coffee_enjoyer
☕️
No bio...
User ID: 541
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
Intentional or coincidental, you’ve hinted at a plot point of the parable:
Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’
In our parable-world, the obedient brother never receives a celebration like this, but he did receive other things: the constant connection to his father, the share in his ousia (interpreted either as wealth to inherit or, spiritually, his nature), and lastly the return of his lost brother (and he gets to eat the calf too). Your experiences are somewhat different as you’re describing an over-strictness to the good sibling and an under-strictness to the bad sibling. But, it’s probable that our parable-patriarch was a loving father to his obedient son, advising him and hyping him on many matters. And it is probable also that if the layabout had stayed in his father’s estate (as opposed to defecting away from his whole “kingdom” so to speak) that he would be criticized or at least advised regarding his errors, in a loving fashion. Our layabout son had instead alienated himself from paternal authority altogether: true defection and true sin. And the celebration upon his return shows us the community’s greatest value: not in industry and correctness but in saving the lost and raising the dead (metaphorically), something better for the communal whole and better for emotional wellness. A spiritual social safety net. [you could, plausibly, tie this discussion to the “slack” topic you find in SSC and elsewhere… and how miserable a place like South Korea is, with their emphasis on industry and rank and not spending money lavishly on genuine welfare — competition of brother, not love].
But I don’t think that the parabolic celebration actually confers status on the profligate. It is a costly signal of the love they have for him as a human (and brother) despite his transgressions. And that love is best for him to have, and best for him to associate in his heart with his family, so that he can resume brotherly duties without shame or ill-will. After this celebration, he is not going to take over the estate of his father, and he has no more inheritance. So his status is effectively permanently lower in re wealth and role, but restored completely in re humanness. Today with our homeless crisis, how many profligates refuse to get help because there is no loving paternal figure to meet them halfway and memorably celebrate their return? Instead there’s efficiency bureaucracies, and competition, and status and status and status and status… cultures which promote family over everything have much lower rates of homelessness and drug addiction.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
This is an interesting question. It’s complicated in subtle ways. You can see the Satiated Sinner Question as a balancing act between justice and mercy. Justice says that errors deserves punishment and righteousness deserves reward. Mercy says that each person must be lovingly motivated to pursue the good regardless of their past, and rewarded in doing so. If you choose justice at the expense of mercy, then a longterm sinner has no motivation to pursue righteousness. The mercy-starved sinner’s future outlook would lack any appetizing reward, and they would be unmotivated in their journey toward betterment. But if you lack justice, then everyone (sinner included) has reduced motivation to pursue the prescribed righteous conduct. Being justice-heavy means that the repentant sinner never obtains the status they otherwise would have had. Being mercy-abundant means that the repentant sinner can easily make up the status they have lost with little effort. The balance is that we must optimally motivate a lifelong sinner to pursue righteousness, and yet optimally motivate the righteous person to pursue even more righteousness!
We can consider a classroom. A justice-heavy teacher allows for no assignment to be made up except for serious and valid reasons. A mercy-abundant teacher allows for poor-performing students to make up an assignment to get them back on track and reinvested in the work. What’s interesting to consider is that the focus with the most utility depends on which student you are dealing with. I can easily imagine a student with a bad home life, dealing with personal issues, who is on the verge of giving up on his class because of how far behind he is. Emphasizing justice does not help him, neither will he “learn” from failure, as his issue stems from motivation and emotional distress. Lovingly allowing him to hand in something simpler, and reducing the standard for him particularly, can result in new motivation in the class, and more importantly a new attachment to the teacher and school generally. A school that cares about him as a particular human with particular issues is a school he can love, which is clearly better for his particular development.
On the other hand, we can imagine a student who ought to have more justice and not more mercy. This is for a student who is lazy and uncaring without excuse, and especially for a student who violates important rules in a selfish deceptive manner. The failure is important so that he learns his behavior is truly punished, so that hopefully he doesn’t repeat it again. Showing him mercy would be counterproductive, whereas in the distressed student it may be productive. My intuition is that this difference is deeply tied to an individual’s health, IQ, spirit and status.
