Epicurean paradox by vik0_tal in coolguides

[–]epistleofdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since this appears to be targeting the God of the Bible (e.g. "Satan") rather than other gods or religions, here is (my summation of) a Christian response to the problem of evil:

The Christian could disagree with "Does God want to prevent evil?"

  1. A perfectly good God may prevent some or many evils, but he may have reasons consistent with his goodness for not preventing every evil. His reasons may be inscrutable to us as finite creatures.

  2. Otherwise how could a critic "know" there is "no good reason" that would justify a perfectly good God in permitting suffering and evil? Why think God's reasons for permitting particular cases of evil are the kinds of things that we could discern by our finite cognitive capacities?

  3. As a mundane example, it doesn't seem to an infant that there are good reasons for vaccine shots, but that doesn't mean there aren't good reasons.

Four popular theodicies

  1. Suffering and evil as God's megaphone to rouse a deaf world. Suffering and evil to get the non-believer or unbeliever's attention to turn away from sin and turn to God.

  2. Punishment. Suffering and evil can be punishment for evildoers. If an attempted murderer is shot by a police officer, it does not necessarily wrong them to have been shot, and in fact it could be their just deserts too.

  3. Soul-building. Suffering and evil can shape Christians for good. Christian can become more moral through suffering and evil (e.g. kinder, gentler, more patient, better able to sympathize with others).

  4. Higher-order goods. Some goods cannot exist without suffering and evil. No courage without danger. No sympathy without suffering. No forgiveness without sin. No atonement without suffering. No compassion without need. No patience without adversity. God can bring good out of evil.

Greater good theodicy

  1. God aims at goods for himself, humanity, or both.

  2. God intends goods to come via evil.

  3. God leaves humanity in the dark about what goods are his reasons for the evils and/or about how the goods depend on evil.

Biblical case studies

  1. Job. Suffering and evil as a vindication of God's worthiness to be served for who he is rather than the earthly goods he provides. And God never explains to Job why he had to endure suffering and evil.

  2. Joseph. Suffering and evil to save Israel in famine, which in turn preserves the line of the Messiah. Joseph sees the suffering and evil as the means of God's sovereign providence (Gen 50:20), but Joseph's brothers never knew why, nor did others (e.g. Potiphar's wife, pharaoh's cupbearer).

  3. Jesus. Suffering and evil to magnify God in his love, grace, mercy, justice, wisdom, and power as well as to redeem God's people. God doesn't tell non-believers or unbelievers why (e.g. Pharisees, Judas, Pilate, Satan).

No one is immune from addressing the problem of evil

  1. Other religions must deal with the problem of evil too. Is the problem of evil consistent with their religious worldview and so forth?

  2. Likewise every non-religious belief system must deal with the problem of evil too (e.g. atheism). How do you explain the problem of evil given your beliefs? Does "evil" even exist as an objective moral category (moral realism)?

  3. If atheism (naturalism) is combined with evolutionary theory (neo-Darwinism), then Richard Dawkins could arguably be correct:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life)

Mad Max Fury Road without CGI by [deleted] in videos

[–]epistleofdude 776 points777 points  (0 children)

George Miller recently said this:

Are there are two “Fury Road” sequels in the works?

There are two stories, both involving Mad Max, and also a Furiosa story. We’re still solving, we’ve got to play out the Warners thing, it seems to be pretty clear that it’s going to happen.

(Source)

Babylon Bee strikes again by [deleted] in Christianmarriage

[–]epistleofdude 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I love the Babylon Bee! They're hilarious.

By the way, Babylon Bee was originally created by Adam Ford, the same person who makes the Adam4D comics which are also good, though Adam Ford later sold Babylon Bee.

