OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
You thought the week was boring? We had NATO jets shooting down Russian drones last night and you thought it was a boring week?
I'd hate to see what you think is exciting.
But agreed that this feels like a shift to the week. I've seen conservatives in an outrage over the killing of the Ukrainian girl, and now this. I think we're close to some kind of flashpoint but I have no idea what it will look like. If it were the left, I would know - riots, some larceny, eventually everyone will go inside for winter. With the right, I really don't know what's going to happen next. Not larceny. I know everyone's hoping it's going to be like the Ents waking up, but I don't know.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
No, my comment wasn't really directed towards you but towards the woman, who of course wouldn't read it. You are correct that it's weird for the woman to think she's traditionalist. I'm pointing out that she jumped to a conclusion very quickly, and it's probably the wrong conclusion. A bit of a Freudian slip.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I'm not very sympathetic to what some consider contradictions between Galatians and Acts 9. It only seems to be a contradiction if you think each is supposed to include, step by step, everything Paul did right after his experience. But in the same source, Acts, you have two descriptions of the events internally, Acts 9 and Acts 22. It's clear that each depiction does not contain an exhaustive list of what Paul did immediately after his conversion. Instead, in Acts 9 we find phrasing like, "after days," and "after many days" leaving lots of room for Paul to make a trip.
Meanwhile, Acts has very detailed descriptions of Paul's travels and how long it took to get between each places, information that would be very hard to get without the author traveling from place to place themselves.
If we assume an early date than Acts is attempting to chronicle "the story of Christianity up until now" and I just don't think it does that.
It's more like, gLuke is what Luke could gather about Jesus from those he talked to and Acts is the history of the people Luke spent time with - Peter, Priscilla and Aquila, and Paul.
Original gMark ended mid-sentence, which seems to me to indicate it was not finished because the author or scribe was interrupted. Acts has an ending, just one that places it before Paul's death. "And no one tried to stop him." That's just a lie if it is written after AD 70, and an obvious one. It definitely was written to a Roman (or Gentile more broadly) audience and the selection of what stories to include reflects that, but that does not mean it was faked.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
We probably are convinced by a bunch of bad research, given the replication crisis.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
That where one scholar is going but not where scholarship in general is going, that would be the other direction. And no eyewitnessess, whoever wrote the cleansing of the temple probably didn't even have a passing familiarity with the temple, for example.
Are you getting that from Ehrman or somewhere else?
Even with a "late" gMark date of 73ish, the author would have been in the temple as all male Jews were expected to travel to the Temple several times a year. Assuming the writer is older than 18, he would have familiarity with the Temple before its fall.
If you don't discount scholars just for being religious, arguments for early dating is becoming more acceptable. The arguments make sense. They made sense when critical historian Adolf von Harnack did the math in 1911, and they still make sense today. The historical investigation has the fatal flaw of needing to presuppose that nothing supernatural happened. If you approach without that presupposition, then the evidence points elsewhere.
consider how many times the authentic letters of Paul could have quoted Jesus from the gospels but didn't. That means they were written after.
I would not dispute that the letters of Paul were mostly written without the Gospels as reference. There are some parts of Paul's letters that have a certain rhyme with the Gospels, particularly in 1 Corinthians. But I think they were written separately, which isn't exactly a bad thing from an evidentiary-stand point. All that tells us is that the Gospels were not wide-spread reference material at the time Paul was writing and perhaps he did not have access to copies himself. He was an wandering preacher/tent maker. It's not the weirdest thing for him not to have had an extensive library.
It doesn't matter when the prediction was made, it's that predictions only become relevant after they become true, it wouldn't have been written about.
Or it mattered because it was a warning to the Christians to flee Jerusalem for the hills, which they did. And not all the predictions came true by AD 80. And some things that would probably be critical details embedded in their memory, like that the Temple was melted to SLAG wasn't mentioned at all.
You should re-read the last chapter of Acts
Yeah, and then Paul died. He died during Nero's reign, in AD 64/65. He arrived in Rome in AD 60. Acts ends saying, "He spent two years in Rome preaching." Then there is a gap of another couple years, and then Paul died. If Paul died before Acts was written, Luke would have included Paul's dramatic death. He did not, because Paul's dramatic death didn't happen for another two years.
Since gLuke is likely written before Acts, and Acts was likely written before AD 65, and gMark was written before gLuke unless you're crazy, gMark is older than AD 65. Give them each a couple years to write each book, and gMark is in the late 50s. Paul's letters were written in the 50s and the part of the 60s where he was alive, which goes to your point that he didn't have a copy of a Gospel to reference. It's all very nice and neat like the truth tends to be.
