[-] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 1 points 3 months ago

Almost all of the Christian folklore surrounding Jesus can be directly tied to other myths that were common knowledge to Mediterranean people at the time.

Yeah I got the Mithra chainmail in my AOL account back in 1998 - I know the arguments.

But Christianity presents us with something very wild - it takes the Messianic tradition of Jews which was hitherto interpreted as being about creating an earthly Kingdom that conquers the world and incorporates the gentiles into Israel (or makes the gentiles servants of Israel, who all become noblemen living in a heaven on earth, some interpretations)... and Christ says

"Yeah, but no - the Kingdom is purely spiritual. It's not temporal. The gentiles join us by worshiping God with us and living these truths - look, this Roman occupier has more faith than all Israel, because you guys are just terrible. You bicker over the law, and miss the total point of the law..."

And the Messiah is now about conquering the world through spreading the Gospel of loving God, and loving your neighbor as yourself, giving up your possessions and conquering greed, freeing yourself from hypocrisy; living in simplicity and supreme virtue, at peace with those around you, practicing non-violence, and now we don't even need any kind of ceremonial laws at all because we are living the virtues. And that's how the world becomes part of Israel - by adopting the great things abotu our religion - and that's also how you get to heaven, which is only achievable after death when I come again...

This is a very unique interpretation of the Judaism of the time - absolutely revolutionary.

Even if you want to say that all the miracles and 'signs' are a myth, I think that the "Mithra" angle is actually bad beacuse you could just say they came up with those signs and added them so as to be able to claim they are fulfilling the Old Testament, which was infinitely more relevant to the Jews who were the community that gave birth to the religion.

Keep the faith, by all means. But part of believing is accepting that you don’t get to have proof.

Yeah I agree - there is no proof, and if there was proof, it would ruin it, because we'd no longer be doing good and loving God and our neighbor because it is right, but we would be doing it with the expectation of receiving heaven...

We would no longer be living a spiritual life for the good of oruselves and others - in hope & faith - but we would be Capitalists engaging in transactions that we deemed profitable.

[-] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 10 points 3 months ago

No, and that is to even be expected.

He was a prophet whose movement had around 120 or so core disciples along with his apostles, plus thousands who followed him about and considered him a healer and revolutionary teacher.

There are people who have done similar things that are completely lost to history other than small records that vaguely outline the controversy surrounding them... We shouldn't really expect more in terms of proof...

But what is unique is the fact that we have an extremely well preserved corpus of text surrounding him. We also have some good idea that a lot of his followers were prosecuted and killed, and never recanted in the process, which might incline you to believe in the radical truth that they lived by.

Of course I am biased - I am a Christian - but it really does just seem pointlessly antagonistic to dismiss His Existence at all.

[-] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 1 points 4 months ago

I actually think there's an argument to be made that a lot of top tier athletes are never doing things like their taxes prior to a big match. It's just really anticlimactic to say "My spouse/manager/dad does all my paperwork and handles my finances before a fight" than to say "I isolate myslf from my spouse and don't have any orgasms before a fight."

I also think that they would make the argument that they have plenty of impulse control and focus, it's just a matter of the extent to which one has it.

It's one thing to be a man who does not look at p0rn or masturb8 and only sleeps with his wife and another thing to be a monk.

[-] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 2 points 4 months ago

That is amazing - really good stuff. I will add that to my anecdotes on this topic.

[-] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 2 points 4 months ago

Nah man freedom of speech includes hate speech.

If "hate speech" must be banned, why even have a democracy..?

You have to have faith in the ability of people to discern right from wrong, and the very first test of that is whether people are going to be mentally hijacked by some guy saying the N word.

If you believe people can't do that... Why vote? You just support soft totalitarianism.

[-] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 2 points 4 months ago

But to be entirely fair to the guy's point:

Lots of top athletes have superstitions about abstaining from intercourse prior to events - some are very extreme, with fighters isolating themselves from their spouses and training for months without any release before their MMA fight/boxing match. Some say they do it for, say, just a week ahead of time, etc.

There are a few who have the opposite philosophy and claim to actually do it more in the week leading up to the fight.

It's really a massive point of contention because some people claim it is a mere superstition while others absolutely will not break their routine.

There is also the famous incident where Bobby Fisher says that he performed poorly at a tournament because he had sex after the first night and the experience totally removed him from his focus...

This might be why it impacts fighters and certain people whose lifting styles are really about maximized performance and not a routine... If concentration is interrupted, it can result in very poor output. Like I can see how someone who is very intense about what they are doing and requires total focus would be interrupted by any form of sexual distraction. This is probably very, very relevant to guys who are fighters...

This might also have to do with perspectives on sexuality - people who ascribe a lot of meaning to it versus those who do not...

Lots of stuff to consider, I think.

[-] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 2 points 4 months ago

Wonderful observation.

It's really our duty to be familiar with both sides and be ready to debate.

Of course, exception guy will be in the thread pointing out extreme edge cases in which we all agree that there is no alternative to the accepted opinion ("R*pe is bad, mmkay?")... But this is besides the point.