So how do we solve this universal problem?
One solution is to know them, in that “subjective” sense of having a long conversation and trying to determine whether they are an earnest repentant or a satiated sinner. I do believe that human intuition can tell us this. LLMs and AI show us that the most sophisticated technology available to us is often no match to human intuition. While judging someone is a subjective judgement, it’s probably the closest we can get to an objective judgment, because everything else can be gamed, but human intuition is hard to game. Do we give our significant other a test if they violated our trust, or do we instead trust our intuition? Intuition rules over everything here. If it is impossible to fake, then the motivation to be a satisfied sinner is reduced: “what if I can’t fake it when I’m done?”
Another solution is to reduce the reward for their lifestyle and also love them mercifully. This is actually a crucial part of the Parable of the Prodigal Son. The prodigal son did not recover the full status of what he previously lost! After his profligate spending and ruin, he aimed to become a servant in his father’s household. He remembered that even the servants were well-fed with bread (not exquisite meats). The father embraced his prodigal son with fatherly love (mercifully wishing for his good and loving him), and he celebrated his return with splendor. But the son no longer had a share in his father’s wealth. To his well-behaved son he says “Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours”, meaning that the remainder of his wealth goes to the good son — the prodigal son does not deserve to recover the wealth which he wasted. (The word used when the prodigal son demanded his share of the “wealth” is actually “ousia”, which means property or being, and is used in the mysterious epi-ousia, the “super-substantial” or “above-being” bread of the Lord’s Prayer, translated somewhat retardedly as “daily bread”. How many of God’s hired servants have more than enough bread?).
I think this trusty old parable actually sheds a lot of light on this problem. Sinning should always reduce status; the righteous should be greater status than the recently-forgiven. But the return of every sinner onto a Godly path should be greatly celebrated, almost absurdly celebratory. They should be maximally hyped up about it, because that’s for their good. Because “it is fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.” But, hyping up and loving a homeless person who cleaned himself up is a lot different from seeing the formerly homeless person as equal in status to some longstanding community member who lived well. The longstanding community member must be respected and honored more in day to day life. (If the former vagabond lives very well for years, then his status should be greatly increased, but never to the height of what his status would be had he not vagabonded. But maybe close to it. I think that’s correct).
The deeper meta pattern of how to socially-prescribe reinforcement for previous defectors comes up a lot, I think. Someone used to say the N word? OnlyFans girl goes trad? Amber Rose speaking at the RNC? I think there’s an instrumental case for quickly rehabilitating defectors, but I think America screws up in how it valorizes and honors the returning defector. If you were a druggie profligate and then became an evangelical pastor, your previous life as a sinner should not be used to enhance your reputation. You can still be a pastor if there is no one better, but speaking about your past should make you feel nauseous, not excited and nostalgic (what it seems like for these people sometimes).
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
We are going in circles so maybe I’ll try a clear counterfactual.
So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. [Galatians 6:10]
If we love everyone as ourselves, then it would be against the commandment to do good ”most of all to spiritual brothers”. What would be the justification for doing most of our good to the brothers, if the whole world must be loved as oneself?
-
You confuse “universal care for strangers” with the prescription to love one’s neighbor. First, the acceptance of a stranger into the community was contingent upon their complete conformity to the Jewish law in Ancient Israel. Second, early Jewish Rabbis defined “neighbor” as other Jews. These are two different things.
-
For some reason, you feel it is fine to ignore all the scriptural evidence. I showed you how the elements of the parable only make sense in the context of an ancient Israelite “neighborhood”. But then I showed you how all of the apostles interpreted “neighborhood” to mean brotherhood. You are ignoring this because you want to ignore this, I guess? I have no idea.
