Great grandfather? Part of the reason we are in this mess to begin with is because most of the people who actually fought in ww2 are dead, or at least 96- 102 years old.

Now most grown people’s grandpas are people who were too young to go to Korea and too old to go to Vietnam. They’ve lived their entire lives profiting off of other people going to war to maintain the US hegemony.

I’m not sure if it’s purely spurned by capitalism, though I’m sure it doesn’t help. I think it’s more of an issue with narcissistic egos, considering even our global leaders are prone to fantastical thinking when it comes down to longevity. Not too long ago Xi and Putin were caught on a hot mic talking about immortality via organ donation. That’s not how any of this works…

he’s using pseudoscience to attempt to live longer

Yeap, for some reason tech billionaires are all complete idiots outside of their field of expertise. I don’t know what it is about computer science that makes people so confident they’re always the smartest person in the room, but it does lead to some interesting scams.

These aren’t even real hyperbaric chambers, they’re marketed as “wellness chambers”. Real hyperbaric chambers are illegal to own/operate in a living space because they are dangerous if not operated and maintained by an expert.

He’s not getting 100% o2 and they aren’t getting the appropriate amount of atmospheric pressure utilized in hyperbaric medicine. There’s no evidence to support any kind of benefit of hyperbaric medicine at these levels.

do not care to argue with you like this. I come here to hang out with digital neighbors, not to have some angry debate.

I don’t think we’re engaging in an angry argument? At least, I’m not upset. I think I’m just rebutting some of your claims and asking for clarification?

I get nothing out of this, and for a disabled guy in social isolation, these have a disproportionate negative impact. On my original LW account I just blocked everyone that argues or down votes as such toxic negativity is unwelcome, unnecessary, and mildly harmful to everyone.

So anyone who disagrees with you is being negative or harmful? I don’t really see how being disabled gives you the right to make inarguable inflammatory claims in a public forum.

The trials of physical disability may include a much reduced margin for adversarial encounters and contention. It is a subtle prejudice that is impossible to avoid.

You may want to talk to someone about that, but In my experience any prejudice you are self aware of are prejudices that can be avoided.

Have a great day.

You too.

Semantics do not create meaning, they describe it, poorly in most cases as vernacular evolves.

Claiming something is a semantic dispute by rote when being corrected is different than engaging in a reasonable semantic dispute.

Words do have meaning, and vernacular hasn’t changed enough to completely alter the meaning of an entire economic system…

Most of the people that worked for William Shockley have been interviewed and recorded, along with their protégés. Bo Lojek of Motorola also wrote History of Semiconductor Engineering (Springer).

Are you claiming that certain technologies can only be developed under capitalism? Or that semiconductor engineering would have never surpassed a certain stage without a particular economic system? What does any of that have to do with the division of labour and profits?

Purchase of the device is Capitalism, because your money IS your vote, and YOU are the Capital of Capitalism!

Capitalism describes the division of labour and profits, not the purchasing of goods. YOU are not theCapital in capitalism unless you are working for the profits of the owner. The root word of Capitalism is Caput, meaning head or cattle. Capitalism’s root definition is basically the ownership of cattle or chattel.

In a planned economy, there are beepers and payphones. No one builds the most expensive commercial endeavor in all of human history – advanced silicon fab nodes

According to? The Soviets made it to space before we did, and China currently fabricates the vast majority of that technology. Technology isn’t native to any economic structure.

You were claiming John couldn’t have been written by John because it was written in AD100. I did the maths and shown how it definitely could have been written in AD100

I’m not making a claim, I am rebutting one. I am merely stating there is no evidence to support that John the apostle actually wrote John. There are inferences that lead people to believe that John wrote it, but again, these are oral traditions and are prone to embellishment or errors over time.

The second quote doesn’t even contradict anything I said. Just because stories were exchanged orally first, doesn’t mean the written accounts are firsthand.

Lol, it contradicts the claims you made about the first quote? It’s silly how often your position changes.