All versions of the cosmological argument and all of the five ways of St. Thomas.
No they don't. This is just silly. If for the sake of argument we allowed that there could be an infinitely long hierarchical series— D actualized by C, which is in turn actualized by B, which is in turn actualized by A, and so on in infinity, there would still have to be a source of causal power outside the series to impart causal power to the whole. Consider a mirror which reflects the image of a face present in another mirror, which in turn reflects the image of a face present in another, and so on ad infinitum. Even if we allowed that there could be such a series of mirrors, there would still have to be something outside this infinite series— the face itself—which could impart the content of the image without having to derive it. What there could not be is only mirror images and never any actual face.
The argument does not rely on the non-existence of actual infinity.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Yeah, I'm more sympathetic to the view that the word for "thousand" meant something like "platoon" of indeterminate size. The link in that paragraph goes to a book where five different scholars argue five different positions on when the Exodus happened: early dating, late dating, no exodus at all, exodus as a cultural memory of multiple migrations from Egypt, etc. It was an interesting format, something like a long-form Reddit argument or written debate-brawl. I recommend the book if you are interested in the topic.
I wonder what we believe today that those in the future will find laughable.
This was true back then but now we know the bible is trash when it comes to historical accuracy.
If you checked out of scholarship in the 80s, I can see why you would think so. That is a less defensible sentiment today. Fifty years ago, people got away with saying that King David is a myth, now we have his coins. Excavations have revealed architecture described in the New Testament that has been hidden since the 2nd century. Where it gets hazy is where you would expect it to be hazy - what archaeological evidence would you expect the Exodus to leave behind? There is some evidence, nothing conclusive, but I wouldn't expect there to be given the short time length of the event and the amount of evidence nomadic peoples typically leave behind.
But that doesn't hold many problems for the Traditional Catholic, as the traditional view has viewed the Joshua and Conquest in an allegorical sense. Joshua as a Christ figure, demonstrates the importance of eradicating evil entirely and giving it no quarter. A large part of reading the Bible is knowing what the genre is of the book you're reading.
To the Christian claims, the important thing to get historically accurate is the Gospels, and the Gospels were written in the genre of Ancient Biography. They at least tried to get it right, and there is increasing evidence that they were written early and by eyewitnesses..
All attempts to date the Gospel after AD 70 rely in the logic of, "Well, we know Jesus wasn't God, so He can't have predicted the fall of the Temple ahead of time (never mind there were other people predicting the fall of the Temple in the decade leading up to it,) and so the Gospels all had to be written after AD 70." And dating the Gospels before AD 70 is more like, "The Gospels tell their readers to do things at the Temple, and that is a weird prescription if the Temple is already destroyed. And Acts leads up the climatic trial of Paul in Rome but doesn't cover it, which would seem to indicate that it was completed before his execution. And look here, and look there, at all these weird coincidences that only make sense if they were written in the 50s and 60s."
Most of these don't hold because we proved actual infinity isn't logically contradictory.
Which proof do you think relies on actual infinity being logically contradictory? St. Thomas famously believed we couldn't prove the universe was finite through just philosophy, and his Cosmological argument does not require the universe to have had a beginning. Maybe you're most exposed to Kalam's argument, which is impossible to defend on pure philosophical grounds, though people try to defend it still with a combo of scientific evidence and philosophy.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
That's kind of a different matter. Yes, they're bumbling idiots, but they're my bumbling idiots!
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
She was going through pre-marriage counseling with her local Catholic priest. She was bemoaing the fact that, on a questionnaire she had her fiancee had to fill out, it asked "who will be handling the household finances?" "Tollbooth!" She steamed, "What am I supposed to do? Just stand barefoot in the kitchen all day with a baby on my hip?"
Am I supposed to read something prescriptive in the question? It seems just common sense to ensure a couple has a plan in place on how to handle finances before getting married. Catholics have a systematic marriage prep for this reason - to make sure that the common causes of divorce are at least discussed prior to making a life-long commitment.