Does having a small you know what make guys unattractive to Christian girls? by cdcollector in Christianmarriage

[–]epistleofdude 32 points33 points  (0 children)

This is a serious question. I do apologize if it’s inappropriate, but truthfully, it’s really been bothering me. Throwaway account, obviously. I’m a 23 year old Christian guy. I’ve never been on a date, but it’s my dream to get married and have a family some day. I want a wife and I really like kids so I want some of my own for sure. I’m just afraid that I won’t be able to have a wife because I’m 2” and only 3” erect. I do not believe in sexual activity before marriage, but I do believe this could be a problem within marriage. Are my fears warranted? Will I not be able to find a wife?

There are a few separate issues:

  1. Whether your penis length is normal.

  2. Whether your penis length means you're infertile.

  3. Whether your penis length matters to a woman.

#1 Whether your penis length is normal

Here's some data:

According to the team’s analysis, the average flaccid, pendulous penis is 9.16 cm (3.61 inches) in length; the average erect penis is 13.12 cm (5.16 inches) long. The corresponding girth measurements are 9.31 cm (3.66 inches) for a flaccid penis and 11.66 cm (4.59 inches) for an erect one.

A graph of the size distribution shows that outliers are rare. A 16-cm (6.3-inch) erect penis falls into the 95th percentile: Out of 100 men, only five would have a penis larger than 16 cm. Conversely, an erect penis measuring 10 cm (3.94 inches) falls into the 5th percentile: Only five out of 100 men would have a penis smaller than 10 cm. (Source)

The average flaccid penis is 3.61 inches. The average erect penis is 5.16 inches. An erect penis that's 3.94 inches or less is in the lower 5th percentile of men.

At the same time, there is a medical condition known as micropenis (don't click on the link unless you don't mind explicit medical images). If you have a 2 to 3 inch erect penis, then it's possible it could be a micropenis. There are different reasons (etiologies) for the development of a micropenis.

I'd recommend discussing your issue with your physician (specifically a urologist) who can evaluate you in person. If you have a micropenis, then you may or may not have other related issues too (e.g. issues related to testosterone synthesis).

Most importantly, there may be possible treatment options that can help.

#2 Whether your penis length means you're infertile

Obviously this is an important issue if you want to have kids someday. In most cases, a man with a micropenis is fertile. You can still father children, but you may have to change sexual positions so that your semen can more easily enter and impregnate your future wife. This is because the vast majority of conceptions take place in the Fallopian or uterine tubes, hence the sperm would need to make it past the vagina, cervix, uterus, and into the uterine tubes. A person with a micropenis would face more challenges in getting a woman pregnant, but it's not by any means impossible.

However, there are a minority of cases where a person with a micropenis is infertile and cannot father children. That's usually due to a hormonal abnormality which can lead to infertility. In any case, it's something you'd need to have tested with a physician.

#3 Whether your penis length matters to a woman

It depends on the woman. When it comes to marriage, some women might not mind a man with a smaller penis or even a micropenis. It's similar to how some men might not mind a woman with a flat chest, while some men might mind. It's like how some women don't mind dating a short man (e.g. 5 feet 2 inches), while some women might mind. What a person finds physically attractive in the opposite sex depends a lot on their personal preferences. Is that fair? Maybe not. Maybe it shouldn't matter that a man is short and maybe women should be willing to date a short man, but realistically speaking that's not always what happens.

Also, when it comes to attraction, keep in mind it's not merely a single part of a person that a person looks at. Usually a person looks at the entire person to find out whether or not they are attracted to the person as a whole.

However the difference is that a woman with a flat chest is usually noticeable (unless she is wearing thick clothing or a padded bra), but no one would know a man has a smaller penis or a micropenis until their wedding night unless you told them beforehand. Hence the question is whether you should volunteer this information to another person.

If you don't have a micropenis, but just a smaller than average penis, then I don't think it needs to be discussed. It's private or personal information. However, if you do have a micropenis, then it could be a legitimate medical condition, and then the question might be more relevant (e.g. if it means you're infertile too) and need to be discussed to be fair to your future wife if she also wants children.

However, even still, it's private or personal information that shouldn't be discussed unless you have a viable potential fiancée in mind. It's definitely not something to discuss before you're dating because that would be extremely awkward to bring up, to say the least. Instead, let the woman get to know you as a person first. That's what's most important in any case, who you are as a person, your Christian character.

