• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kokigami

  1. It may already be common knowledge to those in Missouri, but, for the uncommon among us.. it appears there is a movement a foot to relegislate the marriage/union process for the state.. https://www.columbiamissourian.com/opinion/local_columnists/david-rosman-proposed-legislation-needlessly-seeks-to-redefine-marriage/article_37e1b090-05f2-11e8-8d1e-67ad3c6672de.html
  2. Wasn't great, and less to do with the lost years than the post crucifixion years, based upon the theory that he travelled to the far east during the lost years. Back to regularly scheduled program.
  3. Not really what unconditional means. I think the more accurate analogy is someone offering to throw a life preserver, if you promise fealty, but withholding it if you don't. Once a life preserver is in the water, it doesn't matter what one thinks of the the thrower. As we have pretty scant info on what Jesus taught, and that, a bit conflicted, I am led to wonder if he actually taught in parables, or if he was so oft mis represented that parables are the best we can make of it. On a side note, anyone see the BBC doc on Jesus lost years? It is on my to do list.
  4. to me, it looks like they are using the words interchangeably. It is interesting, since popular scholarship sets the dates for those two gospels as being about the same time.
  5. so, first point, are the words the same? I ask because, if I recall, you are one of the people who learned a bit of the ancient tongues in your quest.
  6. I am hoping this is the appropriate place to post this. I know some here have done a bit more scholarly research into the historical language of the Christian Texts than I, so I am curious as to the take on this. It is, I am afraid, kinda vague and short of details. I suspect that is, in part, because the professor is trying to flog his upcoming book. Still, what of the basic premise. In summary , Prof. Hudson (U of MO, KC) is arguing that Jesus Message was about debt not about "sin" as we think of it today. And that the modern view of "Sin" as tied to the fleshy desires, was a redirect by the oligarchs of past to protect the Oligarchy. Now, I am not asking here to get opinions on whether debt forgiveness (a major theme of his argument) is a a good or bad policy. Just whether his historical grounding is solid enough to warrant further research, or if his is standing on mud and if so, how wet is it. LInky here.
  7. Curiouser and curiouser. The choice would not, and could not emenate from any other than the one who made it. Others may have made a similar choice, given similar starting conditions, but, no two things/people can occupy the same space/time nor share the same speed and trajectory in space time, and so, the choices of each are unique. Therefore, the person is the choice. And, perhaps, neither is to blame. Of course, it may all rest on the existence or non existence of free will. I am, (and I am sure others are getting tired of hearing it) doubtful on the topic.I think the idea of free will is an evolutionary feedback loop that allows society to manage individual anti social behaviors in a way that can reinforce socially beneficial causal forces. But, then, perhaps the question is moot.
  8. nice to meet you to. I have been, of late, an infrequent and unpredictable member of the community. I retire in a month. We shall see how that changes my world view.
  9. I think perfect understanding of any other person is impossible, because of differences in experience. However, empathy can make for proximal understanding, which is a good, but imperfect tool. We must acknowlege that it is an imperfect tool to use it well. I can attempt to be empathetic to a homosexual on the subject of persecution, but, as I am not homosexual, that individuals personal response will considerably different than mine. That is not even accounting for all the other differences. So, assuming my empathy gets me more than a tiny bit closer to understanding is going to lead to very unpredictable success rates. I tend to think it works better on less specific issues, and broader generalizations, but I could be wrong.. It changed the definition of your tribe. The process also bathed your brain in unfamiliar chemicals. That alone could change your world view, as acid has for many people. Human Babies benefit from mothers with strong bonds and there is a lot of evolutionary engineering to achieve that goal.
  10. humans are tribal. I find that I often want to correct people about the "real" ULC. I suspect it is because i have come to feel a member of the tribe ULC and the ULCM is not that tribe. As to the original question.. I identify as Agnostic. I lean Athiest, but the term is not consistently understood, so using it often leads to misconceptions. Agnostic is not even well known, so it allows a chance to explain. I suppose I could say "questarian" and define it as I like.
  11. I once felt that way, but I have come to the conclusion that, those who understand math rule the world. I do regret ignoring it in my academic career. In part because now, as I consider turning a two year degree into a four year degree, I am being blocked by my innumeracy. And in part because data crunching is about math, and data crunching is how one comes to understand truth. There is an arguement to be made that, for most peoples lives, these answers are accurate enough, just as many believe that knowing only basic math is enough. I don't agree with those arguements, but I can see them.