[-] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 9 points 4 months ago

Just amazing - the government literally going to bat for the sake of concert goers who demand hotel rooms.

Can't imagine working through drug addiction and getting clean enough to be given a hotel room, and then eagerly trying to find some form of employment to become stable, and then your case worker is like *What do you think about spending a few days in Aberdeen...? WIth the Taylor Swift concert and all... There's a need for this room for someone else..."

Lol what.

1

Some very cool stuff buried in the article:

Gazing at the turbulent, rain-swollen river, Esculier highlights what he sees as a curious paradox: as a society, we are spending energy on treating our nitrogen-rich wastewater and destroying reactive nitrogen, while also, spending energy on making synthetic nitrogen fertiliser (whose production and use account for around 2% to 5% of greenhouse gas emissions). Treatment facilities capture around 10% of nitrogen from our sewage to be spread on crops, while 50% goes into the air, he says - and the remainder, into the river. Given a greater Paris population of 10 million people, this means "nitrogen from four million people goes into the Seine every day".

If we used all the urine from greater Paris to fertilise wheat instead, it would be enough to produce more than 25 million baguettes a day," Esculier calculates.

Over the past decade, Esculier has tried to put some of those findings into practice, trialling ways to collect urine and use it as fertiliser. In its simplest form, he was familiar with this from his own family history: "One of my grandmothers used to tell her children to go and pee on the rhubarb," he says, which gave the plant a boost of natural fertiliser.

Under a research programme called Ocapi, which Esculier leads, he and his team have organised various pilot projects aimed at collecting urine in cities which is then used by farmers to fertilise their crops. In one project, 20 volunteers collect their own urine and bring it to a drop-off point, where a farmer then collects it, stores it and uses it as fertiliser.

Esculier hands me a packet of biscuits produced as part of the Ocapi project. As the label proudly states, the Biscodor (or "Golden Biscuits") are made with flour from "wheat cultivated with a fertiliser based on human urine". I put them in my bag, curious to see what my colleagues in London would think of them.

The idea of separating urine at source is attracting interest on a larger scale.

Saint-Vincent-de-Paul, a planned new neighbourhood in Paris in the grounds of an old hospital, will feature urine-separating toilets as part of a recycling pilot programme by the City of Paris.

"It's fairly rare in Paris to have a new neighbourhood, given that the city is essentially already built, so we don't have many opportunities to test these kinds of things," says Antoine Guillou, deputy mayor of Paris in charge of waste management, recycling and sanitation. He adds: "The idea is to test the separation of urine, and to see if it can be collected and used as fertiliser."

The new neighbourhood in Paris' 14th arrondissement will comprise around 600 households, "which is quite a considerable size for an experiment but is small compared to the whole of Paris", Guillou points out.

[-] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 2 points 5 months ago

It's great - scratches the itch, overall. I sometimes pine for places where major debates on a specific topic constantly rage - ideally, I'd be able to discuss religion whenever I wanted, skipping threads I felt I didn't want to wade into....

But it is a good enough replacement overall and I feel like we are proceeding to having such a size. I am also open to the idea that I have not curated enough to find a place where this si consistently happening in the Fediverse yet...

I was a fairly active member at Reddit with a good social standing, I made 1 “controversial” comment and I got perma-banned… this sucks.

There have been some controversies that have led to banning and banning of entire instances. Usually, this involves Lemmy instances that were tolerating a lot of blatant transphobic memes that cut deep and were very mean...

I get why people isolated them.

I am still worried, though, that there are people who would still react this way to good faith discussion where there are disagreements. While there are some places where that is for sure OK, I think there are some instances that might react so negatively as to want to ban a specific user or their instance over it. I may be overreacting but IDK.

[-] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 11 points 5 months ago

... As a Christian, I approve.

The idea that the government should run off of some merciless view that the principles of free market capitalism dictate who eats and who doesn't is completely bizarre.

I have nothing against capitalist Christians who think that the principles of capitalism are generally fine and that, otherwise, we have an obligation as Christians to feed the poor and it just so happens to not be the role of government, but any explicitly Christian state has to feed the poor.

[-] Lovstuhagen@hilariouschaos.com 1 points 6 months ago

It does exist here.

I opposed its legalization... but supported its existence in practice. In fact, I need its existence... Medical technology has created a lot of complicated situations because we have the ability to keep people alive to carry on in suffering even when there is no hope of recovery.

It is the unspoken duty of a modern doctor to deliver a coup de grace when this point has been reached - I think even without asking permission. The old Greek or Mexican lady with a cross around her neck and the Priest coming to visit her and deliver communion can never assent to be euthanized.... She needs her doctor to read the situation and to send her off when recovery is impossible and only suffering remains.

When we make it a process that requires her consent & signature, we deny her a peaceful death...

And, when we legalize it, we open the door to some upsetting things, like the euthanization of people for merely mental health conditions. There's something profoundly ugly & disturbing about someone in their 20s being put to death by a doctor for their mental anguish. Yes, mental suffering is very real, and it should absolutely be addressed... But, just like in the case of prostitution, it is just not something the state can set a moral precedent of approving of it when it happens.

view more: next ›

Lovstuhagen

joined 9 months ago