Just rewatched Indiana Jones and the last Crusade

[Yukaphile]

It's Christians who preach easy forgiveness, isn't it? Even to those who don't really deserve it. And one has to question if God is the same way. Let's all this horrible shit happen on Earth he could stop in a heartbeat to create a true paradise, and yet... will let the worst monsters among us ascend to the highest levels of heaven simply because "dem vibes" is good when you arbitrarily forgive someone for some of the worst things you can do to someone. That speaks to a creator that is too alien to comprehend or is apathetic at best. The question really is... did God leave us, when we shunned him in the Garden of Eden? Or is he still here? Religious texts claim he has interfered throughout our history, so why not interfere in the way that will HELP PEOPLE? Help them in tangible ways? Like give a million dollars to 100,000,000 people down on their luck in some dirt-poor country? It's possible. But then there's the second view. That God really is gone, and will ensure we each have a fair fate awaiting us past the veil of death, that the good will be embraced into light and the wicked punished, especially to those who escaped justice in this life, but no one can really say for sure.

If I found the Grail, again, sorry, I'd be like Elsa. It'd be just a useless religious icon, that I am not really sure I believe in. But if I could sell it for millions of dollars I could put to a good end in order to make people happy, random strangers as much as my friends and the causes I believe in, I'd do it. Should I be the one to plunge to my death?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think Elsa represents most people, sadly. They wouldn't have found something to tie into their spiritual beliefs, "merely a prize." I guess under the film's logic, we all deserve to plunge to our deaths?

lol

If I found the Grail, I think I'd destroy it, deny it to other people - unless I could gain enough wealth to do some good for enough people to make a difference. Contradictory, I know. But isn't that the human experience?

This is easy for you to say. Likewise I don't think bearing the ring in Lord of the Rings is that big of a deal I would just not put it on.

Anyway when you get into the reflective or reflexive aspects of protagonists and antagonists and the underlying connection to you as the audience you're not supposed to take one person out of the ensemble so exclusively. All of the characters serve as influences to your own character and they all together serve as a map or compass to your own struggle in dealing with stuff. Naturally they all tend to come together to complete an aesthetic that fills out the white space of a metaphorical painting.

[Yukaphile]

Well, people are more selfish, and greedy than you know. And she did have genuine moments where she looked upset by what the men were doing, like when Indy's dad was shot. Maybe? Could be wrong, haven't seen that in years, possibly since before the turn of century, so... correct me if I'm wrong.

Does the Grail belong to the people, though? Do you have a duty to give it to others? Like the treasure Nicolas Cage found? Some would argue yes, so it's your responsibility to give it away, perhaps for free. Thoughts on that?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well, people are more selfish, and greedy than you know. And she did have genuine moments where she looked upset by what the men were doing, like when Indy's dad was shot. Maybe? Could be wrong, haven't seen that in years, possibly since before the turn of century, so... correct me if I'm wrong.

Does the Grail belong to the people, though? Do you have a duty to give it to others? Like the treasure Nicolas Cage found? Some would argue yes, so it's your responsibility to give it away, perhaps for free. Thoughts on that?

Well I don't think you're supposed to necessarily see movie karama as a matter of deserving, but consequential as life's events play out over and again in a vacuum. Protagonists and antagonists alike are prey to behaviors that constitute human condition that we otherwise don't fall victim to when following protocols established by religion or constitution. I mean at the end it's pretty clear that her human condition led her to keep going after the grail and it led to her death. I mean now in days I just like to watch stuff without seeing the code, but you watch this stuff play out and behavioral nuances that deviate from an otherwise genuine demeanor are pretty telling as to the outcome of a character's actions. Then again how I formulated this stuff in the first place can be rather fatefully circular, but between good and bad writing I think character flaws can range from more subtle to painfully obvious.

The grail belongs in a museum. jk there's probably a pretty good reason that it was in a spot with so much safeguarding with so much as a guard thad been there for like 1900 years lol. I'm just taking a stab at this, but humans are supposed to be fallible so that we can have better understanding of god's word, which tends to be the philosophical justification for free will. Otherwise we couldn't be judged for our sins since we're not making the choice in the first place. That also correlates to Jesus dying for our sins and we're kinda supposed to do as he says and not as he does. Yes he can walk on water, and you probably could to, but you're instead supposed to stay in the boat and let him come to you in the midst of the storm, and it's kind of a trope that he always does.

