somethingsomething
No bio...
User ID: 1123
somethingsomething
20d ago
Yeah rereading that you're right about the followers, so my characterization would not have been totally accurate, but I have to imagine there was some turnover and generally that the apostles were reacting to unexpected events at the death of Jesus, and didn't have the intense spiritual hallucinogenic experiences Paul had to give them as clear of a direction forward beyond just waiting for the apocalypse and continuing Jesus' teachings and proselytizing.
So I'd mark out the difference by saying that they didn't "know" what was going to happen next in the way Paul did, beyond reference to Jewish apocalypticism. When James says the Lord it is ambiguous if he means Jesus or God, and Paul says Jesus is Lord but does that mean he is God? Jesus probably comes back as a messiah figure but is it Jesus as God or is it just because all the prophets are coming back too and everyone lives forever with heaven on Earth? I just think there's a lot more ambiguity compared to the crystal clear metaphysics with Paul. Obviously it helps that we have his letters but I also feel like it fits the events that occurred, and the personality of Paul that comes through his letters where it seems like the mechanics of how everything works interests him far more than it did Jesus and James.
Regarding the holy spirit I don't think it's totally clear what the holy spirit was which is why I think it took a while to eventually flesh it out as part of the trinity down the line, but to me it just seems like a Paul thing, where he's differentiating between those with faith in Jesus as having this spiritual thing that connects them with God, ensures their heavenly body, and also affects their actions to be more "Godly", and I imagine it's something all his followers said all the time, "holy spirit" this and "holy spirit" that, and so it crops up in the stories the ended up writing about Jesus and the other apostles, but it's basically just when they act Godly, it just looks like word substitution to me.
somethingsomething
20d ago
I don't know, I think they are actually disagreeing and I think that's the common view of it. Paul is prioritizing faith over works, and James is more emphasizing works. James seems to be saying, just like you shouldn't discriminate between parts of the law (I.E. you should follow all of it), you shouldn't discriminate between rich and poor (treat everyone equally).
I think the Jewish followers still believed in some form of coming heaven on Earth, I think they probably believed Jesus would come back, but I think it's unlikely that they invented/incorporated the Platonic ideas Paul preached. I imagine them being pretty shaken and confused after Jesus' death, and having lost a lot of followers presumably, but still believing in the mission and believing they would be rewarded in some way on Earth by God. I think that would've contrasted with the manic energy of Paul's movement which was probably pretty a pretty exciting thing to be a part of, and Paul seemed to have a very clear idea of what was going to happen next. But I just imagine after their meetings, a bewildered James saying "just remember the poor, whatever you're doing out there..."
If Peter 1 was written by Peter then that would be good evidence for the jewish sect being on the same page with the afterlife, but I think it's a pretty common view that it's a forgery.
I don't know what the significance of Acts 5 is, I think both gentile and jewish groups were preparing for a looming apocalypse, maybe Paul more fervently, but I could see the story fitting both Paul's thoughts and the original Jesus-style apocalyptic ideas.
somethingsomething
22d ago
No I consider Q Jesus' teachings, but it was placed into the bible from the Pauline school, and I don't think the way the holy spirit is referenced in Q has the kind of theological qualities that it does in the more explicitly Paul writings, it's more just used as a kind of addendum or exclamation mark, there's not much meaning in how it's used there and could be removed without changing the meaning of things.
Corinthians 15:35 (and a bit preceding it) goes over what I think are his unique ideas that I don't think the Jewish followers of Jesus really had in mind, and have that platonic quality. When he's talking about "glories" of things that is basically Platonic "ideal" versions of things.
I think that contrasts with James' "whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away." I'm not totally familiar with all the evidence on what Jewish Jesus followers believed, I think there would be knowledge of Greek ideas and the traditional Jewish views of it not being much, but I don't see anything like passage of Paul in the above passage along with his certainty. I only find one passage in Q that seems anything like an afterlife heaven and that may have been phrased differently in Jesus' original words, referring to what I think most scholars understand that he believed in an earthly heaven that he would rule.
And sorry I meant James 2:10 which I think Paul very much disagrees with.
somethingsomething
23d ago
I think Galatians 2 emphasizes the kind of separateness Paul has with the Jewish sect, you have some calling Paul's authority or teachings into question, probably because of not following the law and the other ideas of Paul, so he goes to get the blessing of the James etc. (who he says added nothing to his message), and they decide to accept what he's doing, but then that's it and he goes back off on his own. I don't think the groups were enemies or cut off from each other, just that they were different groups with differences of belief and that there was probably some tension there.