-
Origen goes on to explain what he means by that. “But we should not think that it applies to every man. For, not every man "goes down from Jerusalem into Jericho," nor do all dwell in this present world for that reason, even if he who "was sent on account of the lost sheep of the house of Israel" went down. Hence, the man who "went down from Jerusalem into Jenicho" "fell among robbers" because he himself wished to go down. But the robbers are none other than they of whom the Savior says, "All who came before me were thieves and robbers." […] This is how he understands the parable. That the Samaritan is Christ. You misquoted. He doesn’t say everyone “ought” to do that. Yes, we behave like the Samaritan, in a particular capacity and context which is symbolized in the parable…
You love the stranger by making them like yourself
This is demonic. You are trying to destroy the very idea of a church brotherhood. That will, and has already, destroyed Christianity. It destroys brotherly love and casts pearls to swine. It is also nonsensical. You do not love enemies like strangers, strangers like neighbors, or neighbors like brothers. Have you really never asked yourself why we have all these commands for brotherly love, when according to your reading, we should be loving everyone on the earth as brothers? Why on earth would the apostles talk so much about the “brotherhood” and “brotherly love” if they were expected to love everyone the same?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
Does the average NFL fan have the knowledge-base to appreciate these “continued innovations”, implying that the average fan has the coaching expertise of not just the top coaches but the innovators as well? This implies that the average NFL fan is reading detailed analytic write-ups about different coaching strategies, being their true interest, right?
Christian perfection is praying for enemies, yes. There’s nothing novel about that. But enemies are still enemies. And enemies are not strangers, and strangers aren’t neighbors, and neighbors aren’t brothers. Jerome telling us to pray for enemies is irrelevant to the questions at hand. The reason I bring up Jerome’s view on Jews is because obviously you don’t share that view. No one shares that view today. So your criticism that I had the audacity to disagree with Jerome is instantly rendered void and actually pretty humorous. You also disagree with Jerome. You disagree with multiple pages he wrote about Jews being cursed with bloodguilt, and I disagree with a few sentences in which he declares that the whole world is his neighbor. So let’s move past ol’ J-Dawg and focus on other evidence?
the idea that loving your neighbor involved anyone you encounter was familiar to the early church
As evidence for this you quote Jerome again. As an example, Origen does not conclude from the parable that everyone is now your neighbor.
But this universal welcome and hospitality is a well established part of the faith
The early church had a welfare system reserved for themselves. If they were not Christian, they were not welcome at the Eucharist (originally: “love feast”). If they sinned without repentance, Christians were commanded never to eat with them. If a widow wanted the financial charity of the church, they had to prove good Christian behavior to earn it. And in the Epistles, we have maybe eight passages commanding Christians to love brothers-in-faith, and little about neighbors. This is remarkable: if the apostles believed that they should love everyone as themselves, why do we only see an emphasis on brotherly love? Brothers would be but a part in the love for neighbor. The logical argument is that the neighborhood has become the Christian Brotherhood, just as Israel has become Christendom.
Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannota love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. [this is remarkable. Christ said our commandment was to love our neighbor just as we love God! But John has turned this to brother?]
Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another
Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. [to everyone: honor. To brothers: love]
Let brotherly love continue. Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares [this is telling: do one thing for brothers; do another for strangers]
For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself [this whole chapter is about brothers. Note that in speaking to brothers about brothers, he ties this into neighbor]
The idea that Christians should love strangers as themselves is the Achilles heel of Christianity. It has caused irreparable harm to Christianity worldwide and ushered in a world of absurd progressive theology and ultimately harm. It naturally leads to absence of brotherly love, because there can be no exceptional love for brothers if you are obliged to love strangers as yourself. The heart of Christianity is brotherly love. God Himself, as a Man, gave special love to his friends and made them brothers. He did not give special love to strangers, though he healed them upon request and when passing through. He stopped what he was doing to raise up Lazarus because he loved Lazarus particularly. And see here —
This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
Your comparison isn’t accurate. A real life performance of the Magic Flute is a multisensory experience with superior aural sensation, among other things. I am not asking why someone would see a live NFL game. I am asking why the overwhelming number of NFL viewers never buy old “episodes”, but instead only watch the latest installment. If you are into classical music, you would actually do the opposite. You would determine which performance of the Magic Flute is the greatest and then buy a high-quality record of that. Recent performances of classical music are not favored due to their recency among classical music listeners. The most listened-to performances are years if not decades old, and even in the guitar world the recordings of Segovia and Bream are given special attention despite the poor audio quality. Same when television: lots of people want to see which show is the best, even if that’s 90s Twin Peaks or 00s Friends. This is despite the improvements in film technology.
