Thank you. I've had this conversation with family members way too often. They love their local chiropractor. They always leave feeling so much better, etc. I ask them what he does, what his advice is, and what kinds of questions he asks them, and everything they describe is not chiropractic. It's massage, or nursing, or physician. No wonder you love him: He's practicing medicine.
No, sorry. I try to be deferential when talking about this stuff, but this is pretty cut and dry, and I'm afraid you're just wrong here. This is Greek--not theology. πίστις is the word we're talking about. It shares the common root with πείθω--"to persuade" (i.e., that evidence is compelling or trustworthy). πίστις is the same word you would use in describing the veracity of a tribunal's judgment (for example, "I have πίστις that the jurors in NY got the verdict right/wrong"). The Greeks used the word to personify honesty, trust, and persuasiveness prior to the existence of Christianity (although someone who knows Attic or is better versed in Greek mythology feel free to correct me). The word is inherently tied up with persuasion, confidence, and trust since long before the New Testament. The original audience of the New Testament would have understood the meaning of the word without depending on any prior relation to religion.
Is trust always a better translation? Of course not--and that's why, you'll notice, I didn't say that (and if it were, one would hope that many of the very well educated translators of Bibles would have used it). But I think you can agree that the concept is also difficult for English to handle (since trust in a person, trust in a deity, and trust in a statement are similar but not quite the same thing, and the same goes for belief in a proposition, belief in a person, and belief in an ideal or value, to say nothing of analogous concepts like loyalty and integrity).
The point is that πίστις--faith--absolutely does not mean belief without evidence, and Christianity since its inception has never taught that. English also doesn't use the word "faith" to imply the absence of evidence, and we don't need to appeal to another language to understand that. It's why the phrase "blind faith" exists (and the phrase is generally pejorative in religious circles as well as secular ones).
Now, if you think the evidence that convinces Christians to conclude that Jesus' followers saw Him after His death is inadequate, that's perfectly valid and a reasonable criticism of Christianity--and if you want to talk about that, that would be apologetics.
In any event, if you're going to call something bullshit, you better have a lot of faith in the conclusion you're drawing. ;)
The way faith is treated in the First Century doesn't translate well to modern audiences. Having faith of a child isn't an analogy to a child being gullible. It's an analogy to the way a child trusts in and depends on his parents. Trust, arguably, would be a better translation than faith in many instances.
Faith for ancient religious peoples wasn't about believing without proof. That would be as ridiculous for a First Century Jew as it is for us. Faith is being persuaded to a conclusion by the evidence.
Say more about this? Why is it a worse profession? Anywhere I can get a layperson-friendly deep dive on this (that doesn't require a graduate degree in mathematics)? I'm fascinated by the nuance between niche academic disciplines and the "politics" of academia.
"You don't have to attend every argument you're invited to."
So no, thanks. I don't owe you a defense, engagement, or an policy apologetics treatment of the current administration's governance for the last four years. There are plenty of places to find that information if you actually care to find it.
So far you've managed to call me an idiot, a liar, and a coward in all of about fifteen minutes. Why on earth would I believe you're capable of nuanced political discourse? We've nothing to discuss.
Oh I know. Trust me, I don't engage with these people with any illusions. There's no arguing with the agitprop element here. The point of responding at all is just to identify them to the general public.
Windows 10 LTSC 2021 ends support in 2027 (although it doesn't matter quite as much). And it's likely that the Win 11 LTSC later this year will necessarily be free from much of 11's bullshit. Linux is still the right call, but for those of us who need to run a Windows machine for whatever reason, there are alternatives, so, you know... yarr.
But that wasn't the question, was it? United international action works and also doesn't really exist. You think billionaires are going to just throw up their hands and give governments their tax dollars if enough nations agree they should. Doesn't work that way.
Read the article you linked. Who's going to jail in Panama? A few bankers--maybe. Panama changed its rules, and the billionaires just moved all their money elsewhere--exactly as predicted.
The solution to tax evasion isn't more tax law. That's like saying that if only everyone agreed rapists should go to jail, people would stop committing rape.
I'm in favor of a wealth tax just because any action beats no action, but it is absolutely a half measure. The real solution to this problem is not financial. It's personal.
It's a safe bet. The number of voters Biden loses if he were to change positions enough to appease any authentic anti-Zionists (as opposed to agitprop elements, for whom no position would be good enough to silence) would dwarf the number of voters he might gain. That might not mean he gets reelected, but hell, changing positions at all would cost him votes. Like I said: all choices are bad. It would have been a political disaster for any president, because every voter who cares enough about it to be a single-issue voter is entrenched enough to not be swayed at all unless the other side is completely alienated.
He can't find a way to appease both sides? Well what does that look like? What's the position that appeases both staunch Zionist voters and the subsection of the anti-Zionist protestors who vote? That's not a rhetorical question. Every other US politics-adjacent post on Lemmy recently has been OP or one of their comrades criticizing Biden for his position on Israel, and I'm genuinely interested to hear someone articulate the nuanced position that Biden should supposedly take that he's currently failing at, and how he's supposed to do that and not immediately lose all prospects of reelection. FFS, even characterizing this as a division between "pro-Israel" and "against genocide" is already throwing nuance out the window. From where I'm sitting, Joe Biden has as nuanced a position as he can, because the nature of foreign relations in the Middle East in 2024 is itself nuanced and, for US interests, profoundly precarious. If you want nuance, you better be prepared to swallow a healthy dose of realpolitik alongside it, and that's something that as of yet I've not found any noble armchair advocates and red-shadowed "patriots" willing to do.
Xhieron @ xhieron @lemmy.world Posts 0Comments 295Joined 2 yr. ago
Thank you. I've had this conversation with family members way too often. They love their local chiropractor. They always leave feeling so much better, etc. I ask them what he does, what his advice is, and what kinds of questions he asks them, and everything they describe is not chiropractic. It's massage, or nursing, or physician. No wonder you love him: He's practicing medicine.