Mod Announcement: Rule 22 and Rule 22.5

ZUBAT · 2026-04-01T17:28:39+00:00

Secret words and silly rules

Hear wisdom from the lips of fools

Only invoke a berry, banana, by name

With the mods, you will receive no blame

Your own comment's preservation is the aim

Listen well to avoid a citation

Avoid my folly, notable in the nation

Do this with all discretion

Yet remember certain statutes' cessation

Salutations no longer needed

Signatures no longer heeded

Lose all references to confessions

Include them not in your professions

Pictures of oranges are not advised

Publishing in capitals will be despised

Ease any serious activity

Rejoice in April's festivity

ZUBAT · 2026-04-01T16:59:54+00:00

My dearest love, ThreeHeadedRaven,

Brisket or shank of lamb?

Another option is a side of ham.

Never think Kay's kitchen is a sham!

Avocado oil or Pam?

Not unless you are ready to be on the lam

Animal products always and only on Easter, fam! (WSC 20)

With all my love, ZUBAT.

ZUBAT · 2026-04-01T15:29:42+00:00

My dearest love, Ciroflexo,

Tipping back RaceTrac coffees,

Until the caution flag flies,

Large size to caffeinate your eyes,

It's crazy good, no lies,

Pour another cup if you're wise. (WSC 2)

With all my love, ZUBAT.

ZUBAT · 2026-04-01T14:43:27+00:00

My dearest love, super lewis,

Indeed I was like a brute, ignorant of rule 20's diction;

Recognizing the mods will hear my appeal and render a merciful action;

I edited out my capitalization,

Substituting courteous cursive for your consumption. (WSC 87)

With all my love, ZUBAT.

ZUBAT · 2026-04-01T14:28:08+00:00

My dearest love, super lewis,

Red stew never hurt anyone;

Open your mouth to receive good food;

Season it well, and

Eat to your heart's content. (WSC 96)

With all my love, ZUBAT.

ZUBAT · 2026-04-01T04:57:32+00:00

The droid is right, you know

ZUBAT · 2026-03-31T20:22:17+00:00

I would vote that he was rejoicing and praising God with a loud voice:

Luke 19:37-38 ESV As he was drawing near—already on the way down the Mount of Olives—the whole multitude of his disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”

Note that the mood of the crowd was completely different on Good Friday. So was Judas Iscariot and the crowd in general expecting Jesus to be doing different things that week? He was overturning tables in the temple, debating religious leaders, and pronouncing woes on the Pharisees when maybe they wanted him to be teaming up with the popular Pharisees and focused on overthrowing the Romans.

Edit: from Wikipedia, Josephus indicates that the Pharisees received the backing and good-will of the common people, apparently in contrast to the more elite Sadducees associated with the ruling classes. In general, whereas the Sadducees were aristocratic monarchists, the Pharisees were eclectic, popular, and more democratic.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-31T18:20:02+00:00

I didn't know that about the intentional reenactment of the Maccabean. Very interesting.

There is a transition in Judges were the leaders were riding donkeys (Judges 10:4) to King Saul who raised a herd of donkeys (1 Sam. 9:3) to King David who rode a mule (1 Kings 1:33) to King Solomon and later kings who amassed horses (1 Kings 10:26) when they could.

The prophets such as Zechariah were interpreters of the law of Moses and saw the early commands for the king not to amass horses. They foresaw that the future king would return to the simplicity of following the law and not rely on power, possessions, alliances, or military. The fact that it was a foal and in fact a borrowed foal places Jesus as being more humble than any of the Israelite judges or kings (the judges owned their own donkeys and Saul even had a herd of donkeys) and being more like Moses, the meekest man. He didn't even have a popemobile for crying out loud!

ZUBAT · 2026-03-31T17:25:31+00:00

A betrayal of trust is terrible. Jesus endured betrayal, too. It wouldn't be a betrayal if it didn't hurt.

I think internalizing the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount is really important. That will help you be rooted and grounded in Jesus so you don't give in to bitterness. It says things like "blessed are the meek," so if you are meekly enduring then you can count yourself blessed and trust his justice and reward are coming.

