OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
No bio...
User ID: 359
Helene will probably be a weekly topic until every last American is rescued or buried, so I will start the conversation now with the latest updates I am aware of:
Biden has ordered "500 active-duty troops with advanced technological assets to move into Western North Carolina." I'm not sure what "advanced technological assets" they are deploying, hopefully it's something like helicopters, bridges, and drones.
There are many people asking why did he wait over a week to deploy these troops. This question is somewhat unfair in itself. In the same document Biden reminds the American people that there are already 1,000 troops on the ground (though it's not clear to me if that is across the affected region or specifically in North Carolina. The numbers he gives for National Guard is the number across Florida to Tennessee.)
I think the real complaint is not that the Federal response has been unusually slow, but that it is insufficient for the "Biblical" levels of destruction. Thousands of dead bodies, "4 Reefer Trucks" full in one county, everyone who is asking for donations asks for more body bags because they keep running out. Young kids naked and crying for their parents, ropes still wrapped around their arms from where their parents desperately tied them to trees above water. People without a roof over their heads or potable water, sewers flooded, hornets unhoused, prime matter for disease and misery. Roads and bridges gone, and no easy path to rebuilding them in the same places due to the banks and cliffs they occupied being washed out.
My husband insists that if things were as bad as I think, the US Army could get everyone out of Western North Carolina in a day. He knows more about the military than I do - he never made it past basic training due to being underweight but has two siblings in the military, one of which who has made it pretty far across 20 years of service. My husband has a very high opinion of our military's capabilities, but I wonder if his model is outdated.
In Greenville, SC, FEMA has taken over a runway with 10 helicopters that loitered all Sunday. For the past week, that runway was being utilized by private charities who were sending materials into the disaster area. Yesterday, it was out of commission for no visible or communicated reason.
Meanwhile, a Blackhawk helicopter just wrecked a distribution center in Pine Spruce (Spruce Pine?), North Carolina. Was it intentional? I hope not. But it displays a level of incompetence that boggles the mind.
All the details indicate to me that the Feds think they can just say, "X number of troops, time to deploy" and solve the problem. But there's no real leadership. No one making a plan to actually help people. The Military and National Guard is too slow and cumbersome. Private charities are able to respond quickly in a crisis, because they have a shorter chain of command and fewer rules. This might be a weakness, in that they will make more mistakes, possibly put their own people's lives at risk. But in the face of the disaster, maybe that is what is needed.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
11mo ago
I'm against Libs of TikTok cancelling random poor workers for not knowing when to shut up. But this article makes a case for it.
First, the author makes a case that "Normie Bloodlust" is common and never punished. Think of people expressing hope that a rapist is raped in prison. I don't think the author believes that this behavior is good, per se, just common and usually unpunished.
He then goes on to say that "there’s nothing unfair, and certainly nothing unconstitutional, about facing social opprobrium for unpopular speech and behavior." He seems to support that sort of cancellation, whichever side of the aisle it is coming from.
But then he argues that the Right has been facing a different, unfair type of cancellation:
The reason you can get fired for liking a Steve Sailer tweet, or donating $25 to a legal defense fund, isn’t because of a Groundswell of Popular Outrage — it’s because your employer can face 9-figure fines if they refuse to enforce a particular set of social strictures.
When my doxx was released, the “expose” got 400 likes on Twitter. For perspective, I’ve had 10 tweets with more than that in the last 72 hours. 400 likes is not “viral”, even with a dozen antifa doxxing rings (at the height of their energy) and a reporter from the Guardian helping it along.
It turns out, nobody actually cares if an entry-level finance drone thinks that feminism sucks.
But it wasn’t about a “social media outrage mob”. My employer was a glowie intelligence contractor — they didn’t “cave to popular pressure”. They don’t even sell to the public.
It was about avoiding the threat of being sued for creating a Hostile Work Environment by allowing my words to go unpunished. They fired me to comply with federal law.
The last interesting point he makes is that:
A good friend who works in HR issues the following warning:
“not sure people realize that 1) a presidential assassination attempt is like a every 30 years black swan event where the HR Ladies are forced to fire anyone who says the wrong thing, and 2) the HR Ladies relish these opportunities to make a few ingroup firings because it reestablishes their neutrality and legitimacy”
“lots of ppl seem to be victory lapping over a "vibe shift" that is really more of a temporary vibe window that will snap shut within weeks”
I think he makes some good points though I disagree with the conclusion that it is fine and dandy for the Right to cancel struggling zero-influence people for saying things that were normal to say two weeks ago.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
6mo ago
Liberalism's Failures in Family Matters
Last week there was some discussion on the recent Lindsay Hoax. I would like to bring up some criticisms of liberalism, and why I think societies that follow it as a singular goal will inevitably suffer from the problems we see (birth rate collapse, sex wars, etc.)
On a newsletter warning of the dangers of sports gambling, Oren Cass wrote:
Careful readers, like all of you, will surely have noted that The Economist asserts not that the gambling frenzy is about people enjoying themselves, merely that it is about their being free to enjoy themselves. And in the distance between those two concepts is the gaping maw into which our society has plunged itself with this and many similar missteps.
The liberal ideal relies on many huge assumptions. Two of those assumptions are that people will choose things that bring themselves happiness and that externalities (or times when an individuals choices impact others) will be easy to detect and foreseeable. In reality, people will choose things that bring them temporary pleasure or help them avoid temporary discomfort over things that will bring them greater happiness and peace. And maybe the executives of the sports gambling company and the 19 year old with a phone can consent to enter into a relationship where the 19 year old gives the executives all his money, but the 17 year old girlfriend did not consent to being beaten more often. (After the legalization of sports betting, home team losses increase domestic violence by 10%.)
