Bea's Topics (536)

I sped read the chapter out of annoyance but they said that Kalia is Romia so why are comments acting like its a theory??? I fucking hope so of course but???

They never said Kalia was Romia. It was assumed so by Julius. I don't want to believe it yet. We're literally seeing Romia right there with her OG features. I don't want to believe it...

Saaaaame like I cant even see how Kalia is Romia tbh

For me, it looked like Sigmund was trying to pass by Kailas to find Romia until Kailas picked him up.

There are bad people everywhere and bad people flock to power because only when they have power they can do what they want to do.
(All the Epstein clients is an example)
Religion itself is not evil. I've seen many saved by religion but people themselves are flawed and they corrupt what they get their hands on.
I'm not saying that religion is perfect and everyone should worship Christ but there is nuance. Unfortunately it's easier to just make religion bad story than to add some complexity and depth that doesn't paint everything either black or white.

Irl my own family members and friends are religious and I love them sm so ofc I dont hate religious people and know it can save some or give them answers so yes I agree though for some reason the most evil people always use religion for mass destruction so yes and yes
┗( T﹏T )┛

Yeah I agree. I am assuming you are talking about the genocide going on in Gaza? (Maybe I'm reading too much into this so slap me if I'm wrong) It's truly horrible what is happening there and yes it is motivated by Judaism.
But it honestly doesn't make sense to cause or support any wars as a Christian, it goes directly against the teachings of Jesus.

Yes the genocide in Gaza or the evangelism of native americans and I think even hitler? Or the trumpist magas and most wars in Europe during ancient times (Catholicism x protestantism bc how could people identical in their genes kill each other with such tragedy over different gospels)
It DOES GO against the teaching of Jesus which makes it all the more confusing

Yes, people use religion to corrupt others. Tbh, I don't see anything wrong with converting natives to Christianity. Latin religions were based on sacrificing innocent people to die on an altar for the opressive upper class.
Trump and Hitler are both examples of people in power manipulating others with religion, there are countless examples of rulers and dictators of different religions that did the same or far worse. I mean Gaza is the current example of religious ethnic cleansing in modern times. The Jewish people were promised that land thousands of years ago and the current extremist government wants to take over the entire area and A LOT more. This is no secret and the wars in the region won't stop until they achieve their goal or the government gets toppled.
There are other instances of Christian and Jewish people being killed in the middle east and africa as well. (I know Christians that escaped to not get killed for their faith.) There are Christians getting brutally murdered for their faith in Congo and Nigeria by Muslims as we speak. We don't even have the exact numbers but hundreds of thousands of Christians disappeared (either run or got killed) in Iraq and Syria.
Tbh, Gaza is the worst one currently bc they can't even run away and it is done by people that were targeted because of their ethnicity/religion by Hitler previously. The Israeli government is using that as a shield to continue bombing innocents.
Any ideologue be it religious or political will twist the gospel to get what they want. They will walk over dead bodies and it is not the religion itself that causes it but someone that wields it against others.
Even religions like Islam that literally tells you to kill nonbelievers is fairly peaceful in times of abundance and prosperity and it solely depends on the leader what rules are to be followed. The word of Caliph is the word of their god.

Christians are getting killed in Nigeria but its not entirely because of religion, it's often intertwined with land, ethnicity, politics, and poverty. And about Islam telling Muslims to kill nonbelievers. If you take it out of context then it's obviously gonna sound violent. This verse was revealed during a specific war 1,400 years ago. “Killing the nonbelievers” is referring to certain tribes in Arabia who had broken peace treaties and were actively attacking Muslims in Medina. At that time it was a part of wartime instructions, not a universal command against all non-Muslims. So, that command is irrelevant during current times. Those nonbelievers were neither Christians or Jews. They were pegans or idol worshippers. Islam doesn't call Christians or Jews nonbelievers, they're always referred as "the people of the book".

