It seems like the problem of evil is a major argument against the omni-Christian God.
However, Christians often argue that humans have a "blind-spot" perspective—much like a toddler who thinks a doctor giving them a painful vaccine is being evil.
What is the atheist counter-argument to this?
When nurses report labs or vitals via Secure Chat, they frequently write in the official chart "MD notified. No new orders received."
I don't have any objection to being notified of abnormal values, but I don't understand why the phrase "no new orders received" needs to be appended to the notification statement. The phrase gives the impression that the nurse was expecting an order, but none was received, that the doctor was perhaps uncaring or neglecting the notification. In the majority of cases, no treatment is indicated to begin with, obviating the need for an order. I know it's used as a CYA tool, but it's kind of pointless, because if anyone audits the chart in the future, it would be clear that no new orders were received after the notification was given.
For example
For CYA purposes, Option 1 suffices. Option 2 not only creates the false impressions as stated above, it also creates the problem that Dr X might be busy and will take some time to put in an order, such that if an order was placed 30 minutes later, the statement "no orders received" would be inaccurate.
I was browsing through r/residency and came across a post by a surgical resident. It's anecdotal of course, and its validity is suspect, but if true, it'll be the most wildest thing I've heard.
>I was hospitalized at the same place we took call and it was a day i wasnt even on call but when they find out I'm inpatient there, they make me take consults there while I am a patient.
Can anyone validate such things or have any personal experiences like this?
The one representing our purchase seems to do more buying than selling. But it seems it would be easier to use her to sell our house from a logistical point of view and probable commission discount.
​
However, she doesn't do staging, so we'll have to pay for our own staging. Does the convenience and commission discount outweigh the downsides (no staging and less selling history)?
Currently have a home that's paid off.
We don't have a lot of liquid assets to make a reasonable Down Payment on new home (only 10% ish). Our agent suggested taking out a HELOC. We plan to sell the current home once we buy the new home.
If we take out a HELOC to fund the down payment, the total value of the loan (New Mortage + HELOC) still remains the same.
Would this make any differerence to the bank whether it's 1 loan (traditional mortage) vs 2 loans (HELOC + mortgage) since the total value of the loans is still the same?
Today at mass the priest railed on the congregation that only 30% of Catholics believed in Transubstantiation (he cited a Pew study). He stated that the remaining 70% can't call themselves Catholics if they don't believe in Transubstantiation. He basically said 2 out of every 3 person next to you aren't real Catholics.
In addition, he said lately the parish staff has found the Host lying in the pews after Mass and even on the ground in the exit. He said if you don't believe in it, then don't come up to receive.
Has anyone else experienced this?
I'm trying to make these cabinets look a little better before selling the house. As a newbie, I used the cheap and quickfix Howard's Restor-A in this attempt. The right panel looked worse due to the darker color that formed after applying this product.
Questions:
I always wonder whether FSD recognizes when the car in the next lane (about 1-2 cars ahead) is signalling into my lane. Most of the time it doesn't let them through, even though both of us are moving at the same speed and it could have easily slowed down 1-2 mph and let them through, which is kind of an asshole move. When I drive I usually let them through if they're far enough ahead but I don't feel like FSD lets them.
Secure chat can be a double edged sword. While it does prove to be a pain in the ass when I get loaded with messages, the fact that I can add 10 different specialists into one chat so they can battle it out over a complicated case instead of using me as a messenger is a godsend.
*Add specialists
*Mute conversation
I'm not blaming Tesla for this per se, although it's more of a risk than driving a car with physical gear stick. Today I was backing out of a parking space. As I was ready to pull forward, I swiped up to go into Drive. As I stepped on the accelerator, the car went backwards again! Fortunately I didn't hit anything, but I realized when I swiped up, the finger motion didn't actually go all the way to the top to switch to Drive.
Next time I have to be more mindful that I actually changed gears rather than assuming that the swipe was successful.
I don't browse here much so hopefully my post falls within the rules.
Background: I was watching a video of a podcaster (an agnostic/atheist) debating with a Christian believer. The gist of the video boils down to how morally abhorrent infanticide is, as portrayed in the bible. However, the podcaster himself admitted that he was pro-choice. The comment section decried the podcaster for being a hypocrite, in that he denounces infanticide and yet supports abortion.
I know biologically there is a difference, depending on the age of gestation when abortion takes place. Philosophically, is there a difference?
Pilate is a saint in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. His wife Procla is a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Why are neither of them venerated in the other respective churches and why aren't they venerated in the rest of the Christian denominations?
Why are they venerated at all?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4U7yuIniT8
Dan here argues two things, that 1) The book is likely a forgery anyways, and 2) the Greek word theopneustis used doesn't mean inspired that most people think it means.