Another assumption of liberalism is that we enter into the world as individuals, without owing or being owed anything. Marc Barnes of New Polity wrote:
It is the basic thesis of liberalism—that philosophy embodied in all our modern technologies and institutions—that we are not social by nature, but individuals, and that anything that looks “social” is in fact some amalgamation of individual things and persons. The most famous one (repeated by weird people who talk about “marriage markets,” Redditors, and evolutionary psychologists to this day) is the Hobbesian argument that society itself is “really just” individuals making contracts with each other in order to pursue their own self-interest...
Rousseau posits that man, in his original state, was an individual, a silliness that necessitates that he imagine babies as proto-individuals, kept for self-interested reasons and then abandoned:
The mother gave suck to her children at first for her own sake; and afterwards, when habit had made them dear, for theirs: but as soon as they were strong enough to go in search of their own food, they forsook her of their own accord; and, as they had hardly any other method of not losing one another than that of remaining continually within sight, they soon became quite incapable of recognising one another when they happened to meet again.
Now, Rousseau gave all five of his kids up to an orphanage, so I concede that some may be nearer to his “state of nature” than others. But, for babies, it is quite literally a joke. Losing the mother is a game they love to play, precisely because it affirms the non-individual status of both: “peek-a-boo” makes known, by way of contrast, that the two belong to each other; that they are members of one body; that the mother is made mother by the child even as the child is made child by the mother, and that this is an enduring metaphysical relationship and a social reality; that, in short, they cannot lose each other, even if, God forbid, they do. Imagining this social reality as actually being a mere individual contract—that the mother might walk away, that she might disappear, that she might hide her face, that the so-called bond is just her choice—all of this is hilarious to the kiddos.
It's hard to believe, but the Enlightenment thinkers really thought that pre-historic humans didn't band together in family or social units. And this complete falsehood is somewhat required to make liberalism work.
The word "atomization" is thrown around as a negative. No one has friends to help them, we have apps that facilitate economic contracts with others to help us move houses or buy groceries if we're sick. Children move thousands of miles from their parents to pursue economic opportunity, leaving behind free family babysitting for the kids they'll never have. Men and women are supposed to be equal, but we're obviously not the same kind of human at all. Atomization is the founding assumption of Liberalism though.
Saying atomization is negative is accepted. But to say that Liberalism has negatives is still very unpopular. The only alternative to Liberalism is Authoritarianism, and Authoritarianism is always Bad.
But there are places where Authoritarianism is needed, particularly in family life. Parents have authority over their children. More than that, there is a pre-existing bond between parent and child to which neither consented. A child cannot consent to their parents before they are born. A parent has no idea what their child will be like before they are born. And yet, by virtue of biological reality, they are committed to a shared project of helping the child become a good adult. The child cannot grow into a good adult without this relationship.
In the latest edition of Dr. Leonard Sax's The Collapse of Parenting, Sax describes a family that comes to him for help. The 12 year old daughter has suddenly shown signs of ADHD. Her teacher filled out a form indicating that the 12-year-old's concentration levels are off the charts in a bad way. The girl's family doctor prescribed her ADHD medication to help alleviate her symptoms. They worked, but also left her jittery with heart palpitations and anxiety symptoms.
Sax's first question to the girl's family is how well she slept. Confused, the parents said the girl slept ok, but when Dr. Sax drilled into the details the girl nonchalantly said she was on her phone until 1-2 AM most nights. "Of course, doesn't everyone?"
Dr. Sax told her parents to take her off the Amphetamines and instead keep the kid's phone in the parents' bedroom at night, starting 9 PM. The parents' response was, "Oh, no, we couldn't do that! She'd be so angry at us."
The parents found it easier to give their 12 year old daughter a schedule II drug than to set a simple limit that would have made her healthier. And Dr. Sax says that this is a very common example that he sees often at his practice.
In The Collapse of Parenting, Dr. Sax theorizes that American parents, especially Liberal/Leftist parents, are uncomfortable with the idea of wielding authority over their children. Longitudinal studies show that kids who have strict but unloving parents grow up without knowing how to form loving relationships of their own. Kids that grow up with permissive parents are incapable of balancing a checkbook and make poor decisions due to a high time preference. The best kind of parenting is both loving and strict - a combination the Literature refers to as "Authoritative Parenting." Authoritative Parenting used to be the default, but among left-leaning families there has been a surge of parents fearing that they are overriding their kids innate preferences. Proper parenting is illiberal, and therefore immoral.
One young child arrived to the practice with a sore throat and fever for three days. When Dr. Sax asked the child to open her mouth, she refused. Dr. Sax looked to the mother, and said, "I need your help to examine your daughter, could you help encourage her to open wide?" The mother responded, "Her body, her choice."
The liberal order worked when it was founded on an illiberal order. When humans acted like humans most of the time, raised their children like humans, formed natural hierarchies like humans, liberalism worked fine. I think it falls apart when the government tries to impose liberal presuppositions on every-day human interactions. It falls apart when people think they are supposed to act perfectly liberal in every social interaction. A society based around consent instead of love (willing the good of one another) will fall apart.
I love liberalism, in a way. I love how it shaped American culture for hundreds of years. But I think the evidence points to a need for a safeguard somewhere, similar to the separation of Church and State. A separation of State and Hearth? Americans need to parent better than Rousseau.
Tocqueville famously believed that religion, particularly Christianity, was necessary in America to create and sustain our Democracy. It provided shared values. People had shared common ground beyond their mere desires which which they could identify what is good for all. There is a benefit to having an ultimate Authority, in Heaven, who everyone agrees to serve but who seldom gives specific commands.
Maybe the problem will resolve itself, as atheists fail to reproduce and the deeply religious take over again. Or maybe the cat's all the way out of the bag. But the evidence seems to point towards Liberalism being good but insufficient, and the next best thing needs to be figured out before we lose the goods of Liberalism as well.
In this vein, I think it would be a very different world if the lines in the budget were listed as percentages, and then the overall total was determined based on a factor of tax revenue. So a simplified version would look like:
War: 25%
Social Security: 25%
Bureaucracy: 25%
Debt: 25%
Total budget: 1.25x tax revenue for 2023.
