives and navigate the world around them.

I'm not endorsing or disagreeing with what was said there. I was just very satisfied to see it expressed in a clear foundational way because I've never seen it so clearly explained. I think it's important that people in a discussion agree on the same shit and I really wish that something like this was made clear to me years ago.

Most conversations about religion are over the small stupid details like dietary prescriptions, which real or not is a conversation that isn't worth having. The shitflinging when it comes to religion has often never been productive and I've been on the anti-religion side of it enough times to know it's often incredibly non-productive.

I agree that living your life as if Armageddon was just around the corner is problematic. We know the apostles all basically thought Judgment Day was going to arrive in their lifetime and so do many others to this day. But this isn't brought up that often and it ought to be because it's so important because it's this kind of belief that underscores everything else someone says. In fact, just a week ago I was listening to someone explain the impact of prophecy on a political event and it really floored me because in the public conversation it was about politics but this person was explaining through popular book sales, actual sermons being given, and religious forecasting that this political thing happened BECAUSE a significant number of people viewed it as divine intervention.

I mean shit, if I knew some people thought it was divine intervention from the beginning it would have saved me a lot of effort thinking about it. Because the divine intervention perspective is an explanation of motive that explains a lot when without it everything just seemed crazy.

I read the gospels. I studied the NT. I paid attention to what Christ taught and read it myself several times now. I've also gone through a lot of lectures and audio books looking at the subject through various perspectives. Though would it surprise you to learn I've not even finished the OT? I've studied Genesis and Job a lot, but that's about it for the OT. There will be people even more well versed by far. I'm weak by comparison.

If this reflects on the modern state of the west in some way, reflect on that.

If you want a place to start yourself, just read the gospels. No church or priest needed. If you need a modern thinker to help argue against yourself for you, or to simply sum it up, CS Lewis has Modern Christianity and many other helpful works. Though ironically the most helpful was eventually just listening to a lecture on Kierkegaard and his utter madness. Having the choice be laid out so simply to me
>Athens or Judea? You must choose one. They are mutually exclusive. Refusing the choice means you choose Athens by default as that is your default state.
and how 2000 years of theology might simply be FRICKING WRONG helped most. That is kind of like a mental atomic bomb.

Though I should say I wouldn't go as far as he did. God did leave us plenty to grasp on to, but frankly it's far easier to work from a standpoint of assuming you are wrong first then working out from there rather than bending yourself over backwards to make a theory that agrees with God.

But the problem with these "core justifications" is that they only really work in the context of an immanent eschaton. "Don't think about things, don't question, just do exactly what god said to do and prepare for judgment" only gets you so far if judgement day stubbornly refuses to arrive and people need to live their lives and navigate the world around them.

Kierkegaard had a point in pointing out both Philosophical Rationality and Faith have no basis but self justification. You must merely choose. Reason finds itself reasonable. You have faith because God says to. You need to accept the core concession of either one with no delusions. Both are a blind leap.

Choose.

There's the trick. The israelites got angry at Christ precisely because they assumed he came to do something like overthrow all governments and establish an entirely new one and thus new society based only on God. When he said he did not, they murdered him for it. This is something you should be wary of politicians throwing around in their speech to this day. Christ did not take part in politics and even avoided it. And even left teachings to indicate to simply FOLLOW our leaders or other worldly masters (like say if you are a slave or simply have a boss that orders you around) so long as doing so does not betray God in some other way.

This is for individuals to follow and to help other like-minded individuals. It is a society within a society. That was always it's intention. The teachings even have advice exactly to that effect on how to exist in this state. Wordly Kings can have their power all they want. Christ's own carry his word wherever they are and despite whoever rules them.

Trying to make Christianity a LITERAL EMPIRE was probably one of our biggest mistakes as a species.

