domain:greyenlightenment.com
erwgv3g34
1hr ago
That just means you buy everything with cash and only trust a few big merchants like Amazon with your debit card information. I don't see why that's a big deal. Fuck credit cards.
anti_dan
1hr ago
I think that there exists a set of rules of engagement that are reasonable, that is not the set of rules of engagement that have been issued to American troops over the last 3 decades.
The creeds are, definitionally, an attempt to set a boundary of some kind. The function of the Nicene Creed is to define, as the 4th century councils understood it, the true faith over against heresy. One is free to disagree with the creeds, but surely to use the creeds as setting the boundaries of acceptable faith is simply to use the creeds as they are designed to be used.
I don't think the 60 IQ's person's belief system can be both creedal Christianity and Mormonism in the absence of some sort of deep confusion, at least insofar as we agree that creedal Christianity and Mormonism are mutually exclusive. I grant that deep confusion of this kind frequently occurs in real life, and in practice people of many religions often believe in idiosyncratic fusions unique to themselves, but the fact of human confusion and vagueness does not seem to me to be a reason to abandon the project of clarification entirely.
When it comes to belief, I think that people can implicitly assent to positions that they are not consciously aware of. A person who recites and assents to the Nicene Creed every Sunday at mass does, in sense, believe the content of the creed, even if he or she cannot articulate the meaning of every line. If you read much catechetical material, even across different religions, I think this is understood. I have read, for instance, both Catholic and Islamic books that frame themselves as "explaining your faith". As (presumably, for I am neither) a good Catholic or Muslim you have assented to this large body of doctrine, some explicitly (e.g. by reciting creeds), some by extension (e.g. "I assent to everything that the church holds necessary for salvation"), and some only implicitly (e.g. as logical corollary of something explicitly assented to), and I see how there is value, catechetically, in exploring and spelling out what that means.
The Trinity is, in principle, something like this. I think the average Catholic or Protestant knows that the Father is God, that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Spirit is God, but is probably less than wholly clear on what that means or how it's possible. They know these things in the same way that the New Testament states them. The developed doctrine teases out and says explicitly that which is necessarily implied by the top-level beliefs, so when a theologian of the Trinity presents the doctrine, it is not being presented as something additional for belief, but rather as an explication of that which the church already believes.
I think something like this is the case when we consider ignorant Joe Catholic and ignorant Bob Mormon in the pews. Probably neither of them are capable of defining the fundamental differences in doctrine between them. But Joe believes that developed Catholic theology expresses, in a more refined way, that which he holds in his heart; and likewise Bob for the leaders of his own tradition. The difference is that if I ask Joe what all these doctrines he believes really mean, Joe will point at the bishop or the pope or someone and say, "Ask him, he knows", and if I ask Bob, he will point at a Mormon authority. And at that point it is certainly meaningful to compare the mature doctrines that those authorities will explain.
They are, in other words, members of communities of faith. They assent to what their community presents for belief - and levels of personal ignorance, however lamentable in practice, don't remove that sense of communal loyalty and identification. In some cases we say this holds even in cases of individual defiance or disagreement - I think it's meaningful to say "Catholics hold that contraception is morally wrong" even though most individual Catholics (in the US at least) observably don't. In the same way, it's meaningful to say "Christians believe X about God, Mormons believe Y about God, and these are not compatible", even if particular individuals in each tradition may be ignorant or even defiant of those particular beliefs.
Quantumfreakonomics
2hr ago
I am aware that they are well-regarded. I stated (correctly) that they are bad.
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
2hr ago
Oh if only that were true. I found out the hard way that my bank would happily let transactions through that my checking account couldn't cover, then charge me a $50 fee on top of having to bring the account positive. There are some very predatory banks in the US.
Yeah, and if you use a credit card that won't happen. (Since 2009, they can't even charge you an over-the-limit fee unless you specifically opt-in).
the point about seeing Jesus as insufficiently divine is seen as rooted in a false and/or bigoted understanding of our doctrine. As a trivial example, we believe Jesus to be Jehovah of the Old Testament.
Right -- and also that Jesus is the literal son of the Old Testament God! No disagreements there. The points where Nicene Christians get antsy is in the "three distinct personages and three distinct beings" of LDS Godhead theology. It's vitally important to creedal Christians that Jesus is not only one in purpose with the Father, and is his son, but in fact is consubstantial with him and equal to him. Nicene Christians are committed monotheists, and the Trinity is how they square that with the worship of Jesus.
