Phylum of Alexandria

Just back from Japan, and this was the issue that multiple people wanted to talk about based on news coverage from Japanese media:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republican-lawmakers-introduce-bill-rename-dulles-airport-donald-trump-rcna146027

It was tough explaining to them the whole notion of drafting legislation purely for performance rather than a serious intent to pass and implement it. I think they came away with a lot less confidence in the US as a result.

21 hours ago, Melifeather said:

What we call the early Christians were people who still identified with Judaism

True. But what else to call them, given that we don't know what they called themselves? "Christian" it is then. Not unlike the "Essenes" of Qumran, it's a term of convenience.

As for the rest of your comment, I mostly agree, but it doesn't have anything to do with the substance of my previous comment. Everything I stated still holds true.

57 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Why assume that comic books are simple? Many are more thoughtful than various religious texts while not claiming to be the absolute truth that should guide our lives. 

Why assume that any given religious text is not thoughtful, or less thoughtful than comic books? 

I admit that certain graphic novels can be sophisticated and compelling works of art. They don't compare to the biblical scriptures in terms of cultural importance, but that's no knock against them. 

Hopefully you can admit that your earlier comparison of the bible to comic books was not meant as a compliment.

16 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Which is why I always compare religion to comic books.

Well, no. Maybe some of the older stories are like simple comic books, like the tales of the various judges. But most of the scriptures are far more interesting. The gospel of Mark is a brilliant work of apocalyptic esotericism, an impressive mosaic of scriptural allusions. Ecclesiastes is some gorgeous and heavy philosophy. The psalms are a wealth of beauty and raw human emotion.

This is important and enriching material. But only when approached properly, not like some cake recipe for salvation.

2 hours ago, Melifeather said:

He was actually a political activist preaching about debt

We really know nothing about who the real Jesus was. The first available Christian writings aren't concerned with a Jesus who had recently preached in Galilee, but of a cosmic savior coming to bring judgment at the end of days. More like the archangel Michael, or how the Essene's wrote about the high priest Melchizedek.

The gospels put Jesus in a specific place and time in Judea, but they came decades later, and their contents are highly symbolic. It's mostly pseudo-history, used by the authors to advance (competing) moral arguments.

Not to say that there can't be real historical nuggets embedded in the apocalyptic character, or the gospels. But if there are, the specifics are lost in the fog of history. What the early Christian scriptures tell us most about are the beliefs and concerns of the emerging Christian communities themselves. But even then, not the earliest ones. Paul is our earliest authentic scribe, and he himself admitted he was a latecomer.

I fucked my back up from indoor climbing--specifically from dropping to the mat after bouldering. I think this was in large part because my 80% remote job has led to deteriorated core muscles.

So I'm trying to build that back up, safely. Doing some daily yoga, pull-ups, and planks. But taking it easy at first. I don't want to go back to that state any time soon!

The bad news is I'll miss the eclipse because I'll be in Tokyo. But the good news is I'll be in Tokyo.

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Wait - you think his behavior with NK was Saber rattling? He was appeasing the fuck out of him! He gave more to NK in terms of legitimacy and respect than any potus has, by a large margin.

That came a bit later. I mean the "rocket man" insults and "fire and fury" bluster that came first.

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

Something along the lines of his biggest concerns in life are golfing, being afraid of dying (specifically by nuclear war), and attending Andrew Lloyd Webber productions.

Fair enough, but is there evidence that he thinks in terms of nuclear arms races, game theory, or really anything strategic rather than tactical, or simple logorrhea? I mean, if he feared it so much, why the early saber rattling with North Korea at the start of his presidency?

If the paranoia I expressed yesterday seemed too far fetched, at least keep this one in mind:

https://plus.thebulwark.com/p/start-the-steal-trump-november-2024

At this point, there may be only one real protection against a steal in key swing states: make sure Biden wins by such a big margin that there is no room for debate. Not to say that would absolutely deter rogue legislatures, but a close election gives them the perfect condition to implement an authoritarian grab.

8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

but his primary goal is to avoid nuclear war.

Can you unpack that? I have a hard time believing that Trump would have such a serious and forward-looking concern motivating him. As opposed to something simpler, like interpreting US obligations to ally nations as being "for pussies."

7 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

But did he pioneer being the leader of a vampire biking gang? Enquiring minds are asking the important questions.

 

He did forever change the way I see lo mein.

