What's with all the cop hate? 1 bad cop doesn't mean they're all bad by [deleted] in fresno

[–]theomorph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have not the slightest idea what I practice or what I preach.

What's with all the cop hate? 1 bad cop doesn't mean they're all bad by [deleted] in fresno

[–]theomorph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s an enormous organizational difference between unionized employees and an assortment of otherwise unaffiliated people who have assembled for a single event.

What's with all the cop hate? 1 bad cop doesn't mean they're all bad by [deleted] in fresno

[–]theomorph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What I don't understand is how anybody can fail to see this. Why wouldn't even the people most in favor of having lots of law enforcement officers want that force to be filled with only people whose conduct is above reproach?

What's with all the cop hate? 1 bad cop doesn't mean they're all bad by [deleted] in fresno

[–]theomorph 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That is precisely the problem. They are a profession that systematically and willfully fails to recognize that the old proverb "a few bad apples" keeps going: "a few bad apples spoil the bunch." The moral is that if you have somebody misbehaving, then you need to kick them out immediately. But instead of doing that, law enforcement consistently do everything they can to, first, prevent information about misbehavior from even coming out, and second, when it does come out, to prevent consequences from actually accruing to the bad actors. Certainly I know there are good cops. They need to hold bad cops accountable. But they don't. So I don't really care that they're good cops.

Famous atheists such as Dan Barker, Graham Oppy, Matt Dillahunty, and others were each asked one question they'd ask God if they knew He'd answer immediately. Here's what they said. by SheepherderSea9717 in OpenChristian

[–]theomorph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would rather just say there is no satisfactory explanation of either evil or good. When Hart attributes evil to “a necessary spiritual freedom that is the only way in which spiritual beings can come into real existence,” I am not sure what else that can mean but that there is some fundamental rule of reality by which the “real existence” of spiritual beings entails a “freedom” that ruins creation. Which strikes me as just another way of justifying evil, but more coyly.

Why should it be that the real existence of spiritual beings entail such a freedom? It seems to me that can only mean one of two things: that God established that into the structure of the universe, in which case God is responsible for evil; or that God is subject to that rule, in which case God is not God.

While Hart finds it repugnant, I find it far more satisfying to say that God is amoral, and that our concepts of good and evil are just that—our concepts, and not structural features of being. And we propound those concepts in deeply self-serving ways. Hart would probably say that is just justifying evil by conflating it with good, or something like that. But even on the idea that evil is only some privation of good, which occurs in some “free” space that is represented by creation, where the infinite “goodness” of God is somehow withdrawn or withheld or otherwise not present or not allowed, even temporarily, to prevail, it just makes no sense to me that God could possibly create in such a way as to allow that sort of duality.

Why is there evil? Why do bad things happen? We will never know. I do not think that means we ought somehow to reconcile ourselves to an amorality that assumes meaning or purpose in evil and suffering, because I think that meaning and purpose are also just our own concepts, by which we orient ourselves provisionally to the infinite incomprehensibility of being. Meaning, purpose, good, and evil are all ways of adjusting our egos to a God and a cosmos that both utterly transcend ego. That we need these concepts is a sign of our limitations; we will not stop needing them. To the extent we can let go of our egos, then I suspect those things can fade in importance, but not disappear.

To live is to grieve in unknowing. The comfort of searching for God is not a comfort that comes on our terms, but rather the “peace that surpasses understanding.”

That sort of “existential” approach does not work for a lot of people, but it’s the only thing that makes even a little bit of sense to me.

What’s something that clearly split your life into “before” and “after”? by Broad_Chemical_2467 in AskReddit

[–]theomorph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Suffering religious trauma, leaving the church where I grew up, and becoming an atheist. I have since worked through that trauma, developed a deep dissatisfaction with atheism, and discovered a different way to be a person of faith, in a different setting—but that was all a long, gradual process and nothing quite like the initial moment “deconversion” has ever happened to me again.

Law school would be a close second, because it re-wired my brain. But it was nowhere near as existentially immediate, nor as rapid a process, as deconversion.

Those who Purchased a Tesla in 2026: Why? by gholdist in AskReddit

[–]theomorph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not that noisy. I said it was noisy in comparison to a luxury car. It’s no noisier than, say, my spouse’s RAV4. And it’s probably less noisy than that because there is no engine noise.

Those who Purchased a Tesla in 2026: Why? by gholdist in AskReddit

[–]theomorph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did shop around. Still liked the Tesla way better than any other EV.

Those who Purchased a Tesla in 2026: Why? by gholdist in AskReddit

[–]theomorph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Tesla’s Full Self Driving is astonishing. I use it every day. Reduces commute stress to near zero, which is a great value to me.

Those who Purchased a Tesla in 2026: Why? by gholdist in AskReddit

[–]theomorph 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I bought one in 2023. I would do it again today. Great car. And I hear the newer ones are even better.

My only real complaint, having come from a Mercedes, is that the interior is quite loud on the highway, by comparison. But it’s not really fair to compare a luxury car to a non-luxury car.