>Though would it surprise you to learn I've not even finished the OT?
Not really. While I am not as educated on the subject as you I don't think citing the OT is going to get you very far in many conversations or be very useful for the amount of effort you have to put into understanding it. I don't think we live in a world where that amount of depth is as important when a minority of people who are interested are just struggling to grasp elementary things and the majority kinda just don't care at all. Like, I'm just not ready to engage with the OT and I really don't think I'm going to have enough time or incentive to get there.

I read Bart Erhman as a study guide for when I read the gospels. He's been a straight forward honest religious scholar. I'll be pretty happy to listen to this lecture on Kierkegaard. I've had CS Lewis to read recommended to me already so thanks for confirming it's worth my time - I'm going to start with his article "Learning In Wartime", which I don't even remember why I'm supposed to read it but it's sitting there for when I want to get off my ass.

Well, the funny thing about Christ is the pattern of his life and teachings and structure of the gospels strangely mimics the OT anyway. Just in condensed form. You can gain a lot studying the OT, but in a weird way the whole OT is in the gospels. It's some weird baked in shit that's fascinating. Makes sense when you consider all human history was just leading up to Christ's coming. Since without that we are all completely fricked anyway.

Patterns within patterns. Fractal truth. The shape of things looks the same no matter how far you zoom in or out. Reading both OT and NT just helps you appreciate this on a more complex level.

But equally you could just decide to trust God absolutely and smile. If you are able. Harder than it sounds.

>If Orthodox or Catholic disagree with the gospels, they are wrong.
The gospels disagree with each other.

This is why apologetics is shit - it's rhetorical posturing trying to string together rational-sounding arguments in defence of positions which weren't arrived at through rational principles in the first place. It's tedious, intellectual dishonest, and, importantly, appears to have little or no influence over what the vast majority of people actually believe. I have more respect for a Christian who flatly claims their beliefs are faith-based and therefore suprarational than one who gins up thousands of words of pseudo-logical garbage to defend pre-existing beliefs.

>The gospels disagree with each other
No one who claims this has ever been able to back this up.

So the same out of context quoting and half reading of the gospels that is always at the core of this accusation? There's nothing interesting here. No apologist needed. You pretend to by right by ignoring what the gospels say. Mathew says something far more specific than that, and it too declares all foods clean in it's own pages. No mark needed. Yet it also bridges the gap between these on it's own terms. All in Mathew. As for signs, you are wrong on a combination of misquoting or oversimplification or both. The Easter morning accusation is left so vague as to be no accusation at all.

There's no elaborate counter needed here. You likely got these ideas second, third, or forth or fifth hand and haven't read the gospels yourself.

>The gospels disagree with each other
John 7:53, the story where Jesus tells the men about to stone a woman "let he who is without sin cast the first stone at her" is made up, as it does not appear in the oldest manuscripts of the gospel of John. The last 12 verses of Mark are additions by scribes. I can't remember which Gospels but two have contradictions about who Jesus claimed the High Priest was.

I can't really defend these points further than just saying them. I just have them noted on post-its in my bible so at one point I learned these differences. I also don't really feel these inconsistencies matter personally, I wouldn't bring them up to use against religion. I mean, I can understand they would be relevant if you believe the bible like God to be inerrant but I'm willing to let it slide because I think what matters is the meaning behind the words, even if they're editorial additions made hundreds of years after Jesus appeared.

Yeah these issues are a big nothing, as you say. They aren't as clear cut as you claim here, but in either version of the gospels it changes nothing at all. What people mean, like the other anon, is that the bible disagrees with it's own teachings. Though on the high priest you'd have to be specific and point to passages.

I'll be honest to both of you, though. I'm going to bed. I doubt this discussion will be here. Just keep this in mind. The gospels recount the same events in different levels of detail. Some complaints would ring as hollow as saying a summary of a movie is different to watching the movie. No shit. Equally, Jesus and his disciples were traveling for LITERAL YEARS cross country. These are not detailed, dry, historical recounting. Such a thing would take a library to contain itself. And the bible admits as such too. Jesus' deeds are without counting and omitted by it's own admission.

