domain:preview.redd.it
BahRamYou
3d ago
It's weird to me how the Mormons seem like the most boring, steadfast, buttoned-down, no-nonsense of all religious groups in the way they act. And yet their actual religious dogma seems like one of the craziest. Sure, just dial up their direct hotline to god whenever they need an update on current political issues, that makes sense...
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
3d ago
Which I found particularly hilarious because once you take the idea of a separate revelation of Jesus to North America seriously, the possibility of a separate revelation to Africa of the type that Elder Cunningham appears to deliver is entirely plausible at a theological level. "One with the people of Africa" indeed.
Mormons are to Christians as Christians are to Jews. They have what might be described as a Newer Testament, which they see as a subsequent revelation to the Christian one, which is, you guessed it, now also closed.
Actually, the Mormons make a big deal about having a living prophet, who can receive new revelation as needed. This has come in handy a couple of times when political considerations have forced the church to update its doctrine in a hurry, such as in 1890 when they stopped practicing polygamy in order for Utah to join the Union, or in 1978 when God changed his mind about black people.
hydroacetylene
3d ago
He thinks he's purging the military of Mohammedans, possibly.
OliveTapenade
3d ago
I'm pretty sure I grew out of, "Joke's on you, I was only pretending to be stupid!" when I was in primary school, yes.
But who knows, maybe there will be something surprising down the line. I suppose we will see.
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
3d ago
Basic argument: Victorians had faster reaction times than moderns. Reaction time (which is known to be about 20% correlated with IQ at an individual level) may be a better measure of true population-level g if the Flynn effect (rising population-average IQ test scores over time) is driven by education and not g. If you convert the average Victorian reaction time into an IQ based on the modern reaction time-IQ curve, you get 108. And a 8 IQ-point drop in genetic g is consistent with what you would predict based on dysgenic fertility over the intervening 150 years.
Counterpoint - why do we think that "ability to function in modern society" is better measured by reaction time than performance on IQ tests? All the work which validates the IQ-functionality correlation uses test scores and not reaction time.
OliveTapenade
3d ago
I think you're muddling two things here. With the good thief, the question you asked was, "is he a Christian?" With the 60 IQ believer, the question you ask is, "Is that belief system Christianity?" Those are different types of question, and their answers don't necessarily always correlate. In almost all real cases they will, but I can imagine scenarios where they do not.
(One example might be someone in a coma or someone who has suffered significant age-related cognitive decline and is no longer capable of understanding or of holding propositional belief. Can such a person be a Christian? I'm inclined to say yes. On the other end of things, we can imagine a person who believes that all of a particular mass of Christian doctrine is true, but who, notwithstanding, renounces any kind of loyalty or obedience towards God, and in fact hates God. Satan is presumably such a figure - aware of all the facts of Christian doctrine, but nonetheless not a Christian himself.)
I'll also note that even granting that this 60 IQ individual is both a Christian (he is, to the best of his ability, seeking to know, love, and follow Christ) and a Mormon (he is likewise attempting to conform to Mormon doctrine and practice as best he can), it does not therefore follow that Mormonism is a form of Christianity. "If someone can be both a practicing Christian and a practicing Mormon, then Mormonism is a form of Christianity" seems like a mistake. For a counterexample, as I understand it, Mormons are religiously required to be teetotallers. It is obviously possible to be both a practicing teetotaller and a practicing Mormon. Would you say that Mormonism is a form of teetotalling? Or we can go past that - Mormons are not required to be vegetarians, but it is certainly possible to be both a practicing vegetarian and a practicing Mormon. It is possible to be both a practicing socialist and a practicing Mormon. That it is possible to be something else alongside a Mormon does not show that Mormonism is a form of that something else.
In this particular case, the argument would be that the Mormon understandings of who Christ is and who God is are sufficiently different to the Christian understandings of the same that it is misleading to describe them as instances of the same belief. It is possible to combine the two - that is, to believe in Christ in the Christian sense, and to believe in Christ in the Mormon sense - only through conceptual confusion. Our poor 60 IQ believer might be, through no failure of his own, one such case.
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
3d ago
Definitely before 2020 for Apple.
DirtyWaterHotDog
3d ago
Clean-shaven privates just look better
yea
MadMonzer
Epstein Files must have done something really awful for so many libs to want him released.
3d ago
It's also an argument that no one has made in the 20 years since banks went further than the progressives asked them to and started writing mortgages to people who couldn't pay them off if they lived to be a million, then repackaged them as AAA securities.