The reason the average nfl viewer only watches current episodes is that the NFL markets itself as relevant, spending enormous sums to make people think it is relevant. It’s like an attentional pyramid scheme. When people realize there is no reason for it to be relevant, that they were lied to, the industry will fail. They protect against this by claiming they are “tradition” and an “American staple” instead of garbage.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
The parables specifically are interpreted allegorically by every early theologian. Jesus effectively demands an allegorical interpretation in Matthew 13. Also, the anagogical and moral analyses are usually intwined with allegory.
If are going to respond to the author of the Vulgate with 'That's just like your opinion”
Again, the dominant reading of the parable was not that everyone counts as your neighbor. That is a minority viewpoint. Do you believe that every opinion of Jerome is correct? For instance, in his homily 35 on psalm 108, do you agree that every Jew is accursed because they bear collective blood guilt for killing Jesus? I’m excited for you reply — you give him full authority on being the author of the Vulgate, and you’re all about taking him seriously. (Feel free to copy my reply of “Jerome’s interpretation is Jerome’s interpretation”. I won’t judge you. But you can’t say he is wrong — after all, you note he wrote the Vulgate).
The reasoning about what this parable means has been done for millennia
Most of the early conclusions are not that everyone is your neighbor. Even more importantly, the conclusion doesn’t make sense upon careful inspection of the parable.
When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong
In Leviticus the strangers are supposed to be circumcised and follow every single law of an Israelite. “But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you”.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
It is funny that you accuse me of not “seriously engaging” in the text, and then you literally make something up about the text. There is no “troublemaker”, that word isn’t there. There is a lawyer who tests his teacher and then wants to present himself as blameless (justify himself) in regards to the command to love his neighbor. Those are the words used. Lawyers look for limit cases; this particular lawyer (student of the law) wanted to be perfect, so he inquires how to be perfect.
“Trying to limit whom the commandment applied” is the question at hand. The teacher highlights the neighborly standard in the conduct of the Samaritan, yes. But what else does he specify? Every word of the parable has meaning. Why specify Jerusalem, Jericho, priest, Levite, and Samaritan? Because this is the neighborhood. These are the Israelites (for Christians: Christians). The Samaritan acted as the neighbor, the priest / levites did not, but the parable exists within the confines of the believing community. “Be a neighbor to everyone” is an outlandish conclusion.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
Makes sense I guess. So as an example, Goldman and McKinsey don’t care about this as much as the students think they do?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
Has anyone written about the demographics of elite college clubs? This is noteworthy as they are the top-most selection filter for business and finance. A lot of these organizations appear to have a worse under-representation of white students than the schools themselves. The Harvard Undergraduate Consulting Group, for instance, is the most elite of club for Ivy students, and is only 7% white. The students are admitted by other students, and these students grew up in a culture saturated with anti-white propaganda about privilege.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
You’re not making the compelling critique that you think you are making. There are things you have to know first before you can understand the parable. (“This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: ‘You will indeed hear but never understand’”).
-
A major plot of the New Testament is that the disbelieving Jews are severed from God and the gentiles are grafted in. But that takes place at the end, and this parable takes place earlier. So how do we understand it?
-
We can’t understand it as applying to modern Jews, because that is the religion of the Pharisees centered on the Talmud which denies Christ. The New Israel for Christians is about Christ. Indeed, no theologian has ever interpreted it as actually involving present-day Jews and Samaritans. Maybe some silly ones today, but no Church Father.
