domain:savenshine.com
Every Catholic I have asked in person has said some variation of this.
I think non Catholics have a really difficult time modeling the way that Catholics actually think about stuff.
Relatedly, there was a poster here who once explained that the main rationale for the separation of church and state was not to improve governance of the state, but to protect the church from the corrupting influence of power. Blew my mind at the time but makes total sense now.
For context, I am a cradle Coptic Orthodox in Canada.
This is the disconnect. I’m talking about the Eastern Orthodox communion, not the Oriental Orthodox communion. They have very different tenors and cultures, and the Eastern Orthodox church in the United States is having a bit of a moment right now where it’s expanding massively due to conversions from Protestantism, and more rarely Roman Catholicism. For what it’s worth, I’ve always found the Coptic Orthodox to be pious, humble, and friendly, both online and in person. (And St. Mark Coptic Orthodox church in Toronto is one of the most beautiful churches I've ever seen photos of!)
This is quite funny since your name is Pigeon.
Honestly, your experience doesn't match mine at all. For context, I am a cradle Coptic Orthodox in Canada. From my experience, most converts are either converts through marriage or through outreach on the part of Orthodox parishioners. Maybe its because Canada is more catholic, but I do not think I have ever seen a, as you say, "intellectual, introverted, evangelical, college-educated man" convert.
You characterize Orthodox parishioners as "odd" or "hippies", and priests as "intellectuals". This does not match my experience at all. Are there one or two crackpots? Sure, but what organization doesn't? The vast majority of parishioners where I'm from are perfectly normal members of society. The young people in Orthodox churches are even more approachable; they go to the same universities, work the same jobs, go to the same parties, do the same things for fun. The priests are nice, welcoming, and secularly educated. I feel that you've approached orthodoxy from an intellectual paradigm, and that's coloured your perception of the orthodox community. From my perspective, most Orthodox are normal western people, who just happen to be Orthodox. The median introduction to Orthodoxy is from an average young adult introducing their partner/friends to the Church, who play up the history and "connectedness" of the church to society and history in general.
You've mentioned that Orthodox communities seem like social clubs. I'd like to point out that it seems like that because Orthodox churches in the homeland actually are social clubs. They basically operate as NGOs that offer social services, and act as community centers.
Also, you've mentioned that joining an Orthodox church often feels like you're giving up your own culture. Sadly, I agree. Preferably, an indigenous Orthodox Church of America would be established that represents the culture, history and ethos of America. Unfortunately, establishing such a church is a centuries endeavor.
Hmm you make it sound so nice, but idk man. I still have a lot of trouble squaring the religious proscription toward monogamy with casual sex with an extramarital partner.
A true "classical liberal" would treat his ideas the same way he treats everyone else's, as hypotheses to be tested against reality. "Academic freedom" sounds good and all, but what happens when it's implemented in real-world universities? As the "classical liberals" freely admit, the results are often not stellar. So what's their solution? Doesn't seem they have one. Referring to DeSantis's takeover of the New College of Florida, Jonathan Haidt wrote that, "I am horrified that a governor has simply decided, on his own, to radically change a college. Even if this is legal, it is unethical, and it is a very bad precedent and omen for our country."[2] Haidt seems to object not to the specifics of what DeSantis did, but to the notion that any radical changes could be made to even a single college unless they're driven from within the academic caste. There's nothing "classically liberal" about the notion that an institution is entitled to receive money from the taxpayer while not being accountable to said taxpayers' elected representatives. But that's the "classical liberal" brain-worm.
I’m not convinced that “academic freedom” failed. We had university-like institutions across the globe for millennia. The philosophy schools of Greece, the Confucian schools, medieval universities. Even in modern times, it’s possible to have universities without them becoming captured. How many woke professors are there in Korean universities? Or Mexican universities? It doesn’t appear that this is universally true of universities with academic freedom. In fact, for most of history, colleges were not especially woke.
On the other hand, in America, universities have two direct lines to power. First, their research directly affects public policy as government cites research and the professors who do it. This means that any ideology injected into universities will eventually be reflected in government policy. Second is that the press will cite these things often without criticism, thus injecting the ideas directly into the veins of culture. Both of these things make American universities ideal for ideological purposes. It’s an easy way to get your ideas to be accepted as received wisdom by the masses whether or not they happen to be true.
