@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

				

User ID: 359

OracleOutlook

๐Ÿ‡บ๐Ÿ‡ธ Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users   joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 359

Jesus is God and he was in no way damned or suffered in form of being severed or diminished from consubstantiation with the trinity.

And I did not imply this.

Jesus descending to Hades as a victor over death to preach Gospel to dead with now healed nature

Yes, and that's God in Hell as a victor over it. God in the place that is defined by God's absence - the place of His willing withdrawal to allow us freedom. So there is no place you can go where God is not right next to you, loving you. That is the point I made, not that Jesus stopped being part of the Trinity or whatever odd thing you are imputing to me.

You misunderstood me and keep accusing me of heresy. I am mostly summarizing Bishop Barron's words, and Bishop Barron is influenced by Hans Ur Von Balthazar here. Balthazar proposes:

  • Within the Trinity, the Fatherโ€™s act of generating the Son is an act of total self-emptying love (kenosis). In generating the Son, the Father opens up an infinite "distance" or space of love between Himself and the Son, filled and united by the Holy Spirit.

  • Because there is already an eternal "space" of self-giving love between Father and Son, that space can stretch to encompass the finite distance created by human sin. The abandonment on the Cross is not a sudden rupture of divine love, but the manifestation in historical reality of the divine, self-emptying love that exists eternally within God.

  • By bringing His divine, obedient love into the abyss of non-communion, Christ transforms the "place" of absolute abandonment from within. The ultimate darkness is inundated with divine light.

This is not penal substitution. This is not a rupture of the Trinity. This theory aligns with prior revelation and doctrine.

Again, this is not about prayer or meditation. It is about ontological change and deification.

I... we have such different background assumptions on this I don't think we'll get very far here. Separating deification and ontological change from the progression of prayer is breaking my brain a little to try to figure out what we even might have in common.

Just like it doesn't matter if Matteress Girl was actually raped, it doesn't matter if Talarico was in a mental hospital. What matters is that some percentage of voting Texans saw that Talarico was in a mental hospital, passed that information verbally onto other voting Texans, and some percentage of these infected with the rumor never receive the cure of truth. The amounts might be low, but there's basically no repercussions for starting a rumor like this given the opportunity and at least some upside so it will happen again.

I recognized the humor without finding it funny. Like the first chapters of Moby Dick, I can recognize that this was probably uproariously funny to the right person with the right background. It's ok for a joke not to land. I don't think Gillis' joke lands with women. That's fine for a joke, that's less great for a joke told for SNL.

SNL is supposed to feature humor that lands with a broadly upper-middle class American public of both genders. Perhaps Gillis is trying to expand the appeal to more than just the upper-middle class, but I don't think the joke lands with lower-middle class women either.

A comedian tried something new, it had mixed results, more news at 11.

(I think having a PHD in humor is among the most humorless things you can do. And like most people here, I weigh Logos over Ethos or Pathos when evaluating arguments.)

I would just say that this Not-God language does not align with traditional Catholic and neither Orthodox understanding. Evil or Not-God is thought of in terms of privatio, there is no "Not-God" realm that would turn God into a dialectic, in fact this thinking led to many heresies. Not-God has no ontology, such a reality it would cease to exist there is "no" there to find find anything. Even Satan is not true "Not-God", he does not sustain himself, he derives his existence from rebellion against God, which is not the same as "Not-God", again there is no true dialectic as with let's say Manicheans or Gnostics or Bogomils and other religions or heresies.

Pretty nitpicky for flowery language, when the sentence before I said what I mean by not-God - the depths of evil and suffering. In God there is no evil and suffering, in God there is no privation or lack. Jesus experienced both.

For instance Church fathers talked about sacraments as a Mystery. Talking about mystery in purely intellectual term is in this sense a category error, mystery can be known by divine Grace, that is how you "pinpoint" the mystery. That is the very nature of the process of deification. You do not pin the mystery on piece of paper to examine it like a butterfly by your intellect, you pin yourself onto the butterfly so to speak.

You cannot meditate on a mystery of the faith without it being an act of prayer. God initiates all prayer. Do I need to add this disclaimer to everything I write on spiritual topics?