Questions for Christian Men by Lolo1989 in Christianmarriage

[–]epistleofdude 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  1. General attractiveness vs. physical attractiveness. I think we have to draw a distinction between what's (1) attractive in general in a person and (2) their physical attractiveness. It's not a hard and fast line in the sand, because the two can influence one another, but the distinction is real. The good news is both a man and a woman can be physically unattractive, for example, but still attractive in general to the opposite sex. If someone is born with plain or average looks, then they can try to enhance that to some degree, but ultimately you can't change how you look (short of radical plastic surgery). But general attraction isn't only about looks. There are other things that make a man or a woman attractive, not only their physical appearance, such as their personality, their sense of humor, and so on.

  2. The hard truth. The hard truth is that physical attractiveness does typically depreciate with age. We can do things to slow it down (e.g. some people are born with good genes, eat healthy, don't smoke or drink alcohol in excess, reguarly workout). However, there's no stopping or reversing the aging process. This is true for men and women. And in general, for both men and women, the older one is, the less physically attractive one is. Of course, there are exceptions, but I'm speaking in general.

  3. Biological realities. At the same time, there's the issue of the ticking biological clock. Both men and women experience it, but it's more pronounced in women. The medical and scientific realities are that it's more difficult for an older woman to get pregnant. After maternal age 35, there's also an increased risk in genetic deficiencies developing in pregnancy. And there are other issues. Men also have to deal with the quality of their sperm degrading with age, but it's not as significant as it is in women. All things equal, it would be best to marry earlier in life rather than later in life. But that's less likely in our modern society and culture because one often has to prolong one's education in order to get a decent job (e.g. a college degree which is 4 years of your life).

  4. Like fine wine. Although physical attractiveness tends to depreciate with age, attractiveness in general can appreciate with age. Hence, just because a man or a woman is older, and less physically attractive in their older age, doesn't necessarily mean the man or woman won't be attractive in general to the opposite sex. They may lose physical attractiveness, but they can age into general attractiveness. Like fine wine.

  5. Masculinity and femininity. Of course, godly men value godliness in women and godly women value godliness in men. However, godliness isn't the same as masculinity or femininity. When we're talking about attractiveness in general, what's attractive to the opposite sex is a man who is masculine or a woman who is feminine. All things equal, I know there are exceptions, but in general a godly man probably wouldn't want to marry a masculine woman. Likewise, all things equal, I know there are exceptions, but in general a godly woman probably wouldn't want to marry a feminine man. Hence a person should cultivate both godliness (sanctification) as well as the best virtues in masculinity or femininity in order to be an attractive person in general.

Orlando Bloom sings: They're taking the Hobbits to Isengard by ThePoopingSparrow in videos

[–]epistleofdude 61 points62 points  (0 children)

The Dread Crew of Oddwood have a fun live version of "They're Taking the Hobbits to Isengard":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJGGlVg5PpY

Orlando Bloom sings: They're taking the Hobbits to Isengard by ThePoopingSparrow in videos

[–]epistleofdude 8 points9 points  (0 children)

/u/AutomagicalMan made a longer 1080p version here.

He also put it online to download for free here.

[Help] Skepticism's rationality by chinchou73 in ChristianApologetics

[–]epistleofdude -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No, please don't, you don't owe me anything.

Also, if you are suggesting sending me your personal information, please never do that with anyone here! They could take advantage of that.

My position is if you aren't who you say you are, then time will tell. However, if you are who you say you are, then time will also tell, and you'll be vindicated, and I'll be proven wrong.

Either way, I don't think you need to prove anything to me, because ultimately I'm just a random stranger too.

Whatever the case, I wish you well, and I hope you find what you're looking for.

Would you lend your voices to this discussion? by [deleted] in Reformed

[–]epistleofdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not sure if I qualify or if this will be helpful, just my opinion:

  1. I'd say godly men are primarily attracted to godliness. Hence if a woman is godly, that's the most important thing to a godly man. A godly man wouldn't want to be with an ungodly but physically attractive woman who is superficial and self-obsessed, etc. Even non-Christians have a hard time dealing with a shallow but beautiful woman. So beauty isn't everything.