Is she assuming the priest was expecting a response of "husband works, I drag toddlers to supermarket?" Because normally they don't care, as long as you have an answer and you've talked about it with your betrothed. Also (at least for me) we didn't have to share the questionnaire with anyone, we just filled it out and talked with each other.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I'd like to push back on the idea that crossing ecclesiastical authority risked death. I feel like that's a model of the Middle Ages that is more conceived on 18th century propaganda instead of the actual historical record. Even when the Papal States had an executioner, he was part of the civil courts, not the ecclesiastical courts. He executed thieves and assassins, not heretics. Ecclesiastical courts were not allowed to kill anyone at all, and there is good reason for that. That's not to say they were infallible bastions of perfect goodness and mercy, but they aren't the opposite either. They were courts.
People accused by civil authorities of crimes begged to be tried by the Inquisition because the Inquisition had a higher standard of evidence. And so on and so forth.
What you might object to most strongly crosses over into the other aspect of your comment - forcing people to believe via authority. So I will touch on that first before a deeper discussion on persecuting heretics.
In the Middle Ages, people were not forced to believe via authority. Forced baptisms are illicit, and pagans converted in droves without threat of force. Rather, people believed because it was the air they breathed. Not being a Christian would be like being a Flat Earther today.
Taking the analogy further, lots of people today believe the Earth is round because that is how it is depicted in art. Maybe they were lucky enough to be exposed to a globe as a child. They heard stories and have seen relics of people going to space and seeing the round Earth. They are not forced to believe the Earth is round under threat of torture. It'd be frankly bizarre for them to think the Earth was Flat.
Any American today had the opportunity to take high-school level Trigonometry and be able to prove that the Earth is round based on measuring shadows and traveling 100 miles, a trivial feat compared to how difficult it would be to prove to oneself in the past. But why would they? Who is suspicious enough to do so?
And moreover, basic facts about the world, like the shape of the Earth, shouldn't be accessible only to those with above-average intelligence and a car. It would be bizarre to make a society that is agnostic about the shape of the Earth because we wouldn't want to unduly influence belief.
The Medieval mind was as convinced about the truth of Christianity as we are about the roundness of the Earth. Those with the intelligence to prove it made sure that this important knowledge was accessible to all. And I believe they did prove the existence of God and that there is more proof today than there was in the past. And that anyone smart enough who goes through 4-6 years of specialized education and spiritual formation (that is very hard to get these days) will agree, if we could just get them to take the opportunity cost to get there.
Here is where the analogy is inadequate - the problem of heretics. Because it doesn't really matter to a functioning society if there is a group of people who think the Earth is flat. We pity them, we ignore them, even if one of our own children became a flat Earther we would still harbor a vague hope that they could still life a good life, even if you stop trusting their judgement on other things.
But in the case of Christianity, there is a huge emphasis on Orthodoxy (right belief) and Orthopraxy (right practice.) And if you tip the balance so that the ignorant masses are now divided in belief, they are going to believe all sorts of things, very few of which are results of a systematic fact-finding methodology. And if you have midwits choosing beliefs randomly, you have disagreement and dissension and civil wars and that is why the CIVIL authorities executed heretics and waged crusades against them.
Because the Cathars had beliefs that were society-ending and spread them at an alarming rate to people who didn't know better. Because if you're a Protestant Lord and some of your subjects are Catholics then they have an obligation to defy your authority at times, and you can't have that.
The problem the Medieval were trying to solve wasn't that everyone is by default agnostic and they needed to be forced at knifepoint to be Catholic. The problem they were trying to solve is that people all too easily believe whatever their slightly-smarter neighbor tells them is a good idea and this can upend society. Like "marriage and sex are evil" and "men and women are interchangable."
But wait, didn't we enlightened Americans figure out a way for multiple people with a plurality of different ideologies and religions to live together in peace and harmony without society collapsing?
...I certainly hope so. But I think only time can tell.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I very much don't feel like a LARPer. I don't think Feser - one of the staunchest modern defenders of Scholastic Metaphysics - is a LARPer.
I also wouldn't describe myself as a Trad, because that means something very specific in my religious tradition. I attend a normal mass at a normal parish.
But I also 100% believe in all of it. Heaven, Hell, the way of Illumination, Theosis, Divine Simplicity, Trinity of Lover, Beloved, and the Love that Unites, submission to local bishop, souls that are the form of the body, demons, etc. These things are more real to me than the Declaration of Independence and I have had as much personal experience with the governance of the Church as the governance of my civil authorities.
I believe true freedom is the freedom that comes from discipline and learning how to work within a system outside of my experiences. The freedom of playing a piano well is not the same as pressing keys as the whim takes me. Enlightenment conceptions of freedom seem to me more like a toddler banging on a keyboard "freely."
