Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

ericneyman.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 649 posts

Re: The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

#621

Post by aspenmayer »

jl6 wrote: post #144
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is the potential for psychology, I think, where people who do not truly believe but that do want that religion (or something like it) to be true, and so perversely hope for "Christ's return" even if that means they will be damned. For them, they will have gotten to witness something non-boring, something truly important, even for the first time (and last) in their lives. I can't decide if this fits the definiti…

Pascal’s middle children of history.

Average Neon Genesis Evangelion enjoyers.

Re: The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

#622

Post by tengwar2 »

aspenmayer wrote: post #588
tengwar2 wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes.

This meaning seems somewhat contrary to readings in the OT (Ecclesiastes 4:12), about how a person alone is defeated, but two can fight back-to-back, and how three are a braided cord. I think given how other verses speak about not serving God and Mammon (money), that the rich are asked to give their riches to follow Jesus is a direct appeal to that given rich man, so that he could braid his cord with theirs, and have…

Well, a rope is not braided!

I don't see this as an issue. There are only so many images to use in a subsistence agriculture society, hence sheep and grain coming up over and over. Sometimes similar images will be used to make different points.

If you want something genuinely difficult, have a look at the alternative explanation of the parable of the talents where the man who does not commit usury is the good guy. One of the gospels (Luke) has additional detail about the "nobleman" who goes off to which suggests this is Herod the Great, (bad guy - see Lk 19:27), so the original meaning is up for debate. Personally I believe that a large part of the point of parables was to spark debate, so we should not assume that the meanings are obvious.

Re: The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

#623

Post by tengwar2 »

api wrote: post #502
tengwar2 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That story is only tracked back to the 1400's, so not credible. The currently favoured theory is that this was a translation error. Apparently in Aramaic (the language of Judaea and Galilee), the word for "camel" is very close to the word for "rope". As with all parables (and this does qualify as a parable) it may be intended to reward some thought - e.g. the only way of getting a rope through the eye of needle is to…

So basically it says “you can’t take it with you, so do something good with it while you’re alive instead of hoarding it like you can take it with you.”

Up to a point, but there are other parables which make death explicit, e.g. the rich farmer who tore down his barns to build bigger ones, and was told he would die that night. This parable doesn't link this to having limited time, it's just about "sell everything, give to the poor" to be saved.

Re: The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

#624

Post by aspenmayer »

tengwar2 wrote: post #622
aspenmayer wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This meaning seems somewhat contrary to readings in the OT (Ecclesiastes 4:12), about how a person alone is defeated, but two can fight back-to-back, and how three are a braided cord. I think given how other verses speak about not serving God and Mammon (money), that the rich are asked to give their riches to follow Jesus is a direct appeal to that given rich man, so that he could braid his cord with theirs, and have…

Well, a rope is not braided! I don't see this as an issue. There are only so many images to use in a subsistence agriculture society, hence sheep and grain coming up over and over. Sometimes similar images will be used to make different points. If you want something genuinely difficult, have a look at the alternative explanation of the parable of the talents where the man who does not commit usury is the good guy. On…

I think there are consistent usages and expressions in the OT and NT that show how God understands money to be a tool to be used, and not and asset to be hoarded or an aspect of vice to be indulged in. It's a fine distinction, you could even say it's threading a needle.

Re: The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

#625

Post by kelseyfrog »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #620
kelseyfrog wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see how that's appealing. One of the most common human behaviors is creating rules or in this case moral rules, and then doing a mental switcheroo where they forget that they made the rules and attribute them to universal principles, reality, truth, etc. In general, the process of believing concepts are real objects - simply observations of reality - is called reification. Every society does it and the result i…

Is the powerful taking advantage of the weak part of the magnificence of the diversity of human experience? I mean, I can see the powerful claiming such a thing. To return to my original quote, which is certainly a consistent philosophy: "strong do what they like the weak suffer what they must" Athens was quite magnificent I understand.

I agree, it feels absolutely true that the strong shouldn't exploit the weak.

But here's the thing, most societies have felt that way about something, and often, the "something" turns out to be radically different each time.

Romans felt it was universally true that honor must be defended with blood. Medieval Christians believed letting heretics speak freely was morally wrong. Victorians were convinced it was immoral not to civilize "savages."

They didn’t think they were rationalizing cruelty. They thought they were being good.

The discomfort comes from realizing that we're not standing outside history, just inside a different historical moral context that feels just as inevitable. The desire to protect the weak might be deeply human, but even how we define "weak" or "harm" changes more than we like to admit.

What if we recognize our certainty is also part of this context, not part of the conclusion?