[Yukaphile]

Some interpret Jesus dying for our sins to mean even the good people would go to hell prior to his sacrifice, which I can't agree with. That God was so spurned by what we did in the Garden of Eden, he'd take it out on innocent babies generations later who had nothing to do with it. That doesn't seem like the actions of an almighty supreme being, who's supposedly perfect, but a racist who blames an entire race for the actions of a few. I also disagree with Jesus's philosophy of easy forgiveness. This means you could partake in the cruelest of sins and vices, and so long as you feel even a little bit sorry, you can be forgiven and allowed to enter paradise. I don't buy that, because that would be the perfect crime. Though there's also what they said about how your deeds, not your words, is what matters, so... I guess it ties back to what I'd said lately about redemption. Redemption is so hard for those who have sunk to the utter lowest of sin, like rape and murder, that honestly, it would take your whole lifetime to pay it back. And I don't think few are that committed to doing so. This is why I'd demand to know why God does what he does if I met him. Blaming all humans for the actions of a few? I prefer spiritualist beliefs. You are what you are, and you can't change that, and that determines the shape of the world to come, even if that means you're a rotten human being, and just wanting to change is a good step, but it requires hard work that as I said, would require a lifetime in order to see fulfilled depending on how bad your crimes are.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think you're confusing salvation for some sort of rewarded treatment and status when it's more to do with not suffering. It's generally agreed upon that reciprocated suffering isn't really the goal of retribution, be it by our state or moral foundation.

It doesn't seem like God's taking it out on anybody, that peril is practically a sign saying "don't feed the bears." The old view was that people tend to make mistakes and learn from them, but we also have to live with mistakes which tears down our spirit which leads to suffering. The older abrahamic teachings mainly just dealt with consequence, which was pretty useful in showing people how acting dumb leads to eventual problems, but it's also very stifling and anxiety inducing when it's just a bunch of prohibitions with your only alternative involving the inevitable suffering from mistakes you've made. So yeah, people weren't bad for making mistakes, but they had to deal with their mistakes and suffer the consequences, which means hell.

[Yukaphile]

So you're saying God can forgive someone, and still send them to hell? I've wondered similar myself. Because truly impartial justice has to be a bit ruthless, I've said it before and I'll say it again.

[Yukaphile]

Still, where does this end, hmm? Rape isn't among the Ten Commandments, though murder is, as is lying (I think that's what "bear false witness" stands for). Does that mean every single person who has violated these rules, no matter how mundane, no matter how trivially for a reason, is destined to suffer for eternity? Lying to protect someone? It also has the implication sexual assaulters can roam around free as long as they don't violate any of these rules, no matter how awful a person they are, and ascend into the highest level of paradise. Of course, we know what ancient Israel's stance on the matter was. If you rape a married woman, that's wrong, but if you rape an unmarried woman, than you have to marry her. SICKENING. See, that's why I'd demand to know why God is like that. Those are fucked up laws. And I refuse to believe any being that could conceive of them has the best interests at heart for humanity. Give a human God's powers, and assuming he's not an opportunistic pig, but a well-meaning idealist who genuinely wants to help people, and the world would become a paradise. Far more than God has made it.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

First, you're charging the consistency of theism as if the metaphysical constructs are considerable. They're not. At least as far as I'm talking about. When you say things as to contradict principles of God being an all perfect being or w/ever, it distracts largely from the fact that man transcribed the message in the first place and that it's utterly reasonable to assert that their messages were false despite any efficacy in their sociological moral doctrines.

Second, I wouldn't be surprised if rape wasn't even an established concept back in that day. The normative constructs of society were considerably archaic compared to the impartial consideration we give to individuals despite sex. The ten commandments were supposed to be guidelines that applied generally to everybody based on sins that led to civil unrest. And not exclusively things that violate individual rights.

When you're asking if God can forgive someone and also send them to hell, it seems like you're not getting the precise measurements of Old Testament guidance, and also not really getting what I said. YAHWEH wasn't really considered a perfect being, and I believe that hell and heaven hadn't been established in concept yet. The rules set forth by him were kinda 4th dimensionally blind, in that those sins that led to civil unrest at the behest of the individual would ultimately be their undoing, and it wouldn't be by the decree of any determination by "a" man, but the natural order of society which would bring about the demise.

[Wargriffin]

Hell The concept of Satan didn't show up till later where he's just a poor man's Ahriman

You also have to consider context of the times

The whole Marry the Girl you Raped

Forced Responsibility on the the Rapist, cause back then a woman's virginity was HIGHLY valuable due to breeding issues 'A Virgin was alot more unlikely gonna give you an STD which there was very limited cures for

and the rapist did have an out... He just had to pay her dowry... Yearly i think or was it Bi Yearly... Basically he'd have to send a fourth of his earned wealth to Her father cause he'd rendered her unmarriably and even if she did get married, He'd still be stuck paying to her husband

Granted the obvious loop hole is just murder your victim... but then you got to deal with the fact you're a murderer now.