BC FOR LATER READ
Saved by @jay_millerjay

the strange reality of strict calvinism is that it makes a mockery of God's claims to hate, abhort, or even be theoretically opposed to evil

 the calvinist solution to the problem of evil, which I have *literally heard from the lips of a faithful well-catechized Presbyterian* is, "well, all that happens is God's will, and to do His will is to manifest goodness, and goodness gives God joy, so God must rejoice in evil"
The hypothetical I gave was, "Suppose that there was a city of Christians, and a bomber flew over the city, and the guy at the controls tripped and accidentally armed and dropped a bomb, and wiped out the city: is that God's will? What does God think of that?"
His answer in addition to the above cited the Flood, Soddom, and Nineveh.

Because we all know that God's response to the Flood was, "I REALLY liked that, it was AWESOME, it satisfied my will and purposes to obliterate my creation!"
Once you have drunk the "but muh sovrintee" Kool-Aid you cannot escape the argument that literally everything that happens is not just God's will in some philosophical sense, but His will in the sense of "things that bring him pleasure."
If you suppose that the reason God saved us was simply to bring glory to himself, if you suppose that there is no element of Creation actually in *real revolt* against God, but all is simply as God has ordained it to be from the beginning, then God is a worker of evil.
It is only in God's implacable *opposition* to evil, in the clear scriptural language about the "Prince of this world," in the description of the pain of God we see repeatedly in the OT and NT, that the problem of evil becomes comprehensible.
I'm aware of a kind of compromise which says that it was God's pleasure to create man with freedom; he exercised His sovereignty in restraint of Himself in some sense. And indeed, I think that's the default view of many people.
But I think this answer is too facile.
1) If God knew how things would go, exercising his sovereignty in that way is only a little different

2) Evil begins BEFORE man's fall! Satan fell first! We know little about this, but locating first-evil in *human* free will is an error.
What began in original sin is not "the existence of evil," but "man's inextricable implication in evil." This suggests you should not resolve the problem of evil simply by appealing to that kind of "single moment of direct sovereignty, free will afterwards" view.
That Satan fell from heaven yet is present in the garden raises all sorts of questions: was evil present at creation? We know that "It was good" is not an absolute moral statement, because man's alone-ness is "not good" yet the creation of man was clearly "good"
But these are things approaching the limits of what has been revealed to us. No claim should rest on those details.

The key point is simply that the origin of evil is certainly *before* "original sin."
There's also a problem here about the optionality of goodness for God; it is conventional to say "things are good because God does them," and in our daily life this mandate theory of goodness is always the most practical and correct model.
But at a metaphysical level, there is no theological support for either theory. That God tells us not to try to set our concept of goodness against His revealed goodness is no guide on this question since our concept could just be erroneous.
This is no guide to "Did God have options about what would be goodness?"

This is formally equivalent to the question, "Could the Father discontinue the existence of the Son?" since both are questions about if God has sovereignty over His own attributes.
(Of course "Son" is not an attribute, but also "good" is not an attribute for God in a metaphysical sense; I'm using attribute in an extremely broad and colloquial sense here)
When we understand that the question of "Is God so sovereign that he could make raping a child into a virtue if he wanted to?" amounts to "Is God so sovereign he can not be God?" and other formally similar questions, it seems a lot trickier.
Ultimately again we bump into things we cannot know. So much we don't know! And I'm fine with "we don't know." Calvinists don't accept "we don't know." They assert that yes *of course* goodness is merely a description of whatever God (arbitrarily) decides to do.
But in the Incarnation we see a different situation. The Incarnation shows us at least some things God CAN do, namely, limit himself; but it also hints at some things that maybe God COULD do but he isn't interested in doing, i.e. "not being God." (fullness of God in Christ, etc)
Ultimately, much as I suppose that a "mandate" theory of goodness is the best fit for humanity's experience of goodness, so I would suggest that the use of "omnipotence" is extremely misleading.
The idea of God as "all powerful" is deeply misleading because God has infact repeatedly limited his display of His power in relating to us, and has also never deigned to explain what His power actually is or how it works.
We should never lean any strong claims on God's omnipotence. God's omniscience is extremely well-attested in scripture, as is His goodness. And He reveals extraordinary power beyond the human imagination: but He never describes His power in philosophical terms as to omnipotence
We can lean tons of claims on God's power. He has the power to provide all that we need, and in the end His power will sweep away all evil.
But for "Why does evil persist now?" the answer is either "It just doesn't bother God" or "He can't beat it" or "He doesn't know about it" or "He is beating it and you didn't notice."
Not knowing about it is wrong. It not bothering God (the Calvinist answer) is wrong. So you're left with either a God who is less powerful than evil (that ain't gonna fly), or else a God whose action is ongoing, but forestalled in time.
That last one is I think the best solution! But it does require that we tread lightly around omnipotence per see. The claim is that God *would like to* end all evil now, but there is some compelling reason not to, which cannot be directly altered.
This is not to say that God *cannot* defeat evil, but that he *will* do so, and indeed *is doing so*, but that the full revelation of that power is delayed by some other force which is not merely God's unconcern about that evil.
What is that force?

