I’ll bite. I’ve been reading about the first two hundred years of christianity for the past couple of years. Here’s my canned take that I got tired of retyping:
Jesus is an ahistorical figure who was originally crucified in the firmament above the earth. Notice no mention of an earthly ministry in the Pailine epistles; Paul is arguing for salvation from a heavenly figure. In his letters, Jesus is still to be revealed, rather than returning. Only decades later did the stories about a human man get written.
The Didache was most likely part of the letter written by the "pillars in Jerusalem" (James the Just, Peter, and John) after their meeting with Paul. This was the meeting to discuss the matter of preaching to gentiles and whether circumcision ought to be required for christian converts. It contains many of the tenets later ascribed to Jesus, but doesn't associate him with teaching them.
The reason the earthly story was embraced by the church was to stop people like Paul from having visions of Christ that the church couldn’t control. By pointing to a real guy on earth, they could control the message. Otherwise, any yokel on the street could teach that Jesus revealed new teachings and the church risked being undermined.
Marcion was probably the first to create a collection of writings associated with christianity: he collected some of Paul's letters and had his own gospel. It was thought that he had a shortened version of Luke (as testified by Eusebius and Tertullian). Marcion, however, claimed that his gospel had been "judaized"; this suggests that his shorter version was the original gospel before others modified it.
Acts was written as a direct response to Marcion’s scripture. It was written to harmonize Paul’s high-jacking of the religion by making he and Peter appear to be in alignment when actually he was at odds with the leaders in Jerusalem.
The Jerusalem pillars (James, Peter, John), were strict adherents of Judaism, whereas Paul taught that Jesus made the Law / Torah unnecessary. They were almost certainly Essenes, one of the three flavors of Judaism at the time (the other two were the Pharisees and Sadducees mentioned in the new testament). John the Baptist was clearly also an Essene. He's said to wear camel's hair with a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and honey. His practice of baptism also aligns with daily ritual water immersion believed to be a core practice of the Essenes.
This is a very long way of saying that Jesus first appeared in visions and spoke to the early leaders without walking on earth. It's a fringe belief about which I was quite skeptical, but damn if the evidence doesn't line up. See Robert Price, Earl Doherty, and Elbe Spurling for more info. Elbe's online book is free and contains a huge amount of historical information about the region at the.
——
So, I’ll ask you this: which of us has spent more time earnestly trying to understand the faith? I know I read more actual research (as opposed to dogma) than most USA christians, especially evangelicals.
But how did the Church's claim that it was a real guy on Earth stop anyone from claiming visions of Christ?
edit: I'm not sure we're talking about the same things here. Your claims are all from a history/historicity point of view, but you ask me about faith, and claim to reject dogma.
edit 2: The OP was criticizing the claim that Jesus loves you (Claim 1) and criticizing Reconciliation. You took a historicity approach that included disputing Jesus's existence, that's one way to address Claim 1, but other than that I'm still not sure we're talking about the same thing.
There's an old heresy, Docetism, that would agree with your take on Jesus not having lived, but even they wouldn't reject the claim that "Jesus loves you".
Docetism says he didn’t suffer on the cross. There’s a bit about him laughing at the crucifiers. I don’t remember the whole text, but it doesn’t say “love” to me. It doesn’t say he didn’t live. It says he wasn’t human. You can find this searching about Gnosticism.
Many churches were in construction for over a century. Very typical and, although obviously people were elated when one was finished, getting there fast was not a source of anxiety.
Many churches were in construction for over a century, yes. Today? I’m not familiar with any examples other than Sagrada Familia, and even that one is almost finished. These multi-generation building projects seem to be a thing of the past.
Imagine trying to get funding today for a building project that is scheduled to be completed long after everyone alive today would be dead. I can’t imagine that being possible. It’s a pity: I wonder what wonders we could have built using modern technology over such a long timescale.
Hram Svetog Save (Church of Saint Sava) in Belgrade/Serbia started construction in 1935 and the exterior was finished in 2017. I haven’t been there in several years, but my understanding is that the interior is still being worked on and will continue for some years to come…
So not quite “over a century” but getting close. :)
I think the more optimistic interpretation would be that companies eliminating bullshit jobs would provide signal on which jobs aren’t bullshit, and then individuals and the job prep/education systems could align to this.