What you are getting is the GOSPEL. Not a historical library. It's concern is being sure you are armed with the knowledge of what Christ wants from you and the truth God wants you to know.

I'd wonder if some people take issue with the fact Jesus is never depicted as taking a piss.

>The gospels disagree with each other
John 7:53, the story where Jesus tells the men about to stone a woman "let he who is without sin cast the first stone at her" is made up, as it does not appear in the oldest manuscripts of the gospel of John. The last 12 verses of Mark are additions by scribes. I can't remember which Gospels but two have contradictions about who Jesus claimed the High Priest was.

I can't really defend these points further than just saying them. I just have them noted on post-its in my bible so at one point I learned these differences. I also don't really feel these inconsistencies matter personally, I wouldn't bring them up to use against religion. I mean, I can understand they would be relevant if you believe the bible like God to be inerrant but I'm willing to let it slide because I think what matters is the meaning behind the words, even if they're editorial additions made hundreds of years after Jesus appeared.

(I'm

All of that's fine internally, I guess. But if you're trying to convince other people your God is omni-benevolent and Righteous, or consoling a grieving member of your church about a lost child, pulling "He's Righteous because He says He's Righteous" is not convincing. And an obnoxious conversation ender.

anon, which was my first post in this chain)

I understand that God (in your view) does not need to justify Himself: He is as He is, take it or leave it bub.

But like, Allah also dictates something close to that, and the Orthodox church has radically different views on nominally the same God, and the Catholic Church and the twenty trillion Protestant denominations have pretty strong disagreements on what exactly your God want and exactly we ARE "take it or leave it"'-ing.

So what happens when you all say something along the lines of "God is this, take it or leave it", who do I put my faith in? And I assure you my first thought if I lived in e.g Iran is not going to be Christianity, Islam seem pretty genuine about the whole thing.

Perhaps all that "second guessing God" isn't useful once you've found your faith and don't need logic, but until then it seems like useful external PR if nothing else!

>If Orthodox or Catholic disagree with the gospels, they are wrong.
The gospels disagree with each other.

This is why apologetics is shit - it's rhetorical posturing trying to string together rational-sounding arguments in defence of positions which weren't arrived at through rational principles in the first place. It's tedious, intellectual dishonest, and, importantly, appears to have little or no influence over what the vast majority of people actually believe. I have more respect for a Christian who flatly claims their beliefs are faith-based and therefore suprarational than one who gins up thousands of words of pseudo-logical garbage to defend pre-existing beliefs.

Also mods have mercy on me. Philosophy and Religion go hand in hand with KSBD. This shit is going to happen. Please don't give me a half week time out like last time.

This is a bit much to tackle on this subject in one post, and I'm kind of already derailing the thread. I will throw out a single word for you to consider:
>Mercy
God wants to grant it by all means. Very much wants to give it away. God is more clever than us. More grand. More wise than any serpent. To doubt God's ability to redeem a person through any means, even impossible ones, is to doubt God himself. Mercy is so important we are told to judge NO MAN unless we want to be judged. Condemn no one unless we want to be condemned without question. To make amends and forgive debts and come to peaceful terms with even our enemy is one of the most important parts of Christ's teachings.

Consider our world has Spiritual Law as it's underpinnings. This has a metaphysical importance we CANNOT truly appreciate. God's ways are higher than our ways. Christ spells out his expectations of us in this life VERY CLEARLY, but there's equally as clearly something big going on under that surface we have only been allowed the barest peek of.

Regardless, do not doubt God's ability to reach His children by any means. Being a prostitute, a thief, a murder, or all three hasn't stopped anyone from salvation. One of God's own prophets stumbled in to becoming an adulterer and murderer (yes these are related to the same act). This wasn't exactly a deal breaker. After all, there is only one unforgivable sin.

>God still miraculously heals people to this day, as you can find medical records even of spontaneously regrown organs,
No, no you can't, you gullible frick

God is an paradox any way you slice it. Gnosticism is an meme religion for people who think you can understand God with just your brain.