Felagund
6mo ago
Not the previous poster, but unusual-feeling genetics things in general are cool to me, as long as it isn't indicative of some pathology. Neanderthal ancestry? That's cool. Rather high genetic diversity? That's cool. A mix of several relatively divergent populations? (well, this isn't unusual) Huh, that's cool, I wonder what exactly that looks like. Same with this.
Felagund
6mo ago
It's hard for me to tell whether you're trolling or just an unusual character. It's definitely the second part—mandating interracial marriage—which has the stronger effect there for me. (The first part seemed a bit more plausible, given that it is kind of cool that Africans have the highest genetic diversity.)
Anyway, Fruck's advice is good.
Felagund
6mo ago
That said, we obviously need to be preserving the cool ones. It would be a tragedy to lose any more charismatic megafauna.
Felagund
6mo ago
Well, I said that specifically because your statement demanded it, not because I was especially worried.
I think maintaining a place where continued dialogue can be had aids pursuit of truth. If one must accommodate one's tone in order to achieve that, it can certainly be worth it.
Felagund
6mo ago
How many civil rights lawyers were there? If there were like 6,
Obviously more than that. I mean, the ACLU existed.
Felagund
6mo ago
And the US inherited its gun laws from Britain! Once guns were common there.
Felagund
6mo ago
If they can fight back, they will lose, unless that fighting-back can be coordinated at a sufficiently large scale. Perhaps there was some time when outrages produced mobs. Now they do not.
If you just push people to fight back, and there's not coordination or a broad-scale shift in what is within the overton window, don't expect much.
Felagund
6mo ago
This is totally on point however, figuring this out is how I stopped getting banned all the time.
I'm curious about this—what sorts of truth do you think themotte can't handle, in favor of continued discussion? Feel free to circumlocute as much as you feel is needed, given the statement.
Felagund
6mo ago
I'd heard that they were the hardest with no preparation (at least, to do quickly enough—since there's a 100% verifiable answer, it's easy to be accurate), but the most gameable—they were formulaic enough that if you learn the right techniques about how to organize your approach you could improve your score more easily than you could on any other section.
Felagund
6mo ago
Well, I think it's a bit more nuanced than that re: the Christian texts.
Jesus is treated as a taking on of flesh by a God who is not material. And the old testament has things like Jeremiah's, "Do I not fill heaven and earth?" among others. I'd be inclined to argue the deliberate lack of depiction in the design of the ark etc. is gesturing towards God's immateriality as well, which would make it hard to argue that it's some late development. The New Testament, at least, you can't pass off as a contradiction between different authors. It's just a more complex position.
Yeah, Jesus' eating food isn't a problem; the contrary position would be worse, in light of Hebrews 2:14 and 17.
Felagund
6mo ago
Paul says, 1 Corinthians 15:3, that he delivered to them what he received, and proceeds to list a bunch of post-resurrection encounters with Jesus. This includes with the 12. Seeing as he spoke with some of the 12 himself (and really, how would things like this not come up, if you had the opportunity to talk about it), presumably they at least thought that they encountered a resurrected Jesus.
I agree that James is ambiguous re:God vs. Jesus. If you think that Q is an authentic portrayal of whatever Jewish community's beliefs, then, Luke 17:26-30~Matthew 24:37-39 certainly looks like it's Jesus coming as the son of man, in judgment.
I'll yield that we see a much more fleshed out theology in Paul's letters than in much of the rest of the New Testament.
Felagund
6mo ago
Re: 1 Peter—I figured you would say that. I just thought it was interesting that both ideas were in direct conjunction.
I was actually wondering in Acts 5 mainly about the Holy Spirit.
I still think James and Paul are on the same page there. Yes, the verse is introduced by reference to how that would make one a lawbreaker, but it's followed up by talking about how if you attempt to judge people by the full measure of the law, well, you would be condemned by that measure. And in Paul, in Romans 13:10, for example, you see love as a fulfilling of the law, along the same lines as James (and Jesus, for that matter).