Specifically I think Paul's peculiar beliefs were in the holy spirit which I think he invented, how rapture/apocalypse works and ideas around afterlife which I think draw from Greek philosophy and Platonism, and not needing to follow Jewish law.
I don't have a ready explanation for the unclean foods thing, but I tend to think that the more visions are involved the less I'm inclined to believe it. It's one thing if Paul has his visions and I think that probably happened, since he seemed very intently motivated by whatever he experienced. I don't think all the other apostles were also getting visions from god, nor do I think they were actually healing people in miraculous ways etc. after Jesus' death. This story is also very convenient for Paul if you have Peter have a vision that confirms that you don't need to follow the law if God says so. Compare that to James 2:8.
somethingsomething
23d ago
I think there a few seemingly fundamental mysteries of existence that make the universe a bit more than the dark void that atheists typically characterize it as, but I would bet against those mysteries pointing to some kind of 1 identity "god" type, I don't really know what the other options are, but it's a difficult question. But if I was in a worshipping group, and some people saw it in the "god" style, and I left things more open for myself, it wouldn't be a problem for me. It becomes a problem for me when it's worshipping a human being, or some subset of humanity, as God, because that seems very unlikely to me to be true.
I think there was a lot of intellectual Jewish and Greek thought at the time that an educated Jew like Paul was drawing from, in addition to certainly being inspired by Jesus. I think he clearly responded to Jesus' death differently than original apostles, not having been part of the original group and having visionary experiences afterwards, and I think intellectually he brought in platonic ideas to make sense of them and spread them through his followers. I don't think these ideas were incorporated in the Jewish Jesus groups and I think it was probably a point of tension.
And I just think his attitude in not following Jewish law went beyond Jesus' teachings and was his own innovation. Any of the original 12 could have taken Paul's role as the gentile baptizer, you could imagine half of them or more taking that role considering how many gentiles there are compared to Jews. But it's the outsider who does it and appears to mostly do it on his own. For me that strongly points to Paul having a lot of his own ideas and following them on his own accord, rather than being a outreach plan devised by the original Jewish movement.
somethingsomething
23d ago
I really disagree with this, I think the analogy would be that if all the cooks in Italy believed their work was done in the name of the flying spaghetti monster, it wouldn't make all of their work worthless.
I think it's really important that Christianity imported Jewish morality to pagan Europe along with some Platonic philosophy, and that its followers stemmed the tide of Islam. Islam or something like it may be contingent on Christianity, you start getting into a rabbit hole of alt-history, but I think a pagan Europe would have been much weaker regardless and that would have been bad. Europe as it existed with Christianity basically created modern society, vastly increased the wealth of the world, and vastly decreased its overall suffering. If Jesus died for anything, you can at least say it was for that, even if he wasn't really God. And he did get a good millenium of unquestioning worship too, it's just that it's over with now.
Either way, Merry Christmas!
somethingsomething
23d ago
I don't think they were in total conflict, I just think like I said they were different schools. I also think Acts was written by the Paul school so it's going to paper over what might have been more difficult disagreements to make it look like everyone important was okay with what Paul was doing.
Worshipping with no Jesus messiah would just be worshipping God, the sacredness of each human's existence, the mystery of consciousness, the light of love and morality in a vast dark universe, channeled through the best moral teachers we have including Jesus, yada yada. Yeah it's kind of just new-age humanism, and all the mechanisms keeping the church together would probably fall apart, but I do think if everyone could let go of the superstitions and utopian ideas while still keeping the machinery running there'd still be plenty worth worshipping in neo-Christianity.
somethingsomething
24d ago
I'm no scholar but the answer may be two authors/traditions. The Q source of Jesus' teachings along with the book of James representing the Jewish Jesus' traditional arguments, and the rest coming out of Paul's more radical anti-law, platonic tradition that survived into modern Christianity while the James school died out.
But I agree that from what I've read, Jesus as super moral innovator seems a bit overboard, I have to imagine he cribbed a good amount from John the Baptist and there was a kind of apocalyptic Jewish movement he was joining and learning from.