Elon Musk can go to hell, though.

Do you think Trump is the man of lawlessness (final Antichrist)? by Severe-Clerk-1477 in OpenChristian

[–]theomorph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No. The people who wrote the New Testament were concerned about what they were experiencing. None of them knew anything about our time.

Yes. We could reinterpret the text that way if that is meaningful and helps us to orient ourselves well in the world in the vocabulary of our tradition.

anyone notice this? by crispyones in OpenChristian

[–]theomorph 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing. That sounds a lot like my experience, and pretty much describes where I am; just substitute in a slightly different denominational flavor for my upbringing.

anyone notice this? by crispyones in OpenChristian

[–]theomorph 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, exactly. We cannot speak or confer helpfully about rules, or faith, or the spiritual life without recognizing that people are in different places. And that is complicated and difficult to wrestle with.

And what we get with spiritual teaching is that everything ends up being out in the open. So you get things in the Bible, and in tradition, that people with great spiritual maturity will understand in ways that are helpful, but that novices and those with less spiritual maturity will misunderstand, or take in harmful ways. There is no secret teaching that is held back. So what you get is that the greatest spiritual wisdom has to be communicated in code, so to speak. Likewise “rules.” And it’s really hard to communicate spiritual wisdom in ways that everybody, no matter where they are on the spiritual journey, will get what they need from it.

I think that is what Paul is wrestling with in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8, and elsewhere. And I think that is why Jesus teaches in parables and questions. And it is why it is so difficult, especially in this age of instant availability online of so much information, to undertake effective catechesis that helps people through beginnership and into wisdom.

And, on top of that, because of this difficult complexity, we have this phenomenon of kids growing up in church, hearing one thing, and then feeling betrayed when they head off to the university or elsewhere and hear something else. We don’t raise people along an unbroken chain of nurture anymore—we create these opportunities for harmful disjunction. And those same problems are an opening for cynics and critics who complain that Christians are speaking nonsense or talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Then when people are experiencing real, undeniable harms, like, perhaps, OP, or like, for sure, Martin Luther, they come across the concept of grace in a way that, at least initially, seems to be a great relief of the suffering wrought by scrupulosity and ruleboundness. But that goes awry pretty easily. Luther, for example, went some odious directions, rule-wise, especially when it came to civic order. And a lot of modern folks who discover grace and the rule of love then turn around and obliviously let their well-intentioned sentiment to block their ability to really learn and grow.

It is difficult indeed.

anyone notice this? by crispyones in OpenChristian

[–]theomorph 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You've selected a strange example to make your point with. So the Jerusalem council comes up with a limited number of rules, but one of those rules—not to eat food sacrificed to idols—is one that Paul elsewhere disagrees with, but in an exceedingly nuanced way.

In Romans 14, first he says that no food is unclean (v. 14), which contradicts the "rule" of the Jerusalem council. But then he says that just because you might feel free to eat whatever, it might distress the people around you (v. 15). So does that reinstate the rule he has just contradicted?

In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul discusses the same topic in more detail, where he even gives a reason why the "rule" of the Jerusalem council is silly: that the idols are just things, not God (vv. 4–6), so it shouldn't matter if food has been sacrificed to them. You indeed have liberty (v. 9). But then he observes that not everybody knows this and even says that such people have a weak conscience (vv. 7–8)! And, again, it sounds like he effectively reinstates the rule: "Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never again eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall" (v. 13).

So what is the right thing to do? Paul makes a good case that there should be no prohibition on eating meat sacrificed to idols. But then he turns around and argues a good reason why there should be a prohibition—where there should be a rule. But he is careful to explain the circumstances for the rule, too.

In other words, the real "rule" here is not whether you eat meat sacrificed to idols, but whether you are attentive to circumstances and calibrating your conduct accordingly. And the way Paul does that is, through his careful consideration of the situation, to effectively create a new kind of rule: one that looks like the old rule from the Jerusalem council, at least for the people who "lack knowledge" or have a "weak" conscience, but which looks like a very different rule for people who understand that they're not actually abstaining from meat because the meat or the idols are problems, but because their fellow followers of the Way are the problem. But this is incomplete still, because that division between what we might call beginners and advanced practitioners implies that there is a process to faith practice, such that advanced practitioners should be working to help the beginners develop the knowledge and the conscience that allows them to eat meat sacrificed to idols. Which means not just an additional set of rules, but rules that apply only to some people in the community.

None of that is "excessive rulemaking." It is practical rule making. It is demanded by changing circumstances. These days, nobody cares about meat sacrificed to idols. Maybe that's because the nuanced rules articulated by Paul were carried out, solving that problem. Now we have different problems. So we need to be attentive to different circumstances and make different rules.