The witness of Acts is of a large increase in followers following Christ's death. You may think that's fabricated, but I see no reason to think so—Luke (or whoever the author is) says he was investigating things carefully, and was clearly in his gospel putting sources together rather than fabricating things. I see no reason to doubt that the account was given by those who were around at the time.
James pretty clearly speaks of the coming of the Lord (5:7), which is probably Jesus (e.g. 2:1).
Felagund
6mo ago
Congratulations! I've always really liked our past interactions, so I'm glad things are going well for you.
AMA, I guess.
Does she know about this place?
Felagund
6mo ago
No, he definitely agrees with James 2:10. Compare "but fails in one point" of James 2:10 with "does not abide by all things written" in Galatians 3:10. And then, in the context of each of those passages, both similarly draw from that that we cannot satisfy the full measure of the law.
What do you make of the crown of life in James 1:12? I think it is probably fair to say, though, that the book is considering more the second coming of Christ than an explicit reference to the resurrection. I think 1 Peter 1:23-24 is interesting here—we see there a quotation of a passage like the one you are pointing to, but he frames that as something that is only true of those who are not born again. That maybe fits James, as James emphasizes that especially of the unrighteous, but I'm not sure.
Do you think, e.g. Acts 5:1-11 is Pauline in character?
Felagund
6mo ago
I'd just like to note that this is a step back from your earlier position that Jesus's resurrection originated with Saul.
Edit: I'd also add the qualification that the Messiah is not supposed to die, etc., per the standard Jewish interpretations.
Felagund
6mo ago
I think you're right that that wasn't sufficiently warranted by what he said there (though it was clear that @BurdensomeCount thought that from elsewhere). Mea culpa.
That said, I think the chance of inauthentic development is substantially decreased by the continued contact with the apostles, and the approbation of the Pauline position, as seen in Acts 15 and Galatians 2. You may want to qualify that, but it's clearly the case that they agreed with at least elements of what he's doing, and it seems that they sent him on his journeys.
Felagund
6mo ago
Fair, but the situation immediately following the vision is applied at least to say that gentiles can exist, as gentiles, that is, not following the Jewish ceremonial law.
Felagund
6mo ago
Sure, Paul's careful to emphasize his own authority in Galatians—you see it a lot more there than in most of the other letters.
The Holy Spirit features prominently throughout Acts, including in the time before the conversion of Paul, and you see it in all the gospels (e.g. Mark 1:8). I just checked a reconstruction of Q, and it's in there as well. I don't see it in James, so perhaps that means it doesn't count, if that's the only thing you consider not Pauline, but I think it's quite clearly there otherwise. I'm not sure precisely what you mean by how the rapture/apocalypse happens. What do you think draws from Greek philosophy and Platonism? I'll grant that Paul was probably the one of the apostles most advocating for not needing to follow the ceremonial law, and that the others followed him in that. That's what Acts 15 seems to witness to.
How is James 2:8 in conflict there? Look at the passage? He is affirming that the law there is good, and that we will not adequately fulfill it—that matches Paul. (See, e.g. Galatians 3:10ff.)
Felagund
6mo ago
Sure, they're related, but it also has to do with foods. See the application of that in Acts 15.
Felagund
6mo ago
What do you think the early Christians were even doing, if they didn't think there was a resurrection?
If you look at the things say he received, it's clearly more than you're positing.
You have a framing here that feels like it's intended to allow you to be pretty dismissive, and it just doesn't feel very plausible to me.
Felagund
6mo ago
Where Muhammad got Islam from? Where Siddhartha Gautama got Buddhism from?
Do you really think that those three figures were gathering knowledge in the same way? That doesn't seem terribly likely to me. They seem pretty different in how they go about things.
I'm sure he did, otherwise we'd know nothing about him but instead would know about some other guy that did.
I don't know what you're trying to get at there, but I don't see how it interacts with the purpose that I mentioned it for: to indicate that Christianity is not just Pauline, but accurately conforms to what the direct followers of Jesus believes.
One interesting thing about Paraguay is how the Guaranì language remains in use—I think it's the only American Indian tongue where that's still happening on that scale.
More options
Context Copy link