Yes, and because the Eliezerian doom/world-takeover position is somewhat marginalized by the mainstream, people around here are quick to assume that stating simple facts or predictions about it, unless the facts are implicitly in favor of the marginalized position, is instead implicitly a vote in favor of further marginalization, and thus readers react politically even to simple observations or predictions. E.g., your anti-doom predictions are taken as a political move with the intent of further marginalizing the fund-us-to-help-fight-doom political position, even in the absence of explicit evidence that that’s your intent, and so people downvote you. That’s my model anyway.
E.g., your anti-doom predictions are taken as a political move with the intent of further marginalizing the fund-us-to-help-fight-doom political position, even in the absence of explicit evidence that that’s your intent
Of course, from my point of view, the “doom exaggeration” looks like a crude funding move based on exploiting people by using superstimulii—or, at best, a source of low-relevance noise from a bunch of self-selected doom enthusiasts who have clubbed together.
You do have a valid point about my intentions. I derive some value from the existence of the SI, but the overall effect seems to be negative. I’m not on “your side”. I think “your side” currently sucks—and I don’t see much sign of reform. I plan to join another group.
Is there a Dominican community blog I should watch? Also, would you surreptitiously palm some small dry ice granules right before you dip your fingers in the water during confirmation? I’ve always wanted to see that.
I know basically nothing about modern Catholics, actually, which is a big reason why I haven’t yet converted. E.g. I have serious doubts about the goodness of the Second Vatican Council. If the Devil has seriously tainted the temporal Church then I want no part in it.
Also, would you surreptitiously palm some small dry ice granules right before you dip your fingers in the water during confirmation? I’ve always wanted to see that.
That would be really cool. But I think God would be displeased. …I’m not sure about that, I’ll ask Him. (FWIW I rather doubt He’ll give an unambiguous answer.)
I think it depends somewhat on a subquestion I’m confused about. How much culpability should we assign the Church as an institution for the Reformation? On the one hand they were getting pretty corrupt, on the other hand that’s like blaming someone who lived a vigorous, moral life, but who is now dying of cancer, for harboring cancer. Should we blame the man for not having already discovered the cure to cancer? Anyway, my intuition says the answer is about 1200 or 1300 A.D., but I really don’t know. How close or far before the Reformation is dependent on how culpability should be assigned to the Church for the Reformation. Jayson_Virissimo or Vladimir_M would have better answers.
I think it depends somewhat on a subquestion I’m confused about. How much culpability should we assign the Church as an institution for the Reformation? On the one hand they were getting pretty corrupt, on the other hand that’s like blaming someone who lived a vigorous, moral life, but who is now dying of cancer, for harboring cancer. Should we blame the man for not having already discovered the cure to cancer? Anyway, my intuition says the answer is about 1200 or 1300 A.D., but I really don’t know. How close or far before the Reformation is dependent on how culpability should be assigned to the Church for the Reformation. Jayson_Virissimo or Vladimir_M would have better answers.
Sorry; my knowledge of the Middle Ages (and the Early Modern Period) is very low-level (with depth on very narrow topics like medieval science and logic, but little outside of that including politics and religion). Making an accurate judgment as to the (average?) truth-value of the many (importance-weighted?) propositions affirmed by (the majority of?) Catholic churchmen is way too high-level for my current understanding (although, I hope to rectify this in the near future). Also, although many of my comments can reasonably be interpreted as being “pro-Catholic”, this is mostly by accident. It would be more accurate to say that I am defending the medievals (many of which were Catholics) from libel (of which I have been guilty in the past and am attempting to do penance).
So this is getting into really crazy conspiracy theories, but I notice Vatican II came soon after the Church’s failure to release the Third Secret of Fatima, which given the way Church authorities reacted to it IMO seems to indicate that it did indeed predict something like ongoing or imminent Satanic infiltration, or something similarly potentially disruptive to the termporal Church. FWIW I’m pretty sure this conspiracy theory only sounds even halfway plausible if you already accept as legitimate the various prophecies and miracles of Fatima.
ETA: Not sure what to make of the fact that if I was in a Dan Brown novel this is definitely a hypothesis I should keep to myself. I fear I’m not being very genre savvy.
I know basically nothing about modern Catholics, actually, which is a big reason why I haven’t yet converted. E.g. I have serious doubts about the goodness of the Second Vatican Council. If the Devil has seriously tainted the temporal Church then I want no part in it.
Considering this among other things, I want to see the contrarian awesomeness that would be you writing a series of posts on the Orthospehere explaining your positions and theories regarding the Church and global history.
Regardless if this turned to be an epic troll or the birth of a new cult, it would be extremely entertaining.