The main reason people say it is a forgery because Josephus was a practicing Jew and a Jew wouldn’t say that (circular reasoning)

That’s not circulatory reasoning… That’s just reasoning. Why would a Jew believe in the resurrection of Christ? Plus, the reason historians almost unanimously agree it’s been edited is because how out of place the claims and passages about Jesus are in the original text. We also know that the translators we receive the text from are not reliable narrators.

Is it possible for a non Christian to write something in defence of Christianity, or not?

In defense of Christianity…yes, but they wouldn’t believe in the holy resurrection of Christ, as that would make them a Christian.

If it isn’t, then you cannot dismiss the new testament and Church Fathers, lest you be irrational

That’s a false dichotomy… Even though I and most historian believe it to be a forgery, if I didn’t I could still make a claim that Jesus was simply a historical figure and that there still is no evidence miracles or evidence that’s supports him as a diety.

There are plenty of historical records we utilize as important works of history, but understand the authors may not be reliable narrators. Naram-Sin declared himself a diety, and these claims are backed by other contemporary sources… We use these sources to validate his existence as a historical figure, but does that also mean he was really a diety?

I don’t really think you understand rationality, you are only using a narrow scope of logic instead of the broader understanding of rationality. Pure logic can lead to logical fallacies like your uses of false dicotomy and circular reasoning.

Needed to learn how to do a sick fade.

This is a pretty reasonable assumption? No?

Nah, just circular reasoning.

you just quote Wikipedia? The admins on there are neckbeards such as Tgeorgescu who basically had a “no Christian apologists”

"In one sense the entire Christian message is based on oral tradition and is only augmented by using the written revelation of the Old Testament. From this perspective, perhaps 90 percent of the New Testament is based on authoritative oral tradition " catholic.com

“While it might be comforting to imagine that the Scripture was dictated directly from the mouth of God to the hands of the writers, that is just not the way it happened historically. The stories that are collected in our Bible were shared by word of mouth for years, decades, or even centuries before they were written down. This process of telling and retelling these passages from the religious life of God’s people is called oral tradition.” Ministrymatters.com

The Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3 From The Works of Josephus,

Lol, and you have the gall to talk about forgeries…

Again, nothing you have talked about is actual evidence of Christianity being factual. And again, I don’t really care about your personal beliefs. I just don’t think it’s okay that you think your make believe time allows you to harsh other people’s make believe times. If society grants you the right to play make believe, you should have the decency to do unto others.

In your land, an 83 year old dude writing something is a “wild assumption”. ok.

What makes you assume he’s 83? The only thing informing your assumptions are your conclusions. He must be the author, so he must have lived to 100ad, which means he must have been 16 when Jesus died…

You know what a scribe is… Right? Someone who sits with you as you dictate to them? You know a lot of news report articles about people aren’t actually written by that person, but a journalist themselves… And even then, a scribe is more reliable than a journalist 🤦

A scribe can also be some writing down an oral tradition…

Eusebius was quoting Clement of Alexandria from AD 150

Clement was born in 150ad… Eusebius utilized different sources to propose that there were at least two different johns. John the apostle who he supposed wrote the book of John and Presbyter John, who he believed wrote revelations.

Yes, because within the timeframe it was written in. The likes of Mark and Luke would have had those aspects, possibly some in Matthew, but even then, oral tradition isn’t unreliable and it takes centuries for supernatural claims and legends to show up.

“is widely agreed amongst Biblical scholars that accounts of Jesus’s teachings and life were initially conserved by oral transmission, which was the source of the written gospels”

In this case, anything arguing in favour or showing the resurrection of Christ is automatically “biased” by your definition.

No, if we had records from the Romans claiming the guy they crusified a couple days ago is back…that would be a source from outside his fellowship.

It’s like arguing with someone about global warming who doesn’t trust scientists or the scientific method

Lol, you are comparing magic to the scientific method?

Any science you do show them they dismiss as “biased” because they don’t trust scientists. In the same way, if anyone believed that Jesus rose again, they’d rationally be a Christian.