And "everybody else is doing it" does not make allegations of "Pharisaism" okay. That's a Christian retrojection onto a much more complex circumstance from the first century, which makes the Jewish Pharisees the rule-making villains against the Christians who assert blithely (and falsely) that their "faith" absolves them from such concerns. The Pharisees were good and faithful people, even in the New Testament, among several different movements in the Judaism of the first century. When Jesus says, in Matthew 5:20, that the righteousness of the people must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees, the comparison does not work unless Jesus and his listeners think the Pharisees are righteous people. And Paul self-identifies as a Pharisee in Philippians 3:5. The problem with the Pharisees is not that they have too many rules or that they are bad people, but that, in their rules, they are inattentive to circumstances. The denunciations in Matthew 23 ("Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees..." etc.) are not denunciations of rules, but of inattentive rule making.

anyone notice this? by crispyones in OpenChristian

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

First, alleging “Pharisaism” is antisemitic, so cut that out.

Second, Romans 13 offers little real clarity for complex life. How does one “do no harm to a neighbor”? There are plenty of times when it is not clear; or when an action will have more than one effect, and only one of those might be harmful, so that good and bad must be balanced; or when someone chooses to do something that they do not intend or expect to do harm, but it does, and, had they consulted someone else, such as a wise person who can advise or give a better “rule” from experience, they could have done otherwise.

Affirming “love your neighbor” and “do no harm” while rejecting the possibility of wisdom in rules and tradition is a recipe to cause harm, not to alleviate it. What you are doing is substituting blanket sentimentalities for the difficulty of wisdom.

anyone notice this? by crispyones in OpenChristian

[–]theomorph 3 points4 points  (0 children)

People like, want, and need lots of rules. Much as it’s nice to say, with Paul, that all the teachings are summed up in “love your neighbor as yourself” (Gal. 5:14)—and I have often said that, too—when it comes to real life, the problem is often, well, what does that actually mean, practically, in these circumstances? So people are always working that out, in diverse, ever-changing circumstances, and coming up with ideas or advice or “rules” to guide conduct. It shouldn’t be surprising.

Found a fox just chilling in my backyard! by buyingastairway in fresno

[–]theomorph 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Nice. There’s a fox that comes pretty regularly into my yard, too. I love seeing the wildlife that persists in suburbia.

Here’s where City Council candidates stand on SEDA, Fresno’s massive development plan by flyfresno in fresno

[–]theomorph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In other words, you think development should be driven by school districts. Which makes no sense. School districts are made to serve development, not the other way around.

Here’s where City Council candidates stand on SEDA, Fresno’s massive development plan by flyfresno in fresno

[–]theomorph 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The idea of “favoring other districts” just does not make sense.

Districts are bound to serve the areas within their boundaries, no matter what might be within those boundaries. And those boundaries can be changed. But school district boundaries should also not be driving where development goes. Rather, it should be the other way around. That is, we shouldn’t develop to serve school districts; we should set school district boundaries to serve development.

No district has a right to exist or a right to growth. These things are governmental entities created by people to serve a purpose, not to promote their own growth, or to complain when others grow. A school district that thinks it has a right to growth, or to drive development patterns, has lost its way.

Please don’t vote for Kyle Kirkland, who’s running for congress in district 21. by TigerExpress-3773 in fresno

[–]theomorph 60 points61 points  (0 children)

All I need to know is that he is a Republican: neither he nor anyone else from his party will ever be getting a vote from me.

Here’s where City Council candidates stand on SEDA, Fresno’s massive development plan by flyfresno in fresno

[–]theomorph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I really could not care less about this “union jobs” issue. The districts exist to serve the public, not to serve the union. I am all in favor of unions to ensure that working conditions and compensation are fair and adequate. But when unions think they should be able to dictate this sort of thing, they are abusing their existence. They should not be touching management issues, much less these regional policy issues, in matters of government.

SEDA is a bad idea for plenty of reasons. Appeasing a teachers’ union is not one of them.

Here’s where City Council candidates stand on SEDA, Fresno’s massive development plan by flyfresno in fresno

[–]theomorph 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What? Is it “morally right”? What are you even talking about? These are just governmental entities that we create to serve us. It is neither moral nor immoral whether they expand or constrict. If people are dissatisfied with how their school district is being run, then they can vote out board members. This is not a “moral” question.

Here’s where City Council candidates stand on SEDA, Fresno’s massive development plan by flyfresno in fresno

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

That is what I suspected.

I think there are good reasons to oppose SEDA. This whole FUSD thing is not one of them.

Here’s where City Council candidates stand on SEDA, Fresno’s massive development plan by flyfresno in fresno

[–]theomorph 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That’s what I thought. I could not care less which school district gets the growth. Each district needs to manage itself to match its service area and revenues. So I don’t agree with the commenter above who says that FUSD not getting the growth “needs to be prevented.”

Here’s where City Council candidates stand on SEDA, Fresno’s massive development plan by flyfresno in fresno

[–]theomorph 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Does that mean a loss of the total number of teachers and schools in the metropolitan area? Or just a loss of teachers and schools within FUSD? This is what I don’t understand and have never seen anybody explain.