-
Christians read the parables as applying universally, involving moral lessons and symbols. Disagreeing with this fine if you don’t consider yourself Christian, but nonsensical if you’re trying to understand the readings under Christian assumptions (the purpose of the original OP). This is shown in Matthew 13.
-
We are left with a parable which applies today in form and symbol, but using context from the first century (before the Atonement and before Christ becomes the full-fledged mediator between God and Man). So who are today’s “Samaritans” which act righteously? Christ somehow answers the question “who is my neighbor” here, and we have to understand it as applying today. There must be a neighbor category; who fits the category?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
He is identified as an Israelite with “from Jerusalem to Jericho”. Jerusalem did not have a large foreign population. Jericho was a major trading hub used by Jews. While Jerome’s interpretation is his interpretation, it’s neither the oldest nor the most traditional. The oldest and most common interpretation in the early church is the see Christ as the Samaritan. Just per wiki,
”This allegorical reading was taught not only by ancient followers of Jesus, but it was virtually universal throughout early Christianity, being advocated by Irenaeus, Clement, and Origen, and in the fourth and fifth centuries by Chrysostom in Constantinople, Ambrose in Milan, and Augustine in North Africa. This interpretation is found most completely in two other medieval stained-glass windows, in the French cathedrals at Bourges and Sens."
It’s better to reason about what the parable means. If the purpose is to abrogate the command to love neighbors and replace it with everyone, then that would be specified. If everyone is to be our neighbor, then that would also be specified. If the Samaritan is in the story only as a moral exemplar, then there would be no reason to specify his identity, and indeed most parables do not specify identities. The Samaritan is the third identity introduced of three, and all three are “Israelite”, and so if the purpose is to tell us identities don’t mean anything, then the identity of Pagan or Canaanite would be introduced. But God is God, and every word has meaning. “Jerusalem to Jericho” is homeland; Samaritan is the furthest edge case of religious brother. Remember, the answer put to test Jesus was “who is my neighbor”. While I suppose you could argue something like “my neighbor is the one who behaves like the Samaritan to me”, I think it’s more reasonable to assume that the identifiers specifically placed in the parable are there for a reason.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
In a word: globalism. “Love your neighbor” was a prescription written ~400BC to an audience whose physical neighbors were co-congregants and cousins in a mostly pastoral lifestyle. The prescription becomes less reasonable in cosmopolitan or exiled contexts. Loving your neighbor is a rule with utility when you’re on the same page with values, authorities, honors and punishments. But what if your neighbor is some random guy? I think if we consider love in its actual biological function — the syncing together of identity and cares between two creatures, the allocation of cognitive and emotional resources to ensure the other’s good, having its origin in filial and procreative and beneficiary roles — we see that love is precious and holy and shouldn’t be metaphorically thrown to swine. Many men and women have been irrevocably hurt by loving the wrong person or thing.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
The historical evidence goes against the notion that Samaritans were the “out group”. The most consistent enemy of the ancient Jews were the Canaanites and the contemporaneous enemy was the idol-worshipping Pagan nation. The Samaritans were as close you could get to Jewish without being fully Jewish. The Mishna mentions that they could celebrate liturgically together. In speaking to the Pharisees (a sect), Christ has a number criticisms and calls them devil-worshippers. In speaking to the Samaritans, there is no criticism of their theology and just a mild “salvation has come from the Jews”. The idea that the Samaritans were hated and despised by ancient Jews isn’t really evidenced. And God, being God, wouldn’t say something and mean something else. If he wanted to use a despised group, he would do so in the clearest way, and if he wanted to use a neighboring group, he would do so in the clearest way. If the very notion of a neighbor was to be abolished, which is what the outgroup theory implies, he would treat it the way he abolished divorce (“you have heard it said… but truly: …”; or “because of the hardness of your hearts…”). Instead, Christ himself says that we must love our neighbor, and the usage of “neighbor” must mean something, otherwise he would say “everyone”.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