ETA: Not sure what to make of the fact that if I was in a Dan Brown novel this is definitely a hypothesis I should keep to myself. I fear I’m not being very genre savvy.
Given how correlated his novels tend to be with reality, I’d decrease my belief in the hypothesis.
Upon reflection I remembered reading that there was serious cause for concern years before Vatican II. (N.B.: Linked blog seems to be generally epistemically careful but is big on conspiracy theories.)
Yes, and because the Eliezerian doom/world-takeover position is somewhat marginalized by the mainstream, people around here are quick to assume that stating simple facts or predictions about it, unless the facts are implicitly in favor of the marginalized position, is instead implicitly a vote in favor of further marginalization, and thus readers react politically even to simple observations or predictions. E.g., your anti-doom predictions are taken as a political move with the intent of further marginalizing the fund-us-to-help-fight-doom political position, even in the absence of explicit evidence that that’s your intent, and so people downvote you. That’s my model anyway.
Of course, from my point of view, the “doom exaggeration” looks like a crude funding move based on exploiting people by using superstimulii—or, at best, a source of low-relevance noise from a bunch of self-selected doom enthusiasts who have clubbed together.
You do have a valid point about my intentions. I derive some value from the existence of the SI, but the overall effect seems to be negative. I’m not on “your side”. I think “your side” currently sucks—and I don’t see much sign of reform. I plan to join another group.
Me too. Probably the Catholics.
Is there a Dominican community blog I should watch? Also, would you surreptitiously palm some small dry ice granules right before you dip your fingers in the water during confirmation? I’ve always wanted to see that.
I know basically nothing about modern Catholics, actually, which is a big reason why I haven’t yet converted. E.g. I have serious doubts about the goodness of the Second Vatican Council. If the Devil has seriously tainted the temporal Church then I want no part in it.
That would be really cool. But I think God would be displeased. …I’m not sure about that, I’ll ask Him. (FWIW I rather doubt He’ll give an unambiguous answer.)
If you had to specify a historical year in which Catholicism seems most correct to you which would it be?
I think it depends somewhat on a subquestion I’m confused about. How much culpability should we assign the Church as an institution for the Reformation? On the one hand they were getting pretty corrupt, on the other hand that’s like blaming someone who lived a vigorous, moral life, but who is now dying of cancer, for harboring cancer. Should we blame the man for not having already discovered the cure to cancer? Anyway, my intuition says the answer is about 1200 or 1300 A.D., but I really don’t know. How close or far before the Reformation is dependent on how culpability should be assigned to the Church for the Reformation. Jayson_Virissimo or Vladimir_M would have better answers.
Sorry; my knowledge of the Middle Ages (and the Early Modern Period) is very low-level (with depth on very narrow topics like medieval science and logic, but little outside of that including politics and religion). Making an accurate judgment as to the (average?) truth-value of the many (importance-weighted?) propositions affirmed by (the majority of?) Catholic churchmen is way too high-level for my current understanding (although, I hope to rectify this in the near future). Also, although many of my comments can reasonably be interpreted as being “pro-Catholic”, this is mostly by accident. It would be more accurate to say that I am defending the medievals (many of which were Catholics) from libel (of which I have been guilty in the past and am attempting to do penance).
How do you go about asking God, and how do you experience His answers?
Why do you think the Devil might have tainted the temporal Church through the Second Vatican Council?
So this is getting into really crazy conspiracy theories, but I notice Vatican II came soon after the Church’s failure to release the Third Secret of Fatima, which given the way Church authorities reacted to it IMO seems to indicate that it did indeed predict something like ongoing or imminent Satanic infiltration, or something similarly potentially disruptive to the termporal Church. FWIW I’m pretty sure this conspiracy theory only sounds even halfway plausible if you already accept as legitimate the various prophecies and miracles of Fatima.
ETA: Not sure what to make of the fact that if I was in a Dan Brown novel this is definitely a hypothesis I should keep to myself. I fear I’m not being very genre savvy.
Considering this among other things, I want to see the contrarian awesomeness that would be you writing a series of posts on the Orthospehere explaining your positions and theories regarding the Church and global history.
Regardless if this turned to be an epic troll or the birth of a new cult, it would be extremely entertaining.
Given how correlated his novels tend to be with reality, I’d decrease my belief in the hypothesis.
Upon reflection I remembered reading that there was serious cause for concern years before Vatican II. (N.B.: Linked blog seems to be generally epistemically careful but is big on conspiracy theories.)
There is no such thing as “modern Catholics”. There are a number of subgroups, but I don’t know enough to be usefully more specific.