And yes, it's true that there are people who use religion to manipulate the public. That's why I never liked bringing religion into politics. （￣へ￣）

There are always other reasons other than religion to kill people. But the fact that if is a factor doesn't change. And about your other comment:
"Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert.
The verse says to fight unbelievers "wherever you find them". Even if the context is a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those "unbelievers" who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the 'fighting' of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield."
There is so many other verses about killing nonbelievers of Islam and Mohammed curses at Jews and Christians too. If you will go and cherry pick and say he only refers to people outside of these 3 religions there are many many many nonbelievers in the western world and all those people are enemy for Islam.
5:72-73: They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God, - God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrongdoers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
Trinity is a key concept of Christianity, so basically you are blasphemous if you are Christian. What are the punishments for blasphemy? And even if you get punished once and survive unless you convert you will be punished again and again.
Christianity does not mesh well with Islam even if they both share Christ as messiah.
And I'm not even mentioning what they do to women and how women are treated under Islam...
Either way, I personally do not have problem with Islam if they don't wage jihad and terror attacks. I know that there are nuances but it is categorically a more violent religion than Christianity could ever dream of being.

I too do believe religion is unnecessary. The division it causes alone is proof enough. Colonisation was aid by the introduction of such religious to continents like Africa for example. It has been weaponised repeatedly and used to disadvantage those who are ignorant and/or naïve towards true faith.

You can say that but there is no human society in the world without some sort of religion. Even those people in Africa had religions before Christianity and Islam came around.
Technologically less developed cultures would always explain strange events as magic and gods. So for those people, existence of some higher being was inevitable conclusion.
So what about modern day people? Modern day people can answer these questions with science so they can just abandon their religions and live without it, right?
The truth is, people that are not religious don't breed (according to data that we have the only groups of people that have replacement level of birthrate or more are heavily religious people).
What this means is that religion is tightly bound to survival of humanity. You can have cool philosophical ideas about how religion is bad and life would be better without it but what is the point of lamenting something that has to exist for the sake of human survival?
Personally, I think the reason why the birth rate for religious people is way higher is because they see creation of another life as holy and beautiful while for the modern godless people it is a hassle, a parasite even I've seen people say.

A world without God is a world without people.

Also, what do you mean by true faith? Do you have some religion in mind or some sort of philosophy?

To say that atheists dont 'breed' is honestly wrong and if anything I would say that having children just to continue humanity after we've destroyed the world's ressources is just idk naive or blatant stupid. To have children you have to show them unconditional love and have the necessary money to give them a good life/without suffering. And accept them even if they are gay/non religious instead of shaming them or for some, killing them.

Although you’re explaining yourself really well and I dont mean harm I feel like you are just too religious to relate to what I wrote on why some people can hate religions.

For example when ppl talk about colonization or me with native americans it is obvious that as some kind of christian you think it was a necessary evil. It wasn’t.

Ive seen in depth in history classes how many millions of ppl in america died by all the guns and diseases the spanish had brought in south america and how they put them under slavery by acting like it was to 'evangelize the people' and those who wouldn’t convert would die. 90% of south america's population had gone extinct under the spanish ruling (google how far it went to the point of creating los leyes under charles quint)

And religion although not bad in its essence and was a necessary answer for all the pain and questions (like you cant just not know) religious people (especially men, whether religious or acting like it when in truth they are just using it) as a whole harmed too many people. Most genocides if not every genocide in this world was because of differences in religions and a world without god will be juster than any world someone’s favourite god can bring.

Religion killed more people in milleniums than it forced people to, as you said, breed and enlarge humanity's number.

It's long but please bear with me. The verse which you're referring to is frequently misused both by extremists and Islamophobes.

It refers to Arab tribes who had broken peace treaties with the early Muslim community. “When the sacred months have passed” refers to the end of a four-month truce period given to these tribes to decide whether to honor or break their treaties. “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them” applies only to those who violated peace pacts and attacked the Muslims first, not to all nonbelievers.