The Great Commission does not say to make disciples out of neighborly love, or any love for that matter. It says to make disciples. Upon becoming Christian they become neighbors, brothers, etc. The theology of this can be explored through other passages: “many are called but few are chosen”; “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world”; “he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons”; “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him”; “You did not choose Me, but I chose you and appointed you”. It’s not simply that you create disciples through your own efforts and they become Christians from a blank slate because they have persuaded — there’s an element of Christ having already chosen those who would hear his message. There are logic and moral arguments against this which are known among atheists but that is, of course, outside the premises of the religion. Romans 9 takes this idea to an extreme level, calling those who can’t hear Christ “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, molded by God to show his wrath”. Not very neighborly to non-Christians, right? Barely humanizing. Another interesting tidbit is that the original Eucharist was called the Agape Feast, the same word used for love. Outsiders were completely excluded from participation in the central love ritual of the religion, and not just outsiders but students who were yet confirmed members. Those who participated but in Judas-esque fashion were also utterly dehumanized in the epistle of Jude, labeled “reefs at your love feast for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever”. Lastly, I would ask you whether Christ can love someone he never knew? Christ, plainly, never knew those who do not follow him, and at his return he tells them to go away. (Matthew 7:23).
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
Christian agape applies to Christians, the in-group. Christians have an obligation to lead strangers to Christ, but the emphasis of love in the gospel is decidedly not on strangers. In Christianity, the voodoo practitioner is not your neighbor even if he literally lives next door to you.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
In ReligionForBreakfast 17:20, the conclusion is that “the parable is about insiders and how things should work for insiders”. 17:28, “the Samaritan is being used as a limit concept”. In 17:42, that the Samaritan is the edge case to specify the broader concept of the people of Israel.
To understand how this applies to Christians requires Christian assumptions. These are difficult to succinctly explain to non-Christians but widely agreed upon in mainstream Christian traditions. The stories in the Gospel are for the edification of Christians, not Jews; the elements of the story involving temples and scribes and Pharisees are not stuck in the first century, but apply universally; Christians are the Chosen People, with those who do not accept Christ being cast aside. When Christ offers a teaching to his community it is accepted that this teaching is for his proclaimed community of followers, with the lessons applying today. In other words, the gospel lesson mentioning Samaritans apply to what the Samaritan represents for Christians today, and interpreting otherwise would be a serious misinterpretation (“beware of the teachings of the Pharisees”).
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
Okay, but it seems integral to your progressive philosophy. You might feel better considering that Christ does not want you to love random strangers or, in this case, Haitians who practice voodoo.
You’ve ignored nearly all my points, so I will simplify them for you.
-
Why do you think people watch current NFL games, and would not view older NFL games if they were less expensive? Is it based on the content of the product, or is it based on the manufactured hype around the product? If it is based on the manufactured hype around the product, to what extent do you think this hype is due to the astroturfed (pun intended) millions or hundreds of millions in making NFL appear socially relevant on social media and TV? If the consumers understood that the hype is fictitious, do you think they would still watch as much?
-
If I hire people to show up at my storefront and loudly proclaim how important my product is, while pretending to be legitimate, in order to bring in passersby, would you consider this “trickery”, or just “satisfying the appetite for leisure and discretionary spending”?
-
Why do you think Adidas spent one billion dollars for Messi? Does Messi affect the quality of Adidas sneakers? Do you think a rational consumer making rational choices would pick a shoe because it has the name “Messi” attached to it? Or is Adidas instead manipulating the purchasing habits of irrational children and low IQ adults?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
“Americans gamble on their phone because of advertisements” is not negated by the fact that gambling has always existed. People in America have always gambled, but fewer, and in specific contexts, and less frequently. Are you trying to argue that gambling hasn’t increased despite the legalizing or advertising of gambling? Or that the celebrity endorsements of online gambling companies have been futile in bringing in customers?