Who can say! Not even the Son was told the day or the hour! But if God is taking His time there must be a reason. We can't reason about what that may be, as God has not revealed it.
But we can *at least* say that the reason there is evil in the world is *not* that the evil is the working out of God's intentions, desires, or wishes (even if in some higher philosophical sense it is within His will to allow it to continue).
All that to say....

.... love me all my Presby family and friends (literally both sides of the family and many of my best friends!)....

.... and your theology is interesting...

.... but very, very, very wrong.
And if you're one of those Presbies reading this being like "WE DON'T BELIEVE THESE THINGS!" well you might actually, like Tim Keller too, be in denial about the fact that you're actually a Lutheran.
return to mother church i.e. wittenberg
this thread courtesy of a) I'm reading "Theology of the Pain of God" by Kitamori and enjoying it so far, b) I'm aware my "interesting but wrong" comment about Presby catechetical materials got some circulation among the Calvin crowd so I'm elaborating for clarity

More from Lyman Stone 石來民

Lyman Stone \u77f3\u4f86\u6c11
Lyman Stone 石來民...
@lymanstoneky
After a couple years of ads telling men to do laundry turned out, weirdly, to not boost fertility, Korea is back to financial incentives, which prior research has shown do work but at a very high price.

Korea is adding a $275/month allowance for the first year of a baby's life, increasing the pregnancy medical benefit by $400 or so, and providing an $1800 baby bonus. There's also some unspecified benefits related to leave and high-parity families.

The thing to understand is that these efforts are not *actually* huge. Quoting things in won gives you big numbers so it's easy to lose sight of the fact that we're not talking about enough money to actually offset a large share of wages.

I'm a fan of baby bonuses and first-year benefits. They're probably the most bang for the buck.

But this isn't actually all that many bucks!

These benefits add up to about $5,500 in benefits. A similar program compared to average incomes in the US would be about $8,700.
FINANCE
Lyman Stone \u77f3\u4f86\u6c11
Lyman Stone 石來民...
@lymanstoneky
Conservatives love to complain about the media.

But there's an inside baseball media that reveals how destructive the conservative media criticism environment can be to the conservative movement.

Enter, Fox News:

The story is pretty simple.

On election night, Fox News called Arizona very early. This surprised pretty much everyone. The Fox News team had improved their election model in 2020, and was confident their call was correct, even if unconventional.

Controversially, however, they called it for Joe Biden. Arizona has historically been a red state, and the polls (and final result) were close there. Nobody had a really strong expectation it was gonna go for Biden until Fox News just.... called it.

This hurled Trump surrogates into a desperate place. If they lost *Arizona*, that was a bad sign for the night. More importantly, it happened before midnight: it humiliated the President while millions were still watching.

The Trump campaign immediately turned on a dime. They pivoted from "Look, we're crushing it with Hispanics! Massive turnout! Incredible performance!" to "The election was stolen."

Who stole the election changed over time. Fox News. Some rando in Atlanta. Poll workers. China.
POLITICS
Advertisement
Lyman Stone \u77f3\u4f86\u6c11
Lyman Stone 石來民...
@lymanstoneky
Possibly the greatest NBER abstract ever written.