And then the actual amount of money would get calculated based on these figures. Right now the numbers are so disconnected from anything the average person can comprehend.
Edit: I don't really mean for the average person to see percentages. Of course one could calculate percentages after the fact.
I mean for the politicians to only see a percentage on each line item. I mean for politicians to argue that X program should get .01% of the budget, while that program only receives .005%. Percentages are a way of declaring priorities. And you can't exceed 100%.
And then, after the percentages are selected, the total budget compared to the tax revenue for the previous year is argued about and chosen.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9mo ago
Historic flooding in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee. Whole towns washed away. People retreating to their attics as water levels rise. People losing everything.
Tragic. Horrific. But this is the Culture War thread so I am going to ask the insensitive question, what does this mean for the election in <40 days?
My first thought is that there is a certain irony that these states are among those that just limited the forms of ID allowed at a voting booth. Someone who has lost their house is less likely to have all their documentation, and getting new copies will take longer than the time before the election.
Rural areas that were wiped out will have a harder time finding their polling location under the mud and timber. Mail-in voting will be difficult without a mailbox.
People are going to watch the Biden-Harris's administration to see how they respond.
Do these factors make it more likely for these swing states to turn Blue or Red? Buncombe County, one of the hardest hit, went 60% for Biden in 2020.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Nobody seriously defends the superstitions of Christianity
The different bubbles that we are in fascinate me. If someone asked me, I would say that Christianity has never been more or better defended before now. In fact, I have heard a Catholic Bishop thank New Atheism for revitalizing Christian Apologetics.
The content coming out from Capturing Christianity, Jimmy Akin, and Bishop Barron is both sophisticated and unafraid to defend the foundational positions of Christianity, dive into thorny philosophical weeds, take atheistic arguments seriously, and approach topics from a scientific, rational perspective.
I can feel your disbelief across time and space, so let me give an example: In his video on "Time Travel Prayer," Jimmy Akin explains the methodology of a study where patient records from prior years were randomly assigned to a prayer group or control group. After praying for the patients in prayer group to have gotten better in the past, the researchers looked at the outcomes for the patients and found a statistically significant correlation between the prayer group and recovery.
Despite this result supporting his argument, he took the time in his show to talk about how studies can be done hundreds of times, with only the results that the researchers like getting published. And that this practice can make even random chance look statistically significant on paper. And that, though he has no evidence this happened in this case, it is important to keep in mind when papers shows weak significance around surprising things.
Sounds a lot like how a rationalist would approach a topic, no? I highly recommend checking out Jimmy Akin's Mysterious world - most of the topics are not religious in nature but they are a lot of fun. He has pretty soundly debunked the Loch Ness Monster, Loretto Staircase, and a number of odd things.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Jimmy Akin has defended the efficacy of prayer. He does defend the supernatural and paranatural.
I had never heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali before her conversion, meanwhile Bishop Robert Barron's Word on Fire Institute has a global audience, streaming service, publishing company, etc. What qualifies someone to be a major public intellectual?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Bishop Barron has been on the Ben Shapiro Show, delivered lectures for the Heritage Foundation, been interviewed by Lex Freidman, and many more. If you look in the comments on his Youtube channel it does seem like many atheists, protestants, and members of other faith traditions watch him regularly.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
4mo ago
The Legislature is meant to be the conservative aspect of the government. It is supposed to codify things that last, because it is very difficult to get a majority vote on something. This is why congress is supposed to ratify things like treaties. If we want stability, it needs to be explicitly enshrined in Congress.
The Executive is meant to be dynamic. It responds to events as they arise and is supposed to be under the control of the elected President. It should work this way. The new President comes in, representing the will of the entire American people, and determines governmental policy not codified in Law. What the executive does should change every time the President takes control.
A lot of things that are "regulations" should be laws, if they are something Congress can agree on. If Congress cannot agree on them, how is it reflective of our Republic to put unelected, unaccountable people in charge of making them and nothing the American people can do to stop them?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
6mo ago
I think the ultimate US health system would be: Medicaid for those who need it, Medicare for purely palliative care, HSAs as common as 401ks, and insurance that only covers emergencies where the patient is unconscious or at risk of life and limb if a quick decision isn't made. Otherwise full price transparency and an easy way to look up prices for comparable services across all nearby providers.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9mo ago
If a man has not already asked a woman out, it's either because she has failed to entice him with visual signals and flirting, or he is too socially incompetent or low self esteem to be worthy.
If batting your eyes and saying, "You know, I like spending time with you," doesn't work, then best to cut losses then and there. Guy isn't going to know the first thing about building a good life together.
The SEC has proposed a new type of company, a Natural Asset Company (NAC.) As the main proponents, Intrinsic Exchange Group, state:
By taking a NAC public through an IPO, the market transaction will succeed in converting the long-understood – but to-date unpriced – value of nature into financial capital. This monetization event will generate the funding needed to manage, restore, and grow healthy ecosystems around the world and bring us closer to achieving a truly sustainable, circular economy.
While there are also criterion for farmland and mixed use lands to qualify, it sounds like they expect the public to buy shares of land to pay the owners to not develop it in certain ways. I'm not sure how popular this idea will become. Carbon credits are a thing so there might be some buy-in from the public.
Margaret Byfield at Real Clear Markets takes a dimmer view of NACs:
The best comparison would be using the air we breathe as a cryptocurrency of sorts. And, these natural assets that collectively belong to all of us would now belong to corporations run by what many would call environmental special interests.
Based on just this first sentence, I'm not sure she knows what a cryptocurrency is. Maybe she means it will be subject to a speculative bubble. However, the consequence that most concerns her is that other countries could own stakes in our Natural Parks:
Another feature of these new companies is that the land belonging to sovereign nations and private landowners alike can be subject to the control of NACs. Sovereign nations, such as the United States Government, can provide their lands to private investors, including those outside the United States. China, for example, may be able to invest in an NAC and effectively be a stakeholder in our national parks. Russia could assume control of lands currently leased to produce oil and place them off limits for future natural resource development.
