Notices by chud (chud@nicecrew.digital)
-
Embed this notice
Because rabies is rare, so even though they'll kill animals to test them when practical or when they haven't been under observation for very long, the chance of transmission is low. Most of those 6 gorillion animal bites are from dogs and cats, and in the vast majority of cases they can find out if the animal has been acting funny/locate the animal. Those 100,000 vaccines are from people who were bit by things like raccoons, or by animals who were acting strangely, when the animal couldn't be captured. The reason people who work with animals get vaxed is because they get bit so often that the risk outweighs the reward.
-
Embed this notice
Also it's generally the same vaccine used to treat a bite from a confirmed rabid animal and since rabies has basically a 100% fatality rate you might want to take the risk that your kid gets autism
-
Embed this notice
Basically the only people who get the rabies vaccine are people who get bit by animals constantly, like veterinarians and such, because the most reliable test for rabies requires killing the animal and that would empty out zoos/keep people from taking their pet to the veterinarian/endanger animal control officers who might not capture the animal that bit them.
-
Embed this notice
Incels are more fascinating to watch than zoo animals
-
Embed this notice
It's surprisingly plausible because jeets are fucking insane, they held a festival in my old neighborhood every few months and inevitably someone is hurt or something lights on fire because they DIY their own "fireworks" with propane tanks and gasoline. It's basically celebratory IEDs from a people with a minimal concept of cause and effect
-
Embed this notice
Nooo it's because of their home lives, they can't study when they go hungry because their mom is forced by racist socioeconomic conditions to sell her food stamps for fent money
-
Embed this notice
I mean I knew Skyrim players were autistic but jeez
-
Embed this notice
I read "rats and babies" accidentally
Much better pairing. Rats are gentle and will ensure the baby grows up appreciating rodentine affection
-
Embed this notice
For Catholics (and all Orthodox I've spoken to, but I won't presume to speak for them - we have different views on the fallen state of man/original sin/etc.), it's essentially the latter. She's the new Eve - pure by nature, but capable of sin. Whereas Eve chose to sin, Mary was either preserved from temptation in a particular way or simply chose not to sin. Some of this typology can be seen in Mary being called Woman. I've never heard a compelling case that she sinned or had children other than Jesus, but I agree, it'll just turn into a hellthread where one side says "you are adding to the Bible" and the other says "if you don't agree with us you don't even have a Bible"
-
Embed this notice
Where do you get the idea the EO don't go as far as the RCC? Orthodoxy holds to the sinlessness of Mary, I don't think any of the EO churches teach otherwise.
Ephesus 431 was answering some questions about Christ's nature, somewhat indirectly. The council determined it was inappropriate to deny the title of Theotokos to Mary. Nestorius preferred the title Christotokos and had some limited reservations about the title Theotokos. The council didn't name her that, it upheld that it was heretical to deny her that title, which was already in use.
-
Embed this notice
Weird, the Orthodox you've spoken to may be referring to the idea that she is still subject to the fallen nature of humanity (though not any personal sin), or they may be poorly catechized. Or their churches have been lying to me 😅
Re: Ephesus you said she was "named" and I thought you meant the Council gave her a title, rather than affirming something that had been in use before. No prob.
Obviously there are heretical sects like the Palmarians or various South American "Catholic" groups that take Mary veneration too far. But the apostolic churches all uniformly orient their worship exclusively toward God, and Mary is not the focus of the liturgy/Mass.
When you say "overemphasize" do you mean that there's a fundamental problem with how the church views/allows a veneration of Mary, which leads to some people focusing more on her than God? Or that individuals are performing an acceptable practice and taking it too far? You say things like "overemphasize" but it also sounds like your objections may be more categorical than quantitative, and I don't want to strawman you.
-
Embed this notice
I read that - thanks for clarifying! I'll post here so I'm not jumping in your convo.
For me, it's a pair of simple thought processes. We're called to pray for each other > The prayers of the righteous are valuable > The saints are living witnesses = It's okay to pray for saints.
Second, we see that Mary has /some/ special place. Being called κεχαριτωμένη, the contrast in typology to Eve seen with her being called "Woman," her lack of earthly death, the way Christ entrusted her to the Apostle John as an adoptive mother suggesting that she is a spiritual mother who cares for us. So, placing her above the other saints seems fitting.
I think it can be taken too far (just like any good thing; a devotion to icons or a focus on the letter of the law). But our belief that she is sinless is more focused on who she is, rather than our desire to have her intercede for us. I don't know that it would really degrade her place as the greatest of saints if she had sinned. The sinlessness really comes from a combination of how the angel addressed her, the typology she represents, and the traditions that followed in the early church. I'd argue that, even if saintly intercession weren't a thing, the idea of Mary's sinlessness would still be a widely-held and fitting concept.
-
Embed this notice
It's more fundamental. We certainly believe Mary, being specially chosen in a way that differs from the others you mentioned, holds a special place. Moses disobeyed God and was punished, etc. Mary was bestowed with an ongoing grace prior even to Christ's conception, in a way that is unique to her. She held Him within her womb. But that doesn't get to the heart of why this is a futile discussion.
Abandoning the practice because someone thinks they have a better way of thinking about things just isn't how we work. It's the same with the other saints.
We aren't going to stop changing what we've been doing for the entire recorded history of the Church, any more than we are going to add some new books to Scripture, or take some out. Someone can point out that a particular church father or two thought Mary was vain or sinful, just like someone can say that a particular church father denied the canonicity of Revelation. But the overwhelming opinion of the saints, and the councils we rely on, give us no reason to reconsider either position.
-
Embed this notice
We definitely agree on the last paragraph.
-
Embed this notice
Right but we were selling replacement parts before that and it always seemed US- initiated. By 1985 Israel was seeing Iran as a proxy to fight Iraq.
-
Embed this notice
Oh I thought you were specifically talking about the F-14 parts sales. That eventually spun off into Iran-Contra in a way but I've never seen strong evidence Israeli initiated it. It seemed consistent that we wanted them kept in the Western sphere at least enough to stay out of Soviet (and Israeli) wars in the region. Open to reading anything you have on it. I've always understood Israel's role to be passive until they started seeing it as a way of indirectly hurting Iraq in the mid 80s, whereas the F-14 parts sales were happening by '81
-
Embed this notice
Back then there was a little more equity in our dealings with Israel. They'd do shit like make nukes without permission or try to kill our diplomats, but we would take advantage of their position for our own goals too, because the region mattered back then. Israel sending parts and equipment to Iran was more likely something they did as a favor for us, which we paid them for. We wanted Iran stronger, to keep it out of the Soviet attempt to gain control in the Middle East. Remember, Israel and Iran didn't really hate each other until the early 90s. Iran never interfered in Lebanon or anything like that the way Syria did.
-
Embed this notice
I'd be more worried about them smuggling a dirty bomb in somewhere than actually possessing and conventionally using a nuclear weapon.
I hate Israel as much as the next White non-pedophile, but people seem to be forgetting that muslims can be just as dangerous as jews
Also given the fact that we just sent like 3 dozen KC-135s, my money is also on seeing B2s. You don't need that many refuelers if we're just going to put an AWACS up or something
-
Embed this notice
I need to watch that movie again to see if it's as good as I remember it being
-
Embed this notice
It's like a weird organization for people who score well on IQ tests. Costs about $100 for a subscription to make you feel special.
Statistics
- User ID
- 116286
- Member since
- 2 May 2023
- Notices
- 104
- Daily average
- 0
chud
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the