Even within the same verse, it says:

“If they repent and establish prayer and pay the zakat, then let them go their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

That last phrase “let them go their way” shows the objective wasn’t forced conversion, it was to end hostilities and ensure peace. If they stopped fighting and honored agreements, there was no command to harm them.

Just two verses later (9:6), the Quran explicitly says:

“If any of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety.”

That verse shows that non-Muslims were to be protected, even in times of war. This directly contradicts the claim that Islam encourages killing “wherever you find them.”

About “violence” in the Quran:

Yes, there are verses about fighting. But every ancient religion includes violent or war-related scripture, often tied to survival or moral struggles of the time.

1. In the Old Testament, God commands Israel to annihilate the Amalekites, Canaanites, and others (e.g., Deut 20:16–18).

2. The New Testament doesn’t have state warfare because early Christians didn’t rule a society, but once they did (e.g., Crusades, Inquisition), Christianity also had violent interpretations justified “in God’s name.”

So the presence of “fight” verses in scripture doesn’t automatically define a religion as “violent.” It depends on how those verses are interpreted and applied.

Modern Islamic scholars (including Al-Azhar University, the highest Sunni authority) agree that armed jihad is only justified in self-defense or to protect the oppressed (see 22:39–40).

About verses 5:72–73 (Christians and the Trinity):

These verses criticize theology, not people.
They say it’s wrong to worship Jesus as God, but they do not command Muslims to harm Christians.

In fact, in the very same chapter (5:82), the Quran says:

“You will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, ‘We are Christians.’”

And 2:256 makes a general principle:

“There is no compulsion in religion.”

Meaning: You cannot force faith or conversion.

So the Quran disapproves of the doctrine of the Trinity, but does not instruct punishment for it, that’s a theological difference, not a call for violence.

Women in Islam:

Many abuses of women in some Muslim-majority societies are cultural, not Quranic. The Quran itself, for its time, was revolutionary in granting rights to women, inheritance, consent in marriage, property ownership, and divorce rights (see 4:7, 4:19, 2:228).

It’s true that patriarchal interpretations have distorted this, but those are human failings, not divine mandates.

“Islam is more violent than Christianity” -

That depends on what period or culture you’re comparing.

1. Christianity had the Crusades, Inquisition, colonization, and sectarian wars.

2. Islam’s expansion also included warfare, but it also built multi-faith empires (e.g., Andalusia, Ottoman millet system) where Jews and Christians lived freely as “People of the Book.”

You need to understand that no religion is inherently violent or peaceful, it’s how its followers interpret and implement it.

First of all I inherently disagree with the first paragraph. I do think continuing human species is the most important thing. Even destroying Earth as long as it means the survival of everyone is enough of a reason for me. We are Earth's children after all.
If you disagree it's fine but your priorities just lie elsewhere.

Another point is that I'm not actually religious. Not in the traditional sense.

And colonization of Latin America was inevitable. We don't live in a vacuum where you can preserve certain civilizations as they are. Someone else would colonize them just like the Muslim world colonized Africa, India, Southeast Asia. You can learn at school about how a thing is bad or good but it's impossible for you to stop it. Even after all the bad I do consider a religion that sacrifices people inherently evil and I'm personally glad it was uprooted. I have few latin friends and they are some of the most Christ loving people out there ngl.

Lastly, if non religions people don't breed and they still cause equal amount of suffering, they actually logically bring more suffering to the world than those that create equal amount of suffering but bring new life. It's a simple logic exercise.

Non religious people can only exist as a parasitic entity on the rest of humanity. Usa does not have a replacement number and thus they supplement their arsenal of workers by importing them from third world to promise them a better life while underpaying them and using them as a form of modern day slavery. This way they keep their paradise while the upper class in usa lives like kings.

Just removing the religion won't do either.
Stalin and the communist leaders of USSR tried to uproot Christianty in favor of communism. They killed millions of Christians and burned tens of thousands of churches. Russia now is still as religious as ever.

"You need to understand that no religion is inherently violent or peaceful, it’s how its followers interpret and implement it."
I said pretty much the same thing before in some previous comment. Imo it depends on the era and wealth. Wealthy happy people have no reason to go to war and die.

