FlailingAce
No bio...
User ID: 1084
FlailingAce
2d ago
Gotcha, I see the connection better now.
It seems like a misapplication of the template though. The point of it seems to be to mock someone's enthusiasm for a topic or their willingness to share an opinion that nobody else cares about. Scott is adding in a totally different aspect with his comparison between EA and Christianity. It ends up as a mixed metaphor which I think is why so many are confused by it.
FlailingAce
2d ago
I think I've seen you link this image several places, and every time I don't see any connection. There's no similarity between this 'template' and what Scott says. A copypasta means you copy and paste, maybe with minor alterations.
FlailingAce
2d ago
I don't understand how you read Scott's message and took it as something other than a joke.
The problem is it doesn't read as a joke. There's no wordplay, no clever twist conclusion. It's just a straight-forward comparison that comes off (at least to me) as both direct and fairly aggressive in tone. It's no surprise that people would take it at face value.
If it was meant purely as a joke then it was poorly conceived and poorly executed.
FlailingAce
2d ago
Just like I've understood perfectly the character and substance of atheists if I say they're hedonists who just want to do evil without consequence, or I've understood perfectly the character and substance of socialists if I say they just want free stuff, or I've understood perfectly the character and substance of MAGA Republicans if I say they're just racists in disguise, or etc. etc. It is definitionally straw man nonsense designed to attack the outgroup.
What exactly is the real defense to 'You're an idiot who believes in sky daddy?' The correct response is not a defense at all, but scorn and dismissal.
FlailingAce
3d ago
From what I understand, there's a group of AI safety enthusiasts related to the 'Effective Altruism' movement, but nobody takes them seriously because they're oddballs involved in weird sex stuff. Scott appeared to be defending them by arguing that they are similar to Jesus, which caused a backlash because the comparison is pretty absurd. His defenders say he was just joking. It's very much a storm in a teacup.
FlailingAce
3d ago
Isn't your wife concerned about your salvation? Or is she playing the long game?
FlailingAce
3d ago
The point is trolling (just look at the amount of seething it produces) and highlighting their hypocrisy to third parties.
Yes, this is why those doing 'the meme' are treated with disdain. They are like children whose goal is to annoy by deliberately misunderstanding you. The only response to this is to rebuke and then ignore.
FlailingAce
3d ago
As someone not too familiar with Alexander's writing or X account, the two things you linked sound like humor, while the original that caused the controversy sounds like aggressive rhetoric. There's no wordplay or turn of phrase. If it was meant as humor it falls very short, and people can be forgiven for interpreting it as serious.
FlailingAce
3d ago
This is the definition of uncharitable. Do you really think there aren't any Christians who know the tenets of the religion? What an absurd thing to say.
FlailingAce
5d ago
John the Baptist lived on the edges only in the sense that his lifestyle was untraditional. He had disciples, he engaged frequently with the larger populace, he even involved himself in politics by criticizing Herod. He looks nothing like a monastic.
The idea that isolating yourself will lead you to be 'highly purified and holy' is also not backed up by reality. One example I came across recently is in the journals of St Jerome, who famously shut himself in a tiny cell with only one window to receive his meals and no other contact with the world. Did he become 'highly purified and holy'? To the contrary, he writes in his journals that he was plagued by sinful thoughts and desires just as before.
Sanctification does not and indeed cannot come about by a program of self improvement. It only comes about by the work of the Spirit. That's why monastic practice is inherently wrong-headed, it seeks to use human effort to become holy, when that work can only be accomplished by God.
FlailingAce
7d ago
Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you've actually been a replicant this whole time. The tests have just now gotten good enough to detect you.
FlailingAce
10d ago
From what I understand talking to my pastor, the 'monastic tradition' is not emphasized because it is a retreat from the world. At least for evangelicals, the Great Commission is the considered one of the most important commands from Christ. A monastic abandons this for their own spiritual development, which is fundamentally selfish.
There is, though (at least in my tradition) a history of temporary removal from the world for spiritual development, recovery from sin or trauma, or just to reset. Think either sabbatical or rehab. These sometimes include meditative practices alongside typical prayer. However, they are always intended to refresh or prepare a person to reenter the world so they can do the good works God has prepared for them.
FlailingAce
15d ago
I think the game you're describing is The Oregon Trail.
FlailingAce
21d ago
Another aspect may be the subjective experience of agency. Physical action is fundamentally agentic, so if the black male juror has experience with violence he would have a visceral sense that LC was taking action in her own hands. On the other hand, women are more likely to feel non-agentic, controlled by external factors - and not just women, but anyone inculcated with a postmodern paradigm that emphasizes how society shapes and controls everything about you. Non-agentic people are more likely to empathize with the idea of an uncontrollable psychotic break, because they already don't feel in control of their own lives.
FlailingAce
22d ago
This is a weak argument. They're not the same word in Greek. The flood 'took' (ἦρεν) them away, but the man in the field will 'be taken' (παραλαμβάνεται). The words are not etymologically related. The first has, among many meanings: 'to take from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence'. The second does not have that meaning at all, but does have this meaning: 'to take to, to take with one's self, to join to one's self' - which is how we would understand the pre-trib rapture, Jesus taking his Church to be with him. If Jesus meant it to be a parallel use of the word 'take' he would have used the same word.