Both supporters and critics seem to think that an NAC will be big deal. The IEG believes that, "The financing gap for biodiversity is estimated between US$598-824 billion per year, for climate change about US$5 trillion dollars per year, and for the transition to a more sustainable, resilient, and equitable economy, orders of magnitude larger."
But I have a hard time conceptualizing how a NAC will tap into all that wealth and power. What is the expected impact for the average Joe and for international politics? Will I no longer be able to "breathe the free air," as real life starts to resemble the Lorax movie? Will foreign countries strategically buy land and prevent Americans from accessing resources?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Why is it that the universe needs to be created but God needs no creator?
The universe is composed of parts that change. Everything that changes is composed of the actual (what it currently is) and the potential (all the states it could be in.) Everything that is composite like this needs some sort of explanation for why it is in this current condition and not a different state.
The classical theist definition of God solves this problem by proposing something that has no composition, no change. Because there is nothing else that it could be, its current state needs no explanation. This changeless, fully actual thing is that which we call God. Based on knowing that it is without composition, fully actual, philosophers can then derive proofs for the other common attributes of God.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
I'm not sure which theological/philosophical tradition uses the word "omnibenevolent" when describing God, but it's not mine. It kind of implies that a theist believes that he is "well-behaved," which is a category error. God is good, in that he is "actual" - to say that X is good is to say that it has succeeded in being in some way. A pencil is a good pencil when it is able to draw, is sharp, long enough to be held easily in a hand, etc. God is good in that sense. God is not good in the sense of being accountable to others for duties and obligations that he performs admirably.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
6mo ago
Explain like I am not a NY lawyer: why would everyone in the jury find him not guilty of Criminal Negligence but be split on Manslaughter?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
In context, isn't "works" the ceremonial Law of Moses?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
Biden has signed an Executive Order "that will temporarily shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500." Given that the current number of asylum requests far exceeds this figure, the border is effectively shut down now.
On one level, this vindicated conservative commentators and legislators who argued that Congress didn't need to pass any bills to shut down the border. Biden apparently agrees!
On the other level, does this take away some steam from Republicans seeking re-election? That's probably what the Democrats are hoping. "See? We care about border security too! Ignore our behavior for the last 40 months." But is it actually going to be effective? And will they just turn on the spigot once the election is over?
Going back to the bill, was there anything on the bill that would have been allowed Biden to accomplish this executive order better? Does the DHS and Border Patrol need more funds to enact this Executive Order? Or is this something well within their existing abilities?
It also appears that this Executive Order contains some gaping holes. It does not apply to the obvious categories (US Citizens, lawful immigrants who make appointments ahead of time) as well as:
- Unaccompanied children (UCs);
- Noncitizens who are determined to be victims of severe forms of trafficking;
- Noncitizens who a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer permits to enter, based on the totality of the circumstances, including consideration of significant law enforcement, officer and public safety, urgent humanitarian, and public health interests that warrant permitting the noncitizen to enter; and
- Noncitizens who a CBP officer permits to enter due to operational considerations that warrant permitting the noncitizen to enter.
Does this render this toothless and just good PR? Or are Border Patrol Agents likely to be very restrictive in their interpretation of the order?
I'm not too sure, I think Catholicism is doing pretty well in the United States and the Church is holding to her teaching.
One chart I saw recently was at here, pulling together data from The Nones have Hit a Ceiling. It looks as though Catholics are either A) getting lots of converts, B) Better able to retain young people than Protestants, or C) Immigration of more young people than old people from Catholic countries. It might very well be C, but I don't think Catholicism is going to disappear from the US anytime soon.
One thing that helps keep Catholicism on the straight and narrow is that the Church's authority derives from its Conservatism. If it actually tried to change teaching, in such a way that it clearly contradicted past dogmatic teachings, it loses its authority instantly. It's whole shtick is that "We have the Truth, the Truth can't change, we have perfect Divine Authority to tell you the Truth and no one else has this Authority."
Now Europe, Europe is going secular fast. US Catholics joke that we will need to evangelize Pagan Europe all over again.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
I'm very hesitant to break out Paul verse by verse and ascribe an individual meaning to each line. Chapters and verses were only delineated many hundreds of years after Paul wrote. He also does not come from the same tradition of writing that we developed, where we write our thesis front and center, then write our supporting evidence, then follow with a conclusion. This can make it hard to understand what the point of any given passage is.
With that said, my reading of Romans chapters three and four would be: The first covenant that God made with Abraham never promised eternal life, theosis, etc. to those who followed it. It did lead to Salvation - out of the Covenant came Jesus - but it does not grant salvation. When people failed to follow the first covenant, they weren't failing to achieve their own salvation. Instead they were merely demonstrating that humankind is weak and sinful.
In your exegesis of Romans 4, it seems to me that you are generalizing things that Abraham did as part of his forming a covenant with God in Genesis 15, into general moral action. I disagree that Romans 4:13 contrasts Faith and the law as opposing each other, but rather Faith preceded the covenant. If you reread Genesis 15 you will see that Paul's referring to it in a very orderly fashion. First you have him quote Genesis 15:6 ("Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness.") Then right after that verse in Genesis, God forms the covenant ("On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.")
In Romans 4:18-25, Paul does generalize to the gentiles - because a huge part of his letter to the Romans is to argue that the gentiles do not need to join the old covenant to also join the new. A Christian's faith in Jesus is like Abraham's faith in God's promise - they both start a covenant. He is saying that Gentiles don't need to follow the old covenant to be justified because the old covenant never justified anyone. Unlike the new covenant, the old covenant never promised justification.