Classical Trinitarianism was the extremely fine line that the Nicene Creed walked to preserve both the worship of Jesus and the worship of one God (and indeed existence of one God). It's notable that the two biggest restorationist movements of the 19th century -- the Latter-Day Saint movement and the Jehovah's Witnesses -- both went in opposite directions that departed from the fine line. The LDS, like you've said, says "Jesus is Jehovah but Jehovah is different from God the Father," while the Jehovah's Witnesses said, "Jesus is not Jehovah, and Jehovah is exactly God the Father."
Of course, it's exactly my point that Jews, for instance, though this was a total crock of shit, and was an easy way for Christians to excuse polytheism. (Muslims strongly agree.) It makes perfect sense to followers of the Creed that the Trinity is monotheistic, just as it makes perfect sense to the LDS that Jesus is Jehovah but is a different God than his Father. But Abrahamic critics who don't agree with the theology find both to be very, very silly, and my point in describing a similarity between the Mormon/Christian debate and other debates in Abrahamism isn't to go, "I'm now lumping Mormons in with Muslims and Jews in a whole Stew of Pure Evil," but to argue that the way that different sects define who YHWH is is extremely important to their self-understanding, and they often don't accept the arguments of other Abrahamic groups about how their view of God is Totally 100% Certainly What Abraham Believed Personally even when they're really, really insistent about it.
I'm sure there are some critics of Mormonism who believe the LDS church teaches that Jesus wasn't considered divine in the Old Testament or doesn't worship him, but I couldn't be numbered among them. When I said that the LDS doesn't attribute to Jesus "absolute divinity," I meant just that: he's not considered the Absolute in a philosophical sense. But the greater problem for Nicene Christians is that LDS theology is, at best, undecided on the issue of whether even the Father is the Absolute. This is really, really, really, really, really important for Nicene Christians, especially intellectual Christians who are committed classical theists and believe that being Absolute is what makes God worthy of worship.
Sure there are some divergent ideas about what heaven looks like but isn’t that a bit… academic?
I guess this takes the view that the eschatological promises of religions are mostly academic, but it's exactly the view of the sort of people who have strong opinions in this debate that it isn't academic, that it's actually a matter not only of life and death, but actually of eternal conscious torment in a literal lake of fire or not. Again, if we're looking for a religious studies or sociological answer, obviously Mormons are Christians. If you note carefully I'm not actually arguing against that point!
Muslims specifically reject Jesus as having a special role altogether
I mean, if we want to talk about inaccurate views of world religions -- this is certainly false. Muslims typically call Jesus of Nazareth Isa, and they believe he's quite important, one of the prophets, actually the penultimate prophet before Muhammed, the Messiah, and like Christians they believe he will personally return at the end of time to rule the world. They disagree that he's divine or God's son, certainly, and believe that Christianity has corrupted his message, but he absolutely has a special role in Islam.
Not only he but his mother Mary appears in the Quran in a prominent role -- she's the only woman named in the entire book, and is considered the most exalted woman ever, and most Muslims, like Catholics, believe she was a perpetual virgin. It's kind of funny: Mary is more important in Islam than she is in many forms of evangelical Protestantism!
We even use the same key phrase that Catholics and many other Christian churches require to mutually recognize baptism.
My understanding is that the LDS church doesn't recognize Catholic and Protestant (or Orthodox) baptisms as valid, because they're not performed with priesthood authority. So it seems kind of rich, almost like special pleading, to say "we use the key phrase that you require to mutually recognize baptism, so you should accept us, but also we don't recognize your baptisms." Why should the Catholic Church accept your baptisms if you won't accept theirs? Are we going to have to get into a "are Catholic priests, priests?" debate, too? Or can we agree to disagree, and not accuse each other of bigotry for standing firm on our convictions in good faith?
If we come away somewhat "dissatisfied" with the other, I actually consider that a win -- we disagree, and if we understand each other well, we won't find the other's perspective satisfying in its entirety. Dissatisfaction is what disagreement feels like. But you should note that my goal is always to be fair to LDS beliefs -- I don't always get it right, but my goal is not stereotyping, but trying to lay down the differences as I understand them. I suppose I have a big difference of opinion with Joseph Smith, and I think contention is good, actually: "there have to be schisms among you to show which of you have God’s approval." (1 Cor 11:19)
Especially when traditional Judaism doesn’t even stress a concept of Heaven and Muslims specifically reject Jesus as having a special role altogether, so when people lump us in with them it feels even more strange and absurd.
I wouldn't say I'm "lumping [Mormons] in with Jews and Muslims" -- I'm simply stating that many Nicene Christians believe that the differences between their beliefs about God and LDS beliefs about God are similar in scope. Early Christians also found it strange and absurd that Jewish synagogues were dismissive of their rather intense claims about Jesus. Religions disagree. The world contines to turn.