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
Are you looking for non-progressive opinions? If so I will share my thoughts.
believe with my whole heart that loving your neighbor as yourself means loving every neighbor
Loving your neighbor means loving other Christians, and specifically precludes false Christians. ReligionForBreakfast explains this well in his recent “the most misunderstood parable of Jesus” analysis video. The historical evidence is overwhelming that Samaritans were considered co-religionists, and the textual evidence points to Samaritans being the “far case” of neighbor status. The Parable of the Samaritan defines who is a neighbor, and the further case of neighbor is a righteous co-religionist who isn’t totally aligned with your practices. God calls you to love your fellow Christians as yourself; and He calls you to love your brothers the most (those in your church, denomination, friends). While Christ does say to “love your enemies”, the Sermon on the Mount involves exaggeration to shock us into dispositional perfection: we do not actually cut off our hands when our hand leads to sin, or pluck out our eye when our eye leads to sin, and so the commands cannot be taken as literal practical rules.
It’s crucially important that we understand who are neighbors are. If you extend who you consider to be your neighbor beyond what God has established, you aren’t being “more good”, you are being bad. You are committing the worst sin, which is failing to love God with your mind and failing to obey his commandments. If you fail to obey Christ’s commandments then, according to John, you never knew him.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
Americans do not engage in consumer activity for purely rational reasons, after a full assessment of the merits of the activity compared to alternatives, and with full knowledge of which activities produce the most happiness. Americans buy lotto tickets and gamble on their phone because of advertisements. Americans buy overpriced shoes and other items because of advertisements. They choose their beer based on advertisements. Companies frequently use celebrity endorsements because they know this tricks the consumer’s mind. Advertisements are not just to placate the gods or something, they work because they trick you. You need rationality and ideally wisdom to prevent this from happening; and yes, I think that wisdom can usher in peace and harmony and wellbeing.
People like things they are predisposed to enjoying, or which they objectively value
Companies spend large money on celebrity endorsements. Adidas spent a billion for Messi. Nespresso spent 40 million on George Clooney. They understand that they can trick people to their product, like the NFL, which requires the belief that the NFL is popular in order for it to become popular.
If the national poop-eating league was given 100 billion dollars to market
This isn’t a sophisticated argument. Of course there must be something primitively alluring if you intend to make a lot of money. So all the people who would otherwise have made the poop eating league are instead making the NFL or gambling companies or OnlyFans or sugar or pop music or Fortnite. They use everything they can to get you to watch, eg half time show musical performances. What draws someone to spectate professional sports is the propaganda that it is culturally relevant, socially valuable, and worthy to witness. Why do people watch current sports games instead of game reruns from 2010? For no other reason than the hype. If the NFL were selling games from 2010 at half the price of viewing 2024 games, still almost everyone would watch 2024 games, because they value the surrounding hype and not the content.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
1mo ago
That is from Plutarch 24:2. I find “public entertainment” in a 18th century translation but that is not the normal translation today. University of Chicago’s online Loeb portal reads
Characteristic of Solon also was his regulation of the practice of eating at the public table in the townhall, for which his word was "parasitein."The same person was not allowed to eat there often, but if one whose duty it was to eat there refused, he was punished. Solon thought the conduct of the first grasping; that of the second, contemptuous of the public interests.