You don’t have to trust science, science is repeatable, it’s self explanatory… If I saw someone who was publicly executed and then I saw them again three days later, I wouldn’t automatically think they’re the son of God. I would rationally think it’s a different dude posing as him, or that they didn’t actually kill him.

the Gospels were biased, they wouldn’t have had bad stories about their leaders at the time. Such as peter denying Jesus, Peter cutting off a dude’s ear and Jesus rebuking him, or James and John trying to get priority status in Glory.

If scientology was biased they wouldn’t have bad stories about their leaders at the time…

Josephus couldn’t have written it, as Jesus didn’t rise from the dead"

Still have no idea what you are babbeling about?

Because those gnostic texts were known forgeries.

How so? The earliest evidence of the gospel of Mary is from the 3rd century and was thought to be written in the 2nd.

reason would have they had to pick and choose the four Gospels over the gnostic texts anyway?

Because it didn’t fit within church doctrine.

That’s still a political dispute between the left and right?

You can’t address class without engaging in politics.

His whole thing was about discussing politics in a civilised manner.

No, his whole thing was personally hiding behind civility while empowering and promoting people and ideas that are steeped in political violence.

Left vs Right is part of the class war. Class consciousness is a political concept of the Left, a concept that the Right has invested a tremendous amount of time and effort to subvert.

John was, let’s say 16 at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion in 33 AD, then he’d be 83 years old if it was written in 100 AD. A reasonable age. I’m not disputing the possibility of a scribe.

Ahh yes, let’s make wild assumptions that fit my own narrative…

Evidence that John wrote John would be evidence to support this.

“I’m not disputing the possibility of a scribe.”

You’ve got no evidence to support this than an argument from silence. That is the earliest RECORDED evidence. And from that time frame, that’s pretty damn close.

Eusebius’s argument was an ongoing debate between scholars in the early church. However it’s widely recognized as how the church canonized John the apostle as the author.

Historians accept Julius Caesar was born in Suburra, yet the earliest record of that was written by Suetonius, around 200 years after the fact.

No they largely do not. In most histories they say he was born in Rome, some go as far as saying likely in Suburra, but that’s more of an inference as his family was known to be impoverished.

Suetonius is historically valuable, but known as a bit of a gossip, and prone to hearsay.

Then there’s Alexander the great - born in 300 BC but the records of his biography we use were written in the second century AD, by Arrian and Plutarch.

Yes, but those were written from lost primary and contemporary sources from people like Ptolemy, Aristobulus, and in some cases the king’s journal.

You’re the one working off of assumptions

You’re claiming the new testament that the new testament didn’t first get passed down by oral tradition?

So you’re basically asking me to find you sources documenting the resurrection of Jesus Christ from people who didn’t believe it happened?

No, just saying that you can’t use biased sources to make claims about his motivation.

That, and whenever someone were to propose someone like Josephus, you’ll just cry “Christian interpolation”, while most people are crying that using circular reasoning that he mustn’t have written about it because “someone can’t rise from the dead”.

I have no idea what you are trying to accuse me of?

We’d have to throw out almost everything we know about Julius Caesar with that logic as it was either written by him or someone in his country at the time.

Being in the same country as someone is not the same as being in the same cult as someone… Also, plenty of people doubt the accuracy of Caesars commentary on the Gaelic wars. Especially like with most ancient commentaries about the size of opposing armies.

There have been. Are you talking about non Christian sources?

I’m saying that just saying that all religions pick and choose their own doctrine. It’s not like the church adopted the gospel of Mary.

90-100ad isn’t decades after the death of people it’s about.

I’m guessing you are claiming the John lives to be nearly a hundred years old? Even though there is no evidence to support this…

And it wasn’t authored anonymously.

Yes… It was. He did not assign his name or identify himself as the author. Most people believe him to be the author through contextual clues as you suggested. These contextual clues first put forth in 185ad have shaped the ways people reintertpred and translated the Bible every since.

Which the writer of John clearly was.

John did not write it… He may have orally transferred the story to someone who later wrote it down after the time of his death. You’re working off of assumptions that are highly disputable.

There are four detailed accounts of Jesus.

