@KorvinStarmast Paul states that death started with sin. Clearly that is not the case. That you characterize pain and suffering with perfection seems more like Buddhism than Christianity. :) Could you look into the eyes of a bison, mastadon or the small horse getting it's throat ripped open by the saber-tooted tiger that its death is part of a perfect plan? I cannot. I have given this years of thought, and, of course as I have said before, we are all confident idiots.
The only way you can explain pain, suffering and deat with perfection is to accept that God is not omnibenevolent. God can be omnibenevolent but not omnipotent, or He can be omnipotent and omnicient but not omnibenevolent. Or, He can be omnibenevolent and omnipotent but not omniiscient.
I have read a lot about the problem of pain. Part of what I found out was that a lot of good and great pilosophers have come to the same conclusion. I believe that God exists. I believe that God loves us. I believe He is omnipresent. And I believe that His son is both a perfect sacrifice and a mystery we will never fully understand on this side of life.
@curiousdannii "But science is based on the assumption that God has not done miracles. It can't be otherwise." I was a molecular Biologist who came to a belief in God trough science. As I studied molecular biology, there was an article in Cell that so stunned the scientific community that mt first gut response was, "there is a God. There must be a God. There can be no other explanation." As a scientist, I find your statement... simplistic. I believe in miracles. I am also a scientist.
@anongoodnurse What I meant is that science isn't meant to study the unique miracles of God. When we study the climate we don't assume that God is spontaneously creating carbon dioxide some days and ice other days. He could do that, but we assume he doesn't.
@curiousdannii I'll offer that what I am seeing is something different, I'll get you some examples in a few days. (But Grace like Rain is a beautiful rendering of Amazing Grace in a modern context ... though I still like the original better)
@anongoodnurse You appear to have misunderstood what I put into that comment. Please do not put words into my mouth. Once again, pain and suffering are a part of the perfection of the entirety of creation, and as I said, two trees in a very large forest. If you can't see the forest for the trees, that isn't a problem with my illustration.
@anongoodnurse The only way you can explain pain, suffering and deat with perfection is to accept that God is not omnibenevolent Wrong. That is not The Only Way unless you can't see outside of an extremely narrow point of view. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. My simple illustration demonstrates that. Wrong.
As soon as you say "the only way" ... the game is up.
@KorvinStarmast I'm sure you're a very nice person. But you have misrepresented me. One thing I've experienced (not witout some pain) is the absolute certainty of some Christians. You have put yourself in that corner (imo). At least I'm adding "imo" to my pronouncements, which is more than I see in yours, hence the characterization. Confidence in oneself is a wonderful ting to posess - for the possessor.
@anongoodnurse Have you read this on the problem of pain? I referenced it a ton to the surprise and consternation of a class I took at a public university on Job
It's kind of funny how what is transpiring on this website these last few days feels a bit eschatological
@Mr.Bultitude I love you, man, bear, please run for mod, if you feel up to it.
@anongoodnurse From one who asserts "the only way" that was a curious response. The attempt at pigeon holing me - is the absolute certainty of some Christians. You have put yourself in that corner (imo) - is a fairly gross error. I think we have gotten off on the wrong foot, so I'll step aside. Best wishes.
@Mr.Bultitude Glad to see you still around.
@PeterTurner we used that meditation on suffering a few years ago in a men's group as a discussion prompt. It led to some interesting conversations. To say that people had a tough time wrapping their head around this bit Thus, in the Christian view, the reality of suffering is explained through evil, which always, in some way, refers to a good is an understatement.
@Caleb What you're saying is that if something isn't important to you, then it shouldn't be important to anyone. You then contradict yourself, by making it abundantly clear that the issue is very very important to you.
@TRiG That may be the message you are receiving, but I am not sure that is the message Caleb was sending, or was trying to send. I didn't receive the message the same way you seem to have, but I am glad you shared how it came across to you. As I ponder it, I think I see how it came across that way. I will predict that we have seen the last of Caleb on SE ... per his posts on meta
@Mr.Bultitude Good morning, hope all is well with you.
@KorvinStarmast Yes, I suppose so. It's good to see you too. It's nice to see you've continued to be active here. I'm trying to keep a close eye on the SE goings-on right now as I weigh my own reaction to everything.
@TRiG No, that's not at all what I was trying to convey. If fact I did try to explain there than the levity wasn't because it wasn't an important issue.
@Mr.Bultitude I mostsly spend time in the review queue, as very few questions come up that inspire me to write an answer. Maybe I need to craft some worthy questions. Hmm.
@Caleb My prediction is a complete fail. :) So it goes.
@TRiG If you can suggest a light-hearted way of pointing out the grammatical and epistemological weight imbalance between "I pronounce you anathema" and "I won't use plural forms to talk about single entities", them I'm all ears.