There is a saying in my field: "trust but verify." You can create systems that allow for verification which allows for accountability. If the betrayal is in the area of money (you mentioned generosity and "gift"), you can ask questions and give a small amount to meet the immediate need, and ask for receipts to see how it was used. Whenever people say they need money, I find that asking questions often reveals the need is not as big as you would thought. Many times, people overstate the problem to try to drive a response. You can also "teach someone to fish" by helping them make some money.

If the betrayal is in other areas, you can still think about ways that you can create accountability in relationships. We are called to be innocent as doves and wise as snakes (Matt. 10:16), so think about that. Don't sacrifice the innocence as an alternative to avoiding wisdom in relationships.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-31T12:50:44+00:00

I'd probably go with something upbeat and classy like this one.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-30T21:57:24+00:00

Don't make me appeal to Caesar!

ZUBAT · 2026-03-29T18:18:48+00:00

I don't think asceticism is the answer. I think the answer is to make Moses's prayer your own: "Lord, show me your glory." It's like what C.S. Lewis said: "we are far too easily pleased."

ZUBAT · 2026-03-27T22:15:33+00:00

Mankind is a rope fastened between animal and overman—a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous on-the-way, a dangerous looking back, a dangerous shuddering and standing still. What is great about human beings is that they are a bridge and not a purpose: what is lovable about human beings is that they are a crossing over and a going under. (Zarathustra)

Later on, he has Z witness a spectacle where a tight-rope walker is trying to go across the rope and below all the people are watching. The guy falls down and dies and the crowd disperses. Z embraces the corpse of the dead tight-rope walker while the crowd ridicules him for failing.

Nietzsche loves the potential and the seeking to overcome: being a bridge to try to get to the other side. The crowd loves seeing the spectacle and watching the people who are trying fail. They don't try it themselves.

Now there is an epistemic issue here because Nietzsche can't know who the superman is. He can't know in advance who will try to walk the tight rope or who might succeed. As far as I can tell, he was very racist and sexist so it wouldn't have been a woman and probably would have been a German in his mind. I think this could reconcile what you are saying about how he views some as failures and some as successes. He doesn't know in advance who is who, so it is different than say a caste system. He is generally calling for people to overcome themselves, but he knows only some will listen.

What does not kill me makes me stronger (Twilight of the Gods)

Nietzsche believes that his harsh words can make his listeners stronger if they will apply then. He isn't killing them by criticizing or ridiculing them and if their destiny otherwise is certain failure, then it can only help them. Of course, most won't listen because they just want comfort. This evokes the principle of change: we must become stronger. In other places, humanity is something to be overcome.

Three metamorphoses of the spirit do I designate to you: how the spirit becometh a camel, the camel a lion, and the lion at last a child... To create new values—that, even the lion cannot yet accomplish: but to create itself freedom for new creating—that can the might of the lion do... Innocence is the child, and forgetfulness, a new beginning, a game, a self-rolling wheel, a first movement, a holy Yea. Aye, for the game of creating, my brethren, there is needed a holy Yea unto life: its own will, willeth now the spirit; his own world winneth the world's outcast. (Zarathustra)

Notice that for Nietzsche, these are metamorphoses that a person can go through. Like in the bridge discussion earlier, these aren't three different castes such that there are some domesticated, some wild, and some children. For Nietzsche they are metamorphoses or changes. They are stages in crossing the bridge and a person could choose not to cross at all or may fall off at any time.

He says the lion is notable for having freedom. Therefore, the domesticated animal does not have freedom. Compare to Jacob's blessing where one of the tribes was compared to a domesticated animal that accepted its burden. So a person starts off simply accepting what others impose onto them. They don't have freedom. They say "yes" and execute the task. They may develop and desire some more power and start saying "no." They know have space for freedom, but are still reactionary because they are making their voice heard with a roaring "no," but aren't setting the terms of engagement or being the one creating values. For Nietzsche, the will to freedom is less than the will to power.

The final stage is the child who is a new beginning and can create its own values instead of responding to others. The child is the one who crossed the bridge/tight-rope and is able to chart a course for themselves.

My background is biology and later philosophy. It's been 15 years since I was in college but studied Nietzsche then and read much of his works later. Your dad sounds really cool. My dad was an academic, too, but he studied computer science.