It's also subject to the laws of where the servers are, where the hardware you're messing with is. Just because NK doesn't have extradition treaties does not make this behavior ok. Defrosting freezers maliciously is morally abhorrent behavior and makes the world a worse place.

I don't accept this framing and it's not clear why anyone should. Everything you do is subject to the laws of the place your body occupies. And there are real meat-space consequences to their actions, whether a hacker just makes a laptop battery overheat or causes a food shortage by spoiling a country's worth of meat. You wish there was some weird magical world where you can do things but those actions have no moral valence, but that is a childish desire.

Last thread I recommended Cur Deus Homo, which has elements of substitution but I really liked how it laid it out.

I also like Vicarious in some formulations, not yours. It's not about God "understanding us" in a way He couldn't before. It's that God set out to the depths of evil and suffering, went to the furthest reaches of Not-God, to find us and love us from the full range of God and Not-God. He descended into Hell. We recite that in the Apostles Creed but do we appreciate what that means? There is no where we can run that He has not traversed.

Melito of Sardis' On Pascha is a lovely meditation as well, short enough to read in one sitting. I suspect it was read on Good Friday in the 2nd century. It seems to hint at a Typological soteriology, which is interesting.

Ultimately, it is a mystery. I don't mean mystery in the secular sense, where there is one answer and if you find it you can stop looking. I mean in the Christian sense, mystery is something like Jesus' parables. Something that you need to keep coming back to, something that always has more to understand, something you can meditate on for all eternity and still find more to appreciate. Trying to pin it to a wall like a butterfly will kill it.

For example, I have heard protestant pastors explain Penal Substitution by saying things like "God damned Jesus on the cross," "The Father hated Jesus on the cross," etc. Those are all theologically fraught statements. Jesus's willingness to sacrifice Himself was pleasing to God.

Someone please give this guy a peace prize before he starts another war.

Wouldn't be surprised if Trump did the Iran thing in part because of a "If I'm not going to be awarded the Nobel for Peace, I might as well be a Hawk" attitude.

I believe that executions should be as public as a court trial. Open to the public, news people can bring cameras, the event has limited seating and there is an enforced somber, serious attitude. Violating that seriousness leads to jail time.

Trump saying the government, the group executing the person, will be broadcasting it makes it into a spectacle that is unworthy of the seriousness of the event.

I think a firing squad is far more appropriate than a lethal injection.

I am religiously bound to also assent that the government has other options than killing people and they should just resort to those.

The next scene with Anna has Olaf finding Anna freezing to death on the floor with closed eyes. Olaf comes to Anna's rescue by starting a fire in the fireplace to warm Anna up.

Olaf says, "Where's Hans? What happened to your kiss?"

Anna says, "I was wrong about him, it wasn't true love."

Kind of a muted reaction to him giving an evil speech and trying to kill her! But it makes perfect sense in the context of my proposal.

Andrew Clements is a children's author who wrote books where kids had entrepreneurial spirit, which is about as good as it gets regarding ambition being a good thing.

If you love weird fan theories, take my Frozen theory:

The movie works just fine if you tweak the famous "Hans betrays Anna" scene just a little. You don't have to change anything before that scene, and you can change only a little bit after, like maybe one or two lines of dialog after, and it still is coherent, but improves the story 100%.

The change is this: Hans actually kisses Anna and nothing happens. Because Hans is a nice guy but true love is something that takes time and sacrifice to develop. Then Anna passes out and Hans genuinely thinks Elsa killed her.

Then the rest of the movie just stays the same. This works better because the Hans betrayal came out of nowhere, and it helps cement the theme that love is more than infatuation. It fits so much that I believe it was actually made this way, then an exec said there had to be a villain, and so they redid one scene to frame Hans as malicious and called it a day.

Comedies end in marriages because a marriage is a synthesis between two opposing forces. Harry marrying his friend's younger sister might be realistic but it's not plot-dramatic. It's ok, Harry Potter didn't go with a synthesis between the villian-side and the hero to create catharsis. The catharsis ultimately happened by a synthesis of the younger generation with the older. But a synthesis between the two opposing sides is more cathartic in general, so the Malfoid thing is understandable to me.

They have PR people but they don't understand the results either.

Do you think it's some kind of token-checkpoint, like it goes so far and not further because it has a built in "Don't expend too many tokens without more prompting" feature? And then you say, "Keep going" and so it does.