@Caleb Related to this, I've noticed a peculiar maneuver that political-correctness advocates like to use. They'll often make the point that language is constantly evolving (meaning that the "old ways" have no inherent justification), and then use that to say that you ought to go along with their pronouncements about how to use language. In effect they're saying, "Prescriptivism doesn't make sense. Therefore be a prescriptivist."
Or more accurately, they're saying, "Prescriptivism for thee but not for me. Descriptivism for me but not for thee." They want to be the arbiters of language, but they deny that right to anyone else.
I guess this makes sense within a lot of their worldviews, because they view all things through the prism of "power," including (especially?) language. Their claim is that certain privileged groups have always held the reins of power over how we speak, and that all they're doing is now handing those reins to disadvantaged groups.
That being the case, I suppose my main beef is just that they try to justify it by an appeal to descriptivism, i.e., by saying "language evolves all the time anyway. Why are you making a stink about this?" That's a smokescreen and their real argument is the one about privilege. It's easier to have a discussion when the reasons you give for your position are the ones that actually matter to you.
@Mr.Bultitude What else could they do? It's not like they can claim to be arbiters of truth. Most of the world has handed them relativism on a platter. But with no morings at all their power also evaporates, so they need something to control with. Language is a pretty powerful tool actually.
@Caleb Yeah, I just have a hard time trying to get inside that mindset. I could probably understand a lot of disagreements better if I stopped listening for truth claims in order to listen for power claims.
@Mr.Bultitude I think it's more than language. If it was just words, there'd be hardly any argument. People try to coin words and phrases all the time, no one complains. Sometimes it catches on, most of it dies in a shallow grave.
@Caleb Henry Higgins had an observation on that kind of use for language, something about someone " ... who uses the science of speech more to blackmail and swindle than to teach"
(Henry Higgins being a protagonist in My Fair Lady)
@fredsbend Right, the problem comes when the people coining the terms insist that everyone switch to theirs and stop using all other forms, justify the demand by appealing to the fact that languages naturally evolve all the time, and call anyone who doesn't conform a bigot. That sequence is absurd but extremely common.
@Mr.Bultitude For me it boils down to basic hypocrisy and propagating the big lie. Joe Goebels did a fine job of showing how effective that can be, as did William Randolph Hearst. I recall a minor aphorism form my military days: "Don't forget that in the information age, information is power" There was no caveat that the information had to be true, or truth. ;)
What we have here is using language to exert will and power over others. Constantly, their argument pushes that this isn't just good manners (and maybe that's a discussion we could have), but it's about validation and approval. Joe they miss that that's the cause of the problems and push back is remarkable. It shows that to some people, disagreement with them really is offensive.
If you did stop "listening for truth claims in order to listen for power claims" many more things become clear.
To disagree with me is to offend me Yeah, I see a bit too much of that. Also to disagree with me is to attack me
@fredsbend I was once told on a skeptics forum that I was shouting someone down by disagreeing with them. I eventually dusted that pile of dirt from my sandals.
@KorvinStarmast I've heard a lot of people pushing for a distinction. It's fine to disagree on most matters, but to "deny my personhood" is the offensive thing. The problem is that they want "personhood" to extend to many other concepts that they're slipping in the backdoor.
Yeah, I know some of you know I can put an edge on my words, but usually no one cares. On this topic my words get deleted, as happened recently on skeptics chat. @TRiG read some of it, so I'm sure he agrees with the deletion. The effect, however, was me disengaging with the conversation.
@fredsbend Fred, if I may ask, aza made some comment to you about you not asking her something in a comment in good faith, as she hung up the cleats. Dare I ask what that was about, or better not to go into that?
@Mr.Bultitude Yeah, personhood. How's that anything other than assurance if basic rights. And I really do mean basic, like life and pursuit of happiness. I certainly don't think respect is a right.
@fredsbend People seem not to realize that censorship doesn't win hearts and minds, it just causes those hearts and minds to find their own echo chamber.
Back a day or two in transcript. A single message.
@Mr.Bultitude I've always loved debate. It's a form of exploring ideas. I've learned the hard way many others don't enjoy it as much as me, and their endurance in the effort is much lower than mine.
Not that I'm some paragon of conversational delight, lol
@fredsbend Oh yes. It's a hard lesson to learn, and I suspect most of us who made our way to C.SE through the years had to learn it in some form or other. That only makes it all the more delightful to meet other people who have a similar tolerance for it.
I must say, even if this makes me divorce SE, SE is responsible for pushing me into much positive personal growth in the 6 years I've been contributing.