" "Islam is more violent than Christianity” -
That depends on what period or culture you’re comparing."
I am comparing the word of Mohammed and the word of Jesus in the scriptures as well as the current times.
Last religious Christian war was like half a century ago.

"The Quran itself, for its time, was revolutionary in granting rights to women, inheritance, consent in marriage, property ownership, and divorce rights"
Key word here is "for its time"
I can tell you are using chatGPT to answer me XD and here I'm typing it out all manually

Im sorry??? Non religious people can only exist as a parasitic entity???? Do you hear yourself??

If anything your absolute need for 10 billion people to *breed* (cant you see babies as a living thing?) Over the world's destruction tells me a lot about you and how you perceive the necessity in a modern world. Please do tell all the native americans (who did NOT sacrifice humans) kurds in Irak uyghurs palestinians children jews during impieza de la sangre protestants in the 16th century and etc HOW non religious people create an equal amount of suffering omfg an atheist never would have killed women by calling them a witch or bring the plague by thinking cats were the animals of witches and satan. Make sense.

How did you seriously call 100 million people parasites for thinking a little more before having children in a world that is too dangerous for them

Atheists DO have children. Do you think cows and birds worship a god? We are animals an inherent need for children is in all of us and some can go above the urge and I think that is worthy of a little more respect than what you wrote.

Parasetic beings, do you know how hurtful that is? As an atheist I am anything but a parasite. If I can have the decency of showing respect and love those who believe in a lie why can’t you respect those who know the truth?

We will never agree, but I dont want to block you so please instead do not answer me no matter how much it itches you to. This is my comment section and I am tired of useless fighting or arguing in mangago.

I'm typing it from the notes I used during a research project. And yeah I used ChatGPT for reference at that time. And Google too and also other AI like Gemini and stuff. I don't think it's bad to use technology. (ಡ᎔ಡ)

Well put together - thanks for that !

Aroundnchapter 43-45

Hello, so it was actually chapter 74 but you did give me the motivation to find it even though it was far off

And I found the mom part but she in here never ever told duke Valencia that he killed her in the story that girl wrote Im disappointed

Aaaaa now that i reread your request, i swear i understood it differently initially. T.T

It's very heavily implied he abused her.

Who wants to draw a child being beat by a grown man?

It's on you to use your ability to infer rather than have to be shown everything explicitly.

Yeah sure whatever for Shuri being abused my point still stands they never show anything properly be it a fight or a past even its all on vibes and dark pages taking half the chapter

I believe the fault lies not in the artist, but in the rating of the novel, maybe if they were to show those details, it wouldn't be pg, or something?

There's another manhwa I'm following (How to Get My Husband on My Side), and in the comments they were saying that in the novel, it's much more gruesome. But of course, they couldn't show it, because that would be too much.

If that is the case, I am grateful that they didn't completely erase the fact that she was abused, because it's a huge part in the story.

Now that makes more sense than whatever bullshit the previous yuri said about how I should use my ability to imagine like an idiot.
You make sense and I can see why they didn’t show Shuri's abuse properly but still it really ticked me off bc Jeremy is supposedly attacking a white robed guy but we can't see anything of what happened (he cut him?? Broke his hand?? Pushed him away?? Nothing was shown properly and that was just a fight) and its not the first time imo that the artist doesn’t know how to visualize a physical scene but clearly the pg could have been a reason and the part with the jewelry she received as a child it was shown so badly

ALSO how to get my husband on my side is so good the artist really managed to describe Ruby's abuse and even went as far as draw the incestious kiss and although I gagged in my pov if an author is going to 'write' the abuse then they should show the impact of the abuse even if that means showing the abuse or else its not as impactful and some readers get crazy ideas. Like some ppl LIKE ceasare 'bc he is hotttt' even though no?? That mf is a rat??
The author of broken ring even said that she made Ines' rape so graphic and repulsive because some readers without that would be capable of shipping ines with Oscar I cant believe some people

That's it for my ted talk

to be honest I think it’s a you problem for not seeing what others could understand just fine. but it's also understandable that not everyone can get implications and subtle flows. one of the reason why the abuse I this manhwa is not as graphic as ruby and ines is because Shuri never suffered it long term
it was in the heat of the moment when Johannes went cray, plus the stress she has accumulated by having no one by her side adding the fact that she has been suppressing her trauma. Also none of the adults were willing to dig it up too so they burried it in everyones POV.