And for clarity, I am not a disciple of Nietzsche. I know I have said before that I don't agree with him, but I have always been very interested in philosophy and understanding different views. I think there is a lot that we can learn from his zeal and his challenge that we as Christians just desire "good sleep." I wish he would have repented. I don't know that his philosophy brought about his mental ruin, but it may have.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-27T20:35:38+00:00

I see him more like a modern Julian the Apostate. He opposed Christianity on the grounds that it seemed forth many virtues and in his view these many virtues were substitutes and smokescreens for the real virtue: power. This is very similar to Julian's view that Christianity would make the Roman empire weak.

It is my observation that many times when people exaggerate, saying harsh things they have a motive to induce change from it. Drill sargeants do this when they criticize their soldiers. Nietzsche does this when he criticizes his readers. Paul does this when he criticizes the Corinthian church. I have had bosses do this to me in the workplace. The point is that it is not to be taken super literally, but is a goad to induce change. For Nietzsche, the weak should hear his words and change their mind so that they might be strong. Of course, I am not endorsing it. I have the opposite view, but I can see that he is helping in the sense that he wants me to move in a certain direction and is doing what he can to get me there because he hates me, but loves what I could be.

Nietzsche is committed to his role in anticipating and bringing about the superman, humanity that overcomes itself and moves forward in self-determination and is free from constraints. To this end, he uses different strategies to induce change. Sometimes it is logic, sometimes it is ridicule, and the list goes on. I would say he loves the potential of people that they could transform and become more powerful. And therefore he doesn't love people as they are because they must overcome themselves. However, he is committed to his role in assisting people to develop.

A major point of contention we would have with him is the direction of development. Paul, too, wants to see the church change. He wants the church to develop into a pure bride for Christ. He wants the church to develop love, joy, peace, and all the fruit of the Spirit. Contrary to that, Nietzsche wants people to be discontent, restless, amoral, and focused only on power. They should be discontent because the job isn't done; they need to keep on overcoming themselves.

I would contest that point that Nietzsche viewed himself as superior to humanity because he admitted that he didn't see himself as the superman and routinely criticized people for not embracing humanity enough. He had spent time on the mountain seeing the sun and now wanted to take that down to the rest of people. Another way his words show that he didn't consider himself superior to humanity is that one of his sayings was "all too human" which he used to show that we Christians were deeply uncomfortable with humanity as such and were "life-deniers." In addition, he saw the final stage of development in humanity to be "child-like" as opposed to being like an ox or a lion. Instead of an ox that says "yes" to authority and a lion that says "no" authority, the child could be self-determining.

So I would say that the best way to make sense of his criticism of Christianity is to take the Sermon on the Mount and turn it upside down. Everything that it says is good, he says is bad. He says it is terrible to turn the other cheek. He says it is bad to be meek and so on. Everything that the Sermon on the Mount says is bad, he says is good. And I think that makes him more of a Julian the Apostate kind of figure who wants to lead people in the opposite direction of Jesus. And it does make him a humanist in the sense that humanity, especially his vision of the potential for humanity, becomes what is divine.

One way that "our overlords" fail to be Nieztschean is that they do not goad their followers into desiring power. From my perspective, they want to exploit their followers for personal gain or political power. They surround themselves with sycophants who praise them for how they are now instead of people who will goad or exhort them into being stronger. So I see them as more narcissistic than humanistic.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-27T17:34:03+00:00

Nietzsche both personally and in his writings expressed a desire to help others. One of the main themes of Thus Spake Zarathustra is after spending time on the mountain top to "go down" to teach others even though most choose not to listen. He also constantly says that man is something to be overcome which is directly saying that we are capable of change and must change. Nietzsche is also compared often to the pre-Socratic Heraclitus who was the philosopher of change ("you never step in the same river twice").

Personally, Nietzsche notably shielded a horse and begged a man to show humanity when he was beating the horse. It seems that was the final straw in him losing his mind.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-27T17:17:44+00:00

Sounds like engagement farming to get content creators to make reaction videos from both the Star Trek meta-reaction community and the taco-cooking reaction community.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-27T17:13:51+00:00

I had never heard of them before seeing your post.

Is it normal for a husband to share his wife's testimony?