I also think we might not have the same terminology when we talk about Righteousness, Salvation, Justification. Sometimes Catholics and Protestants disagree about how much we are disagreeing because we just don't use the same words to talk about the same things. To be clear about the terminology I am using here are some definitions:
Justification - A formative process in which Christians are made righteous over the course of their entire lives. It is a gift from God, unearned, provided by Jesus' death on the cross to all who accept that He is Lord. This is something that can be lost or stalled and then picked up again. It is comparable to being born. It is unearned gift, but there are certain things you can do that hasten your (spiritual or physical) death.
Protestants often define justification as "To be declared righteousness," in a one time event. This dramatically changes how we read any Bible verse with the word "Justification" in it. Instead, Catholics would use the word "Salvation" in places where Protestants commonly use "Justification."
Salvation - Actually getting to Heaven. Not the same thing as Justification.
Righteousness - Correct behavior. Jesus imparts (not imputes) righteousness to us.
In the Catholic view, faith is an unmerited gift from God. Without God providing the grace of faith, there is no human effort that will grant a person faith. Faith leads to Justification, in which Christians become righteous over the course of their lives. At the end of our lives, we reach Salvation through this process of Justification, which we did nothing to earn but do need to participate in lest we lose it anyways.
This is a good video that examines the differences (an similarities) between what Catholics and Protestants believe on Justification.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9mo ago
I'd be ok with everyone receiving the program I got in High School. It was a lot like the described:
First it went into the social aspect of sex. I remember they had a gotcha icebreaker task where they asked everyone what the first step to having consensual sex was out of a list. The answer was "eye contact." They talked about how intercourse took place after a sequence of events, (eye contact, conversation, seclusion, etc) which a person could get out of at any time by being vocal and making a choice to get out of the sequence.
A lot of "if you are pressured into having sex, here are some trusted adults you can go to."
Then went into the most common contraception methods available to teenagers, but actually read the warning labels on every box. Explained that none of them were fully effective at preventing STDs, not even condoms. None of them were 100% effective at preventing pregnancy.
Described economic and social status outcomes of pregnant teenage mothers. That pregnancy and childbirth changes you hormonally and "you don't really want to be like your mom yet, do you?"
We had to make posters describing STDs, symptoms and treatments. Presented them to the class.
I would call it abstinence-first education. It explained contraception thoroughly. The problem is, once you explain contraception thoroughly, it doesn't deliver on all the goods that abstinence can. Over a population, it is effective. As individuals, a 5/100 risk of pregnancy each year is still a lot of sexually active pregnant teens.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1mo ago
Can you expound upon where the Great Schism of 1054 was Rome going off the rails? Because this is how Catholics see it:
In 1042 Monomachus became emperor peaceably by marrying Zoe... He remembered his old friend and fellow-conspirator, [Cærularius], and gave him an ambiguous place at court, described as that of the emperor's "familiar friend and guest at meals" (Psellus, "Enkomion", I, 324). As Cærularius was a monk, any further advancement must be that of an ecclesiastical career. He was therefore next made syncellus (that is, secretary) of the patriarch, Alexius (1025-34). The syncellus was always a bishop, and held a place in the church second only to that of the patriarch himself.
In 1034 Alexius died, and Constantine appointed Cærularius as his successor. There was no election; the emperor "went like an arrow to the target" (Psellus, ibid., p. 326). From this moment the story of Cærularius becomes that of the great schism.
The time was singularly unpropitious for a quarrel with the pope. The Normans were invading Sicily, enemies of both the papacy and the Eastern Empire, from whom they were conquering that island. There was every reason why the pope (St. Leo IX, 1048-56) and the emperor should keep friends and unite their forces against the common enemy. Both knew it, and tried throughout to prevent a quarrel.
But it was forced on them by the outrageous conduct of the patriarch. Suddenly, after no kind of provocation, in the midst of what John Beccus describes as "perfect peace" between the two Churches (L. Allatius, "Græcia orthod.", I, 37)... Cærularius sent to the other patriarchs a treatise written by Nicetas Pectoratus against unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, and celibacy. Because of these "horrible infirmities", Nicetas describes Latins as "dogs, bad workmen, schismatics, hypocrites, and liars" (Will, op. cit., 127-36).... Still entirely unprovoked, [Cærularius] closed all the Latin churches at Constantinople, including that of the papal legate. His chancellor Nicephorus burst open the Latin tabernacles, and trampled on the Holy Eucharist because it was consecrated in unleavened bread.
The pope then answered the letter... He points out that no one thought of attacking the many Byzantine monasteries and churches in the West (Will, op. cit., 65-85)...
For a moment Cærularius seems to have wavered in his plan because of the importance of the pope's help against the Normans. He writes to Peter III of Antioch, that he had for this reason proposed an alliance with Leo (Will, 174).
[Pope] Leo answered this proposal [to join forces to resist Norman invasion] resenting the stupendous arrogance of [Cærularius]'s tone, but still hoping for peace. At the same time he wrote a very friendly letter to the emperor, and sent both documents to Constantinople by three legates, Cardinal Humbert, Cardinal Frederick (his own cousin and Chancellor of the Roman Church, afterwards Stephen IX, 1057-58), and Archbishop Peter of Amalfi.
The emperor, who was exceedingly annoyed about the whole quarrel, received the legates with honour and lodged them in his palace. Cærularius, who had now quite given up the idea of his alliance, was very indignant that the legates did not give him precedence and prostrate before him, and wrote to Peter of Antioch that they are "insolent, boastful, rash, arrogant, and stupid" (Will, 177).
Several weeks passed in discussion. Cardinal Humbert wrote defenses of the Latin customs, and incidentally converted Nicetas Pectoratus [The original author of the treatise against Roman practices of against unleavened bread, fasting on Saturday, and celibacy].
Cærularius refused to see the legates or to hold any communication with them: he struck the pope's name from his diptychs, and so declared open schism. [A diptych was used to record the names of those in the Church, typically high-profile people like Bishops and nobility. Striking someone from a diptych is basically saying that they are no longer a member of the Church.]
