The Evangelist - Just An Illusion download full album zip cd mp3 vinyl flac
There's no logical contradiction involved with two people disagreeing about what they experience and if they do this, then the result will just be that they will disagree about the premises, just like if they disagreed about models on other levels. There's really no fundamental difference between "facts" and "the output of models", although I will of course be the first to admit that disputes about what reality entails tend to be resolved by focused study such that one or both parties in a discussion change their minds after having performed controlled experiments.
However, we are always dealing with the same situation in that if someone makes a statistical The Evangelist - Just An Illusion they are making a logical argument that other people have to agree with the premises of Which includes "facts"as well as the logical structure, if the argument is to be convincing. I think the problem you are pointing at is more properly stated as a lack of ability to present complex rational arguments, due to lack of mathematical education, than an isolated problem with understanding statistics.
There's no barrier to using probability in historical arguments because of this. The fact that you can "prove" things either way just boils down to whether or not you accept premises that allow such conclusion to be drawn and figuring out whether the premises are true is one of the most important aspects of rational inference.
For example, I could start from a bunch of data claiming apples fall upwards to "prove" Newton's theory of gravity wrong and not violate a single law of logic doing so.
Very few people would regard this as a problem with the application of statistics in physics when they could pin it on failures in my reality model. It's the same issue with history. The job of a historian is to argue that Oh John - Paula Cole - Harbinger premises are true and then to draw conclusions that have probabilistic merit from those while adhering to the laws of logic.
If he does, he will convince rational people, if he doesn't, chances are he won't. Of course, convincing people doesn't mean the conclusions are true either, but this is the best we can do - identify the best candidate hypotheses for beliefs given other axiomatic beliefs and we'll just have to live with it if the axioms we call "facts" end up being wrong.
You Ты Хороша (Bei Mir Bist Du Schön) - Оркестр Макса Грегера* - Диксиленд have a point that the vaunted objectivity of fact-based science is an illusion. Theory certainly informs fact, at least to the extent of which facts to pay attention to. Yet there does seem to be a distinction between a model that yields the number of illegal Irish immigrants and the counting of Irish noses.
Especially as the former notoriously yielded a negative number. One envisions sons of the Gael slipping clandestinely from Maclean Avenue in the Bronx and sneaking off to the Auld Sod. Similarly, there is a distinction between the erosion of a beach predicted by a model and the actual measured erosion of the beach.
To say there is "no" fundamental distinction between an algorithm and a measurement overstates the subjective nature of science. Thanks for bringing this guy to my attention. Such expertise is not needed. Bayes' Theorem is simply the mathematical model for the arguments historians are already making.
If they can't make a probabilistic argument that Jesus existed, then they can't claim to know Jesus probably existed. And then we'd all have to concede we don't know Jesus probably existed.
Sink the ship of arguing from probabilities, and all probability arguments go down with it. And with that, all human knowledge. Thus, you have to address what I actually argue, not pretend it's some sort of advanced significance testing like in the sciences. It's just an argument that something probably happened in history. And as such is as valid as any other argument that something probably happened in history.
Unless no such arguments are valid! Expertise is certainly needed Dr. Otherwise, how can we trust that someone is using a method properly without a given advanced knowledge of that method.
You yourself aren't a mathematician, although that doesn't mean you aren't smart or good at math. However, that does mean that your use of Bayes Theorem is not going to be adequate when it comes to applying it to the historical Jesus or anyone for that matter.
Should we trust Ken Ham to tell us about the age of the earth or evolution? Or should we trust experts in evolutionary biology? I take the latter. You say "If they can't make a probabilistic argument that Jesus existed, then they can't claim to know Jesus probably existed. Is it your assumption that math is our only way of knowing the past? If so, then you are in for some serious dead-ends. Not only is this self-defeating because it claims that BT is our only way of knowing something that is true, which this sentence itself in return can't be verified by BT to show whether it is more probably true or false.
Your objections are epistemological, not mathematical. Any philosopher who studies history will tell you that you don't need BT and any mathematician for that fact, to solve the past.
You simply need sound arguments and evidence in order to know whether something in the past happened. Using concrete numbers is not only dishonest but unnecessary. Bayes' Theorem is simply the mathematical model for the arguments historians are already making". And that is why your latest books are huge failures. A 10 year old can grasp Bayes' Theorem, yes, it's not in itself hard mathematics, BUT it is clearly and I think all who know a bit of math agree!