This appears to be in reference to the “public dining-table in the prytaneum”. Regarding these meals:
The nearest approach that modern usage makes to the Prytaneum of a Greek state may be found in the town-hall or hôtel de ville; but the religious character attaching to it gave it a much higher significance, and it had also state purposes* which were peculiar to cities of Ancient Greece, being non-existent even at Rome, where, as will be pointed out, we have a near parallel on the religious side. The Prytaneum, so far as our evidence goes, was a requisite for every Greek state (Paus. 1.43; 5.15); but only in the capital, not in demes or villages attached to it. Its archaic history appears to be as follows. Every Greek tribal settlement of primitive times (and probably the same holds good for most nations of the world) had a common hearth in the chief's house, where the fire was scrupulously preserved, because of the difficulty in those days of procuring fire at all. To pursue this question further is unnecessary here: any book on the folk-lore and customs of almost any primitive nation will supply examples: numerous references are given in a paper on the Prytaneum by Mr. Frazer (Journal of Philology, 14.28, 1885). The perpetual maintenance of this fire was the duty of the chief, but delegated by him to daughters or slaves; in Rome, no doubt, to daughters, who reappear in history as the Vestals [VESTALES]. If the settlement was moved, the firebrand was taken carefully from the hearth and carried onward, a custom which Parkman has particularly noted in the Indian tribes of America; and similarly, if a swarm of colonists went out to settle elsewhere, they took fire with them.
All very interesting. I am very much in favor of town halls and discourse halls. Distracting commercial sports? This does not qualify as prytaneum usage.
I was born in 1991. My father likes football, my mother likes football, my maternal grandmother likes football, my maternal grandfather liked football, my paternal grandparents were Witnesses so a little off.
Then you guys should get together to play. Playing a game is a wonderful tradition. My extended family would play games in November. A wonderful song by Cayucas paints the scene well: “Came running down the stairs like clickety-clack You slipped and fell And landed on your back Playing tackle football covered up with mud Rutgers sweatshirt dirty, ripped and scuffed Old sport Oxford champ a pioneer”. Watching others play it with half the screen time as ads while you sit sedentary is terrible.
we would stop to buy a hoagie from on our way to catch an Eagles' game at the Vet. The Eagles are a living tradition within my family and my community.
How many yards down until you enter Wall-E world? Somewhere between utopia and Wall-E we have to eliminate bad cultural practices, like hot dogs and spectator sports. In one hundred years people will be defending Walmart scooters as American tradition, I swear.
Alienates the family I saw two Mondays ago, wearing their matching Section 105 season ticket holder hats?
They are alienated from culture and any good tradition, probably fat, and risk becoming gambling addicts.
Alienates the guys hanging out in the parking lot, drinking and grilling together
It is a severe tragedy that their communal meal is shitty carcinogenic meat, shitty alcohol, car exhaust and consumer merchandise. How far we have fallen. I want them at the Prytaneum. What Plutarch said! What you quoted! I want them to have their communal meals again, which every culture has, in a healthy and communal context
Medieval Christianity esteemed the Tournament, the pas d'armes.
But these were for knights to practice war. Today’s wars are not fought like knight tournaments. Today’s wars are economic and technological. Football, if anything, distracts from skills that enhance national security. Regarding the tournaments as mock war:
horsemanship was still a key military skill, and “chevaliers” valuable, even iconic soldiers. Anyone who could demonstrate “chivalry” was potentially a military asset. Indeed, kings and princes in the twelfth century gained prestige by allowing themselves to be dubbed knights. When Henry II of England, at age 18, wanted to show that he was worthy of the English crown, he had himself knighted by the King of Scots. When it came to educating his own son, King Henry gave the young man into the care of the most skilled horseman of his time, William Marshal. William Marshal progressed from this position as royal tutor to become an earl and, when civil war broke out in.
Why hasn’t an online secretive / semi-anonymous labor union movement developed? The biggest problem with forming a union is that your employer finds out before you have the potential to disrupt operations. But if a sufficient number of employees are organizing clandestinely online through a semi-anonymous community, then they can declare days of disruption without the risk of being fired. This would wildly increase the ability of employers to negotiate for higher wages, because for many businesses a disruption that occurs at the right time would spell ruin for their business. Low-wage employees have an easier time finding another job, whereas the employer might suffer disastrous losses if the labor activity becomes a regular occurrence. This seems like the most expedient way to increase worker’s rights and conditions in America if you’re into that kind of stuff. We could see Amazon drivers increase their wages like Dockworkers.
More options
Context Copy link