The legates then prepared the Bull of excommunication against him, Leo of Achrida, and their adherents, which they laid on the altar of Sancta Sophia on 16 July, 1054. Two days later they set out for Rome. The emperor was still on good terms with them and gave them presents for Monte Cassino.
Hardly were they gone when Cærularius sent for them to come back, meaning to have them murdered (the evidence for this is given in Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 186-7). Cærularius, when this attempt failed, sent an account of the whole story to the other patriarchs so full of lies that John of Antioch answered him: "I am covered with shame that your venerable letter should contain such things. Believe me, I do not know how to explain it for your own sake, especially if you have written like this to the other most blessed patriarchs" (Will, 190).
From here, I have done some formatting because gosh that's a wall of text with names no one's heard about before.
Distilling down the barest essentials:
Patriarch of Constantinople declares, based on a document written by a local theologian, that Roman disciplines of consecrating unleavened bread and fasting on Saturday are horrible and disqualifying from being a member of the Church. They go so far as to desecrate the Eucharist in Roman churches.
Pope sends delegation that explains to the theologian how they are wrong, and that this ancient practice of the Latin Church is not disqualifying or heretical. Patriarch refuses to even see them.
Once it becomes clear that the Patriarch's side isn't going to win, he excommunicates the Pope. The papal legates excommunicate the Patriarch using the authority they have from the Pope (except at this time, unbeknownst to them, the Pope is dead so the excommunication isn't even valid on the Latin side, which was discovered shortly after).
Most of the Church didn't realize there's a permanent Schism, it slowly develops over time. The Massacre of the Latins in Constantinople in 1182 was a more significant event, with 60,000 Latins dead or sold into slavery, but the Schism probably really became permanent in the Fourth Crusade with the Sack of Constantinople.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
I'm assuming you're treating the covenant referred to here as roughly the same as the Mosaic one? That one definitely does promise life: "the one who does these things shall live by them," which Paul quotes in Galatians.
Do you believe that Jews who followed the Law went to Heaven without Jesus's death, and in fact would have made it to Heaven without Jesus' death? I never heard that position before, but Paul's quote in Galatians does not support it. Galatians 3:11-12: "Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, it says, “The person who does these things will live by them.”" The full quote is clear, the law is based on "living by" i.e. performing actions. It's not saying the law provides eternal life.
(I'm going to start using the Lattrimore translation, because I'm noticing a lot of theological language smuggled in when I switch between NRSV and NIV. Lattrimore was a secular Greek translator who is most famous for his excellent translation of the Iliad. He did become Episcopalian towards the end of his life, but this conversion was after he translated the New Testament. I think we're both trying to figure out the words as Paul wrote them, and short of studying Greek this is the best resource I can get.)
Let's go back to Romans. Paul starts Romans off with discussion of Pagan wickedness. Then he broadens it to discuss everyone's (even Jewish) sinfulness.
Romans 2:6-8: Through your hardness and your unrepentant heart you are storing up for yourself anger on the day of anger and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will give to each according to his actions: to those who, through steadfastness in doing good, strive for glory and honor and incorruptibility, he will give everlasting life
This doesn't sound like sole fide.
Then we have Romans 2:12-15 "For those who sinned outside the law will also perish outside the law: and those who sinned while within the law will be judged according to the law. For it is not those who listen to the law who are righteous in the sight of God, but it is those who do what is in the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the law do by nature what is in the law, they, without having the law, are their own law; and they display the work of the law engraved on their hearts;"
So from the beginning, Paul is referencing the Law as referred to Torah observance. Gentiles "do not have the Law", but "display the work of the law engraved on their hearts." Paul seems really concerned with telling Roman Jews that Gentiles are able to do good without being Jewish. Because they are Gentiles they aren't participating in the nation-building or ceremonial aspects of the Jewish law, but rather the natural law or the moral law.
Throughout this, Paul is admonishing the Jewish people in Rome to not boast. They are just as sinful as the Gentile populace.
Now we move to Romans 4. So that I am not accused of ignoring any detail, I will go through section by section and explain how it makes perfect sense from a Catholic view:
1-5: What then shall we say of Abraham, our forefather in the way of the flesh? If Abraham was justified because of his actions, he has reason for glorying; but not before God, since what does the scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was counted as righteousness in him. For one who does something, repayment is counted not as grace but as his due; but for one who does nothing, but believes in him who justifies the impious man, his faith is counted as righteousness.
Abraham is the patriarch, the father of the Jewish people. Abraham cannot boast because he had no power in himself to justify himself. Instead, God reaches out to Abraham and (despite some shakiness on Abraham's part) Abraham responds with faith. It is Abraham's response that counts as righteousness. Abraham believing God would give him descendants was a good/just/righteous action - it counts as righteous. It doesn't count as neutral or evil.
God singling Abraham out is a huge grace that Abraham received. Abraham did not deserve God's offer of a covenant. It is Abraham's faith in God that was considered the righteous action.
6-12 So David also says of the blessedness of the man whom God counts as righteous, apart from his actions: Blessed are they whose lawless acts have been forgiven and whose sins have been hidden away. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not count. Now, is this blessedness for the circumcised or also for the uncircumcised? Since we say the faith of Abraham was counted as righteousness. How then was it counted? In his circumcised or uncircumcised state? It was when he was not yet circumcised, but still uncircumcised. And he received the mark of circumcision, the seal upon the righteousness of that faith he had when he was still uncircumcised; to be the father of all those who are believers through their uncircumcised state so that righteousness could be counted for them, and also to be the father of the circumcised for those who not only have been circumcised but also walk in his footsteps through the faith, which our father Abraham had when he was still uncircumcised.
Abraham was able to achieve one canonically righteous action (his faith in God's promise) before being circumcised. Therefore, the uncircumcised Gentiles can also consider Abraham their Father in Faith (see that this is contrasted to verse 1, Abraham as the forefather in the way of the flesh.) And the circumcised are also supposed to walk in faith just like Abraham.