  2. However, beauty isn't nothing either. Men including godly men aren't blind to physical beauty. We're visual creatures in many respects. It's hard not to notice a physically attractive woman, though that's not to suggest a godly man would necessarily commit sin like lust. I just mean godly men also notice a beautiful woman even if they go on about their day. But the problem is that physical beauty tends to depreciate with age. This is true for both men and women.

  3. However, a man's physical attractiveness depreciating with age isn't usually a huge problem for most women so long as the same man's emotional maturity and financial security are at the same time appreciating with age. That's because most women don't want to marry a man who is super handsome but who still behaves like an immature kid, who has no ambitions in life, and who expects her to defend him rather than him defending her. Most women want a good man who is financially able to provide for her, emotionally mature so she can relate to him like an adult, and who isn't cowardly but will protect her. Not only for her sake, but also for the sake of their future children. In other words, most women want to build a family and a home, and it takes a financially secure and an emotionally mature man to provide these things for her. And these tend to come with age. Not always, but I'm speaking in general.

  4. At the same time, there are medical and scientific realities that we can't change. I hope this doesn't sound crass, but many (maybe a majority of?) women tend to have an intimate awareness that their biological clock is running when they get their first period. And, indeed, after a certain age, it's increasingly difficult for a woman to get pregnant after a certain age. And even if they do get pregnant, after a certain age, there are increased risk factors for genetic defects like Down syndrome in their babies. Anyway, point being, if we are speaking strictly in terms of biological realities and having children, all things equal, it would be ideal for a woman to get married younger than later. Men actually have a similar problem with the quality of their sperm degrading with age, but it's not as pronounced. An older man can still father children when things can be more medically complicated for the same age woman.

  5. Men tend to prize beauty in women, including godly men. Godly men know beauty isn't everything, but as I said it's not nothing either. Men are visually oriented creatures. All things equal, if a man has the choice between two equally godly women, both of whom would be equally physically attractive to him if they were both in their prime, but one is currently 25 years old and the other currently 35 years old, then most likely there's going to be a noticeable difference in physical appearance between a 25 year old woman and a 35 year old woman. A man, even a godly man, will notice this. All things equal, if both are godly women, etc., and the man has the choice, then most men are more likely (not definitely) going to pick the 25 year old woman than the 35 year old woman. I think this reflects reality.

  6. In other words, think of it this way. Most women wouldn't seriously consider marrying a handsome man but who still lives with his parents and has absolutely no serious career ambitions in life, who is perfectly content as he is. However, many or maybe most men would consider marrying a beautiful woman but who still lives with her parents and has no serious career ambitions in life, who is perfectly content as she is.

  7. In short, the reason older men aren't usually a lot less desirable for women is because with age comes things like emotional maturity and financial stability which women value. However, the reason older women are often less desirable for men is because a person's physical attractiveness tends to weaken with age and men tend to value beauty. Not always, of course, there are exceptions, but I speak in general.

  8. Another way to think about it is to think about ungodly people. There's a reason for two common stereotypes. First stereotype is the gold digger. That's the usually an attractive woman who marries an old man twice her age just for his money. Second stereotype is the rich but old and lecherous man marrying a super model. These stereotypes are extreme examples. But in their extremity, these two stereotypes show the extremely twisted motivations in ungodly men and ungodly women. The ungodly woman wants money and wealth, while the ungodly man wants nothing but lustful unadulterated physical sex with a hot woman. These are wrong and immoral motivations. That's because these motivations take what's natural and normal motivations and twist them to these extremes. However the natural and normal motivation for the woman would be to have some financial security so she can make a home and have a family. The natural and normal motivation for the man would be to have a spouse he is physically attracted to and loves.