Not quite no-one. Kochtopus-funded economist Kevin Erdmann has been arguing for over a decade that a huge part of what is wrong with the post-Great Recession economy is that post-crisis regulations on mortgages have destroyed the bottom half of the owner-occupied housing market for no good reason. Erdmann and Scott Sumner have successfully convinced me that their contrarian theory of the 2008 crisis is probably correct:
- Pre-2006, rents and prices in a number of cities with restrictive zoning, and in particular greater LA, increased faster than incomes because of a housing shortage. This wasn't a bubble, it was supply and demand.
- There was a bubble in the "Contagion cities" like Las Vegas, driven by people migrating out of California for cheaper housing, creating a temporary surge in demand which local supply couldn't keep up with in the short term. But that would have resolved itself spontaneously as supply caught up with demand.
- The national picture looked sufficiently like a housing bubble that the Fed decided to raise interest rates until the bubble burst.
- Because there wasn't a bubble, this meant raising interest rates high enough to cause a recession.
- The 2008 banking crisis was caused mostly by the recession, and only secondarily by poor lending practices. Subprime was never large enough to cause the bank losses we saw.
- The Fed doesn't cut rates fast enough once it is clear we are in a recession and a financial crisis because they don't want to be seen as bailing out irresponsible bankers and homeowners.
- For 4-5 years after 2008, the main way low interest rates stimulate the economy (by encouraging housebuilding) doesn't work because it is illegal to build in HCOL cities and post-crisis regulations mean nobody can get a mortgage in LCOL cities.
Okay, I get this. So the fundamental delusions (the police want to hurt me / nobody's protecting these children / the CIA is watching everyone) are still there, just toned down and without the madder edges. They don't think, 'I was crazy before and now I'm sane', they think, 'I was basically right before, probably I was overreacting a bit but I'm better now'.
OliveTapenade
3d ago
One could argue, actually, that 1 Corinthians 1:12 condemns the name 'Christian', at least implicitly. The word 'Christian' suggests the party of Christ, as it were, over against other parties or factions, and Paul expressly condemns people quarrelling and identifying themselves as belonging to Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or Christ.
The endonyms that we hear for early believers in the New Testament are terms like 'the believers', 'the brothers', 'the saints', 'the disciples', and so on. These are not terms that would be used by outsiders, or which might lead to confusion.
(I believe that the most common term the Qur'an uses for Muslims is not in fact Muslim, but mu'min, from iman, faith, and means 'believer' or 'faithful'. If Christians and Muslims both publicly called themselves the Believers, it would be unnecessarily confusing.)
OliveTapenade
3d ago
All right, fair point. If a person intends to attack Christians, and attacks a group based on his perception that that group is Christian, then it is an anti-Christian attack regardless of whether or not the group is actually Christian.
I suppose a more obvious example of that principle is when people attack Sikhs in the mistaken belief that they are Muslims.
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
3d ago
You’re entitled to your spirituality, but “I tell you comforting things I don’t really believe if it helps you feel better” is a point that’s pretty incompatible with truth, and truth-seeking. I respect sincere atheism more than I respect therapeutic moralism that decides what is true based on what feels good.
I also am guessing I was correct in arguing you’re mainline, or at least come from a more modernist/liberal theological tradition.
I’m not sure we’re going to see eye to eye. That’s fine. But I strongly disagree that the point of religion, or irreligion, or ideas in general, is to make people feel good and not cause harm — sometimes the truth hurts, and that’s good! Living in accordance with truth is the highest duty of man, even if it hurts.
OliveTapenade
3d ago
Yes, this is correct, and for all that I have been drawn into a long (and genuinely interesting!) discussion about whether Mormonism is a form of Christianity below this, I want to remember that the context of a shooting is not the appropriate place for that dispute.
I think I'm safe having it here, because this isn't a public space, but if I were a public figure or if I were local to the victims, I would not be bring it up out of the blue, and I think it was inappropriate for Trump to.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
3d ago
An instant classic in the PvC (player versus camera) genre.
TitaniumButterfly
3d ago
That said there are some (dubious) estimates that the average Anglo IQ in the Victorian era may have been as high as 108
Wild. Where can I find out more?
quiet_NaN
3d ago
Certain rights are (imho) inherent and inalienable. For example, no matter if your IQ is 150 or 50, if you are age 1 or 120, you have (imho) a right not to be tortured.
Other rights are more conditional, some to the point where they might be considered privileges. Often these are rights which come with responsibilities. Driving a car on a public road would be a prime example: because cars are vastly more dangerous to the general public than bicycles, you generally need a license to drive them. It is still kind-of a right in that you typically have a right to try to get your license, and most governments can not deny it just because they dislike your skin color or something.