From his own cadra of followers… That’s like saying everything scientology claims about L Ron Hubbard is true because it was witnessed by 4 different scientologist.

Mormonism has been debunked by the finding of the “original” papyrus to one of their scriptures. The Qur’an claims to be in agreement with the Bible yet contradicts the hell out of it. Mohammed and JS had numerous wives because “god told me” and Mohammed was a warlord, JS tried to set up “deseret”

And all Christian text are non contradictory…? There haven’t been any ancient scripts found about Christianity that the church hasn’t adopted?

How do you define “primary source”? The section I quoted was written by someone who knew Jesus personally

It’s a reinterpretation of oral accounts passed down decades after the deaths of the people it’s about, and was first attributed to John nearly 180 years later. The gospel of John was first authored anonymously around 90-100ad and attributed to John by Irenaeus in 185ad

That is definitely contemporary for accounts at this point in history.

Not really, contemporary sources are generally limited to people involved with the actual history.

A lot of what we know about other people were written down centuries after.

When combined with other contextual sources.

Okay then, do you have any evidence on the contrary? That those weren’t His motivations?

I’m not the one making the claim that other religions are wrong and Christianity is true. Do you have evidence that Joseph Smith, Muhammad, or Buddha had alternative motives?

What temple did He destroy? The temple was destroyed in 70AD

I meant the first time… Not literally destroyed, but trashed, fucked dudes up, flipped tables.

Jesus was not looking for political power.

First of all… The Bible is not a primary source, it wasn’t even a contemporary source when first written down, which was at least a century after his death.

Secondly, demagogues and those who follow them don’t exactly announce their true motivations. So it doesn’t really make sense to use their own claims as evidence of their innocence.

Lastly, I could just as easily claim Jesus was not killed for his faith, but because he destroyed a temple…

You aren’t exactly making the most logical arguments here.

Leftism is about more than economics, that’s a particular Marxist obsession. Leftism is broader than that.

How so? I mean there’re a lot of ways to generalize the political spectrum, but an easy and common way is to separate left and right into socialized economies and privatized economies, and then from there those respective government can run from authoritarian to libertarian.

But even if you want to focus on economics alone (which is ridiculously myopic since other political topics obviously have a direct impact on economics)

Yeah, but economic have an even greater direct impact on shaping politics.

workers in the USSR lost control of the means of production almost immediately.

In some ways I would agree with that, but I doubt the majority of workers in the USSR would have made the same claim. We have a the perspective of hindsight and didn’t have to live through the brutality of serfdom in the Russian empire.

State control is not liberation, particularly when that state is repressive and undemocratic

Again, it depends on your definition of leftism, and what you are interpreting. Was the USSR liberating compared to the average lifestyles of most modern western government? No probably not. Was is liberating compared to being serfdom under the Romanov? Yeah, it was a pretty huge upgrade.

And being left of the Tsar doesn’t make you a leftist in the modern context. If that’s the case then Donald Trump is a leftist.

Right, but is the value of evaluating history outside of its historical context?

who transformed the liberatory movement into a repressive police state. Police states cannot be leftist, full stop.

I mean, leftism typically centers around who controls the means of production and is largely defined in economic terms.

I think the Soviets would argue against being called a repressive police state, especially in Russia where they made huge strides in liberty compared to serfdom under the empire. They would argue you have to maintain a dictatorship of the proletariat to ensure the means of production remains in the hands of the people.

Where I differ in this belief is the expansive nature of the Soviet government, and the difference in treatment of Russians under the system compared to especially non Slavic groups within the USSR.

Couldn’t Jesus have been lying for political power? That is what his fellow Jews and the Romans accused him of. Joseph Smith was “merked” and his followers persecuted for their faith, does that make their beliefs true?

You can’t selectively apply logic to your perspective alone. I’m not denying your beliefs, just the logic that you use to argue their validity.

The reason they call it faith is because it is something you believe in despite not being able to offer any proof. You have faith, not knowledge that what you believe is true. Imo that’s fine, but you can’t have faith in something and then force your beliefs on others, claim them to be definitive truth, or deny other people their own beliefs.