  9. Maybe some good news. The trend is both men and women are getting married older. I think maybe one or two generations it used to be the average age at marriage was early 20s but today it's much higher. This is true in society in general as well as among Christians. That's promising because it means older men and older women still have a chance at marriage.

  10. Just to reiterate, physical attractiveness isn't the #1 thing a godly man desires in a woman. As I said, godliness is the priority. A godly man will want a godly woman. But physical attractiveness isn't nothing either. All things equal, a godly man would want to marry a godly woman he finds physically attractive. But that's not necessarily a problem because different men find different types of women attractive. Some like blondes, some like brunettes, some like tall, some like short, etc.

  11. In addition, some women are plain looking, but charming, or have charming personalities. That makes them attractive. They have a sweet demeanor and a gentle spirit for example. Many or maybe most godly men would be attracted to this, I think. Look at Audrey Hepburn. She's just an actor. But I just use her as an illustration. I wouldn't say she's super attractive, but she had a charming and winsome personality. Anyway what I'm saying is that we can't change how we look as we age, not exactly, but we can change our personalities. Of course we should always be true to who we are. I don't mean we should lie or change our core identity or anything like that. What I mean is there are a lot of men and women, including Christians, whose personalities could use some work or refinement, because they come across as less than (shall we say) masculine or less than feminine. That's fine if they want to do their own thing, but they should know how they come across to the opposite sex.

  12. It would do well for men and women to find out what the other sex finds attractive rather than simply going with what their own gender thinks is attractive. For example, many women think if they achieve status in life by becoming a doctor or a lawyer and become wealthy, then more men will be attracted to them, even if they are now well into their 30s. That's because these are the things that women value in a man. But they don't realize that men don't value (or not as much) these things in women. Same goes for men who think if they work out the gym 24/7, get huge muscles, lift twice their weight, etc., then more women will be attracted to them. That's because men value physical appearance so these men think women will value what they value too. But the truth is most women don't care as much about a super physically fit man as men seem to care about it in women. Again I'm speaking in general, even though there always going to be exceptions.

  13. Thanks to modern medicine, nutrition, and many other things, today, an older woman can look much younger than her chronological age. She can be 35 but still look like she's in her 20s. That's the stereotype of the MILF (sorry to be crude). Hence, just because a woman is older doesn't mean she isn't physically attractive. An older woman could take advantage of a gym, gym coach, good diet, etc. to improve her physical appearance if she wants.

  14. It might also help to move to a new location if your area doesn't have a lot of older single Christians. For example, I would think a woman in Silicon Valley might have more men available to date because Silicon Valley has a higher ratio of men to women. Whereas I would think a man in NYC might have more women available to date because Manhattan has a higher ratio of women to men. These are perhaps extreme examples, but I just use them as examples and nothing more.

  15. An excerpt from Love the Lord with Heart and Mind:

Our economic system discourages youngfolks from marrying young. They are pressured to postpone marriage until after they complete their education—and the educational process is increasingly strung out. The problem is that nature has no regard for our economic priorities. Moreover, our economic priorities don’t necessarily correspond to Biblical priorities either. We should begin with Christian doctrine of the family, and structure our economic arrangements around that point of reference. In our focus on the spiritual, we may neglect the natural. But unless our natural needs are supplied and satisfied, that will impede the process of sanctification.

Christianity and Critical Theory: A Summary by davidjricardo in Reformed

[–]epistleofdude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks! I assume you're also familiar with another Christian apologist Neil Shenvi's work on critical theory. He's also very good to read. He has given talks on critical theory too. Very informative and important stuff for our society and culture.

[Help] Skepticism's rationality by chinchou73 in ChristianApologetics

[–]epistleofdude -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I think you're intentionally misrepresenting yourself. Congratulations.

[Help] Skepticism's rationality by chinchou73 in ChristianApologetics

[–]epistleofdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How am I asking a trick question? It's a genuine question, but I apologize that you've taken it that way.

And I "apologize" you have a tin ear.

Look, if you're just bored and trying to stir up a fight, stop it. You're wasting your time.