13-15 For the promise to Abraham, or his seed, that he should be the inheritor of the world, was not on account of the law, but of the righteousness of his faith. For if the inheritors are those who belong to the law, then the faith is made void and the promise is gone; for the law causes anger, but where there is no law there is no lawbreaking.
God told Abraham that the his descendants would inherit before the Torah existed. Abraham's faith was righteous (not imputed righteousness, but unqualified righteous.) It cannot be that only those who follow the Law of Moses will inherit the world, because the law by itself does not justify. "The law causes anger." This ties back to Chapter 3 verse 20: "since through the law comes consciousness of sin." The law only reveals human weakness. No one was ever going to follow the Torah all the way to Heaven.
16-21 Thus (it is) because of faith, and thus by grace, that the promise should hold good for all his seed; not only for him who has the law but for him who has the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all, as it is written: I have made you the father of many nations. It held good in the sight of God, in whom he believed, the God who puts life into the dead and summons into existence the things that do not exist. He against hope believed in the hope that he would become the father of many nations according to what had been said, that is: Thus shall your seed be. And Abraham, without weakening in his faith, knew that his own body was that of a dead man, since he was about a hundred years old, and he knew the dead state of Sarah’s womb, but he was not distracted with unbelief in God’s promise but was strengthened in his belief, giving glory to God and assured that God was able to do as he had promised.
Description of Abraham's act of faith. Restatement that faith is a gift, an unearned grace. Restatement that Abraham is the father of all those who have faith as well as the father of Jews in flesh. There is a little bit of a comparison between God bringing life from Abraham and Sarah's dead bodies and God bringing spiritual life from the spiritually dead Gentiles, but Paul doesn't really elaborate there.
22-25 Thus it was that faith counted as righteousness in him. But it was not written for him alone that it was so counted for him, but also for us for whom it is to be counted, for us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was betrayed for our sins and raised up again for our justification.
Abraham's faith was righteous. God made sure that this passage was included in Genesis so Paul could win this argument with the Romans that the uncircumcised can be saved. I see very clearly the Catholic view of God sending grace, Abraham accepting the grace, and then that action of accepting the grace counting as righteousness.
This whole process is about how Abraham was justified, not his becoming righteous with this as one step of a broader whole (note: an aorist in 4:2, meaning a simple past action.
Abraham was dead when Paul wrote his letter, so whether he was justified or not would have happened in the past, not as something ongoing. But 4:2 is an ironic negation - Abraham wasn't justified because of his action. Also, the aorist simply states the fact that an action has happened. It gives no information on how long it took, or whether the results are still in effect. An aorist could mean that the action took years. But however long it took, it's over now because Abraham is dead.
Chemnitz' examination of the council of Trent
All four volumes are $180, do you know which volume or page number you're thinking of?
Alister McGrath is a reputable Evangelical historian. His book on the history of justification - Iustitia Dei - is widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive treatments of the subject. McGrath writes, "[If] the nature of justification is to be defended, it is therefore necessary to investigate the possible existence of 'forerunners of the Reformation doctrines of justification...' [This approach] fail in relation to the specific question of the nature of justification and justifying righteousness... A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where not had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification - as opposed to its mode - must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
One of the foremost Evangelical scholars on the topic could not find a historical belief in Forensic Justification or the imputed righteousness of Christ. I know that many Protestants believe in a great apostasy. But I personally expect that those who lived closest to Paul's time and spoke Greek in the same cultural context would best understand what Paul's message is. And no one in the Patristic age read Romans and thought, "Forensic Justification."
For example, St. Clement of Rome who was bishop of Rome from 88 AD to 99 AD wrote, "Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works and not our words." (1 Clement 30) This is someone who lived in Rome and likely read the first edition of the letter Paul wrote. This is someone who knew Peter and Paul - Paul references Clement in Philippians 4:3. If Paul was arguing sole fide, why was Luther the first one to understand it?
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
9mo ago
"Perfect use" condom is 2%, "Perfect use" Pill is .3%. Even "properly used" contraception means that there are thousands of women winding up pregnant from "perfect use." But how many people in a high school class are going to use it perfectly? "Typical use" is 14% and 7% respectively.
Things that are 100% like sterilization are unlikely options for teenagers. I suppose now IUDs might be more available.
I guess the idea is that, with education, "typical use' rates will go down? If so, my sex ed class covered explicitly how to put on a condom, the importance of taking a pill every day and that a single missed day means that the woman is more likely to get pregnant for the next month. Etc. They went very deep into the failure modes of each.
The biggest problem is that "Sex Ed" was one week. How many of your classmates on the internet are claiming that they never learned about the Vietnam war in school, or segregation, or whatever, when you remember very clearly that these topics were covered? I would prefer for Sex Ed to be a weekly thing all throughout Middle and High school.
Teens and young adults are going to fuck before getting married.
I didn't. My parent's didn't. My grandparents didn't.
That being said, in hindsight I think my Sex Ed was trying to encourage oral. They went deep into dental dams and things.
OracleOutlook
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
1yr ago
I've mentioned on here a few times that our family has an Au Pair and I work from home most days. This happy arrangement is going to come to an end and I'm of mixed feelings.
First, for those who don't know, there is a program in the State Department that is designed to connect families with young women across the world who would be interested in taking care of children in exchange for living in America for a year. The host family has to provide a separate room and pay a weekly stipend. It's a "cultural program." As part of it they are supposed to take a couple college courses every year. There is a lot of abuse, but I pay my Au Pair more than the minimum, don't ask her to do more than just keep the kids alive, and buy her whatever she asks for that seems reasonable.
When interviewing Au Pairs (it's a lot like an online dating service, with profile pages and matches) I always asked, "What are you hoping to get out of becoming an Au Pair? What benefit are you looking for?" The answer was almost always, "More experience speaking English." This seems reasonable, as a good American accent probably gives people a huge advantage in business.
