SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
No bio...
User ID: 225
What I would say, I suppose, is that as a devout Protestant
That's interesting to me, in light of your earlier mention of the Eucharist. Which branch of protestantism believes (or which branches, plural, believe) that Jesus is truly present in communion? The Protestant churches I've been a part of (non-denominational churches in Wisconsin) just believed it to be a symbolic remembrance that was honored because it was commanded of us, not that it was a sacrament in which Jesus was truly present. But as you said, Protestants are very diverse so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised to find that some branches of the Protestant church believe in the real presence.
Catholicism denies this and therefore requires a convert to consciously pledge to believe doctrines that he or she may not even be aware of. For that matter it requires a pledge to believe doctrines that may change in the future.
As far as I'm aware, it's more "abide by" than "believe in". If you don't agree with (let's say) the church doctrine that extramarital sex is wrong, I believe that's ok as long as you are willing to try to live by the teaching under the basis that the church has the authority, duly delegated by Jesus ("whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven", etc), to definitively interpret Scripture. I realize I'm splitting the hair kind of fine there, but the difference seems meaningful to me at least. There are doctrines I think that the church is flat out wrong in their reasoning about (in vitro fertilization, for example), but to the best of my knowledge that's acceptable as long as I'm willing to abide by the teaching and do my best to wrestle with the arguments with an open mind.
However, one thing which is definitely not true, is that people are required to accept a doctrine which might change in the future. Not everything the church teaches is dogma (priestly celibacy is the usual go-to example of something which might change because it's a discipline, not a dogma), but dogma is held to be divinely inspired and not subject to change. If it did (say, if the pope issued an ex cathedra teaching that abortion was morally acceptable), then I would expect people to leave the church in droves because it would turn out to have been untrue that God was preventing the church from committing error.
That sounds like he played too many FPSes and thought that "shotgun ape" was a viable tactic IRL.
I don't use cash, but my wallet is still enormously useful. It's just that it's now a way to hold my credit cards, driver's license, and insurance ID cards rather than something which holds all my cash.
I do wonder what went astray that there's so much unabashed religiosity in my rat-adjacent fora.
Nothing "went astray". There is no conflict at all between rational thinking and being religious.
In addition to what others have said about how the rules do in fact require you to be civil, I would encourage you to make use of the block function. I have a handful of users blocked (including the one you were responding to) because I find them to be toxic posters who almost exclusively make hateful posts about how terrible their outgroup is. I have no interest in reading that shit, so I blocked them. It makes the experience of participating in this site far more pleasant for me, and you may find it does the same.
"Could care less" and misuse of "literally" also make no grammatical sense. The former is especially egregious, as it means almost nothing as stated. Knowing that someone could care less only tells me that he cares a nonzero amount, but it could be anywhere from "almost completely unimportant" to "the most important thing in his life".
None of those things you listed are correct. Popular use does not make something correct, it means that a lot of people speak the language badly because they don't care enough to learn.
That is correct. "Reined in" as one would control a horse.
None of what you said is incorrect. And yet, it is a fact that people do indeed go into medicine for the idealized reason to wish to help others. You say you can't imagine it, so presumably you would never do that, but that doesn't change that there exist people who don't see it the way you do and would choose medicine no matter how much or little it paid.
I am legit mad about the push to change perfectly good terms of art just because of the theoretical offense someone might take. It's completely retarded, and those who pushed for such changes should be kicked out of the industry.
"Asian-American, please."
Not everyone does things for money. Plenty of people get into medicine because they genuinely want to help others.
At least until the humans give up and start accepting LLM judgements as infallible. Given the progress of the idiocracy, we'll probably witness it in our lifetimes.
People do that right now. Granted, smart people don't do that (even the most enthusiastic AI supporter on this site will acknowledge that they are fallible), but there do exist people who just blindly listen to the LLM without considering the possibility that it's spouting nonsense.
I'm 41. I drink, but something like two drinks a year, which my exasperated doctor once told me counts as "not drinking" for medical purposes. I don't have a moral precept against it or anything, I just don't enjoy drinking very much so I don't do it. Just as well because, like @ToaKraka I don't need an alcohol addiction to go with my rather severe sugar addiction.
Very well, I can accept that compromise. Kill away, my good man.
First of all, you can't prevent the creation of Zombie because then Bad Wolves wouldn't have been able to cover it in 2018, a cover which is better than the original. And also, if you killed Dolores O'Riordan, we wouldn't have Linger, and I can't abide such an outcome.
Seconded. I pay for it and it's worth every penny. It's the only thing I've found which is on par with how Google used to be.
My brother in Christ (hey, finally I get to say that in seriousness): you aren't puny at all! You are a part of the body of Christ (broken as it is due to human stubbornness) just as much as the Orthodox or Catholics (my sect) are, and the Church wouldn't be the same without you.
Yes. If you just handed it off to an AI and did a cursory quality check, you didn't build shit. I immediately lose interest when someone says "I built" (insert software here) and it turns out it was Claude.
But why do genocidal aliens name their ship Truth and Reconciliation?
Because it sounds badass and vaguely religious. That's really all there is to it.
Fanatical purifiers is the term you're looking for, I believe.
These still required specialist knowledge, and specialist equipment, to actually use (AOL did try their best though).
Not really. My decidedly not computer specialist parents (they are farmers) figured it out just fine, as did most other families I knew at the time. The tech behind dialup Internet may not have been something they fully understood, but just using it was by no means specialist knowledge.
There's nothing you can do imo. When you talk every day, some conversations are going to be pretty uninteresting. And that's perfectly ok! My wife and I don't have deep, interesting conversations every day or even every week, but that's just a normal part of having a relationship that close.
- Prev
- Next

Fair enough. I actually didn't know that about RCIA (I was baptized as an infant so even though my parents left the Catholic Church, the church considers me to have been Catholic the whole time), which means I never got asked to make such a profession. I certainly agree with you that you shouldn't make statements which are not true.
More options
Context Copy link