Felagund
13d ago
Ah, good point that it'd go away before long.
My concern, I guess, would be that people wouldn't stop.
It's not exactly like the goals of climate activists is to achieve some socially and environmentally optimal level of fossil fuel usage, so I see no reason why we'd expect people to self-regulate here.
That said, you're right that it going away makes this unlikely to be too much of a problem.
Felagund
13d ago
I think one of the better arguments against geoengineering is that I don't trust the geoengineers to remain aligned with what works out best, but will likely end up with internal incentives which could possibly lead to a dramatically messed up climate. You could easily imagine people spending too much to cool the earth, if the incentives were such that that were high-status or otherwise rewarded behavior.
That said, it's probably worth attempting anyway, if we're going to be trying to mitigate anthropogenic climate change (assuming the article here is wrong and that's a thing), as it's so much cheaper. Just, it'll require care in how it's set up.
Felagund
13d ago
Huh, I'm not sure how. (No need to reveal.)
Here I was, thinking the same.
Felagund
14d ago
I can't comment on most of this, except the following:
This makes it all the more peculiar that nobody has been able to experimentally demonstrate and therefore verify the greenhouse effect.
Wouldn't the existence of Venus be pretty definitive proof that such a thing is possible?
Felagund
15d ago
Be prepared to spend $ to keep up with the meta-game though.
This probably depends pretty heavily on what level you're playing at and what particular deck you're playing.
I have an Imoti deck that I built for like $12+shipping+sleeves that had a much better win rate, back when we were tracking, than several friends' decks who spent hundreds. That's an extreme case, but the principle (you can make capable decks under budgetary constraints) stands.
Felagund
16d ago
Commander's great, I certainly recommend it. (Admittedly, it's almost all I have experience with.)
I like basically all the distinctive features: the multiplayer aspect means it's more of a social experience, that games self-balance (as people will selectively address the most worrisome threats), and increases the threat assessment and political manouvering needed, which I enjoy. It's slower (at least, at casual levels), which means more big splashy plays will occur. You get a creature to build a deck around, which allows for a greater diversity of themes, maybe? It's singleton, so you get more variance and get to run across more weird cards than whatever the staples might be.
I imagine that it could be worse if you're picking up games with strangers instead of a circle of friends, so I don't know if that's where the complaints are coming from? Or maybe people worrying about power level? But power level problems can be managed by having more interaction, players, and just talking to the player to get a more fun time.
Did people have specific complaints about why it's bad?
Also, I've found lifetap the best life app.
Felagund
16d ago
the conceptual incoherence of "free will", severe difficulties for substance dualism as a philosophy of mind (would it necessarily violate the causal closure of the physical? how does it handle hypothetical split-brain cases?)
I don't see any reason why Christianity would necessitate either of these. I'm personally pretty uncertain about the latter (I have no good model of what a soul would involve/not involve (and what would be materially handled), but I also really don't understand consciousness, which I definitely have), and I definitely reject the first (at least, if we mean libertarian free will), and that seems perfectly compatible with Christianity. In fact, I think the net evidence from the scriptures definitely leans against libertarian free will.
Felagund
16d ago
Eh, I don't know that making a dedicated space is wise, because it looks bad.
Felagund
16d ago
Not that I disagree, but don't you routinely complain about things not terribly different from that?
Felagund
17d ago
This isn't any substantial disagreement with you, but:
Yeah, I wasn't sure that the word opponent was right as I was writing it. Do you think "those they oppose" is more accurate?
1 doesn't technically specify by stoning, and 5 doesn't quite apply to all premarital sex, exactly, but yes, I do think it was proper to execute those laws.
Felagund
17d ago
Yeah, fair. People are too eager to inflict harm on their opponents.
I think the word "Conventionally" here appeals to a vague and precarious authority. I know that there are Hebrew words for the three sorts of laws, and that the idea of giving them different levels of force in modern times goes back at least to Aquinas -- but his scriptural basis for it [Summa Theologica, Question 99] seems pretty thin to me, and most discussions of the distinction that I see give no scriptural basis at all. Anyway, whether it is Aquinas's argument or not, I would be curious to know if you (@Felagund) know of a Biblical argument for the distinction in force, for us today, between the three kinds of laws.
I wasn't aware of there being three Hebrew words, that's interesting. That said, you wished for arguments that they have different levels of force.
Reading Hebrews will make it really obvious that there was a ceremonial system which is no longer in force.
The new testament continues to make commands, which are called the law (see, for example Jesus summarizing the law), so some is still in force in some sense.
That only leaves the question of whether the civil law still applies.
I would think that the commands to live peaceably with all and to submit to those ruling over you would suffice to show that executing the civil law is not necessary, at least for those who are not the ones not in power.
I don't know that I have anywhere to point off the top of my head for those in power, but seeing as it describes what they are doing as for the good of the people, I assume that means it's okay with other sets of laws than the exact set of penalties prescribed in the pentateuch.
Does that suffice? If you have any particular ones of those that you're curious, I could more explicitly cite the passages of scripture I'm gesturing at.
This suggests that you believe it was necessary and proper, in ancient Israel, to judicially stone people to death for homosexual sodomy, idol worship, sabbath breaking, adultery, premarital sex (in the case of women), etc. To be clear, is that your view?