What would be the ideal solution is to not use colleges as the source of knowledge and government policy. If you no longer have direct access to the ear of the king, the position no longer is useful for pushing ideology. If journalists investigated beyond just quoting the first professor they come across, again, it’s not useful to push ideology. At that point, the academy goes back to being a place where you do dispassionate research and teach students how to think for themselves.
This says something important about communication of conservative ideologies, though I'm not entirely sure what, and perhaps says even more about the terribleness of ideologies that are able to win within the attention economy.
I think the problem is that the attention economies cater to what people want to hear, instead of what they need to hear.
Does China even have much IP to steal? The key to their success primarily seems to be 'maximize inputs (skilled labour, R&D talent, state support) and throughput efficiency (massive industrial scale, quick manufacturing/prototyping stage, cheap energy)' rather than 'discover special secrets that let you achieve qualitatively higher quality products'.
The US knows the 'secrets' of building the Three Gorges Dam or Huawei or BYD. You just need a huge amount of concrete and construction workforce and the freedom to move whole cities out of the flooded areas. Or you just need a huge, clever, motivated workforce, cheap energy and well-targeted long-term state support. The US has versions of Huawei/BYD in the Magnificent Seven but struggles at the cost-efficiency stage due to lacking the needed inputs at the necessary scale.
China State Shipbuilding Corporation is just worlds ahead of the US, you'd need a Meiji Revolution to match them there, the necessary inputs just don't exist in America. There's no secret - big shipyards go brrr and produce a third of the world's ships... but replicating it is quite impossible for the US.
I heard it was a Mirage 2000...
Ha! One more for the list then. It's still possible that no aircraft was shot down at all, too.
Hypothetically, if India were to blow its hot nuclear load on Pakistan—in which case, as you mentioned, it would likely suffer the worst disaster in history—would India then have the (nuclear or conventional) wherewithal to prevent, say, a Chinese invasion of the contested northeastern borderlands? Or other violations of its territorial integrity?
If not, this may be reason enough for India not to pursue escalation to nuclear war, even if a nuclear exchange with Pakistan would technically be survivable.
If she's having fun with the new hot guy but didn't think you'd find a possible replacement for her
Sure, but now you're into the "this is just cheating with extra steps" failure mode.
Note that this is a failure mode because "being poly" is being used as a weapon/to get one over on the original partner and not actually in that partner's best interest at all. But then again, it's that [attitude], and not necessarily the object-level, killing the relationship; other than shits and giggles/not actually liking the partner I don't understand why anyone would do this.
I suspect many of the early outspoken advocates for polyamory were asexuals (or at least people with atypically low sex drives) who were inadvertently typical-minding the more conventionally-sex-driven people in their vicinity, assuming that - "well, if I could easily overcome my (vastly lower than typical, if not nonexistent) romantic/sexual jealousy, why can't everyone else?
You aren't the only one who has come to that conclusion.
I still believe this, for that matter, especially that last part about "if you're doing this, please just shut the fuck up and enjoy the sex, you're scaring the normies with your Ace Pride". Not having a strong emotional response to this stuff can be an absurdly powerful relationship tool, but incredibly destructive if paired with a personality type given to using that as a weapon (normies, predators) or as a means to go 'lol, I'm smarter than u'.
maybe if you literally don't feel at all jealous when thinking about your girlfriend getting railed by another man, it might mean that you don't actually love her as much as you claim to? Just a thought
The implication that I'm still invited in that case would be doing a lot of the heavy lifting; but there are relatively specific/unlikely circumstances that would need to be fulfilled for that to occur (and "fucking some random dude for basically no other reason" does not qualify).
I wouldn't say they're angling for nuclear war, exactly, but I do think they believe they'd win one if it came to it. The political situation in both countries makes it very unlikely that either will back down, not this early in the conflict at any rate. India's Hindu-nationalist government absolutely cannot be seen to take a targeted anti-Hindu terror attack lying down, and has been putting out a lot of rhetoric about national strength (think of the "India superpower by 20XX" memes). At the same time, their chosen method of retaliation was quite restrained, and optimized for the appearance of strength: it was flashy and geographically-expansive but does not appear to have actually caused much damage. So it can satisfy the voters' need for blood while also giving Pakistan every opportunity to still back down. The Pakistani government, for its part, has been through a lot of internal turmoil in recent years and, on top of the general autocratic impulse/need to look strong for the audience at home, would surely appreciate a chance to rally the public against their hated foreign enemy as a simple distraction. It is possible that Pakistani intelligence encouraged, or even orchestrated, the Kashmir terrorist attack as a deniable means of starting a conflict -- but even if they didn't the government will not be too broken up about the situation.