I am also concerned about the pg censorship, the artist took out some parts that makes this story disturbing like how shuri was literally butchered to death in her previous life.

btw htgmhoms And this shared the same author, I just think it's a fun fact to add lmao.

-English is not my first language

Nah, I agree with the original comment. Some things aren't clear enough. I feel like they could be portrayed better. Like this chapter's action scene: when the holy knight attacked Jeremy from behind. We were able to infer that, yes. But if felt like a waste to not clearly know what was going on. How serious was it? We aren't able to comprehend the degree of the matter.

It can also be the fact that these kind of stories get clearer as it goes on. Meaning- it's purposefully drawn that way so that the suspense is maintained and everything gets cleared up later.

Yeah I can tell english is not your first language. You just pissed me off so bad Ill do my best to piss you off too.

First of all, I can read subtle lines just fine YOU DONT KNOW ME I KNOW THE WHOLE STORY DUH I just pointed out that IT COULD BE CLEARER??? LIKE NO SHIT SHERLOCK SHE WAS ABUSED AND JEREMY HIT THE GUY IS IT SO WRONG FOR ME TO WANT AN ARTIST TO DO HER JOB???

'Not everyone can get implications and subtle flows' just who the fuck are you to come in MY COMMENT SECTION and talk to me like that who do you think you are to know me and just assume I cant see bigger than my nose just because I made one critique of the artist after pulling the same shit for 148 chapters THIS ENTIRE STORY IS WRITTEN AND DRAWN LIKE THAT

The rest of your point made total sense but I just decided that I hate you so if you write to me again I will block you since you decided that it was a me problem. Dont piss people off on the internet next time if you want to have a proper conversation.

I love you for understanding me

i’ve also decided that i hate you, so i’m using my free will to reply to you.

genuinely what is wrong with you? what, do you want a trophy that your english is sooo good? what an odd thing to say to someone. their statement about how not everyone can understand implications and subtle flows isn’t even a rude thing to say, it’s just a fact. if you’re offended by it then… i guess the shoe just fits lmao.

if you dislike the art and story so much, just go read the novel. it’s not like the artist can see your comment on here and take your feedback/criticism into mind.

how ironic of you. you can’t even handle a simple remark & got offended so easily, yet you mention having a “proper conversation”. if you can criticise something/someone, don’t be surprised if you’ll receive some back too. isn’t that just basic knowledge?

don’t worry, by the time you see this, you’ll be blocked. pissed me off seeing your negative energy in the comments.

Can people stop answering to this like you have nothing better to do it really kills you when someone has a different opinion huh I genuinely do NOT care if you disagree with me the day mangago adds the possibility to block replies is the day people will breathe.

Tomato sauce blocked me but I will answer anyway because if someone answers negatively on my take one more time I will explode.
People I was rude to always decided that they knew me soooo well and that if I criticized this chapter it must mean Im some imbecile who cannot read between the lines and I have no regret on insulting openly those who decided that I was too stupid to take a hint from Orka smh.
So if anyone answers ONE MORE TIME that I should supposedly have better literary abilities even though I am majoring in that field hell yes you will receive trash talk from me.

You should all get off your high horses and let people express themselves on the internet why should the artist goddamn know I dont like her pace? As if comments dont exist to love laugh and trash a story

I will not delete what I think just to please taumato sauces and what not. Get your own opinion dislike or like just like the 30 people who agreed with me and try not to butt in with your trump syndrome of 'everyone deserves MY opinion and someone else's opinion'