Nobody I am aware of argues that 2A describes an inherent, inalienable and unconditional right. Even the NRA will not arm toddlers. The absolute minimum to me seems to be that the gun owner will be generally found to be responsible for their own actions, which Hassan would fail. (Even if someone was generally of sound mind but had periodic episodes of diminished culpability, e.g. due to binge drinking, the decision to own a firearm would make me very unsympathetic towards a defendant who was accused of shooting someone under influence.)
Even if Hassan would never shoot anyone, it seems to me that he will get into situations where him being visibly armed would increase the stakes tremendously. A possibly deranged person mumbling to himself on the sidewalk is only a nuisance in many situations. Give him a gun belt, and that assessment changes completely. From my understanding, NJ does not allow any open carry, so this might be a practical issue. (Of course, NJ also requires a license for concealed carry, which he is unlikely to get. I am not sure how well "if you carry a gun bought in the Carolinas in NJ you are breaking the law" conversation would go, though.)
The cops which did the welfare check on him seem mostly chill from your description, but I would assume that they would be a lot less chill if they had a reasonable suspicion that he was packing.
Taking advantage of the gun show loophole requires considerable agency. You have to save up enough cash, find a show, find a way to travel there (presumably he is not driving a car?). Knowing how to ride a bus without conveying to the guy in the next seat that you are (1) mentally unsound and (2) on you way to buy a gun would be helpful as well.
Even sane people will sometimes voice aspirations which they will not follow through, from visiting far-away countries to quitting their jobs. "I am gonna go to NC to buy a gun there, for self-defense, youknow" could be just such a thing. Of course, if he is telling you he already found a gun show and transportation, that would seem a lot more concrete.
One flaw about modern bureaucracies is that sometimes there is nobody in the loop who has the authority (and balls) to pull the brakes and stop doing something counter-productive. If you tell the authorities that he has ideations about gun ownership, the default response would be him getting visited by cops who give him another talk. Given that this will be perceived as "gay cops are oogling me again", this will likely be counter-productive.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
3d ago
You can't be preyed upon with tricky overdraft fees because if you don't have the money, you simply can't spend it.
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.
That aside credit cards do have other advantages. They aren't insurmountable but do exist.
- A business which expects you might have incidental charges (say, a hotel which offers room service billed to the room) will put a massive hold on your card if you use a debit card, because they can't be sure they will be paid otherwise. Was quite a shock to me when I was traveling at 20 and found I had no money in my checking account after I checked in to the hotel. This can generally be worked around by getting the hotel to remove the ability to bill those things to the room, but a credit card is easier.
- While both credit cards and debit cards will work with you to return fraudulent charges or things you dispute with a merchant, when you use a debit card you are out real actual money until it gets resolved. With a credit card it's just a pending charge on your account, for which I don't believe you even pay interest. So you don't really lose out on the use of that money as the process resolves.
- Credit cards do have rewards in the US (though I'm told not in European countries). These can be, but aren't always, profitable for you if you take advantage of all of them. The credit card company is banking on you not taking advantage, but if you can (and have the discipline to follow through) it's a good deal.
- You do in fact need a credit history, at least here in the US. Even bad credit is often reckoned to be better than no credit. Having a credit card and paying off the balance establishes that credit history (though it isn't the only way).
So there are rational reasons to use a credit card. You don't have to, but they can be beneficial if you can avoid the trap of spending money you don't have.
samiam
3d ago
The larger context of your post was that the Bible is not reliable, the existence of Jesus is flimsy, and historic Christian creeds are not reliable.
Actually, I believe in two levels of standards of evidence:
-
I believe in a low bar of evidence when giving people emotional support and guidance. The Bible is reliable in so much as it gives me comfort or allows me to make a point which emotionally comforts someone.
-
I believe in a very high bar of evidence when the Bible is used as a hammer to make one feel superior to another person. If someone is going to use the Bible to say something like, for example, that Mormons are all going to Hell, I’m going to bring out the point that the Bible is so unreliable, we can’t even be sure Jesus existed. [1]
The Catholics believe the Bible is inspired and not inerrant, and it makes a lot more sense to see it as an inspired book. When we make the Bible inerrant, not only do we have to embrace things like young earth creationism, we also have to believe things like Jesus cleared the temple twice (John 2:15 vs. Matthew 21:12-13/Mark 11:15-17/Luke 19:45-48).
[1] I do believe in Jesus’s existence, and that he was God, but I don’t let those beliefs get in the way of the connection I have with my very close friends who are Muslim. Indeed, I do Muslim prayers with them and give them spiritual comfort.
Pongalh
3d ago
Once in a while The Motte ditches culture war and sounds admirably left populist...
In practice, there is not a generally available 'gun show loophole'. It's possible that you, enterprising prohibited person, will find a vendor not covered by background check requirements at a gun show, but it's not very likely.
More options
Context Copy link