And even more so when you consider that the internal model one has of the true nature of God debate has, in practical terms, almost zero outward manifestation... And it’s not like if you talk to a regular Christian about the nature of God, they won’t say something that violates the Nicene Creed is a not insignificant number of cases in pretty short order.
Sure, normies are poorly catechized. But I'm not particularly interested in judging a religion by its least informed members. I actually find that helpful in being charitable -- there's a tremendous amount of evil, evil people in the world, and in every religious institution, and I'm not competent to judge souls. I'm mostly interested in evaluating religions by their ideas, ideals, and sacred beliefs than I am in trying to figure out what average people are like. Tenaz tells me that the "Saint" in "Latter-Day Saints" is aspirational -- I want to know what the Saints are like, and what they believe, not what Joe Schmoe in Nauvoo thinks the LDS believe, or what Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary, or Mary in Old Saint Louie thinks the Pope teaches about the Eucharist. But I understand this grates somewhat against the way the LDS church approaches evangelization and faith in general.
Celestial-body-NOS
Supra tumulum tuum, astra nobis.
2hr ago
Uh, phrasing?
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
2hr ago
I mean, it largely comes down to just realizing that the "Doesn't completely fuck up your entire life" use case for credit cards is narrow, and the "Completely fucks up your entire life" use case for credit cards is unbounded.
But it's not. 82% of American adults use credit cards. More than half didn't even carry a balance.
You hear stories all the time of people having to put essential home repairs like a water heater or an HVAC system on a credit card because that's all they had. And yet, I have literally never heard that story end with "And then next month I scrounged up the money to pay it off".
There's no story if that happens.
yunyun333
2hr ago
The beard issue is silly ;what's more concerning is Hegseth saying that rules of engagement are for pussies. He advocated for trump to pardon men like eddie gallagher and the blackwater operators at nisour square. At least for now the military is limited to blowing up narco boats and standing around federal buildings.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
2hr ago
The day before I went to move out to an apartment for the first time, my credit union creatively applied charges and deposits to drop me into the negatives, then charged me $35 per transaction. They functionally stole $1500 from me, and then raided my mother's and sister's accounts when mine ran out. Then stonewalled, insisting that there was just nothing they could do about it before I had to leave to be two hours away at college, now broke.
When I set up my daughter with her first account, I went on a very nasty rant about overdraft protection, right in front of the banker lady, until we clarified 10 different times that there was absolutely no overdraft "protections" set for her account.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
2hr ago
It makes me think a lot about how the bar has risen to meet some minimum standard to meaningfully navigate society.
Future shock is already here. The number of people who freak out at being asked to send an email is disturbingly high.
I have never read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, but my closest friend once described it as being at least partially about the transition from pre-Modern society, where everything a man might encounter was basically comprehensible, to Modern society, where a stroll down the road would reveal behemoths of concrete and steel and chained lightning that the average man could not hope to understand well enough to effect repairs on.
This is incredibly stark with cell phones. How many of us here have ever repaired a cell phone? Have you ever tried to coax, say, an elderly Chinese man though a non-standard use of their phone, with all the text in Mandarin? It is sufficiently advanced technology, and it is indistinguishable from magic.
Tenaz
2hr ago
That 60 IQ person's belief system is both creedal Christian and Mormon. I contend that this "minimum viable Christianity" is in fact the definition you should be using. If a person can be fairly described as Christian, then their belief system can (outside of irrelevant edge cases, such as when identifying someone based on what they used to be before cognitive decline) be fairly described as Christian. Thus, it is not necessary to believe in the Nicene Creed to be Christian, nor do those who believe in a belief system that lacks such creeds believe in some other non-Christian belief system.
This is why I said "I don't think ideas exist outside of people's heads". If Christianity is a belief system, then nobody besides God himself believes in it. Every single human's individual beliefs will, to some extent, in some (possibly insignificant) particular, deviate from the true belief system to something adjacent and nigh-identical. Is someone Christian if they are Christian in every respect but think that putting a star on the Christmas tree is a commandment? Yes, of course. And if we want words to have useful meanings, then their belief system is still Christianity.
Do the ignorant majority of Christians who fail to understand the Nicene Creed believe in something other than Christianity? Do they follow a different belief system, besides Christianity? I contend that they still do follow Christianity, and therefore the Nicene Creed, and the Trinity, are not core, essential parts of Christianity as a belief system. Nor for that matter is the LDS concept of the Godhead--we will still accept you as LDS so long as you are exercising faith in Christ. You still meaningfully follow the "LDS belief system" if your attempts to follow Christ are within the bounds of our organized religion.