That’s very optimistic! I don’t fully agree with it, but I certainly know some very intelligent people that I wish were contributing more to the world than they do as a pawn in a game of corporate chess.
I think the issue at play here is the quickly changing job descriptions, RSU's and the higher paid bunch benefiting from very unequal pay across a job category.
Seems like they're happy to start cutting limbs to lose weight. It's hard to keep cutting fat if you've been aggressively cutting fat for so long. If the last CEO did their job there shouldn't be much fat left
I never thought to extend the analogy like that, but I like it. It's showing. I mean look how people think my comments imply I don't know what triage is. Not knowing that would be counter to everything I'm saying, which is that a lot of these value numbers are poor guestimates at best. Happens every time I bring this up. It's absurd to think we could measure everything in terms of money. Even economists will tell you that's silly
Let's make the laptops thinner. This way we can clean the oil off of the keyboard, putting it on the screen.
At this point I'm not sure it's lack of independent thought so much as lack of thought. I'm even beginning to question if people even use the products they work on. Shouldn't there be more pressure from engineers at this point? Is it yes men from top to bottom? Even CEOs seem to be yes men in response to share holders but that's like being a yes man to the wind.
When I bring this stuff up I'm called negative, a perfectionist, or told I'm out of touch with customers and or understand "value". Idk, maybe they're right. But I'm an engineer. My job is to find problems and fix them. I'm not negative, I'm trying to make the product better. And they're right, I don't understand value. I'm an engineer, it's not my job to make up a number about how valuable some bug fix is or isn't. What is this, "Whose Line Is It Anyways?" If you want made up dollar values go ask the business monkeys, I'm a code monkey
No, of course not. That would be laughably absurd. So do you think I'm trolling or you're misunderstanding? Because who isn't familiar with triage?
Do you think every bug's monetary value is perfectly aligned with user impact?
Certainly that isn't true. If it were we'd be much better at security and would be more concerned with data privacy. There's no perfect metric for anything, and it would similarly be naïve to think you could place a dollar value on everything, let alone accurately. That's what I'm talking about.
My main concern as an engineer is making the best product I can.
The main concern of the manager is to make the best business.
Don't get confused and think those are the same things. Hopefully they align, but they don't always.
Maybe it’s rising more than other areas in the U.S. at the moment and that is the news?
From my anecdata, homes in many suburban areas of southern states are up 70% from 2020 whereas in NYC the rise is about 20% (co-ops) resales (existing housing inventory).
There is no national id (other than passports; but most people don't carry theirs on themselves in their own country) because driver's licenses (issued by states) serve the same purpose. We don't have a non-DL id (that's popular at least).
Anyway, this is sort of by-the-by. Most adults have driver's licenses, and no one in Alaska is going to reject your Tennessee-issued DL so it is a de-facto national id.
91% of adults have a driver's license, leaving 9% of potential voters without a DL.
In a properly functioning democracy barring 9% of your voting population from voting because they lack an unrelated document (why should a driver's license be linked to ability to vote?) would be considered a major flaw.
You may elect to have your DL as a voting document as a convenience. It doesn't mean you have to have one in order to vote. A state's Board of Elections will issue you a voting document.
>>why should a driver's license be linked to ability to vote?
It's not, it's just one of many acceptable forms of id - along with a passport, birth certificate, and probably few others.
>>In a properly functioning democracy barring 9% of your voting population
Unless they are stopped from obtaining any document then they aren't barred from anything. Most Americans don't have a passport either but no one would argue that they are barred from travelling internationally, they just have to go and get a passport issued.
> Unless they are stopped from obtaining any document then they aren't barred from anything. Most Americans don't have a passport either but no one would argue that they are barred from travelling internationally, they just have to go and get a passport issued.
Making it difficult (as the article states, this 9% do not have ready access to documents proving their citizenship) is essentially barring with extra steps.
I hate this semantics/loophole game Americans like to play, seems to be quite common in your society to use the "akshually, technically" and going completely against the spirit of something. The spirit is: this makes it more difficult to vote, it will inevitably bar some people from voting, it's just salami-slicing...