What is the point of money to you? It seems like you view money as a terminal goal, instead of a representation of the trade of value/effort between people, which you can then employ in your own goals by exchanging for other people's efforts.

What goals are you working towards achieving right now? If you don't have any, the first goal should be to find that "hobby that builds you." You need to build yourself up to actually find good things desirable and worth pursuing. Money is not desirable or worth pursuing for it's own sake - it is worth pursuing as an intermediary step for other goals.

I suspect that the activity of setting up a life away from your parents would help. You have enough to put 20% down on a quadplex - why not do that, live in one unit, rent out the others? Focus on making that building pretty, learn how to maintain things, spend more time having an influence in the physical world. Then your wealth will be concrete to you.

Maybe that's not your thing, but something should be. Seize the means of production!

Besides the career advice, the other thing is that everyone should have at least two hobbies - one where you build something and one that builds you. Like knitting and reading classics. Or wood working and volunteering. The first hobby, you plan, execute, and enjoy a product that you will use in the physical world. The second hobby, you do something that builds you up in virtue and makes you appreciate beauty and virtue in others.

Traveling is good to some extent but I don't think it's what you need to finally put your adolescence at an end.

Too many board or video games would be so many that it distracts from work or family life. And yes, it is possible to get too into board games to the detriment of the family.

WTF, Britain.

You can figure out that your partner turns you on without taking off any clothing.

As far as different sex drive, that is way overstated. Just have sex when the other person wants it. It's not some weird violation to have sex with someone you love just because it wasn't your idea. And if you're the partner who wants sex more often, put in extra effort to make sure the other person has fun.

A mismatched "sex drive" isn't physical/biological. It's value-based, and you can work out values verbally.

My husband isn't conservative or progressive or half as religious as myself. He's just normal. He dislikes politicians, plays video games and board games (but not too much) and otherwise just wants to raise good humans with me. I would guess that most men are like that, the vocal and online ones are the outlier.

I think you should snag someone available. You should settle a little. Otherwise you end up with grass-is-greener, waiting for Prince Charming, until you're 45.

But it wont feel like settling because you don't have anything to compare against. As long as your choice meets the baseline to live a decent life, such as the needed amount of diligence to hold down a job, the necessary amount of playfulness to spend 10 minutes with your own kids, etc, everything above that is gravy.

I knocked out 3 suitors within a month of dating each because they didn't meet the bare minimum to me, and then once there was a guy who did meet the minimum, I went all in. Don't regret it for a minute.

Being a more-conservative-woman-than-average feels like a life hack in the current environment.

My husband says one thing that drew him to me was that I wore modest clothes??? That's such a super easy thing to do, way easier and less expensive than figuring out make up hacks. And I didn't worry about being raped because I didn't drink or meet men alone. I reserved sex for marriage so my choice of spouse was probably more clear-eyed than most these days. And we still love each other, 10 years and 4 kids later, partly because I do the old fashioned things like have sex with my husband and try not to blow things out of proportion.

The advantages to behaving like a lady are so great, I don't understand why more men and women don't try to give their daughters this advantage. Do they just not know? Do they think this behavior is incompatible with also being intelligent, educated, and highly-paid? Do they think it's just too hard?

There's very little "infrastructure" for lay people to find spiritual directors, let alone good ones. And unfortunately, "keep trying new ones until you find one that confirms all your biases" is the wrong tact as well.

In general I think you should look at the fruits. Start with finding people who seem full of virtue, and ask them who their spiritual director is. Otherwise, pray to God to send you a good one and wait for Him to move first.

Heavily recommend reading Fire Within and Abandonment to Divine Providence.

A human person is a body-soul dyad. It's not that a human is really the soul and the body is incidental baggage that needs to be managed. The body and the soul interact with each other in various ways and together an entire human person is formed.

However, while the body is (currently) perishable, the soul is imperishable. Upon death, the soul still exists in an un-ideal state, waiting for the resurrection. What these souls experience is impossible for us to fully understand. That said, there are plenty of Christians I've talked with who argue that the dead are insensate until the resurrection of the body (and other Christians who argue that there is no resurrection of the body, gnostic heresy though it be.) The Catholic view is that dead souls are aware in some way but not the same way they will be after the Resurrection.