Corvos
2hr ago
It’s interesting to me that this is exactly what certain reasoning LLMs will do. Not making any strong claims, just noting it.
Corvos
2hr ago
Kind of. All of these are serious beliefs that a huge number and I think an actual majority of Muslims hold. Being a Muslim and taking your tenets seriously pretty much requires this.
Likewise, if you are a serious non-self-contradicting Christian then you pretty much have to wage culture war on some fronts. That’s why it’s called a culture war - it’s a battle over whose culture can be expressed, when, and how, as well as a battle over whose culture dominates when there are clashes.
Iconochasm
2. Bootstrap the rest of the fucking omnipotence.
2hr ago
Unless you exaggerate greatly, Hassan sounds like he has quite a low IQ on top of his "schizophrenia". Mentally, he's close to an 8-10 year old White or Asian kid.
No, that's a fair and accurate recollection of his speech patterns. It's a bit odd to characterize him, unlike other mentally dysfunctional people I've met who did seem to be mentally aged 4 or 7. In mannerism, nothing about him codes as "childish", and that stream of free association comes quickly enough that it doesn't automatically flag him as stupid. But his thoughts seem constrained to a very narrow range that seems far more limited than even an 8 year old, like he's partially making up for an even more extreme limitation by sheer brute force of computational cycles, spending hours talking to himself about activities that most people here would cover in a few seconds.
And I've met plenty of other people like that (yes, disproportionately black), and they tend to be even more disordered than Hassan. People who will take ten pages of paperwork and spend 30 minutes going over it, sorting it, then confusing themselves, starting over, and repeating the cycle multiple times. Hassan at least usually has a clear sense of what he is doing and why, even if he's burning outrageous brain time on minor errands.
Mantergeistmann
2hr ago
As a civilian my impression of the military is that it is made up of mostly literal cuckolds, 4’10” fat latinas and idiots that had absolutely zero job prospects outside of what amounts to a government make-work program. They would certainly do well to start combatting that perception because I doubt I’m alone
Out of curiosity (I feel like that phrase requires a disclaimer that I do not mean it in any way sarcastically), do you distinguish between officers and enlisted? Or non-commissioned officers and grunts? Or different branches of the service?
hydroacetylene
2hr ago
I don't know, French, Spanish, German, Polish, Italian, and Greek food all seems pretty well regarded.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
2hr ago
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
2hr ago
I mean, it largely comes down to just realizing that the "Doesn't completely fuck up your entire life" use case for credit cards is narrow, and the "Completely fucks up your entire life" use case for credit cards is unbounded. In theory a credit card could cover an income or a savings gap. You hear stories all the time of people having to put essential home repairs like a water heater or an HVAC system on a credit card because that's all they had. And yet, I have literally never heard that story end with "And then next month I scrounged up the money to pay it off". The story always goes "And that's why 5 years later I have high 5 low 6 figures in credit card debt". It's almost as if, much as it would have sucked, they'd have been better off without hot water or without central air until they scrounged, picked up hours, did gigs or begged until they had the money.
But who knows, maybe that's my emergency savings privilege talking.
aqouta
2hr ago
I still have managed to amass almost six figures worth of savings in my checking account
Inflation is eating your lunch, you could at least have some of that in like Treasure notes so you're not losing money.
cjet79
2hr ago
Nobody I am aware of argues that 2A describes an inherent, inalienable and unconditional right.
I would say that the right to self defense is an inherent, inalienable, and unconditional right. And I'm definitely not alone in that belief.
The second amendment is just an offshoot of that right, as guns are one of the best tools for self defense.
Just like freedom of speech is mostly useless if the government says "you can say whatever you want, just not in a newspaper or online or anywhere we can see it".
EvanTh
2hr ago
What makes you think their voting requirements were closely associated with IQ?
hydroacetylene
3hr ago
my impression was that the large segments of the population who are wary of black people and the segments of non-black population who live in the US metro areas were two circles that do not overlap much.
Eh maybe. To start with, the black-hispanic... strong mutual dislike... dwarfs any other racial tensions in the US by the numbers, even if BLM shenanigans are more common in the media, and this is a mostly urban phenomenon. You're certainly correct that the blue tribe is less wary around black people but nice urban liberals are well aware that big crowds of blacks/majority black areas are not good news from a safety perspective. They won't say it out loud of course but they are aware of the general correlates of race and crime, even if they think 13/52 is exaggerated, blame racism rather than criminals, etc.
I would want to see them, of course, as a matter of due diligence. But I think for me "no credit score" is the highest possible credit score. Then again most things about the US feel slightly dystopian to me.
More options
Context Copy link