Is this an academic consensus among scholars?
Thesis: The concept of free will, sin, and heaven is a paradox
Agreement 1: God created us with free will
Agreement 2: Sin is a consequence of free will
Agreement 3: There is no sin in heaven
I think the majority of Christians will agree with the above three consensus. The problem lies in the next question:
Do people in heaven have free will?
Paradox 1: YES. People in heaven have free will. But if free will exists in heaven, then sin will also result (#2). But this conflicts with #3.
Paradox 2: NO. People in heaven do not have free will. This conflicts with #1 since it is generally accepted that we are not created as robots.
The Christian workaround: The argument generally will revolve around Paradox 1, that there is free will, but this free will does not result in sin. Somehow in heaven we are free to do what we want, but our thoughts and actions will never result in any sinful act.
Paradox 3: That might sound plausible, but if we grant that position, then God could have created our never-sinning nature to begin with and yet didn't.
Paradox 4: People surmise that on heaven we can have plenty of food, music, merrymaking. It is a place of neverending bliss. Is there work to do? Or are we lounging around lazily (sin of sloth) and eating all day (sin of gluttony?)
OK, so let's take a step back and say that we are not lazy or greedy in heaven, we have to our share of work and eat only just enough to be full. Then is heaven never supposed to be conceptualized as a perpetual paradise? Aren't we just mindless robots at this point?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQDrWN6YaMw
I stumbled onto a new channel and this video shows the podcaster convincing the caller (a Christian) that genuine internal belief is not a choice (as opposed to an outward declaration of belief). This has always been something I struggled to argue with others, but it was super ironic how the caller initially wasn't convinced with Jon's argument, and yet it was precisely this inability to believe Jon's argument that led this the caller's change of mind that belief isn't a choice.
Thesis: Using the name of the "holy spirit" to answer difficult questions is a cop out and not a valid response.
The above is one example where the OP asks fairly reasonable questions relating to how could the evangelists could have been eyewitnesses when the text clearly makes no room for them to be such. Two different top-level answers respond with "It was the Holy Spirit that granted them knowledge what to write."
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/1gxhckm/how_did_the_early_scholars_decide_what_to/
Here's another post that questioned how the early Fathers knew what books to canonize as part of scripture. The answer: The Holy Spirit!
Argument: Using the Holy Spirit as an answer just goes to show that the question was valid and there are no good answers. In addition, if we are to use the Holy Spirit as an answer to these questions, it opens up more questions. If the Holy Spirit was acting as a guide for the evangelists, then it could have equally acted as a guide for the numerous witnesses to the Resurrection to have written it down. One of the apologetic answer to the lack of written accounts of the Resurrection was that most people were illiterate at that time and therefore no one was able to write them down. But wait! Christians claim that the Holy Spirit can guide the evangelists knowledge of intimate accounts that that otherwise unknowable, and yet it did not guide the witnesses to the Resurrection the ability to write it down?
Different church father also had different versions of what was supposed to be in the canon. (see wiki page). Are we to assume that these individuals had different versions of the Holy Spirit to guide them?
We can further this exercise by pointing out the numerous other inconsistencies in the Bible that the Holy Spirit wasn't able to correct or reconcile despite being such a powerful force.
I have to admit that this video by a former preacher is one of the most concise historical renderings of how Christianity ended up becoming a dominant force starting in the first few hundred years. Knowing this, it becomes clearer that Christianity's eminence stemmed from political motivations rather than theological truths.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJV1j6Eoj-c
An excerpt of the video:
>By the early fourth century, Christianity was still fragmented, persecuted in waves, and widely distrusted. Enter Constantine. Now, here's what you may have heard, that Constantine saw a vision of a cross in the sky before battle, heard a voice from heaven, and converted to Christianity on the spot, changing history forever by making Christianity the official state religion. But here's what actually happened.
>There is no record from Constantine himself of any vision in 312. The first time this story appears is years later in Christian texts, and it changes depending on who's telling it. In fact, Constantine continued honoring Sol Invictus, the Roman sun god, on his coins well after that battle. He didn't get baptized until he was dying, and even then, it was by an Arian bishop, a theological outsider condemned by the very council Constantine supposedly championed.
>So what really happened? Constantine didn't convert. He didn't believe. He didn't write theological works, recite creeds, or claim Jesus as Lord. What he did do was allow Christianity to rise into imperial toleration, and Christian leaders rushed to claim him as their own. The vision of Constantine is not just embellished, it is entirely post hoc. There is no record in 312 that he had any Christian revelation, made any public acknowledgement of Christ, or attributed his victory to the Christian God. To suggest otherwise, even cautiously, is to narrate legend, not history. It wasn't Constantine who co-opted Christianity. It was Christianity that co-opted Constantine, wrapping the emperor's image in sacred myth, forging a new narrative of divine favor, and using the machinery of state to crush rival sects and rewrite its own history.