The Great Man theory of history.... turns out to have some pretty strong statistical support.

School closures had NO EFFECT (precise null!) on socioeconomic outcomes and future schooling behavior during the 1918 pandemic.

The authors note that school closures were not as long back then.

But also school calendars were far shorter. So idk how it shakes out.

Informing men about the odds their wife will die in childbirth reduces fertility, increases marital satisfaction, and reduces mismatch in fertility preferences within couples (in Zambia).
TRADING , FINANCE
Lyman Stone \u77f3\u4f86\u6c11
Lyman Stone 石來民...
@lymanstoneky
So a few days back I was tweeting about SSRIs. The big question with these drugs is: why do controlled trials routinely show such small effects when practitioners and patients report life-changingly-large effects?

So first off, at this point the evidence is pretty clear that SSRIs and other anti-anxiety/anti-depression drugs truly don't do very much. Their average effects are beneath clinical significance, as I tweeted about here:


Basically, the problem these drugs face is that while they actually see relatively LARGE effects.... but that placebos in those trials ALSO see large effects (and most untreated depression improves within a year anyways).

So basically you have this problem where:
1. The condition tends to improve on its own in a majority of cases
2. Placebo effects for the condition are unusually large

Which means the large crude effects of SSRIs get swamped.

So that raises two new questions.
1. (Not my focus here) Are we treating these conditions appropriately given their untreated prognosis is usually (though certainly not always!!) "goes away in a few months"?

2. Why are placebo effects so unusually large?
DRUGS
Lyman Stone \u77f3\u4f86\u6c11
Lyman Stone 石來民...
@lymanstoneky
reading the self-important and vaguely-cultish textbooks by bayesians makes me want to go out and kill a sufficiently large number of bayesians that i can estimate the mean pitch of their screams

"when we have multiple models, we should choose one using Bayesian statistics"

no

you should do both and publish an appendix showing robustness tests, you cultist

"but my bayesian model takes 4 weeks to process i can't run 1,397 robustness tests"

yes

exactly

"it's #Actually impossible to use predictive accuracy to test model validity because we can't observe future values!!!"

omg

this is a real critically acclaimed textbook im barely even paraphrasing here

i don't trust quantitative methods where people say, "this method has been in use for centuries!"

that is a solid argument for perhaps a theological proposition

it is not highly compelling for code
CULTURE

More from For later read

sexnotgender.info
sexnotgender.info
@Sexnotgender_
Hi @EdinburghUni @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The DIVERSITY INFORMATION section in yr job application mentions 'legal equality duties'. You then ask "What is your gender identity?" with options

Female
Male
Non-binary
Not-listed
Other

1/13


'Gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/13


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology - 'non-binary' and 'other' are not valid options.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender identity' is not a synonym for sex.

3/13


You then ask "Does your gender identity match your sex registered at birth?"

4/13


Again, 'gender identity' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

5/13
SOCIETY , FOR LATER READ
American Hacker
American Hacker
@AmericanHacker
OK, more housekeeping ahead of putting this account up on blocks.

#BurnNotice - search for that coming from my account, you'll learn some things about troubles in late 2020.

But this is going to be pretty meta, it's about what goes a #BurnNotice and why.

We've used the #BurnNotice tag in the past to denote an entity that is in need of special attention. That practice dates back to 2011/2012 and lapsed some time ago.

This is a more traditional sort of

Let's put some bounds on this. Those in a #BurnNotice are NOT:

1) people I dislike

2) people I think are competitors in some fashion

3) "feds", whatever you people mean by this undefined term.

4) informants. Got a list of those, too, it's handled differently.

The #BurnNotice is more focused on people who present as if they might be working for Erik

Or maybe they work for Tiger
FOR LATER READ
Advertisement
Operation Cupcake
Operation Cupcake
@PhillipsBarrie
Wow, Morgan McSweeney again, Rachel Riley, SFFN, Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, JLM, BoD, Angela Eagle, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Lisa Nandy, Steve Reed, Jon Cruddas, Trevor Chinn, Martin Taylor, Lord Ian Austin and Mark Lewis. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut 24 tweet🧵

Morgan McSweeney, Keir Starmer’s chief of staff, launched the organisation that now runs SFFN.
The CEO Imran Ahmed worked closely with a number of Labour figures involved in the campaign to remove Jeremy as leader.

