One of the profound contributions of Christianity, corroborated in other wisdom traditions, is the assertion that every single one of us ignorantly does irreparable harm to others in the course of our lifetimes. Recognizing this is the beginning of wisdom, and figuring out how to live life in light of this reality has been the driving force behind many different philosophies and religious traditions passed down over the ages. Pretending other people are the problem is the problem. Of course, that doesn't justify gross negligence, but the human ego is very good at dismissing selfish, entropy-increasing behavior as harmless. May I humbly submit that the approach you suggest here is incomplete.
> One of the profound contributions of Christianity, corroborated in other wisdom traditions, is the assertion that every single one of us ignorantly does irreparable harm to others in the course of our lifetimes.
The problem, though, with Christianity's take on it (or at least what some Christians take from it), is that they push the idea that all you need to do to achieve salvation is to believe in Jesus as savior, and all is fine and dandy. Doesn't matter what sins you've committed, or if you're even truly repentant. Just believe Jesus died for your sins, and you're good.
On one hand I agree that this could promote acceptance that we are all flawed beings, and will all end up doing bad things here and there, and that it's pretty much unavoidable. But I worry that this also can promote a sense of invulnerability and unaccountability. "Doesn't matter what I do, Jesus will take care of me."
> or at least what some Christians take from it
> Doesn't matter what I do, Jesus will take care of me
Well yes let's be clear that only a very selective reading of the New Testament allows you to conclude Jesus doesn't think it matters what you do. It's the same kind of logic that leads one to preach the "prosperity gospel". It's very clear that loving Jesus goes hand in hand with loving others and living his commandments as best you can.
I genuinely don't get the prosperity gospel. Can someone please explain how it could at all be a legitimate interpretation of Christianity? Or is it just a flat out scam the entire way down?
It’s not a scam — well, not all prosperity gospel preachers are scammers, but a few likely are. (Source: back in 2007/08 I was a true believer of a more mainstream Christianity and looked into this stuff in detail)
The most charitable interpretation: some Christian traditions really hate wealth, and some see it as a blessing. You can find support for both in the Bible: Jesus is pretty anti-wealth, but then in Revelation 21 you have the New Jerusalem descending down from heaven, and God took the bling and turned it up to 11, and it’s the best thing ever.
Prosperity gospel churches are usually Pentecostal, which means they have a few special ways they like to interpret the Bible:
- They tend to take single Bible verses, often out of context, and use them as a foundation for entire novel lines of teaching. (This is opposed to reading and digesting whole stories)
- Those favorite Bible verses are emphasized, and passages that contradict them are downplayed. Once you decide that the Bible is pro-wealth, it can’t tell you it isn’t. (All Bible-believing Christians do this, whether they realize it or not. It’s called choosing a hermeneutic)
- There’s a culture that it’s common for the individual, especially the preacher, to hear directly from God. It’s pretty hard to argue with someone who claims the Holy Spirit told them something was true. (I always saw this as obviously problematic for a bunch of reasons)
When you put these together, you tend to get weird novel theologies. Other examples in the Pentecostal church include the personal prayer language (aka speaking in tongues) and faith healing.
I don't think the guy who assaulted the moneychangers in the temple, said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter Heaven, and more than once told his followers to give everything they owned to the poor would be down with the prosperity gospel. Jesus would probably recite the parable of the talents, and tell you that if God gives you riches, it's to benefit the community and the poor, not for you to hoard as if you could take any of it with you.
But then again, one could argue that any interpretation of Christianity is legitimate, just as any interpretation of art or literature is legitimate. Prosperity gospel is no more out there than Gnosticism was, and only politics and culture determines what is and isn't canon. It isn't surprising that the prosperity gospel is a product of the capitalist and materialist US.
This is a line of thinking that really intrigues me, are there any external resources you would suggest to further read about it? Other than the Bible, of course
You Are Here by Thich Nhat Hanh explores this idea a lot. To the extent you consider Buddhist philosophy religious, it is still religious, but it is not the Bible. However the philisophy is similar enough that the author actually references both in harmony. That said it's also a very well received book among secular audiences so if you're intrigued by the idea and don't care much for the Bible, I think you'd like it.
I think this is common theme in eastern religions. I feel like I’ve also seen aspects of this in western philosophy. My disclaimer here is I am not well read in any of these topics!
My more general insight is that humans have put a lot of work into trying to seperate themselves from the complications of our obligate social brains. We will always feel bad, but maybe it can be ameliorated.
You're partaking of the spoils of your ancestors, and the material losses they caused can be directly traced to the living citizens of Haiti today. It's not really that much about guilt, but about actual liability.
It's important not to treat all porn equally, but I think it is fairly safe to say that much porn was not obtained with the full consent of the people depicted in it, or with completely fair terms of compensation. Even if it was, it is often shared in contexts that pay no royalties to the original actors and creators. Moreover, much pornography depicts sexuality in a way that is focused primarily on male gratification and that treats women abusively. Many young men take these unhealthy and unrealistic depictions of sexuality with them in their relationships, and many women also feel obligated to perform in the ways they are depicted even when they don't enjoy it. To the extent use of certain types of pornography incentivizes all these problems, consumption makes one complicit in these abuses. Regardless of its affect on your personal life, I think it's important to be fully candid with yourself about these 'collateral damage' aspects and be introspective about the extent to which you might be supporting exploitation with some types of porn.
I live on a dirt road. The ambient temperature above the surface is noticeably less than on asphalt: the instant you turn off a main road onto the gravel, you can feel the temperature drop.
I also neglected to add that I have shade trees :-)
"That, not exploiting people, is the defining quality of people who become billionaires from starting companies."
This is one of the sentences in the essay that most reveals Graham's reductionism. A person can become a billionaire without any desire to exploit someone and still the conditions resulting from the success of their organization can, and often do, result in exploitation. Even a brief study of organizational behavior reveals that all organizations do damage, some more than others. We don't need to keep defending organizations. They can handle their own defense. Individuals, on the other hand, are far more vulnerable.
Still confused about how micropayments for content would work practically. Either you have to wait at least until the next block is produced to verify that payment has received before responding to the HTTP request, or you respond before getting paid. Even if the block period is only 10 seconds (which would result in tremendous ledger bloat), the delay would still be too long.
I think it would be like any financial product and you’d need to accept some risk that payments would fail due to default. Eventually, we can hope that transactions will be faster, most likely through some trusted payment processor and/or some kind of contract.
This doesn't seem that "jaw dropping." Hans Rosling was saying this for at least a decade prior to this, that global population would peak around 10B and decline thereafter. That said, I think that viable longevity therapy will significantly alter this trend.
Those are three anecdotes, and at least two of them are not as stark as described. The data scientist's timing was bad and his prior relationship with several stakeholders was already on the rocks. There are rumors that the worker who had no idea what the connotations of the ok symbol are has been re-hired. This is hardly anything compared to the armies of celebrities who signed the Harper's letter and are mostly complaining that they can no longer express their opinions without being criticized.
The difficulty here is that several things are happening at once. There is a problem with groupthink at some institutions, but there are also people who are trying to suppress legitimate criticism.
They are indeed anecdotes, as are the Harper’s letter signatories and many, many others. Anyway, the issue for the Nth time is not about “criticism” but “harassment”. It’s not a good faith argument to conflate these things when it has been stated over and over that this is about people targeting individuals’ employment status. This isn’t “criticism”.
The fact that it hasn’t stifled prominent, powerful people such as the Harper’s signatories is not evidence that cancel culture doesn’t exist or that it is a weak force; it means that less powerful people are effectively suppressed. You don’t hear about what you don’t hear about. Survivorship bias.