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lawn said:

I mean for all we know the MAGA people are hard at work to bring about false vacuum decay.  We're in that sweet spot today between the recent lunar and incipient solar eclipse, but this is even beyond Lunar Kal Ender speculation.

Yeah yeah yeah. I admitted it was nutty, but it's not worthy of complete dismissal.

I mean, it's not like Kiefer Sutherland pioneered the notion of presidential assassination attempts. There's unfortunately a long and storied national history there. 

Edit: Not to mention, remember when speculation about rejecting the votes first emerged, and it was dismissed by many as paranoiac fantasy? Sometimes it pays to game out ideas, even if they risk being silly. (and especially when the enemy is itself in many ways silly)

I know this is my own paranoia here, but I cannot abide the idea of  the House Majority Leader being an active election subverter and wacko Christian Nationalist. If my mind is going to dark possibilities for them to get the #3 guy to the top of the list in the event of a Biden victory (particularly if Biden passes during his second term), you know that people in the MAGA camp are thinking about it too.

I hate thinking about this shit; I feel like I'm rehashing old episodes of Designated Survivor instead of thinking about a real world filled with serious adults. But MAGA folks do in fact want to turn politics into a white trash action thriller. We shouldn't lack imagination about what they might try, given that they lack perspective and shame.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I think on the Christians for Trump thing - it is a bit weird to me that so many Christians are entirely transactional in their politics instead of voting morally. I can't exactly fault them for that; it's not a bad strategy and in fact has gotten them more gains than virtually any other POTUS to date, in places that were apparently incredibly important to them. But it seems like a very weird set of things to square. Trump is by all accounts an absolutely atrocious human being;, especially by most morals Christians tend to espouse. In a more just world I would think that Christians would almost unanimously be against him and not just against him, but strongly so. 

It's like a near perfect portrait of a deal with a devil.

5 hours ago, Toth said:

But now... I... all of a sudden realized that maybe I don't necessarily need to overcome my fears and anxieties. I was always scoffing at the "fake it until you make it" recommendation, but I guess I am now truly seeing what is actually meant with it. Similarly to my professional self, I should create a "social self" and just act out the way I want to act, disassociating my vulnerable, self-conscious, self-hating true self from the equation. Does that make sense? Is it wise to do that? I guess I am worried that I could tire myself out eventually.

When I was in high school, I had a similar epiphany, and it really changed how I navigated my social world. I was a shy introvert with not-great self-esteem, struggling to understand my place in the world. At some point I realized that most people around me were dealing with insecurity in some way, even the people who outwardly seemed so confident. So I "faked" it more, and lo and behold, people opened up more. Why hadn't I realized that it was so easy?

It took a while for me to really learn the ropes of our extraverted adult culture (small talk, networking, flirting), but I got there. I'm still a somewhat shy introvert, and I still need my time alone, but I actually enjoy chatting with strangers (I actually miss it, as it's harder now that everyone stares into their smart phones). 

Your realization is a great first step. Sometimes your own thoughts are what's keeping you down, so it's best to act first and let your thoughts play catch up. Or yes, even "fake it til you make it." It's not magic, but it's a very promising path forward.

36 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I would argue that Christian leadership has grown more secular in my lifetime.  At the very least, they seem more concerned with worldly rewards and goals than spiritual ones. 

Yeah, that's basically the point I was making. I just think such wording is confusing because they themselves don't recognize the importance of dividing the personal sacred and the public mundane, which is the heart of secularism. But ironically, in their struggle, they became even more profane and materialistic than most secular folk. It was all for nothing, and deep down, they know it. And that's part of why they rage. 

9 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Of course, as one of the more thoughtful fundamentalists, Schaeffer quickly grew disgusted with the cavalier commercialism and rank partisanship of Christian leadership in Reagan's Moral Majority. So he faded into the background, while ever uglier figures vied for power and influence. Nowadays, right wing Christianity looks more mundane, materialistic, and nastier than ever. It hardly even pretends to care about scripture, so great is the role of worldly grievance politics. But despite how much they've mutated, they still refuse to give others an inch on any disagreements, to look inward, or to learn from their mistakes. And so it goes.

For some reason I can't use the edit feature, so I am doing it via this comment. My use of "secular" was inaccurate and likely to be confusing.

The decline and degradation of the Christian right is something I've been trying to understand for most of my life. A few years ago I watched the 1977 miniseries How Should We Then Live?, which was like the fundamentalist answer to Carl Sagan's Cosmos. (it was also a book that I saw on my parents' book shelf and always wondered about as a kid, due to its somewhat standout title).