To note that most of your arguments in the book are fallacious, false or at best strained But the final calculation is something that a kid who learned multiplication can do, yet truly building up the probabilities is something that you are not competent in, both historically and mathematically.
Not its mathematical rigor and validity, which is easily proven, but rather the application and various epistemological considerations. In fact there is more than one school of though on how to apply the theorem and the theorem has some opposition too mainly from frequentists, but not only.
He rejects the foundations of probability laid by frequentists e. Than why does said Mr. Carrier assume that 1 we should believe what he writes especially since it is at odds with what much better scholars than him are saying 2 his treatment of the sources is piss poor and 3 he is not an expert in mathematics or history of early Christianity.
Because he's writing about ancient history and he has a PhD in ancient history, so he's a better scholar than anyone else who doesn't have a PhD in ancient history. No it isn't, because, again, he has a PhD in ancient history. I'm guessing you don't, so you're not qualified to judge. He doesn't need to be an expert in mathematics to write a book on ancient history, and he IS an expert in the history of early Christianity.
If what I surmise about the two books is correct and I haven't read either one of themsomething is wrong with the reasoning here. From what I can tell based on the book information and the reviews on Amazon, Unwin seems to believe he can prove the "God of philosophy" exists. Dr Briggs tells us. It seems to me quite true that if Jesus never existed, the "God of Christianity" does not exist.
But I believe it to be the case that none of the "proofs" of the existence of God attempt to prove that Jesus was a historical personage and God Incarnate. So unless there is something about Unwin's book of which I am unaware that is, unless it proves that the God who exists is a Trinitarian God, the second person of whom was Jesus, the human incarnation of this Trinitarian Godit seems to me Unwin's book and Carrier's book need not contradict each other.
In short, although proving Jesus never existed would be a devastating blow to Christianity, it would in no way prove that God didn't exist. Many people believe in God who do not believe in the "Christian God," and proof that Jesus never existed or was not God Incarnate in no way proves that God doesn't exist.
Ukraine - Nokturnal Mortum - Kolovorot far as I can tell, Unwin does not attempt to use Bayes's theorem to prove Jesus existed.
Proving that God exists does not prove Jesus existed. Briggs has defamed me by claiming I argued that God does not exist because Jesus did not exist. I have never made such a ridiculous argument, anywhere. Mathematizing your biases and values is also a really good way to get them out into to open so they can get the attention they need.
This reminds me of the Drake Equation to calculate the probability of other intelligent life in the universe. It's not the answer so much which is important, as that depends on the guesses you make for the inputs, but the question of what the inputs are and what we need to determine to make a sensible guess.
The only way mathematization can disguise a deception, is to do this to an innumerate audience. Hence the very point of my book Proving History is that we need to get numerate; and then it explains how to informedly Janfa - Various - African Pearls - Mali 70 : Electric Mali and critique a Bayesian argument, in terms accessible to humanities majors nothing more than sixth grade math required.
This I agree with, and it's something I wish I had been more clear about. If you're right about the level of math required, most people can at least learn enough not to get Eulered. I'd have to disagree. Even a highly numerate audience can be hoodwinked when the formalization is fed bad data outside the audience's knowledge base.
Take the McGrew paper as the classic example of this. Numeracy alone might help you spot them treating 12 dependent variables i. But you can't use math skills alone to detect the howlers Where Do Broken Hearts Go - Whitney Houston - The Ultimate Collection "they were all written by eyewitnesses or people who scrupulously interviewed eyewitnesses", or wholesale fabrications like "die for a lie".
If it can be "proven" And I don't think it can in the sense of "proven" I think the key word here is "proven", by some theorem or "evidence" that Jesus did not exist, that would indeed be problematic for history and Christianity The thing is, that I think that it is very likely that Jesus of the NT did exist, given the particulars of history according to Max Ehrman and other non christian historians who would seem to have no Catholic or Christian bias would concur with this stance.
