nelly_man

@nelly_man@lemmy.world

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨That's a good question⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I’m not an expert in the Bible, but I don’t think it really ascribes omnipotency to God. I think it’s better to understand it as God being able to do all that can be done. So He may have limitations, but they are such that no other being can do something that He is unable to do.

  From that sense, He is not able to save humanity freely, but he can set forth a process through which He can achieve this goal with some cost. I.e., He can create a divine being (that is either Himself in whole, Himself in part, or a direct descendant of Himself depending on your interpretation) that is able to spread His message and display an act of extreme self-sacrifice.

  I don’t really understand exactly what the sacrifice did or what needed to be fixed, but I do think the stories make a lot more sense if you accept that God has some limitations. For instance, I assume it’s fair to believe that Noah’s flood was his first attempt to fix the problem (by killing everybody except for the most righteous of His creation), but it failed because He can’t do everything and doesn’t know everything. But the story of Jesus was His next attempt to sort things out.

  But that’s just me thinking about them as fictional stories that really need to be edited rather than a divine and infallible truth.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨This section of Jim Carrey's Wikipedia Article⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:

  I think it started around when he married Jenny McCarthy, who has long been a very vocal anti-vaxxer.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Trick OR Treat⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  If A is false, A -> B is true regardless of what B is, so the two undefined terms in your truth table should be true.

  So it is fairly easily translated into a shaded Venn Diagram. It’s simply everything shaded aside from Trick only.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨I love diablo-likes, but they're also really annoying.⁩ ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

  That’s the big reason why I loved Diablo II, but was lukewarm on the following two. The skill tree was fixed and a had nice synergies between the skills. I used to keep a notebook with plans for different builds that seemed fun and was primarily interested in the skills rather than items.

  In Diablo III, the skill tree was much more limited, and you could swap things out at any time. So planning out a build and starting a new character was pointless. You could just swap the active skills.

  It also didn’t seem to have any hard spots. If you followed the main quests, your character improved just fast enough to keep the challenge throughout consistent. So I never really felt a need to grind. I mean, I hate games that are all grinding, but I also like it when there are walls that you have to spend some time and effort to move past.

  Diablo IV was even worse for this as the areas adapt to your level. So no matter where you were, the challenge was the same.

  Neither of the two were awful, in my opinion, but they dropped the parts that made Diablo so exceptional to me. So I really didn’t spend too much time with either of them whereas I played Diablo II for about 10 years.