I think you're doing a good job convincing me the rapture is legit!
FlailingAce
22d ago
I'll be praying for you brother :)
I actually considered going to Catholic seminary years ago, when I was still a Catholic, but couldn't bring myself to do it because of doubts I had about certain Catholic dogmas and worries about this same issue, being required to positively assent to doctrines against my own judgement.
It seems to me that amillenialism is a perfectly arguable position and retains the imminency of Christ's return, which is the important thing! But your link doesn't seem to teach amill theology... paragraph 674 seems to say that Israel needs to profess faith in Christ before his return (more a dispensational view), and 675 seems to describe the tribulation, just not using that word. I think typical amill theology says that the Church is the new Israel and so has already returned, and that the tribulation already occurred in/around 70 AD.
FlailingAce
22d ago
So you think that the people "taken" are going to judgement? That seems much less in line with everything else the Bible teaches. Why would only the damned be taken, if they're going to the throne of God to be judged - doesn't the Bible clearly say that all will go to judgement at the same time? What's more, it's pretty clear that the Church will go up to meet Jesus, but here you're arguing the Church will just be left in the field or at a hand mill.
I don't think most pre-trib rapture advocates actually rely on these verses, but your interpretation of them just seems backwards. The use of the word 'taken' does not imply the same as dying in a flood - 'the flood came and took them' is not the same.
FlailingAce
22d ago
Yeah I don't see the connection exactly, but at a recent conference a guy told me they were basically the same thing, that each one entails the other. It's that kind of thinking that puts me off this kind of theology, even if I think the scriptural basis for pre-trib rapture seems reasonable.
FlailingAce
23d ago
Yeah it's an interesting position they take. It's not a dogma in the sense that we say it's definitely true, and we can have communion and agreement with churches that don't teach it, but it's considered a 'distinctive' trait of Calvary chapels and thus obligatory for affiliation with the overarching organizations.
From what understand it's emphasized largely for pastoral reasons, because teaching Christ's imminent return is valuable both for getting people to make a decision for Christ today as well as to provide hope to believers. That's the theory anyway. But in practice I see a lot of people trying to predict the timing of the rapture (and getting it wrong lol) which I think is unhealthy. I like pretty much everything else about the church and its distinctives though!
FlailingAce
23d ago
This may not be exactly 'small scale' but it seems like the best place for it.
I attend a Calvary chapel church, and I'm being considered for a teaching role, and potentially looking towards taking over when the pastor retires. Lots to consider about this, but one thing that's a sticking point for me: Calvary chapel dogmatically teaches a pre-trib rapture, and I'm not convinced.
So, my questions, for anyone who has thoughts on them:
-
Do any of y'all believe in pre-trib rapture, or more generally dispensationalism, and how would you steel-man the case for it? Or for others, how would you argue against it?
-
What are your thoughts on having to teach a doctrine you're not confident in?
FlailingAce
1mo ago
In other words, the only thing that makes this psychosis is that she wanted to kill her kids? Then what distinguishes her 'psychosis' from any other criminal's desire to do evil? If I killed someone in a crime of passion, what stops me from claiming it was a temporary 'psychosis'? I really can't see the distinction here.
FlailingAce
1mo ago
I'll concede to a little hyperbole, but I was responding to the question 'has any rapist had their mind changed' - not, is this brochure the best way to change minds, but literally 'I don't think a single one of these people could be convinced to stop raping'.
Anyway, I think there's two groups you're conflating. Rapists in modern cultures are generally sociopaths who don't care that what they're doing is wrong. But rapists from these immigrant communities are much more common than the incidence of sociopathy. They see nothing wrong with things that in Western countries we consider rape (e.g. date rape, marital rape, rape of those from a lower caste) because they are from a culture that sees these things as normal. They're not raping because they don't care about the rules, but because they are following different rules. It follows, then, that part of the solution must be educating them on the new rules. Not the whole solution, but a start at least.
FlailingAce
1mo ago
Do you really think any rapist has had their mind changed by a brochure?
I mean, yes? What, do you think all non-Europeans are just animals that can't understand words? How do you propose to teach someone the rules of a society - should we strap them down Clockwork Orange-style? Or just chemically castrate them as a prerequisite for asylum?
I know, I know, the real solution is: let's not allow anyone into the country that isn't already a Western liberal. It's a bit late for that though.
Obviously this brochure isn't the complete solution, but it's a step in the right direction that admits to the problem and tries to address it.
FlailingAce
1mo ago
He's proposing that the British take steps to ensure asylum seekers are socialized and understand local laws and customs. Which is what they did and what everyone is complaining about.
I'll second both parts of that. I've got about 500 hours in XCOM 2 Long War of the Chosen, culminating in completing an Ironman Legend campaign earlier this year. It is addicting but in a digestible way, because you can play just a little at a time, and can take your time figuring out any situation. It's also by far my favorite game.
More options
Context Copy link