It is difficult for me to see either side backing down absent some sort of externally-brokered peace talks (which don't look very likely, at least not yet). But it doesn't need a conspiracy to cause a larger war, just good old-fashioned power politics, and there are many steps of escalation for the two sides to go through without resorting to nuclear weapons. Both sides seem confident that they can beat the other in a conventional, limited war. If that confidence holds on both sides then escalation is likely, since both sides know the other is willing to fight without breaking out the nukes.
I heard it was a Mirage 2000...
But agree 200% on the importance of skepticism at this point in the conflict.
IDK, that would be really out of character for them, an that alone might be a problem, irrespective of how bad that joke really is. Trump has been "unserious" from the start, so he can do it.
I don't see how bisexuality changes that. If you're a woman with two bisexual boyfriends, how does being interested in other women affect whether you're "by definition not invited" to M/M sex? Without adding a girlfriend you're not having sex with women either way. Bisexuality isn't required for a woman to be interested in two men having sex, as seen by (for instance) the market for yaoi.
The holy spirit is in all of us, so is it really wrong for trump to call himself god?
- The Holy Spirit only indwells within Christians; in Catholicism this is mediated by being in a state of grace, which by all appearances Trump is not.
- Yes.
Yes, this is very true. I personally know people like this. Typically there's the belief that he was a philanderer and a cheat, but had a conversion experience.
I guess it's just the vain hope that someone, anyone, will stand up for their belief system in the public square. I believe Trump's views on Israel have also influenced this -- it's hard to overstate how much a large segment of American evangelicals are passionate about the state of Israel and believe defending it to be essential for the fulfillment of Biblical prophesy. The only way I can explain it to non-evangelicals is to say that they view Israel with the same quasi-cultic fervor as many Catholics view Fatima: this is the revelation of the end-times!!!!!
So when Trump moves the embassy to Jerusalem, it's seen as a statement of affiliation with Biblical prophesy.
Why are you recommending extramarital sex right after invoking your religious affiliation?
If anything, joking about becoming the Pope is, in my mind, a positive in that it places the papacy as a position of value.
Yeah, this is exactly how I felt about what Trump meant by it -- "Man, wouldn't it be great if I were Pope! Look how cool the Pope looks!"
UPDATE Multiple Pakistani news outlets claim that Pakistan has shot down two Indian Rafael fighter jets. Some Indian news agencies are now reporting that a jet was downed.
I would caution against taking these early rumors too seriously. Propaganda claims and people just plain being wrong on the internet run wild in the early phases of anything like this. It is undoubtedly true that the Pakistani army is firing artillery across the border and that skirmishes are happening between the two sides in Kashmir, but the organized Pakistani retaliation has almost certainly not started yet. Their national security council was summoned this morning (that's morning their time, as in, just a few hours ago at most) for a closed door meeting and has not yet made public statements declaring or claiming a response (other than the vague ones I highlighted in my previous post).
For the shootdown claim specifically I am skeptical. In the initial Indian attack their jets used long-range weapons and did not cross into Pakistani airspace, making an interception of those jets unlikely. Any subsequent shootdown would have to be from further Indian attacks into Pakistan, which do not appear to have happened; as part of Pakistani air raids into India, which also do not appear to have happened yet and would more likely be part of a more organized retaliation operation which, again, has not yet happened; or from air-to-air combat over Kashmir which certainly could be happening, but would be a big deal compared to the usual (and confirmed) infantry skirmishes and artillery duels. I have seen this claim as "2 Indian Rafales shot down", "1 Indian MiG shot down", and "1 Pakistani JF-17 shot down". We don't yet know if any of these various claims are true.
I will say I am particularly skeptical of the specific double-Rafale-shootdown claim. These would be brand-new jets for India; they would both be relatively difficult to bring down and, more importantly, would almost certainly not be used in a high-risk situation this early into a conflict. It would be a pretty big deal if they were, and frankly it smacks of war-fever propaganda to me: "yeah, they hit us with some missiles, but we took down two of their best jets! Pakistan (still) strong!" Not to say it's impossible of course but both sides' media have incentive to lie about this kind of stuff, and a history of doing so.
We will know more soon.
Are you Catholic? And if so: were you raised by and around other Catholics?
Being offended by this seems really forced to me. I wonder if the people taking offense just come from a different culture?
More options
Context Copy link