As an atheist I just feel like when the Christians try to make any kind of historical argument I find it unconvincing because they gloss over the details. Obviously there's no perfect person, Jesus had flaws, and the fact he is so worshipped today is as much an accident as history as how much Mohammed is worshipped. The issue with Christians is they really want Jesus to be the messiah. If they dropped that then they could actually understand something about themselves, and then I would feel comfortable worshipping with them.
somethingsomething
1mo ago
Yeah that scene captures the movie well, it's not just rough or forgetful, but kind of a jaw droppingly overwritten, stilted, over budget high school play.
somethingsomething
1mo ago
I watched jt in the theater and it has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I was rooting for it, since I knew going in that Copolla was going against the cultural grain.
Nathalie Emmanuel's performance is the worst I've ever seen on film. The dialogue between her and Driver are a joke, and delivered with zero chemistry. Aubrey Plaza is hilariously unconvincing.
The themes are broadcast in screaming capital letter, absolutely zero subtlety. "What do you think is the most important institution?" "Marriage" with no further comment.
There are a few good visual pieces but mostly it's a blown out, blurry mess when it tries to get fancy.
Then there's the fucking crossbow scene.
It gave me a lot to think about how such a great artist can put out such total drek.
somethingsomething
2mo ago
3 different candidates vs 1 candidate? Two females vs one male? rederendum on Trump vs referendum on Democrats? Pandemic vs no pandemic? Trump telling people not to mail in votes vs not doing that? Height of BLM popularity vs. not? Sometimes people get more votes and sometimes less?
somethingsomething
2mo ago
Occam's razor in my opinion is that Harris, Clinton, and Obama in his 2nd year underperformed, and turnout has been increasing as America becomes more polarized and politically activated.
Biden overperformed for the same reason normies went to BLM rallies in 2020, there was an huge anti-Trump awakening, it's just petered out.
Compare that to a 15 million vote fraud coverup, which is more likely?
somethingsomething
2mo ago
I'm a lifelong democrat voter who would vote Haley, but I do think it's up in the air how much better she'd do. Trump does energize Democrats too.
somethingsomething
4mo ago
I think the error here is comparing yourself to an entire nation. If you are making an argument like "Sure it only affects my family and friends," then you're rationality is poorly calibrated.
Voting does particularly stress this because you're personal affect really is so small, and in presidential elections the electoral college schemes to reduce it even further in most cases. In this case I think it is worth finding some other process than number crunching to justify the effort because it does break down if everyone stops doing it.
somethingsomething
4mo ago
I think something like Trumps tax cuts and tariffs are going to blow up the economy at a precarious time when you want the adults in charge, could work.
Maybe a "too online" jab as a variation of the "weird" jab now that he's getting Elon Musk to cut down the government, which intrigues me but could come off as alienating or reckless to the average voter? Basically emphasize that she cares about what people in the real world think instead of being obsessed with the internet.
Abortion should be an obvious win especially with the recent Trump Florida flip flop.
I think laying out a succinct case for what Trump's recent criminal cases are about, and push the fake electors story hard, saying something like two terms won't be enough, and after Trump it'll be Trump Jr. or something.
somethingsomething
4mo ago
I don't see it as a moralistic movie. The logic of 2/3 of those beats rest entirely on Napoleon's insane dance performance. It's not by being a good person that Napoleon succeeds, it's by doing something totally out of character and ubermenchian that wins everyone over. Note how in the final scene he hits the thetherball as hard as he can over and over.
somethingsomething
5mo ago
It's not just social conservatism. Trump is weird, and so is the online right which Vance feels tied to. Hanania is weird, Moldbug is weird, people on this website are weird.
somethingsomething
5mo ago
I see what you're saying, the far right areas where he is discussed are pretty unknown to me. I wouldn't necessarily characterize Nietzsche as a loser, though. If he hadn't succumbed to sickness as young as he did, he would've been celebrated in his own lifetime and his long, prolific, but isolated journey would have payed off.
I think the loser attitude is putting too much stock in the American high school analysis because the things Nietzsche accomplished aren't valued there, and he would be seen as lesser for basically having a problem with women, something obviously Jay-Z would never have an issue with. But to an adult in the room, hopefully they'd see that Nietzsche's influence and power far exceeds Jay-Z's, along with the metaphorical jocks, to the world's benefit or profound harm depending on which of his disciples you are looking at.