Re: The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

#626

Post by freejazz »

ivape wrote: post #537
freejazz wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we believe there was no purpose for all of this, then what a hopeless thing. That's a huge leap that speaks to your own perspective. It's not some sort of objective fact. That there is no purpose and we are still here is in fact quite beautiful and amazing.

Oh, I know it doesn't prove anything. It is a veritable leap of faith . No one said faith was easy.

You're missing the point. Your conjecture is false. Sure, you never said it proved anything. But that's a different point.

Your entire premise is just completely made up.

You're not even expressing a leap of faith. It's a leap of cynicism that speaks to your world view, not your faith. Faith is not predicated upon a belief that there is no purpose to which otherwise faith supplies. You're just basically playing word salad at this point. And I don't mean that to suggest religious beliefs or faith is word salad. Just what you have offered here in this brief conversation.

Re: The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

#627

Post by amdivia »

ecocentrik wrote: post #598
amdivia wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment, but in this specific case, the "nihilism" is more of a green card to do whatever to better your own life, as there is no point improving anyone else's, just focus on yourself and survive. So here it could be seen as an excuse to not only exploit existing systems, but also to avoid attempts at fixing them. So in a way, holders of such fatalistic believes are ironically flourishing

Is that religion or that just a popular social sentiment held by religious individuals and communities? I understand how it might be hard to tell the difference with heavily fractured Christian sects. Are pastors writing theological treatise on this, are they addressing it in sermons or is this just a shared attitude reinforced by other small town attitudes?

Very good question and I'm not sure, we should investigate it further

but what I'll push back a bit on is that not all fatalistic convictions result in the death or collapse of the sect holding them, and sometimes it could be the main driver of their success

Re: The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

#628

Post by recursivedoubts »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #625
recursivedoubts wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the powerful taking advantage of the weak part of the magnificence of the diversity of human experience? I mean, I can see the powerful claiming such a thing. To return to my original quote, which is certainly a consistent philosophy: "strong do what they like the weak suffer what they must" Athens was quite magnificent I understand.

I agree, it feels absolutely true that the strong shouldn't exploit the weak. But here's the thing, most societies have felt that way about something, and often, the "something" turns out to be radically different each time. Romans felt it was universally true that honor must be defended with blood. Medieval Christians believed letting heretics speak freely was morally wrong. Victorians were convinced it was immoral…

i'm not saying it feels that way

i'm saying it is that way, and i also think you know it to be true, but don't want acknowledge that due to further conclusions that can be drawn from that truth

so we aren't agreeing at all, in any way: you don't want to believe in an objective morality for your own reasons, I acknowledge it despite the inconveniences it presents me

Re: The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

#629

Post by kelseyfrog »

recursivedoubts wrote: post #628
kelseyfrog wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, it feels absolutely true that the strong shouldn't exploit the weak. But here's the thing, most societies have felt that way about something, and often, the "something" turns out to be radically different each time. Romans felt it was universally true that honor must be defended with blood. Medieval Christians believed letting heretics speak freely was morally wrong. Victorians were convinced it was immoral…

i'm not saying it feels that way i'm saying it is that way, and i also think you know it to be true, but don't want acknowledge that due to further conclusions that can be drawn from that truth so we aren't agreeing at all, in any way: you don't want to believe in an objective morality for your own reasons, I acknowledge it despite the inconveniences it presents me

The point is that I sometimes wonder, if I were born in ancient Rome, wouldn't I have also felt, just as deeply, that defending family honor with violence was righteous? Not in a barbaric way, just in a 'this is obviously the right thing to do' kind of way?

It's not that there's no such thing as right and wrong, it's that what counts as 'moral clarity' seems to shift, and everyone thinks they're the ones seeing it clearly. That includes people we now think were totally wrong. What do we do with that?

Imagine someone 500 years from now looking back at us with horror and clarity, seeing our blind spots as clearly as we see slavery or witch-burning. Don't you ever worry, like me, that you might be the one taking a stand for what will one day be unthinkable? Not because we didn't believe that right and wrong didn't exist, but because we were so certain that we had it correct?

Re: The Polymarket users betting on when Jesus will return

#630

Post by D-Coder »

hinkley wrote: post #392
guywithahat wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes you, presumably someone who is not a christian and has never read the bible, know better than billions of christians and the millions of people who've actually read the bible. I'm not religious, but this is a bad take.

You know Christianity was built in a time of broad scale illiteracy don’t you? The reason sermons and the Bible are so at odds with each other is that for the most part only the priesthood had read the damned thing. Even today most Christians haven’t read the whole thing. I’m not Christian in large part because I did. And it’s almost all batshit.

"Church is the worst book club ever. We've been talking about the same book for 2,000 years and most of us still haven't even read it. — @POOPSCRUFFIN4U"
Post reply on HN