Anyways, the State Department is reviewing the Au Pair program, and has proposed a series of rules that will break it for most families. I don't want to count every toothbrush I buy her, or make sure that she only eats $10.88 worth of food every day. Regardless of what is financially feasible, I'm not going to do it. There's just no way to live with someone in your house, monitor them to this extent, and then still trust them with your kids.
But then the question turns to, "Who is going to watch my kids?" I have four kids, ranging from 10 months to 6 years. There is a preschool we send one child to for 1/2 day socialization, and she likes it well enough. I could send the others to their Summer Camp. But the 10 month old would be too young, and daycare for a 1 year old is already booked up for a year.
Then there's the reality that I'm not giving my kids the attention I want to. Work takes over too much. I might technically be off work at 4:30, but someone puts a meeting on my calendar at 5, or I really need to finish these three five emails, and before I know it it's Dinner Time. I have all these worksheets I want to do with my two oldest and practice penmanship (which they really struggle with.) I want to take my kids outside to play. I want to go for walks. But I also want to be held in esteem at work. As long as work is there, I will put off my kids because kids can wait but work can't. But that is a LIE. Kids grow up, and toil is forever.
I don't want to send them off to a church preschool from 7 to 5, and then pick them up, feed them dinner, do homework, and kiss them good night. That's not how I was raised. That's not what I want for my family.
So I will likely become a stay at home Mom, once my Au Pair's contract ends. I'm looking forward to taking my kids to parks, splash pads, libraries, festivals, and other public areas around my city. My city is actually really family friendly. I know it is hard work. I took half a year off work when I had my second child. I know it can be isolating. But I have the example of my mother, who make lots of mom friends and seemed to have a blast when my siblings and I were young. Thinking about making this change fills me with excitement and hope.
The two downsides - and they are huge - is money and the Future. Money is easy enough to explain - we will have less of it. My husband makes enough for us to live on, if we had no debt we would have a good amount left over after all the mandatory bills (food, mortgage, utilities, etc.) Unfortunately, we have debt. There are some student loans that are almost paid off and we are in a payment plan with the children's hospital after three of my children were hospitalized for a cumulative of 27 days, 10 of which were in the ICU. With this debt, we are still able to make due, and live a good quality of life, but we would need to be careful to limit things like how much meat we buy, how many clothes we get the kids, etc. Once the debt is paid off in a couple years, it's all fine. But we will have to live frugally for a couple years, or risk falling into more debt.
The Future one is harder to explain, but I can't stay home with the kids forever. By the time the youngest is 10, if not sooner, I need to go back into the labor force. I think that is where my mother messed up. She put her foot down on her identity as a homemaker, ended up not doing much during the school day, driving us around to sports in the afternoon (until I was able to drive, and then she had even less to do.) The cognitive decline you see retirees experience, she seemed to get when she was 50. She kept the public areas of the house clean, cooked dinner (badly), and otherwise watched Masterpiece Theater. Shortly after I graduated college, my parents divorced. Now she is a real estate agent with no sales and sometimes manages to convince her friends to pay above market rates to clean their house.
I see a few possibilities. I have a Master's degree, and can probably get a certification and find work as a school teacher once the children are in school. I don't have any particular interest in this. I think of schools as enemy territory, so to speak. It would be nice if I could instead home school my kids (I'm not going to leap straight into that, but it's a possibility now.) Maybe I could teach at a Catholic School. The benefit of being a school teacher is obvious, I would be off work most of the same days that my children would be.
The other idea I'm entertaining is to start my own business. I've been thinking up a small catalog of things I could crochet. Things that could only be done by hand, look unique, and would take me less than two hours a piece. I could buy a stamping kit for 1k and sell personalized jewelry. I could lean into the Mommy space, and sell "calming jars" and other kid trinkets.
The idea would be to do something for a few hours a week, just enough to keep a storefront and a tax ID. If I actually turn a small profit I can use to buy a zoo membership or something, that would be a bonus. As the kids get bigger, I can spend more time on it, eventually either actually making it a full time job, or pivoting back into being a wage worker. It seems like it will be easier for me to get hired if I can say I started a small business, rather than I took time off work to care for small kids.
I'm open to any and all suggestions.
Breaking news: Trump is saying he will not be deporting illegal immigrants who work on Farms and in Hotels.
Gavin Newsom is claiming it for a win for the violent riots that have taken over LA and other major cities.
This is a bit of a let down for Trump Supporters and anyone who wants to take America back from those who were not invited. Especially with Gavin Newsom rubbing it in the public's face. Especially with American Approval of deportation efforts have been increasing.
Trump's rationale appears to be:
Hotels/farms are low hanging fruit, it's easy to pick up illegal immigrants from these locations.
After swooping these groups first, then the only applicants to these positions (at the wages the farms and hotels are willing to pay) are the criminal illegal immigrants.
So focus on criminality first.
Does this mean that, once every last criminal is deported, he will then do sweeps of farms and hotels? Left ambiguous.
One problem is the effect of exploitable labor goes in one way. Over the past 2 decades, Landscaping businesses that employed high school students and ex cons went out of business because they couldn't compete against undocumented workers.
If one farm gets raided, and one farm growing similar things does not get raided for another year, then the first farm needs to hire more expensive people and raise prices while the second farm will still benefit from the lowered wages. The farm that got raided first goes out of business first, the second farm maybe gets to buy up the first farm, then when they are inevitably raided they still stay in business and make more money now.
It's not fair. It's not fair that the government has not enforced its own rules surrounding hiring employees uniformly across industries.
The fair thing would be to deport 100% of everyone deportable all at once. The shock of that will be destructive to every industry that is predominately illegal immigrants.
The next fair thing might be to deport 10% of employees in every business all together, then another 10% later, and so on until the bottom is reached.
Of course, the above two "fair" plans are ridiculous. We do not have the man-power to do it.
Any other fair ideas? Besides Trump's new plan of "Don't try to tackle this right now."
More options
Context Copy link