I just think there has to be room for the "sigma male" in the analysis of things, where the truly powerful don't necessarily match the vital youth imagery, a lot of times they are weirdos taking big risks to even the odds in their favor, and if it doesn't pan out in their lifetimes, I'd hope they don't get necessarily lumped in with slave morality unless they were actually expressed ressentiment and were preoccupied with being part of the mob/morality police etc. (which I do think you can still argue Nietzsche was doing himself to a degree, at least with the former)
somethingsomething
5mo ago
I haven't really seen what you describe in the last paragraph. Where I've seen Nietzsche discussed, master morality is usually seen with some sympathy. Personally, I feel like aspects of slave morality as Nietzsche describes it were acting as deep unconscious forces in my psychology that I am very glad to have made conscious to more easily push back against where they are unproductive, and I feel like conversations like these help with that. To manage emotions it helps to be able to identify them, and reading your post I actually felt the ressentiment reading about the jocks, I noticed it, and I let it go. That is not something I used to be able to do so easily.
I think the issue with the jocks and nerds view is by definition you are dealing with youth coming into the world with whatever background they happened to have, and little of their own choices has had an effect on where they are. The question is what happens for the rest of the adult lives of the slave morality kids? Are they doomed, or can they change their outlook? Can someone think themselves into being a master moralist or onto some kind of middle road? I tend to think we have some kind of agency and can alter the course of our lives in some way. Elon Musk takes ketamine for depression, he probably grew up immersed in slave morality and forged some kind of master morality for himself, but still has parts from his childhood that hate himself. That's the kind of complexity that is happening for most people who aren't totally immersed on one side or the other.
somethingsomething
5mo ago
Why doesn't their reaction make sense? Aren't they just being magnanimous? What would you expect instead?
somethingsomething
5mo ago
How it plays is people thank God we finally have a normal candidate and no one cares how we got here (even if Kamala is a bit of an oddball) (just my prediction)
somethingsomething
6mo ago
Yeah learning about the pace at which TNG episodes were written and shot was a revelation to me, and it made me question why so much is invested in a show that was, as good as it was, clearly hobbled by not having time to really flesh out ideas and rework bad scripts, and was basically rushing all the way to its end.
Similarly, years ago I was listening to a Phil Ochs song about how terrible "liberals" are and it just hit me, why am I getting my political opinions from music? From rock to rap, why are the pop stars determining what I think over political scientists, essayists etc.
It's feels like even the most deep cuts of pop culture feel shallow as a puddle, it's like it's all expressionism, just surface level reactions to things, no humility, no ability to dig deeper, due to time constraints or just ignorance of the authors. And it almost feels like a psyop where we're told to just stay in the there, don't try to look up the past, it's all problematic and boring. Like they read Great Expectations and Shakespeare in High School just to intimidate and bore you so you stay away from that stuff for good.
somethingsomething
7mo ago
I think it has to do with gender in the sense that gender is one of the primary ingredients of social groups, even in the hyperliberal paradise of today. For instance you probably wouldn't expect that behavior of male feminists. (edit: unless they're mansplaining to TERFs I suppose). But in the context of this article, with older generations, I think the male version of this is far more common since it was given a lot of room to fester years ago compared to today with men.
somethingsomething
7mo ago
Apologies, I missed your parenthetical completely. So how I see it is that with blowhards, it's less on the surface about intelligence but it's related. Regardless of their IQ, blowhards say dumb stuff because by their nature they are bullshitting all the time. If you know something they don't, then voicing that will intimidate them, and they will only accept that behaviour from people they see belonging to a certain kind of social category of mostly belligerent men that they feel comfortable sparring with, and that excludes many women and plenty of other men as well. Exchanging ideas for them is a deeply vulnerable status game, and they try to play to win, even while undermining themselves with all the bullshitting.
But with this strategy it's not just about preferring dumb women. It's actually just as effective to put down and shut down intelligent men or women who try to challenge them. Women who experience think "he just wants a dumb woman." But what he really wants is typical narcissistic desires of adoration and winning and so he cruelly shuts down challengers as a kind of crude tool to get what he wants.
I think this "prefer dumb women" idea could be refined to be a bit clearer to describe what it's pointing to but I think it's how it feels on the surface when you are dealing with these kinds of people. You know something they don't, you tell them, they confidently explain to you why your wrong even though you know they are BSing. Among certain groups of men, I think this behavior is depressingly common.
Thoughts on Fellini's Casanova?
More options
Context Copy link