Ashyr

I adore musical episodes, assuming the cast has the chops to pull it off. I’m genuinely saddened by some of the salty takes in here about it.

Yeah, but that’s not what the Republicans are upset about. The FBI has a long and very checkered past, but they’re not wrong to be investigating the Republican party at this point.

Not too long ago Florida was a purple state. It may be again someday. Don’t write off the hard working victims of the very slight, but very vocal, majority.

Ah, never heard of it.

I legitimately don’t think this qualifies as NSFL. There’s no effort to make it gross, no muscle or blood. It’s just normal skin that falls away to bone in a few places.

With the subject smoking as the vegetation reclaims the scenery, it seems to be revealing a resignation and, perhaps, even a willing participation in our own destruction.

I’d give anything to have Ernest P. Worrell back and on the case.

In Judaism and therefore Christianity, people don’t have an immortal soul. You will find no verse in the Bible that discusses an eternal spiritual essence. The Bible explicitly notes that we were forbidden the tree of eternal life.

Jews did not believe in going to heaven when you die, they believed in a blessed hope known as the resurrection of the dead. A time when all who died would arise again to face judgment, the righteous would never taste death again and the world would be set to rights.

Even in Jesus’s day, this wasn’t a universally held belief, however. The Pharisees held to the resurrection, while the Sadducees believed that death was final and permanent.

But the words Soul and Spirit occur all throughout the Bible, you may be thinking. Yes, but that’s more an artifact of translation and cultural appropriation. In Hebrew, spirit is “ruach” and can be translated roughly as breath or wind. Soul is “nephesh” and literally means throat.

In Jewish thought, and therefore Christian thought, a person becomes a living being when they breathe.

The real kicker in all this is that the church rejected a lot of Jewish thought and leaned into Greek and Roman thought because of antisemitism.

The best argument for the Southern Baptist Convention’s pivot on this issue? Probably racism as well. Integration in public schools caused a massive surge in private Christian schools, which could segregate under the guise of religious liberty.

While the Supreme Court ultimately decided against Bob Jones University in the early 80’s, it was only after a 13 year battle with the IRS and lower courts. By the late 70’s, it became clear that the final bastion of racial segregation, Christian education, was going to fall.

Racism had been a hugely potent force for turning out evangelicals to vote and with these final court cases, the voting block was no longer motivated or unified. Abortion was one of several issues workshopped by Jerry Falwell and lesser-known, but not less-influential, Paul Weyrich and first floated in the 1978 midterms with tremendous success.

It finally became an issue with national attention in 1980 and the theology of life beginning at conception was largely solidified in place.

All that to say, if you want to believe life begins at conception, that’s fine. But you can’t pretend that’s ever been a commonly held perspective. Throughout much of church history it was the quickening and when the Bible was written, it was almost certainly at first breath.

Interesting, pastor W.A. Criswell, the former president of the southern baptist convention agreed with that notion in 1974. “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” Criswell declared, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

I’m a pastor and I can tell you that modern theology on abortion was largely fabricated in the late 70’s and early 80’s.

Even the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest Evangelical denominations called abortion a “distinctly Catholic issue”. The cause for the change of consensus between 1973 and 1977, but the point being the largest pro-life organization in America took years to become outraged. If the Bible were as clear cut as they pretend, then they should have been marching on day 1.

What does the Bible say about abortion? The only time it discusses it is in Numbers 5:11-31, known as the Drought of Bitter Waters. Essentially if a husband suspects his wife is pregnant due to an affair, a priest administers a drink of bitter waters. There’s some debate over whether this drink is legitimately harmful and God supernaturally protects the innocent or it is perfectly harmless and God supernatural punishes the guilty, but it doesn’t really matter as the result is the same: The termination of the pregnancy.

If a fetus is a fully developed human life, then an innocent is being executed for the crimes of another. That’s a pretty horrific conclusion, but that’s obviously not the perspective of the audience of the day.

So how did the Biblical audience view the notion of when life began?

This gets a little tricky as we’re essentially asking when does a person have a soul. For much of the European church history, this moment was called ensoulment and happened when the mother first felt the cold kick. This specific moment was also known as the quickening. Most evangelicals now argue that ensoulment happens at the moment of conception.

The problem is that ensoulment isn’t actually a Christian idea at all, rather it’s Greek and Roman. Unfortunately, a lot of how Christian’s think isn’t due to the Bible but because of a rather interesting fella named Plotinus and his philosophy known as neo-platonism.

Speaking broadly, in neo-platonism, the soul is the true essence of a person and it is immortal and eternal. The soul inhabits a body and lives a life of good or evil that determines its eternal destination, heaven or hell.

Sound familiar?

Favorite panel show?

That’s a fair point and something I’ll need to keep in mind. There are plenty of game developers I’ve walked away from over the years because of their views and behaviors. While I’m sure there are plenty who’ve never said the quiet part out loud, I’ve divorced myself from those who do.

I’m no programmer and I understand that open source is a significant shield against weighted algorithms and behind-the-scenes shenanigans, but I also know where Lemmy’s roots lie, not just the developers, but the initial communities they created.

To me, kbin already feels like a fork I’m happy with. I’m not trying you be dogmatic, but for now, this is where I’m comfortable.

Great post and I really appreciate bringing the sources to the discussion.

I know some people don’t have an issue with the developer’s views, so long as it doesn’t affect their software, but I’m not comfortable using Lemmy. I wouldn’t be comfortable using a Nazi developer’s software either.

Man, I really appreciate this post and I think tankies are absolutely authoritarian turd burglars. Calling them red fascists is fine and maybe that’s how history will know them.

I know there’s a lot of diverse thought on what makes a fascist and many definitions try to distinguish it from run of the mill genocidal authoritarianism.

That’s why I chose to distinguish tankies and fascists. I broadly think they have different goals, beliefs and methodologies, though the damage they’ve wrought is remarkably similar. At the end of the day, if we look at results, it’s probably just as fair to lump them in together.

A tankie is not a fascist. He denied being a genocidal fascist.

I’ve seen a lot of pro-China propaganda coming from Lemmy and I suspect tankie is still on the table.

Don’t tell someone you’re playing both sides!

Twitter vs Reddit

Is there any way like-minded communities could voluntarily have all their discussions automatically merged for identical links submitted within a 12-hour range or something?

That way the community isn’t fragmented with lots of very similar discussions occurring in repeated posts in the feed.