>So how does Christianity move from tolerated to true?
>So if Constantine never actually became a Christian, how did Christianity go from tolerated to true? From street cult to state creed? The answer isn't miracle, martyrdom, or mass revelation. It's imperial enforcement, and it happened in stages.
>The first stage is it was legalized, but still one among many. In 313, Constantine and Licinius issued the Edict of Milan legalizing Christianity, not declaring it true, not even making it official, just legalizing it alongside all other religions. Christianity was now permitted, not promoted, and most citizens of the empire kept worshiping Jupiter, Apollo, Mithras, or Sol Invictus.
>So what changed? Well, stage two is the fight for theological control. By the time of the Council of Nicaea in 325, Christianity wasn't unified. It was fracturing further than ever before. Who was Jesus really? Was he equal to God? Was he created? Was he subordinate? The Arians said one thing, the Nicenes said another, and other sects said Jesus wasn't divine at all. Constantine didn't care what theology won. He just wanted the fighting to stop. That's why he called the council. That's why he funded the bishops. That's why he enforced the Nicene Creed, not because he believed it, but because he needed to keep the peace, and he didn't even enforce it consistently. He flipped sides later and exiled the very bishop, Athanasius, who had championed the winning view.
>There's also stage three, Christianity becomes the state religion in 380 CE. It wasn't until Theodosius I, nearly 50 years later, that Christianity was finally declared true in the legal sense. In 380, he issued the Edict of Thessalonica, which reads, "We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians. The rest shall be branded as heretics and may expect the wrath of God and the punishment of our authority."
>Let's be clear. This wasn't about the resurrection. This wasn't about fulfilled prophecy. This wasn't about scripture or miracles or apostles. It was imperial legislation enforced by the army, funded by the treasury, and backed by the bishop class. And with it, Christianity went from being a religion among many to the only legal form of truth in the Roman world. Belief was no longer a matter of evidence. It was now a matter of law. Which brings us to stage four, syncretism and absorption. This took place in the late fourth to sixth century.
Thesis: The crime scene/car crash analogy is a poor defense to the contradictions in the Gospels
Lately, I've seen many posts and videos arguing that the apparent contradictions in the gospels can be harmonized by using the crime scene analogy (see example here, timestamped). This video talks about the contradictory nature of Jesus' birth/early childhood in Mt and Lk. The apologetic argues that the differences in Mt/Lk are not contradictions but rather different tellings of the same event, similarly to how different eyewitnesses to a crime can give varying account but don't qualify as contradictions. Dan doesn't address this part specifically so I feel the need to explain.
My argument: It is true that in a crime, there can be many eyewitnesses and these eyewitnesses can give differing accounts of what happened. The apologetic in the video gives a misleading example of the analogy where he argues "one person would note the color of the car, another the clothing of the driver, the third where the car ended up." Therefore, even though all these accounts are different, they are not conflicting and therefore are reliable indicators of the events they describe. However, that's not how eyewitness accounts work.
If witness1 can only report the color of the car, and nothing else, that would not be a great testimony at all. We would think there's something wrong with his memory if he can only recall the color but no other detail. This similarly goes for witness2 and 3. If we collate the report of these 3 witnesses, their reports in whole would not be usable to reconstruct the accident since none of their reports corroborate each other. Arguing that "as long as the testimonies don't conflict" is surely a low bar to set.
Conclusion: To accurately describe an event, it is necessary but not sufficient that the differing accounts not conflict with each other. They must also corroborate each other. Back to the infancy narrative, the two gospel stories violated both rules: they not only conflicted with each other, but also do not corroborate each other.
In this 48 Hours episode (The Han Family murders), the murderer's father tried to help him get away by providing getaway passport, clothing, etc. The prosecutor being interviewed said "We could have charged him as an accessory, but we didn't have any indication that that dad was involved in any way, shape, or form in the killing)," and was released.
Is this a general concept in criminal law that knowingly helping a criminal evade arrest is not a crime in itself?
I'm NAL but I'm reading this post
https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1tey4iq/what_does_2300_hours_look_like/
and when they're talking about billable hours, it got me thinking: wouldn't it be easy for a lawyer to inflate what their billable hours are? For example, if it took 1 hour to draft a document, wouldn't it be possible to hedge that hour to 2 hours? Realistically how would a client know whether it took you 1 vs 3 hours to draft a document?