I'm not American and I don't know why you'd assume I am - to me the fact that americans don't have ID requirements to vote is insane.
>>as the article states, this 9% do not have ready access to documents proving their citizenship
Again, do they simply not have them because they never bothered to get them, or are they unable to obtain them? That's quite a big difference.
I also hope we're not saying that if someone turned 18 and just simply never bothered to obtain any kind of acceptable ID(and there are usually many) then it's somehow unfair to not let them vote - because I really struggle to see how that would be true.
A lot of people seem to just assume that other countries have less friction (or no friction at all?) for people to vote, than the United States. My friends from other countries would find that amusing.
I get it that some states try to disenfranchise people and obviously that's wrong but the answer to that cannot be "voter id requirements are bad".
40% of the eligible voters sit out every election. No one who wants to vote is being barred from anything. They don’t lack an unrelated document, they lack the proof that they are allowed to vote. We have freedom of expression and yet to purchase alcohol you must be able to prove you are allowed to buy it. We have the freedom to bear arms and yet in many states you must prove you aren’t a nut job to own and carry a gun.
This makes no sense. You can literally register to vote at the DMV and I know very few adult Americans, of one ethnicity or another, who don't have a driver's license.
You dont know many poor people, or very young people.
I work a furry convention in the Southern US, about 3% of our attendees have some ID related malady - can't get a timely appointment at DMV, missing core documentation, unable to prove residency, etc - nevermind rural voters who may live hours from a DMV.. which they can't get to without a license (assuming they can afford a car) or a ride. No bus service to speak of either.
Its a huge issue, I'd 100% support voter ID if getting an ID was free and easy, without it I'm skeptical.
Yeah, see the article about "RealID" yesterday. The first step is to require an ID, and the next step is to make it harder to get. For example, a married woman without a perfect paper trail of name changes? No Id.
I unironically keep an original copy of those documents in my safety deposit box because of this. In theory I should be able to go to the courthouse and get another copy but if 40 years down the line they've lost them I'm screwed.
I feel bad for the people in states that don't require court orders for this because they apparently have the worst time trying to update accounts.
What state do you live in? I think this argument is very frustrating when people who live largely in blue states (like California) that don't up any hurdles to getting an ID, can't imagine the level of dysfunction that is intentionally executed in other states in order to prevent people from getting IDs.
Yeah, everyone you know has a valid ID because you don't live in a battleground state that is currently fighting electoral welfare. Republicans don't care to put up barriers to getting an ID in California, Texas or New York.
Most people are friends with people like themselves?
The selection bias of extrapolating an entire country (not to mention one as large and diverse as usa) by using your friend group should be very obvious.
I'm just pointing out obvious ways in which you have selection bias here.
FWIW googling, allegedly 1 in 10 people in rural america do not have a license. Or at least that is the claim floating around the internet. So yes, i think figuring out if this is a real issue should include both checking on rural and urban people, along with many other demographics. It is not obvious how this situation differs between urban/rural.
RealID documentation requirements are a PITA. I have a birth certificate and passport and valid DL and it still was a nuisance the accumulate the required point allocation. People without those golden documents can be very hard pressed to meet the bar.
Republicans are trying to make it so that the vast majority of drivers' licenses do not work either. You may have to get a new one, with passport-level paperwork.
The group I stayed with in West Virginia (back to lander hippies basically) only had driver license, which to my understanding, is not a valid voting ID (it isn't a proof of citizenship), so they cannot vote (Lincoln county, WV). Some are a bit mad about it, most don't care.
I don't live in the USA to be able to name people, you have 350 million people, there's definitely enough to have gone through life without doing any of the stuff you mentioned, barring them from voting is antithetical to democratic values. It's very simple probabilities, there's a non-zero number of people that will be affected.
On top of that, making vote more difficult through technicalities (voter roll purges, increased friction to vote, increased uncertainty if one can vote and will be punished if not eligible due to a technicality, etc.) further tilts the scale of who votes or not, either being barred by technicalities or fear.