  12. I am, for the summer, free of homework, officially. That isn't as I had planned, but my maths are deteriorated severely, so I didn't qualify for the class I had "hoped" to take. Doing some unofficial homeworks..
  13. Honestly, I hadn't though about it. Probably, mostly. When I do, I think in terms of words with specific commonly known definitions. (if people are gonna get all chatty, I am going have to start logging in more often.) This is the most common reason for words to be deemed unacceptable. People are jerks. Handicapable was an attempt, I suspect, to create a term that would be difficult to use pejoratively. And to an extent, it worked, because it is too awkward a term to toss off as an insult, and makes little sense abbreviated. However, it is awkward all the time, so not really a solution. I like to think that most often it is intended to protect, but it becomes the tool for classifying people as jerks, sometimes unjustly. This reminds me of the scene in Clerks II about the term Porch Monkey. The usage and meaning of words changes, unless we calcify them. hmm. Others have addressed the weakness of a single study. I will point out that honesty does not always improve a situation.
  14. funny, you seem the only one I quoted for replies.. I can certainly see this point. I don't agree, because I don't agree with your definition of the term. In that, however, I did some elementary research ( I googled for 5 minutes) and found the term has a much more complex history than I had known. I think a measurable share of the culture wars may have to do with competing definitions of the term PC. I tend to see the term most often as a pejorative against compassion. Mostly agreed. Everyone has slightly different definitions of most abstract words, and some can be quite unique. But, failure to achieve some consensus on definitions pretty much hamstrings communications - at least the kind that is intended to achieve understanding. For the kind that is completely self expression, well, why use words at all? Poetry.. I am now wishing I had quoted the original post, but it was long, and long ago, so I will address the original question. I try to assume human error without specific evidence of malignant intent. However, we all have raw nerves from time to time, and some are perpetually inflamed. I don't think interpreting things in the worst way has a rational good, but I don't think it tends to be a rational process at work.
  15. I am posting this only to get in on the topic. I need to go back and catch up, but don't have energy right now. Semantics and taxonomy.. what fun.
  16. And thus we get back to the question of free will. It's always out there, begging to be reconsidered.. And yet, hot and cold are relative terms.
  17. well played. And you were never the only one. I have that in my head as well. It seems to me that one can prepare for violent encounters without preparing to become violent. Part of that is preparing to be injured, but also preparing strategies for avoiding injury. I wouldn't call myself a pacifist, because I am not to the level that I feel I could stick to that philosophy, in a crunch. However, it is generally my goal.
  18. harm can mean a lot of things. Do you know the principals of Aikido? Specifically, Seidokan. Aikido technique can be violent action, but, it can also be non harmful. Or, at worst, it can be argued that the aggressor has harmed themselves, when harm happens. Is this kind of thing ruled out by your pacifism?
  19. I find your logic impeccable. The conclusion seems solid. It is, however, a tough path. How are you defining violence?
  20. a bit off topic, but on the subject of your local debate. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/09/welfare-reform-direct-cash-poor/407236/
  21. The punishment for being uncompassionate is lacking compassion. It is far worse than hell.
  22. Hi, Rev Callie. Pleased to see you active on here again. When I drifted off, it seemed you had gone dormant. Drive by posting, this is. Most of you haven't seen my ugly mug about here for a long time. I may try to start being a thorn here again, but, I also got's stuff, so we shall see. As to the question in the original post.. My belief is that we are in what is probably an existential crisis for the country and possibly the world. I don't view Trump as Hitler. I think he is a bit more like Caligula. Bit Trump is a puppet, so none of that matters. My belief system is agnostic, but, even so, there are a few things I am finding hard to doubt. First is that there is probably no such thing as free will, and second is that humans are an extinction level event for planet earth. Those seem Nihilistic, I suppose. They certainly don't, as beliefs, compel me to any specific action or inaction. And yet, despite those beliefs I feel compelled, nonetheless. (which tends to support my contention on free will.) So, I must resist the destruction of the the rule of law and the constitution that underpins that law. I kinda doubt it will help..
  23. then you haven't accepted it as objectively moral. Just probably moral. And in that doubt, I agree, there is hope.