Rachel Riley is listed as patron. https://t.co/nGY5QrwBD0


SFFN claims that it has been “a project of the Center For Countering Digital Hate” since 4 May 2020. The relationship between the two organisations, however, appears to date back far longer. And crucially, CCDH is linked to a number of figures on the Labour right. #LabourLeaks

Center for Countering Digital Hate registered at Companies House on 19 Oct 2018, the organisation’s only director was Morgan McSweeney – Labour leader Keir Starmer’s chief of staff. McSweeney was also the campaign manager for Liz Kendall’s leadership bid. #LabourLeaks #StarmerOut

Sir Keir - along with his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney - held his first meeting with the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Deliberately used the “anti-Semitism” crisis as a pretext to vilify and then expel a leading pro-Corbyn activist in Brighton and Hove
FOR LATER READ
Russ Bengtson
Russ Bengtson
@russbengtson
the whole point of Dunks was you could go cop them at VIM whenever you wanted for $65. this shit is like having to enter a raffle to buy milk.


like seriously why not make a ton more of them if they're gonna be so sought-after? they land at outlets? so? nike still makes money off that.

the only reason to keep making them so limited is that they KNOW all that matters is the profit on the flip and if they were readily available FEWER people would want them, not more

the whole system is super broken, but it's just gonna go the way it goes, because at this point it all caters to the secondary market. the only reason Nike can sell Jordan 1s for $200 is because the people buying them can flip them for $500

adjusted for inflation, a $65 AJ1 in 1985 is like $160—and modern-day AJ1s are made from cheaper materials in factories staffed by cheaper workers. they don't HAVE to be $200 retail. but the secondary market nuked the whole concept of what sneakers are "worth"
FOR LATER READ
Bernie
Bernie
@bealangi
This is a what I’d call a funny tale about how you never know how things are going to circle back:
(Long thread warning, but I think it's worth it)
1/?

My childhood was messed up. My mother was an abusive alcoholic and mentally ill. In 1995 when I was 12 years old, my parent's split. Originally the courts stated I had to stay with my mother, which I believe was the court's default decision at that point. 2/?

Truth be told, is usually the best choice for a child, just not in my case.
For my own safety I eventually ran away from her to live with my dad. I left behind my dog (who was also 12), and my three cats (Rocky 8, Jewel 10, and Scamper 12 years old). 3/?

After about a year of fighting in family court, my father was given full custody of me. I never spoke to my mother again.

My dad, being an electrician, would come home from work after particularly hard days and jokingly say, "Just don't work in electrical Bernie." 4/?

As a kid I didn't fully understand he was joking, so I took it to heart. I had a natural talent for the sciences and math, so I studied Physics and Math at Dalhousie University before switching to Marketing and Statistical Analysis at Saint Mary's University.
5/?
FOR LATER READ

You May Also Like

Greg Olear
Greg Olear
@gregolear
Strange things are afoot at the Circle K. Let’s sort it out.

[THREAD]


1/ Two nights ago, Rupert Murdoch called on Mitch McConnell, after hours. Since then, two Fox News-related Twitter accounts have not tweeted.

2/ Trump fired Sessions on Wednesday, replacing him with human dildo/Putin collaborator Matt Whitaker. Sessions had asked to stay until Friday and was told to leave immediately. So there was clearly some urgency to install the dildo...er, puppet.

3/ The Democrats won the SHIT out of the Midterms. Come January, the House check on Trump will leave him so hobbled, he’ll be like the dude from Misery.