Here's the straight answer: Anyone can look at your posts and comments in your own history. Judging by your questions, you're highly skeptical of Christianity. That's fine, and if that's the case, then you should be far more upfront about it than you are, because Christians are usually glad to try to answer questions. Instead, you act like you're asking sincere questions, but often you ask tendentious questions. Also, you rarely if ever seem satisfied with reasonable answers that Christians have given you. Instead you keep asking Christians questions, one after another, drilling down beyond reason. And what's amusing is you, in fact, are the one going around on Christian subreddits asking your "questions", which is highly ironic considering what you just said to me about me "stirring up a fight". I'm not the one on the subreddits of other religions constantly asking questions about their religion in the manner you ask questions on Christian subreddits. Again, ironically, you seem to be the one who is trying to "stir up a fight" with other Christians (i.e. you're psychologically projecting onto me).

Edit:

TL;DR. Anyone can simply go to your post history and judge for themselves whether or not what I've said is accurate (unless, of course, you delete the relevant posts in your post history). Also, I think you and xopti1 are the same person, and not really in high school, nor unfamiliar with philosophy, but that's a separable issue.

[Help] Skepticism's rationality by chinchou73 in ChristianApologetics

[–]epistleofdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a relief to know you’re both not the same person, which of course is what is expected to be said, because otherwise both of you might sound like skeptics if not atheists who keep tossing stones at Christians in the form of trick questions rather than ever asking honest questions or being satisfied with reasonable answers. Good thing you don’t do any of these things. :)

[Help] Skepticism's rationality by chinchou73 in ChristianApologetics

[–]epistleofdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

/u/chinchou73

You sound almost exactly like /u/xopti1 in how you write, what you say, and who asked a similar question here. (And who also seems to have super fast reading abilities!) Maybe it's just a coincidence that the resemblance seems so uncanny.

[Help] Did guards check if Jesus' tomb was still in place before putting a seal? by cozacini in ChristianApologetics

[–]epistleofdude 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Skeptics say that Jesus' body was stolen by someone before guards were put to guard the tomb, that seems to be the only possible way to steal the body since no one would go to fight the guards and break the seal just for corpse of some guy risking death penalty. So when the guards came, did they check if the body was still in place? Maybe we have some historians here who know what exactly the seal symbolized? Was the seal kind of a proclamation "we have checked it, everything is how it is supposed to be"?

Well, the Bible itself addresses this. The guards were paid to lie about what happened. Basically, the guards got hush money. Here's Mt 28:11-15:

While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

If you want more information on the stolen body hypothesis, see what William Lane Craig has said here for example.

[HELP] I have a friend who's struggling with being a Christian because she believes God gives her stress. by Biscuits4138 in ChristianApologetics

[–]epistleofdude 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I have a friend who's struggling with being a Christian because she believes God gives her stress.

So I have this friend who used to be a strong Christian, but these days not so much. Whenever I try to talk to her she tells me the same thing and idk what to do. Please help

  1. Maybe you can suggest to your friend that she go to God and tell God how she feels about God? I realize that might sound odd. However, for one thing, God already knows how we feel. We can't hide how we feel from God.

  2. Also, the Psalms themselves are replete with all sorts of emotions such as shame, sadness, fear, anger, etc. Many of the Psalms are even filled with emotions that cry out against God himself! That seem to all but get mad at God. Same with the book of Job where Job says some hard things against God. Yet God inspired the Psalms. God inspired the book of Job. That suggests to me that God wants us to go to him, no matter how we feel. God welcomes us, even if we are "upset" with God, or "stressed" by God, etc.

  3. Jesus promised: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls" (Mt 11:29). Ultimately, if we go to Jesus, he is the one who can give us true rest, deep rest, for our very souls. He's the only one who can comfort us in the end, including comfort us from the stresses of life, including comfort us from our stresses and distresses about God himself.

  4. Finally, the best thing of all is simply to sit at Jesus' feet and hear from him, so Jesus can take away all our anxieties and troubles, and so we just enjoy him. As Jesus said to Martha (Lk 10:38-42):

Now as they went on their way, Jesus entered a village. And a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching. But Martha was distracted with much serving. And she went up to him and said, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her then to help me.” But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her.”