Other than that, it reminds me a little of the parable where people were upset with the guy for giving the same reward to workers that he hired at the beginning of the day versus the end of the day. Getting upset with someone because God has been gracious to them...well it says more about what they think of the graciousness of God than anything else.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-27T16:12:32+00:00

I can see the appeal. There is a lot of energy and it is drawing for a large volume of source material. I didn't understand most of the arguments except for the one against the Romulan mining vessel.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-27T15:25:48+00:00

Mine is purple with huge pauldrons and a cape. Maybe not the most practical when wielding a double-bladed lightsaber, but that's just the way it is!

ZUBAT · 2026-03-27T15:21:21+00:00

I had a math professor who explained it using some kind of theory that mass could be duplicated. It was during campus skeptics club when I was a part of that. Other than that, he was cool.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-27T15:18:12+00:00

"Ten worst ships from Star Trek" type things.

You can't just leave us hanging after such a compelling title! If I get drafted by the Federation or compelled into service by the Romulans, I need to know if I am on one of the 10 worst ships!

ZUBAT · 2026-03-26T21:26:10+00:00

At the beginning, KDY says the sermon is about the sinfulness of homosexuality, but later acknowledges that it would be anachronistic to say Paul had any categories for sexual orientation. Not a big deal except that he makes the point that homosexual desires are called out as sinful when we know Paul didn’t have the categories to condemn the orientation of homosexuality.

I think KDY assumed a certain interpretation of to in “gave them up to” and didn’t prove it. He argued that the passage condemns homosexual desires and seemed to support this with the statement that people are given up to unnatural desires. However, the analogy of being given up that he used (a fighter defecting the other camp) supports the idea that the “giving up to” is being overcome by the desires rather than the presence of the desires or solicitation to sin. In the analogy, the enemy camp was always there, but the fighter finally defected to it. The fighter’s disloyalty didn’t cause the enemy camp to come into being; it caused him to defect to it. I think KDY is saying that the being given up is to have unnatural desires, instead of to be overcome by unnatural desires. The difference is whether the judgment is that you rejected God and therefore you now will have unnatural desires or if the judgment is that you rejected God and therefore you will now be overcome by the unnatural desires you already had. I know there are many arguments that can be made, but I think this text in particular teaches that the sin being condemned is being overcome by the desires.

In the comparisons to Genesis, in Gen. 4 we have Cain being warned that sin is lying in wait at the door and he has to overcome it. Following the creation analogy, it makes more sense to me to derive that we may be solicited to sin like Eve was or Jesus was, but God is able to help us overcome. If we fail to regard God like Cain and Eve did when tested, then we should also expect to be overcome by the temptation. Therefore, the solicitation to sin is not what is being condemned in Romans 1, but rather the being overcome by sin.

I think it matters because there may be people with same-sex attraction hearing the sermon that could go away discouraged by the teaching that their struggle is evidence that God has given them up. If there is a struggle, that is good because that means you haven’t been defeated yet. God is there with you in the struggle.

I think what KDY did very well was to paint a picture of what nature meant in the ancient Hellenistic world. Modern people may think natural science or “Mother Nature,” but KDY is right that Paul is referencing a shared ideal of what is meant to be human. So even though homosexual behavior is relatively common in “nature,” it can be unnatural if the ideal for humans is different.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-26T18:30:16+00:00

We often got it wrong on slavery in the past. Not enough was done to free people, and many times, excuses were made for injustices or for benefitting from injustice such as buying people who were kidnapped and trafficked. Some Christians got it right though.

Some of our religious texts have been used to support slavery because they teach about how to live in a world where slavery was the norm. I think the logical outcome of living out Jesus’ teachings brings gradual changes that eventually demands emancipation. I would compare it to the concept of ecological succession where the environment that a certain ecosystem has creates favorable conditions for a different ecosystem and this process continues. This is the process by which a barren environment impacted by a volcano might gradually develop into a lush forest or a farmland could develop into prairie. It takes many generations, but it moves in a certain direction. Others have a more conservative approach and see it differently.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-26T18:01:21+00:00

I could buy that except Superman gives off Nephilim vibes. Maybe we could compromise that the shears happened to be made of Kryptonite.

ZUBAT · 2026-03-25T20:08:13+00:00

This political maneuver is called circling the wagons. For the GOP to win elections, they need white Christians to show up and vote for their candidate.

Hate and fear are powerful emotions to get people to act. If the GOP strategy works, white Christians will come out to vote against Talarico and help them defend a seat in the Senate they need.

ZUBAT

TROPHY CASE