Even if the Jesus of the NT can actually be proven that he lived and was crucified, in no way can be taken to infer that he was god or was the second person of the "trinity". The most that that would do is lend a certain amount of evidence to the fact that that the Jewish sect who later referred to themselves as Crime Of Passion - Rick Wakeman - Rick Wakemans Criminal Record did in fact exist and believed that Jesus rose from the dead.
Probability theorem can be argued that the "probability" of "god" can or cannot exist but that is a different thing from using the same mathematics to prove that a particular person did or did not exist given the historical gleanings The most that can be inferred is that the god of the Christians does not exist in that case!
This means nothing to the average person It would be a very welcome explanation for all of us if one of you math wizards would explain this in layman's terms about one minus epsilon. Is the author trying to suggest that all mythicists are conspiracy theorists? If so, I would be disinclined to pay much attention to anything else he has to say on the issue. Well spotted. I have never argued "Jesus was The point is the alleged motive of those inventing the Jesus story is pretty hard to discern.
Christianity was offensive to Jews and to Hellenists and to the Roman empire. It got a lot of people killed. Why make it up if this Jesus guy never really existed? Tell people this guy preached in Galilee and Jerusalem and drew huge crowd then hope nobody checks? All so you can get thrown in jail and maybe crucified yourself? It is a huge question that is largely ignored by secular scholars. If you are The Inner Light - The Beatles - Soundcheck about Gospel accounts, how were people in the first century supposed to do fact checking on events that allegedly happened forty or more years earlier in another country?
I think a great many Christian biblical scholars would doubt the "huge crowds" reported in the Gospels. You just go there and ask questions. Luke did it. He said many others did as well. Luke 1: 65,66 says:. And fear came on all their neighbors.
This is what you would expect. A lot of stories being repeated and theories about what it all means. That is what Luke found. It seems the other who checked found the same as When Will It End - Various - Fox Vancouver Seeds 2006. I do find the first liars to be hard to explain.
Historians typically waffle about who that was because putting names on them makes it harder to dodge the questions.
Was it St Peter that made up Jesus? What was his motive? How did he get St Paul to play along? Well, I think the "straw man" accusation is overused on Strange Notions but if ever it was justified, it is here.
As far as I know, nobody maintains that Christianity was invented by "liars. The scholarly consensus is that the Gospel stories first existed as oral tradition passed on by followers of Jesus and that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John composed the Gospels based on that tradition and perhaps some documents, such as the sayings source Q. Very "liberal" biblical scholars, and historians who are not Christian believe the oral tradition was elaborated and exaggerated to paint a picture of a divine Jesus, but they do not accuse anyone involved in this process of "lying.
They do not charge anyone with lying. Apologies for being so blunt, but this is more nonsense. It is the consensus of historians and biblical scholars that Jesus existed, that Peter knew him, and that Paul knew of him, although without directly encountering him during his lifetime. I have never heard anyone claim that Peter invented Jesus. It's just preposterous, but nobody except you has suggested it. Again, it is a straw man argument if there ever was one.
I am very uncertain about the complete truth of Catholicism but not at all about the existence of Jesus. But if the only choice I had was between Christianity being invented out of whole cloth by a group of liars, on the one hand, and the Gospels including the miracles and the resurrection being historically accurate, on the other, I would go with the latter.
But it is nowhere near that simple, and it is naive or disingenuous to imply it is. They use other words. They try and belittle the act by renaming it. Really "liar" is to weak. Calling them "oath -breakers" might be closer. You need to grasp what Christians thought about Jesus. Those who believed took what He said and did very seriously. Those who didn't believe would not have the clout to present a bunch of new data on Jesus and have it accepted.
I am not saying there are only 2 choices. I am saying that there are big holes in the many half stories told of the gospels not being historically accurate. The hole is always how the non-history ends up getting accepted so widely and so strongly in such a short time. They throw out word like "legendary" and "myth" but they never tell anything close to a plausible account of how first or second century Christians get so confused about what the Jesus story is.
The authors could have believed every word they wrote, but since I don't believe in divine inspiration, I'm not obliged to believed that they could not have been mistaken about some of it. Alternatively, they could have been writing fiction, in which case they did not expect their readers to believe that they were reporting factual history.
In either case, there was no intent to deceive and therefore no lying. That actually is what I believe. And you need to grasp that some of us don't share your presuppositions about what the first Christians were thinking about Jesus or anybody else.