I'd have to double check for each of those that stoning was what was enjoined, but in the spirit of answering the question in the sense in which it was meant, yes.
So that you know where I am coming from, this is my view of scripture (now in my Motte bio): I identify as an Evangelical Christian, but many Evangelicals would say that I am a deist mystic, and that I am going to Hell. Spiritually, the difference between me and Jordan Peterson is that I believe in miracles. The difference between me and Thomas Paine (an actual deist mystic) is that I believe the Bible is a message to us from the Holy Spirit, and the difference between me and Billy Graham is that I believe there is noise in the signal.
I think it's worth noting that Jesus and the apostles seemed to treat the scriptures as of incredible authority, even in minute matters. Assuming Jesus knew something about what he was talking about (seems reasonable, if you think he's God and all that), and assuming that was conveyed to us accurately (seems reasonable, as it wasn't super long, and was by eyewitnesses), then we probably should be taking scripture pretty seriously.
Felagund
18d ago
The people who count as the least of our brothers include people who have actually committed a major offense.
Yes, certainly. Jesus associated with prostitutes and tax collectors, etc.
Second, the Bible does condemn homosexual sodomy. Just as strongly, it condemns witchcraft, idol worship, working on Saturday, cursing your parents, eating meat of an animal that been strangled, consuming animal blood (e.g., blood sausage), premarital sex, and many other things which call for the death penalty under Mosaic law.
It's useful to understand what's going on under the mosaic law. Laws are conventionally divided into three sorts: moral laws, which apply universally (e.g. Thou shalt not murder); ceremonial laws, which were for Israel as a church, roughly, and so no longer apply post-Christ (e.g. food laws); and civil laws, which were for Israel as a government (e.g. cities of refuge).
I take it you would argue that the law against homosexual sex is a ceremonial law, and now longer applies, whereas I would argue that it is a moral law. The biggest reason I would argue that is the repeated affirmation of the same in the new testament (Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, Jude 7, 1 Timothy 1). I'll note that I don't think that the prescription of putting them to death is necessary, as we are no longer living under the civil law of ancient Israel.
You bring up the case of the various commands in Acts 15.
I think Paul illustrates that he treats some of those differently from others. 1 Corinthians 10 is illuminating: Paul speaks against partaking of what's sacrificed to idols, but not because there's anything problematic about it itself, but for the sake of others. Compare that to early in the epistle, where Paul talks about sexual immorality as inherently problematic.
So it's at least plausible to me that some of the commands in Acts 15 are intended to be for the sake of peace and people's consciences, but I'm not entirely certain. But I think other parts of the new testament are sufficiently clear that sexual immorality is bad, and homosexuality shows up in lists forbidding things that are clearly considered to be inherently bad, not bad for the sake of others.
But of all ways to square with it, to arbitrarily pick one of those alleged sins and lift it up as an abomination on Biblical grounds, while discounting or ignoring the rest, and then to use that capricious choice to justify hating another person,
Is this really a depiction of what is going on typically?
I'm young, so I can't speak to what was common decades ago, and it's entirely possible my circles are unusual, but in most cases where I've heard people condemn homosexuality, they're usually quick to affirm that heterosexual lust is also bad, lest they be misunderstood.
Felagund
18d ago
Yes, but culture is downstream of genetics.
Sure. But it seems to me like there is a considerable range of expression in cultures for the same population. See, for example, the impacts of the spread of Christianity, well, everywhere. East vs West Germany is probably another good example: lasting differences still show up today, but that started out as just a line on a map drawn by occupying powers.
Felagund
18d ago
I think if we brought Luther forward in a time machine, he would recognise the Catholics as much the same as he had been fighting, but he would have no idea what the Lutheran church had become. So yes, I'm sticking to "the Reformers did found new denominations, not just reform the existing church".
I don't get your point here. Could you elaborate?
For one thing, they pretty much 'reformed' in different directions from each other,
This isn't especially true. They were pretty clearly doing a bunch of the same things: administering the Lord's Supper to laity more frequently and in both kinds, read scripture in the vernacular (with more of an emphasis on the preaching of the word, in general), allowed clergy to be married, put an end to the veneration of images and relics (with variation as to whether they allowed those images to continue to exist), ceased praying to Mary and the saints, had two sacraments, and made use of congregational singing (not sure if this was less true of Anglicans), among others.
With regard to doctrine, they all would have affirmed justification by faith alone, distinguished justification and sanctification, contrasted law and gospel, affirmed predestination, denied purgatory, taught views other than transubstantiation (though with considerable variation between those views), elevated scripture above tradition, and not recognized Rome to have authority, among others.
Yes, I recognize that catholics since followed them in a bunch of those practices.
I don't get what you're trying to argue regarding the church of England. Henry should not be considered protestant, and Mary obviously wasn't, but the church of England clearly was protestant under Edward and Elizabeth and following. The 39 articles, for instance, is very obviously protestant (all protestations of Newman to the contrary, laughable), and pretty mainstream. This is less true of modern Anglicanism after the Oxford movement.
I found those readable enough. Thanks!
More options
Context Copy link