4/ Trump went to Paris, ostensibly for an Armistice Day centennial event. He skipped the event, and much of the dinner tonight, because of “weather,” which everyone seems to agree is a bullshit excuse.
POLITICS
Reshu Nath
Reshu Nath
@ReshuNath
'Tera mera rishta kya, hindu, hindu,hindutva' is a clear take on 'tera mera rishta kya,la ilaha illallah'. As much as Hindutva hates the monotheistic religions especially Islam, there's a strange wistfulness and subliminal need at display now, to BE that they hate. 1


Charlie Hebdo doesn’t come up as a cautionary tale now but rather 'why cant we be like that'?
Growing up, Hanuman was an adorable deity for us, who swallowed the sun, or who couldn’t figure out what was Sanjeevani booti so he picked up a whole mountain and came back with it. 2

Or he was loyal, admirable and when he cleaved his chest, you saw both Ram and Sita. Now we have a lot of “Angry Hanuman” stickers. Why is a cute childlike God angry? We don’t know. It's a convenient blank space where to paint all the angst of Hindu Khatre mein hain narrative. 3


The other strange thing that has started happening is pictures of Ram appearing sans Sita. “Jai Siya Ram” has become “Jai Shri Ram”. Some people disingenuously explain it as being the same thing - because Shri is a name of Lakshmi. Not really. Siya is an apbhransh of Sita. 4


Shri is a prefix of respect in this case. Hinduism is being militarised. A woman/Sita has no place in it. Even the militaristic Goddess that is Durga has no place in this conception of neo-Hindu divinity, as evidenced by Dilip Mandal wondering where Durga came from. 5
RELIGION
Advertisement
Emma Hilton
Emma Hilton
@FondOfBeetles
This is Kuinini ‘Nini’ Manumua, the woman who was ultimately displaced by inclusion of Laurel Hubbard.

She’s 21, and it would have been her first Olympics.
ALL
Peter McCormack [Jan/3\u279e\u20bf \U0001f511\u220e]
Peter McCormack [Jan/3...
@PeterMcCormack
1/ So here is a thread on how I turned $32,000 into $1.2m and back to pretty much zero (once taxes are paid).

Just note, I am not bitter or salty in any way at all, the last 2 years have been an amazing ride - travelled the world, been wealthy, been poor.

2/ Dec '16, my advertising agency folded, I had a little bit of money left and I put $32k into Bitcoin and Ether. As it started to go up I diversified into everything, Monero, Dash, this that, any crap - even Ripplecoin. Everything just kept going up.

3/ By March I think I had around $300k and $500k by the summer. I used to take 25% out but towards the end of the summer I got greedy and put it all back in and by December it was $1.2m.

4/ Thinking I was an absolute genius I decided to start a bunch of businesses. As silly as it sounds I had this goal of making $5m as I wanted to buy Bedford Town Football Club and get them in the league, and as Crypto was going up forever I needed 6 months.

5/ So:
- Trading (income 1)
- Podcast (income 2)
- Mining (income 3)
- Mining pool (income 4)
- Consulting (income 5)

Yes - all of the above as a one-man army :)
LIFE
SK
SK
@sk_diary1
A #story from #Thiruvilayadal puranam- one of divine leelas of Bhagwan Shiva

#threadseries #madurai

Koodal Kaandam

Story 21 - it is about how stone elephant came to life and ate sugarcane - When Raja Abhisheka Pandyan met Ellam Valla Siddhar

கல்யானைக்கு கரும்பருத்திய படலம்


Raja Abhisheka Pandiyan went ahead to meet Ellam Valla Siddhar on the premises of the temple.On seeing the arrival of Raja, people surrounding Siddhar moved back. Abhisheka Pandiyan introduced himself to Siddhar &asked about his whereabouts.Also his purpose of visit to Madurai.

Raja asked why he performed magical acts, does he expect anything from him or people of Madurai.

Siddhar laughed & replied to Raja that he was from Kasi. He had heard a lot about Madurai in Kashi.Also told that this place is a Mukti Kshetram,so he had come to stay here.

Siddhar asked Raja if he has the capability &power to give anything that he asks for. Siddhar told King that he has power to do things even if he think of it.Siddhar asked King to ask whatever he wants & it would be provided, whatever these people had asked, they were granted.


Abhisheka Pandyan was shocked to receive such a reply from Siddhar,& he decided to test the power of this Siddhar. By that time, Raja saw a person in crowd having Sugarcane.

Raja took Sugarcane from that person.
ALL