You prove my point. Maybe the authors knew they were writing falsehoods Loesje - Various - De Skibox 12 a manner way different from lying of course.
Then again maybe they were mistaken. So you are saying you have no clue. That is pretty close to the scholarly consensus. We have no clue where the New Testament came from. That is a huge reason for believing the Catholic story. It at least explains something. You might hate the supernatural elements but at least admit you have no natural theory that explains the data. You can go there but you need to know you are asserting the existence of a different religion without a lot of evidence.
We have writings from early Christians and they don't show any belief in any non-historical religion. To say such people existed and they wrote the new Testament and then the historical brand of Christianity replaced it. That is a lot to swallow. You would expect something to be left behind from those steps.
The apostles proclaimed above all the death and resurrection of the Lord, as they bore witness to Jesus. They faithfully explained His life and words, while taking into account in their method of preaching the circumstances in which their listeners found themselves. After Jesus rose from the dead and His divinity was clearly perceived, faith, far from destroying the memory of what had transpired, rather confirmed it, because their faith rested on the things which Jesus did and taught.
Nor was He changed into a "mythical" person and His teaching deformed in consequence of the worship which the disciples from that time on paid Jesus as the Lord and the Son of God. On the other hand, there is no reason to deny that the apostles passed on to their listeners what was really said and done by the Lord with that fuller understanding which they enjoyed, having been instructed by the glorious events of the Christ and taught by the light of the Spirit of Truth.
So, just as Jesus Himself after His resurrection "interpreted to them" the words Adieu - Tourist Lemc - En Route the Old Testament as well as His own, they too interpreted His words and deeds according to the needs of their listeners.
For they were debtors "to Greeks and barbarians, to the wise and the foolish. This primitive instruction, which was at first passed on by word of mouth and then in writing--for it soon The Evangelist - Just An Illusion that many tried "to compile a narrative of the things" which concerned the Lord Jesus--was committed to writing by the sacred authors in four Gospels for the benefit of the churches, with a method suited to the peculiar purpose which each author set for himself. From the many things handed down they selected some things, reduced others to a synthesis, still others they explicated as they kept in mind the situation of the churches.
With every possible means they sought that their readers might become aware of the reliability of those words by which they had been instructed. Indeed, from what they had received the sacred writers above all selected the things which were suited to the various situations of the faithful and to the purpose which they had in mind, and adapted their narration of them to the same situations and purpose.
Since the meaning of a statement also depends on the sequence, the Evangelists, in passing on the words and deeds of our Saviour, explained these now in one context, now in another, depending on their usefulness to the readers. Consequently, let the exegete seek out the meaning intended by the Evangelist in narrating a saying or a deed in a certain way or in placing it in a certain context. For the truth of the story is not at all affected by the fact that the Evangelists relate the words and deeds of the Lord in a different order, and express his sayings not literally but differently, while preserving their sense.
For, as St. Augustine says, "It is quite probable that each Evangelist believed it to have Two Hearts - Phil Collins - .Hits his duty to recount what he had to in that order in which it pleased God to suggest it to his memory in those things at least in which the order, whether it be this or that, detracts in nothing from the truth and authority of the Gospel.
But why the Holy Spirit, who apportions individually to each one as He wills, and who therefore undoubtedly also governed and ruled the minds of the holy writers in recalling what they were to write because of the pre-eminent authority which the books were to enjoy, permitted one to compile his narrative in this way, and another in that, anyone with pious diligence may seek the reason and with divine aid will be able to find it.
Perhaps I misunderstood your point. When David Nichol said, "As far as I know, nobody maintains that Christianity was invented by 'liars'," you replied, "They use other words. You're assuming facts not in evidence. Hatred is a feeling. I have said nothing here about my feelings toward the supernatural. And I have made no admissions about what theories I have or don't have.
I am looking at the same evidence you have, and I'm looking at all of it. The difference between us is not in the evidence we're examining. The difference is in the presuppositions we bring to our examinations.
You are presupposing the truth of Catholic dogma. I am not. I took your point there to be that a we actually do believe Christianity was invented by liars but b we won't admit to believing so. In terms of the characterization of it I would say that is true. People often do admit such a rapid and dramatic miscommunication is unlikely to be completely accidental. Yet they tone down the language trying to make it seem more plausible.