To be fair to Schaeffer, he was much more thoughtful than other right wingers of his time. He outlined various problems of modernity well enough. And unlike so many movement leaders today, clearly denounced slavery as early America's greatest moral failing. 

But throughout it all, there was a terrible limitation to his reasoning: a complete absence of self-critique. Any failing he condemns among Christians of the past is framed as them not acting as "true" Christians. Which can sound righteous from time to time, but doesn't explain why or how his view is more authentically Christian than theirs. He just insists that he is right and they were wrong, and they weren't true Christians.

Over the course of the series, Schaeffer's uncritical approach allows him to present the problem of modernity as rather simple: communities lost their connection to the word of God, and they were led astray by secular humanism.

He never grapples with the problems of doubt or uncertainty that Kierkegaard outlined more than a century before. And he never turns his critique inward, to include well meaning fundamentalist Christians, to explore any possible ways that they might have gone astray in their reactions to the modern world.

Even back then, Schaeffer laments that young people are going to church less and less. He of course blames this on the temptations of the ungodly secular world. He never once asks church ministers to look inward and wonder if they need to do something different to win back the hearts of younger generations.

And it's not like no adaptation was going on among fundamentalists around this time. The late 70s was when the Contemporary Christian pop culture machine was just getting started. We would see a huge evolution in outreach, with an increasing willingness to embrace the styles of secular pop culture, without adopting the message to something more humane.

Anyway, I found that Schaeffer's series unwittingly summed up so much of what was wrong with right wing Christianity ever since the birth of fundamentalism.

Of course, as one of the more thoughtful fundamentalists, Schaeffer quickly grew disgusted with the cavalier commercialism and rank partisanship of Christian leadership in Reagan's Moral Majority. So he faded into the background, while ever uglier figures vied for power and influence. Nowadays, right wing Christianity looks more secular, materialistic, and nastier than ever. It hardly even pretends to care about scripture, so great is the role of secular grievance politics. But despite how much they've mutated, they still refuse to give others an inch on any disagreements, to look inward, or to learn from their mistakes. And so it goes.

4 minutes ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is more that some people practice both Buddhism and then another religion that does as there's no conflict in doing so. I think what makes Life of Pi fascinating is that Pi believes in several religions that can have very conflicting viewpoints while also finding atheism to be an interesting concept.

What I've seen of Chinese and Japanese Buddhism reminded me of Catholicism. Hell, demons, shame, lots of superstitious rites. I think the ascetic philosophy merged with various folk traditions over time and became something quite unique.

Speaking of supernatural phenomena, I keep getting asked by the site if I am a human being. Is anyone else getting this?

I did the whole clearing cache thing, but still get this for pretty much any clink on a link. 

For the record, I am not a fairy, a spirit, or one of Cyberdyne's machines. I am in fact a human being. Can we move on from the pestering?

25 minutes ago, Darzin said:

Because if you say Atheist or Agnostic they go into long philosophic arguments about a Platonic first mover God when what they mean is God say "you can't eat pork" or God says "the Gays can't marry" the question of, which God? is much more interesting to me then is there a God so I try to steer the conversation there.

What people mean by "God" and even "believe" often go undefined in these arguments. And they're a lot harder to unpack than people often think. Once you wave away the authoritarian fundie nonsense, at least.

I can't say for sure, but I imagine that my worldview is not really all that different from a believer like @Ser Scot A Ellison. It seems to be more how we lean, and maybe more importantly what communities we join and what traditions we observe.

22 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't identify as atheist because that's simply not what I believe - or at least it indicates a surety of belief that I don't share.  But if I did, I definitely would not be ashamed in order to try to shift this very apparent stigma.

The stigma is certainly there, and if people like the label, they shouldn't fear using it. I just find it inadequate, and would rather have a conversation about what I believe, what I don't, and what I have no idea about.

Obviously atheism isn't a religion, but most people who call themselves atheists do espouse a particular philosophy on the world, on knowledge, and on human living. I eventually became dissatisfied with the word for this reason: why emphasize what you don't believe rather than what you do believe? 

Of course, saying "I subscribe to philosophical naturalism, empirical skepticism, and some soft version of secular humanism" doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well.

But I've come to accept that thorniness as a feature rather than a bug. It invites discussion with those who are open to discussion, and it denies an easy label for those who want a spat with an enemy tribe.

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

The Book of Mormon,

I have a Book of Mormon too, but it wasn't free. It cost several follow-up visits to my door where I had to tell them to fuck off.