@fredsbend You're not alone, hence my slightly mushy post on meta. This was such a great outlet for critical thinking and research, and at times a necessary escape from the travails of life, though at other times too much of an escape. I am extremely grateful not only to the community but also to the devs and CMs.
@fredsbend No, it's a different way of saying that pain is simply a part of the human condition. Assigning value like "evil" to pain or suffering is to me a profound error, and IIRC a category error at best.
That the pope's letter addresses that some pain and suffering as a consequence of evil is one of those theological matters that I still scratch my head over.
Or as my dad would probably say it: "Pain is part of the human condition, now quit your whining."
He grew up poor during the depression and has little patience for whining.
Before considering whether Reformed Baptists view baptism as a salvation issue, it might be worth clarifying that “Reformed” refers to those Baptist who adhere to John Calvin’s doctrine of salvation. Particular Baptists differ from General Baptists on this fundamental doctrine. Particular Bapti...
@Caleb what did you flag? I need to see, because I really want to be a good citizen, or better citizen. Knowing when I am slipping up is a good thing.
@fredsbend Are you referring to the afterlife?
Ah, must go, that darned real life thing is happening again ...
Sara's MSE post is closing in on double the negative score of any other post on MSE. I never would have guessed that an attempt to implement a policy like this would result in so much backlash. So many issues conflated together make the causes for this mess broadly open to interpretation and misinterpretation...
@Caleb OH, yeah, I guess that joke was not well placed. Thanks.
@Nathaniel As @mxyzplk pointed out in a comment: it wasn't an update and it wasn't an apology. I suspect that the post was brainstormed by a small group of people trying to get just the right spin on it and then Sara told, as the PR voice, to post it. That is my guess, I do not know for a fact. But I've seen stuff like this happen before in various organizations ...
Yeah, definitely possible. But I really doubt they got many CMs involved in writing that. The "goodbye" email I got from a CM when my resignation was processed had a completely different tone.
@fredsbend That's a question only answerable once one is dead. It is believed by most Christians that pain will be one's lot in Hell, and it will be absent in Heaven; this goes along with the "shedding the mortal coil" as a way that the soul ascends to the reward away from the fallen condition of man on earth
There are others who believe that if one does not ascend to be "with God" that the fire consumes the soul and one simply "isn't" after death. I met a few Restorationiosts who believe along those lines. In that case, if one "isn't" then there isn't any pain either.
Whether that pain in Hell is psychic or physical, or both, and / or something else, is unknowable until one is in that condition.
The afterlife seems to me to be a serial to our current life <= which is what I refer to as "the human condition"
@Nathaniel Yes it's kind of a perfect storm of other long-festering issues they didn't address and bad blunders. There are quite a few issues scrambled in the mix. I bet half the hand wringing will die down when the CoC comes out and all those without a principled objection to it go "what was the big deal, we can forgive SE for some bad timing". They will promise to work on communication and the remaining underlying issue will never actually get addressed.
Leaving me, at least, still out because they can't save face with the identity politics crowd and openly allow real diversity at the same time.
@Nathaniel Same here. That was appreciated, but it came from somebody with experience and street cred working in the community. Have you noticed NONE of the CM team is engaged out the site (maybe in TL, I can't tell, but it is close to radio silence in public spaces). I suspect they all have a gag order of some kind, I've never seen them all synchronously approach a chaotic situation by shutting up and doing nothing before.
@Caleb That's my suspicion too. Any that do leave out of loyalty to Monica or whatever will be replaced by new mods who don't have the same experience leading up to all this.
@Caleb "diversity is an effort to have all kinds of people" vs "an effort to have all kinds of ideas".
I think 40 years ago, a focus on people made some sense. More so 60+ years ago. Today, I don't think your average person thinks that such a problem anymore.
@Nathaniel I bet in the end 5 or so stay out because of principaled objection, another 5 or so because of burnout, and the rest go back eventually. The burnout number could be higher but there aren't that many for whom the principal is what matters (whether that is forced speech of any kind or helping a company that uses their platform to support this particular cause).
Yeah. I think some though are hanging in there to see what the CoC actually ends up saying, and whether there's an enforcement clause on the moderator agreement. Depending on how that goes the principled number may be higher, but we'll see.
And the longer this goes without a real resolution, the higher the permanent burnout number may climb...
@PeterTurner I like it; SE system treats people like a flesh based algorithm. (Though that's more the voting system). That was told to me explicitly by a mod at RPGSE when I was fairly new to the site.
Before considering whether Reformed Baptists view baptism as a salvation issue, it might be worth clarifying that “Reformed” refers to those Baptist who adhere to John Calvin’s doctrine of salvation. Particular Baptists differ from General Baptists on this fundamental doctrine. Particular Bapti...