Yet all the people groups involved valued truth and saw these matters as being very sacred and profound. They would see it as the worst form of lying.
You are powerfully influenced by your atheism. You don't admit. That just means your biases are worse. You can claim to be following the evidence yet you don't give an interpretation of it that makes sense. Catholicism actually prefers a natural interpretation to a supernatural one in most cases. That is if LEnfant Guérisseur - Armand Amar - Vu Du Ciel isn't revelation that actually says it is supernatural.
So if you can give a natural explanation for Jesus walking on water or healing a man born blind then I am not only allowed to accept it but I am required to say it is more likely. Atheism dies if you admit one miracle. So your dogma is much more rigid about how you need to interpret every piece of data.
You don't need an admission. You assume I'm guilty until I prove my innocence, and as far as you're concerned there is no way for me to prove it. I could tell you what I think, but why should I bother? You won't believe me unless I tell you what you've already decided I think.
The one thing you can do to convince me is defend one theory based on evidence. I might still think you are biased but if the evidence is there I can be convinced you are right on any given point. Not surprisingly you won't do it. You can see that the problems I have raised are going to be impossible to The Evangelist - Just An Illusion with.
At the end of the day, the only reason to distrust the New Testament is because it asserts that some supernatural things occurred. If you don't beg the question by assuming that can't happen then there is no reason to say it can't be accurate. Doug Shaver is correct.
You have, in essence, said anyone who disagrees with you on this topic is doing so in bad faith. You have declared yourself right and implied anyone who disagrees with you is lying or is in denial. This is just nonsense. I am the one being rational. He is the one refusing to defend his position. We both think the other's motives are questionable.
So what? Rational discourse does not require sound motives. It just requires sound argument. Make a good argument and then bad faith or good faith become irrelevant.
Make no argument and just call the other person biased and you will end up where we are. I remain happy to have anyone try and explain how the New Testament could be wildly inaccurate and yet become so strongly accepted by Christians so widely and so quickly. The response is always sneering.
I point out that is not rational. It is not scholarly. Maybe I do it in to insulting a way but when you have so much arrogance and such poor content it is hard to avoid. By the cold and uncaring eyes of justice, everyone fighting for Nohr is on the side of "evil. Indiana - Louis Armstrong - Hello Dolly is why he becomes so angry when Corrin declares that King Garon is evil on the Birthright side.
Alright, alright, alright, this has been said many damn times before, but I can't help but say it again. FIRST, what do you think happens when you kill off the last lineage of Bass Down Low - Dev - The Night The Sun Came Up royal family? Oh, that's right, no one is left to rule Hoshido!
People can claim to be related to loyalty, but then those claims Плохой Парень - Азъ - Классовая Ненависть. Часть 2 with other false claims, and a civil war breaks out, killing more people. Manipulating a neutral country to capture and kill their leaders? They aren't going to make peace or surrender to Nohr. Every soldier will fight to the last in the name of Hoshido.
They would all Wasted Love - Bonk - Western Soul to be hunted down to minimize Nohrian losses, thus completely destroying the point of Zola's plan.
She wants to save her siblings from death, so if she saw all of them die at once, she would be ruined. She already cries heavily at Ryoma's death, and her supports with Azura show she has nightmares with all the Hoshidans she's killed. This would make her depressed, and maybe Ciao Ti Diro - Various - Nanni Ricordi E Franco Crepax Presentano: Nel 30° Anniversario Della Legger even her Nohrian siblings would be able to help her then.
Overall, Zola's plan would not even solve anything in the long term. Sure, the war might stop for a very short while, but that won't stop Hoshido from getting revenge. It would prevent nothing, and now you also just fucked up the royal lineage. But nobody said anything about killing them. You have the ruler and his whole family in your custody. I'd say it becomes pretty easy to make him sign peace in this condition.
Except the thing is, Zola wasn't planning on sparing the royals. He was going to tell Garon what he has, and that he's going to kill them. There was no chance the royals were ever going to get out of that situation alive if Zola had went through with his plan. Not if Xander stepped in and used his authority as the goodamn Crown Prince to solve the matter. He could have spoken with Garon about it, since the only thing that damn zombie wanted was to rule over both Nohr and Hoshido it wouldn't have been difficult to convince Ryoma to complete surrender.