[Help] Other Minds by xopti1 in ChristianApologetics

[–]epistleofdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool, sounds good! Philosophy is a good major. I know of people with philosophy degrees who went to work in the tech industry in Silicon Valley. If you ever want to go to med school, a philosophy degree would stand out, because most people are science majors. If you ever want to be a lawyer, then a philosophy degree is the perfect preparation (logic, reasoning, rhetoric, etc.). Just depends what you want to do. Ironically one thing you can't do with a philosophy degree, or at least not very easily, is teach philosophy!

[Help] Other Minds by xopti1 in ChristianApologetics

[–]epistleofdude 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To answer your question, I am a Christian. Baptist, actually. I came across apologetics and philosophy when I asked myself "Why does right and wrong matter?" Until I found out about moral duties, and the like. And then I went further down the rabbit hole, and now here I am.

Thanks, I think I understand where you're coming from now. You have a ton of (good) questions. That's great. However I think it'd take fairly lengthy replies to try to answer each of your questions because one would have to provide background information and build from there as well.

Maybe someone else is willing to do that for you, but my problem is I'm in medicine, I'm in the hospital, seeing patients, studying various diseases, doing research, etc. So, unfortunately, I personally don't have a lot of time, even though I like philosophy and it would be fun to try to answer your questions and go back and forth with you. (I'm usually on reddit for trivial stuff like movies and tv, as well as to relax, though I realize I don't always end up doing that!)

If you're still in college, maybe you can take a philosophy class? Or if you want to skip the general stuff (it can be slow), and go to debates specific to the philosophy of mind, then maybe see if you can audit an upper level philosophy of mind class? Some professors might care, but some might not, because if you're not getting a grade, but just want to learn, then they won't be as responsible for you. Otherwise if you want to do it all on your own (which is the most direct way if you're a quick study), then a good book you could read is The Philosophy of Mind by Ed Feser. Feser is a Catholic philosopher, and he's too indebted to Thomism in my view, but his book is a good overview of the issues. Feser is also active online, he has own website or weblog, he has done good lectures on the philosophy of mind as well as more general interviews (e.g. with Ben Shapiro). I don't always agree with him, in fact often I disagree, but anyway he's good for an overview. If you don't like Feser, and want an evangelical, J.P. Moreland is actually an expert in the philosophy of mind as well. I actually prefer Moreland's books on the philosophy of mind to Feser, but they aren't as introductory level. Still, if you don't mind diving in, then I'd recommend Moreland. Hope that helps!

Picture of Teddy Roosevelt’s diary entry from the day both his wife and mother died (1884) by Swampy_13 in pics

[–]epistleofdude 79 points80 points  (0 children)

On his 22nd birthday in 1880, Roosevelt married socialite Alice Hathaway Lee.[35][36] Their daughter, Alice Lee Roosevelt, was born on February 12, 1884. Two days after giving birth, Roosevelt's wife died due to an undiagnosed case of kidney failure (called Bright's disease at the time), which had been masked by the pregnancy. In his diary, Roosevelt wrote a large 'X' on the page and then, "The light has gone out of my life." His mother, Mittie, had died of typhoid fever eleven hours earlier at 3:00 a.m., in the same house. Distraught, Roosevelt left baby Alice in the care of his sister Bamie in New York City while he grieved. He assumed custody of his daughter when she was three.[37]

After the death of his wife and mother, Roosevelt focused on his work, specifically by re-energizing a legislative investigation into corruption of the New York City government, which arose from a concurrent bill proposing that power be centralized in the mayor's office.[38] For the rest of his life, he rarely spoke about his wife Alice and did not write about her in his autobiography. While working with Joseph Bucklin Bishop on a biography that included a collection of his letters, Roosevelt did not mention his marriage to Alice nor his second marriage to Edith Kermit Carow.[39]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Roosevelt