I'm sure there are some LARPers somewhere, but there are still many people who were born into these traditions. If both mother and father or just father attended church weekly, their kids have a 1/3 likelihood of attending church weekly as well. Converts are a small group compared with those who are hereditary Christians.
Ultimately if conservatives try to force a return to pre-modern times, not only may we lose technological advances, we also don't even have the living traditional to fall back to anymore.
Those who are Amish are already Amish. I don't know where the idea comes from that we will lose technological advances if we start having a more pre-modern outlook on usury, for instance. The rate of acquiring new advances might decrease, but some total collapse back to the bronze age isn't necessary or desired by anyone I'm aware of.
You can test qualia inside a single person's experiences, but you can't compare qualia between persons.
Edit: In your hypothetical, Red and Blue "magically" switched. I don't feel like your comparison to "conceivable test" is fair if it relies on Magic.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Well yes, I would notice if suddenly everything that was blue suddenly turned red.
Why do we care about qualia? Because it's weird. Because it's part of being an observer. Because it seems to point towards that information and experience are different. It affects how doctors need to assess pain, for instance.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
There were three girls, one of them concussed (according to the girl's family) and maybe unable to move quickly.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
I suppose one thing to check - do you agree that two identical-to-the-atom clones observing identical-to-the-photon sensory inputs would have identical qualia? Or do you think even that is not something we can have high confidence in?
I don't think we could have high confidence in. What if it's assigned randomly, like the first thing you ever see is assigned what I see as "red?" There's just no way of knowing, no conceivable test to find out.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
According to the GiveSendGo:
While walking in their local community. Lola (12), Ruby (13) and Mayah (13) were accosted by two adult foreign nationals. The foreign nationals were directing inappropriate sexual remarks at Lola. When Lola and her sister told the migrants to leave them alone and go away Ruby was viciously attacked by the adult female, yanked to the ground by her hair and both migrants proceeded to kick Ruby in the head on the ground. Seeing her sister being beaten senselessly on the ground, Lola retrieved an axe and a knife and bravely scared off the attackers, saving her sister.
I don't know if it changes your opinion if Lola wasn't walking around with the weapons, but retrieved them during the attack.
Of course, how on Earth does one retrieve weapons fast enough to return before the end of a scuffle between a 13 year old girl and two adults? How long does it take to attack a 13 year old girl?
I think the statement was carefully written to avoid further legal trouble and Lola "retrieved" the axe and knife from somewhere on her person.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about color associations or being able to distinguish between shades. I'm saying, when you look at an object, your brain seems to translate that into a "color" in your mind. This "color" is how you perceive that wavelenth to be, but there's no rule that says that I see the same "color" as you. All of the colors I see might be completely foreign to you. 100% of my colors might be ones you don't see at all ever. They all appear to gently blend together for me in shades and hues on a spectrum. We share the wavelengths together, but not the effect they produce in our minds.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
Do you and I see the same red?
If we both look at the same object, which is red, we have the same wavelength of light reach our eyes. Our eyes are both human eyes and process this wavelength the same way. We both recognize that we are seeing what we commonly call red.
But, what if I am seeing what you would call "blue"? I would recognize it as red - all red objects were this "blue" to me my whole life (and all blue objects were something you don't have a concept of at all.)
These are the kinds of things I pondered as a kid and it's why I don't scoff at qualia. There are some things that we can't in principle measure, and these things are the most foundational to our subjective experience of the world.
Edit: responded to the wrong comment
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
"yes, I am the straw man you would imagine, I don't even recognize I am saying exactly what you predicted in exactly the way that proves you right." is a Tumblr reaction screenshot. For example:
https://corvidiss.tumblr.com/post/744323070415749120/id-screenshot-of-a-tumblr-post-by
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
You have to consider that sometimes people just go insane and no longer pattern match to left-right, boomer-Gen-Z extreemism.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
I see the predictable responses of, "This is a gun problem." I want to ask them if they mean Trans-identified people should be forbidden access to guns.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
I actually wouldn't be put out with someone calling Mary a superhero, haha. "Hail Mary, full of grace, punch the devil in the face!" is something a Catholic gleefully says. My view of a superhero would be different from yours, perhaps.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
2mo ago
If you enjoy getting a dark, "this is what war is like" perspective from a veteran, Phil Klay's "Missionaries" is educational.
Could have been an inside source jumping the gun because Kirk's heart was stopped, but then he was revived so not dead-dead yet.
More options
Context Copy link