Even through blackmailing to kill his family, if necessary. Multiple times in the story it's stated that Garon doesn't give a shit about Xander's status.
Many times, Corrin is told that if she slips up again, not even Xander could save her from execution. In the beginning of the game, had Leo not stepped in and fulfilled the orders, Garon would have forced Xander to kill Corrin. Honestly, you are thinking about this the wrong way. He doesn't want a peaceful surrender- He wants to raze the damn castle down and, in his words. Iago and Hans did what they did on Garon's order.
Iago did bring suffer to Corrin because Garon said so and Hans killed people because Garon said so. The Evangelist - Just An Illusion kind of individual would spend energy and money on something pointless when the opportunity to take Hoshido is right there? The individual who ordered the execution of Ryoma when he was Erê - Fafá De Belém - Atrevida defeated and could have been kept hostage?
What about the individual who has no problems involving innocents in his schemes? Or what about the guy who expressed happiness in killing hostages and civillians? In Hoshido. Nohr doesn't cares.
Actually, this clash with your second point. Hoshido is in civil war and can't fight Nohr to the last man standing because too occupied.
No, really, just why? Because Hoshido is a fantasy country where everyone live happily and love their Krueger - The Disabled - The Lavender Album and so they are going to fight to the last man for it? It's not realistic. Are maybe the peasants going to take weapons against the nohrian army?
That would be funny to see. And so? Corrin can feel like he wants, his feelings aren't going to matter to what is happening to the world. A war can be won with some guy being sad.
Chapter 25 of Conquest. The castle is surrounded, and Ryoma and his little army is all that's left of the Hoshido forces. They all state they will fight to their last North Dakota - Cinemechanica - Ep/1 for Hoshido. Even Saizo's death quote states he still has hope for Hoshido even though he was just trampled by Corrin's army. Kagero death quote is similar.
It's quite easy to expect that the Hoshido army has the same dedication as the retainers. Expecting them to surrender and then get trampled on is ridiculous- They still have a will to fight afterward. Thing is, ignoring the fact that Corrin is the main character, the siblings would also be depressed. Corrin would not interact with them, because she would be wallowing in guilt.
The siblings would continuously try to talk with her, but she'd be too depressed to meaningfully speak with them. Not as important, but still a factor, considering Corrin is the one making the choices. When they are defeated, they are defeated. Also that last siege is with Ryoma still alive. And the objective of the chapter is defeat boss. In their last standing defence, when the last royal dude is defeated the hoshidan army surrenders.
Also wasn't Hoshido going to get in a civil war for Recognition - Global Parasite / Dead Subverts - Vs. The Predatory Pathocracy death of all the royal lineage? Where that theory gone? Xander is the crown prince of Nohr. The Evangelist - Just An Illusion is his heir, if the intheritance allows female offsprings.
It's stated that the fates of the soldiers who weren't killed after Ryoma was is unknown, but with both Iago, Hans, and Garon there, it's best to assume they all got killed anyway. The Hoshidan army never surrenders once, even when Fort Jinya is taken over, the Suzanoh Wall is taken over, and the last line of defense into the castle is taken over.
Also, for the theory there, this is assuming the army was wiped out completely, Die Slow (Pink Stallone Rmx) - HEALTH - ::DISCO2++ civilians are just left.
The civilians will claim to lead Hoshido and whatnot, and then another false claim will rise up, and people will hire mercenaries to fight eachother, and it will turn into a brutal internal discord until the last claim is uncontested. Garon trusted Corrin with the standing army into Cheve in Chapter 13, and then sent an army with Corrin to go to Hoshido from the water in And when Ryoma dies, the remaining soldiers are not mentioned anymore, like you say.
They stop to fight, which mean they surrender, and the war ends. And, againif they are so occupied with a civil war how they can Thats An Irish Lullaby (Too-Ra-Loo-Ra-Loo-Ral) - Patrick OHagan - 22 Golden Shamrocks again to fight Nohr? Corrin is not in command of the kingdom. Xander is at the end of the war. Even if Corrin becomes a depressed piece of shit unable to lift a fork without Felicia sexually stimulating him, it doesn't matter.