None of that has any place in a real democracy, if democratic values are to be uphold it should be as easy as possible for any eligible voter to exercise their vote if they so wish.
You want anecdotes to fight against statistics, I think you got stuff reversed there, mate...
Edit: ah, lol, I think I need to repeat your own words back to you:
No, I'm asking you to prove the existence of a situation. Sigh. For your sake I hope you are just pretending not to understand the difference.
Do you know anyone in your country who doesn't have a state issued ID card? It's simply not true that 10% of people lack a state ID, it's absolute fiction made up for political reasons. If you bother to look it up (of course you can't be bothered) you would find that it comes from a single phone poll which they then extrapolated using census data. It's beyond dubious.
> None of that has any place in a real democracy, if democratic values are to be uphold it should be as easy as possible for any eligible voter to exercise their vote if they so wish.
So Norway isn't a real democracy? Ireland? Germany? Sweden? Netherlands? Italy? India? Greece? Why aren't you on their forums calling them fake democracies?
The US highway administration says that 102% of driving age individuals in 3 US states have valid driver's licenses. 102%. That's a statistic published by the government. Don't try to explain to me that "you can't have more than 100%" because that's just an anecdote, mate. You have to just believe whatever the statistic says.
> Do you know anyone in your country who doesn't have a state issued ID card?
Where I live right now it's simply impossible because it's required to have an ID, we are also 10 million people so it's pretty easy to not fall into the cracks.
Back in my native country (Brazil), yes, I do know people who did not have any form of documentation up to when they died, like my great-grandfather, or a former's colleague grandmother.
> It's simply not true that 10% of people lack a state ID, it's absolute fiction made up for political reasons.
It's not about state IDs, read the fucking thing I posted, it's about "proof of citizenship" which 10% of the population does not have ready access for it, and rules have been changed for voters needing proof of citizenship, learn to read before spouting vitriol, please.
> So Norway isn't a real democracy? Ireland? Germany? Sweden? Netherlands? Italy? India? Greece? Why aren't you on their forums calling them fake democracies?
Here in Sweden is really easy to vote, nothing even close to what the US does to its voter rolls, or states deciding to purge them right before elections to tilt the scales, etc.
You simply are talking past through me, it's clear as day that people in the USA who want to vote many times cannot vote, you live there so probably have read more articles about this happening than I ever did. That is a problem, it's a fact, and it's used for political manipulation, 10% of the population will have increased friction to exercise their right to vote, that's simply anti-democratic, plain and simple :)
> Where I live right now it's simply impossible because it's required to have an ID, we are also 10 million people so it's pretty easy to not fall into the cracks.
The hypocrisy here is astonishing. You are fine with your country requiring an ID but not mine. I think it's really telling that everyone on this thread is concerned with letting people vote without an ID, but nobody is saying we should try to help get people IDs because without an ID your life must be a complete shambles and they have no access to many basic government benefits or just basic things in life.
A state ID is proof of citizenship. There is no federal ID card in the US. I'm sorry, you shouldn't express opinions on these things when you clearly don't have basic understanding of what is going on.
> You simply are talking past through me, it's clear as day that people in the USA who want to vote many times cannot vote
Right, that is what the media puts out there, but it never actually happens. That's why I said it must be easy to find at least one actual person who couldn't vote, because supposedly there are so many. I've never met one nor heard of one. In the worst case they give you a 'provisional' ballot and in the event the election is close enough they check each one to see if that person was qualified to vote before counting it, but they ALWAYS let you vote. I had to do a provisional ballot in Santa Cruz, California (one of the most liberal cities in the US) to vote for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. It's not uncommon, but they NEVER turn anyone away from voting. I'm sorry, but you just have absolute ignorance here.
Anecdotally, I see a lot of of dwindling in membership (and, it at least one, even schism) in established protestant congregations (Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican) - many of those buildings having literally shut down - and converts coming to my local Catholic parish, as well as returning practitioners of the faith.
It's hard to imagine the Catholic church being as prominent in the world as it once was, of course, but as member myself, the last couple of years give me hope that we might again start growing.
If you did try to understand basic Christian theology, you'd likely still disagree but would be less confused.
This too is a charitable take; no snark meant.