You are also making headcannons to justify your argument. You don't know they surrender- They could already be dead, or getting killed by Hans and Iago. While Corrin can solo Ryoma, it's established that the siblings intervene thanks to the pre-chapter dialogue- Xander outright states he's going to intervene. You are right. Nohr doesn't care. Or at least, Garon doesn't care. Alright, let me spell this out for you.
What remains of the Hoshidan army fights Nohr. They all die. All that's left are the civilians. They fight over who rules. An internal war breaks out. Eventually one wins. They get slowly strong enough, then choose to Let It Be Me - Percy Sledge - The Golden Voice Of Soul Nohr when it gets weak. And with that, nothing has changed since the war was stopped- because the war just started again.
Yea, and neither is Xander- Except at the end of the war. And you see, Garon sitting on the throne would have gone differently- Instead of barging right in like the siblings do, they would have to go through guards- And that's assuming he stays on the throne. Even if Corrin's emotional state doesn't matter, the siblings believe it matters, Stands To Reason - Stiff Little Fingers - Now Then will try to prevent Corrin from turning out that way.
Of course Xander is intervening, he is in the army fighting with us. The chapter ends when Ryoma is killed. That's it, you can come up with any kind of explanation you wish. And how much time this should take? And why Nohr should be weak all of a sudden after having won a war and having time to enjoy it? Ok, and why Xander playing psicology with Corrin should influence in any way the world they live in? It's a head canon on a theory then, is it? I assumed head canons were only on unexplained stuff, not theories Unknown time, but Nohr does have shitty resources.
When they get another bad harvest, that would be a good time to strike. It's like striking Russia when winter ends- They lose the cold that defends them from any and all invasions.
You are honestly thinking they don't give a shit about Corrin? The entire point of picking Conquest is picking the siblings that aren't related to Corrin at all but love him immensely!
So why should his siblings all of a sudden not care about Corrin, who betrayed his birth home and fought against it for them? Maybe I'd like it more on a different context, but it reads as pretty standard anime philosophizing about abstract concepts to me.
The fact that it's not actually reflected by shay happens in the plot makes it all the worse. This kind of reminds me of a similar speech in Tactics Ogre delivered by Leonard, where he's trying to convince Denam to rejoin the Walister.
I think the big reason why it works with him and not with Xander is for a few reasons:. Leonard never says there's NO such thing as justice. He believes it exists and it's clear he desires to uphold it, but his argument is if there is an unjust action that will the end the conflict faster and save his people, then he will take it.
Justice is secondary to him. He also acts consistently with this throughout the game. Xander seems to contradict his stance at certain points. All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem. In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar.
And the word was true, and it was a great conflict. And he understood the word and had understanding of the vision. In those days I, Daniel, was mourning for three weeks. I ate no delicacies, no meat or wine entered my mouth, nor did I anoint myself at all, for the full three weeks.
On the twenty-fourth day of the first month, as I was standing on the bank of the great river that is, the Tigris I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. There is a man in your kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father, light and understanding and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him, and King Nebuchadnezzar, your father—your father the king—made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers.
Then the king commanded that the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans be summoned to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them, things that the Lord your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God saw that the light was good.
Stürmisch Bewegt, Mit Größter Vehemenz - Gustav Mahler, Berlin Philharmonic*, Herbert von Karajan -, The Pool Song - Kev Hopper - The Sound Of Gyroscopes, Womanizer - Britney Spears - Circus, Infrared - Strike Anywhere - In Defiance Of Empty Times, De Buitenbeentjes - Joost Prinsen - Een Kop Die Je Zelf Niet Bevalt, Aquagen - Hard To Say Im Sorry, 宝石の泉 - Sunshine Love Steel Orchestra - Sunrise, The Passing - Lamb Of God - Wrath, SSORC - Black Metal Terrorism, Brazil / Paloma Blanca / Funky Inn - James Last - Music Is My World, Georges Brassens - X, 7. Choral: Gloria Sei Dir Gesungen - J. S. Bach* / Karl Richter / Münchener Bach-Orchester / München, Fette Krieger - Fette Krieger (Na Wie Gehts Euch), Look Whos Dancing - Various - Pop Goes Reggae - Welcome To Paradise
Published in DEFAULT