I’m not from there so I don’t know how they would define it, I just found him interesting and was using progressive Christianity interchangeably with the kind of Open Christianity I see in this community. Depending on what you mean by “not blabbing about it”, your definition seems to match very well to what he says he believes. For example, at 25:58 in the video he says we ought to have the same love for a child on the other side of the world that we would have for our children.

I don’t know whether she’s doing it intentionally, but she’s whitewashing the part about religion in the USSR. According to Wikipedia:

After the October Revolution … the communists aimed to break the power of all religious institutions and eventually replace religious belief with atheism. As part of the campaign, churches and other places of worship were systematically destroyed, and there was a “government-sponsored program of conversion to atheism” conducted by communists. … The communist government targeted religions based on state interests, and while most organised religions were never outlawed, religious property was confiscated, believers were harassed, and religion was ridiculed while atheism was propagated in schools. In 1925, the government founded the League of Militant Atheists to intensify the persecution.

What rules do you believe make for a definition that isn’t contrived? How do you exclude asteroids from your definition or reject other dwarf planets like Ceres without making up contrived exceptions of your own?

Not the guy you’re replying to but the first half of your argument is silly. If I said “Everyone on Lemmy likes Star Trek.”, would you still demand that every exception be named or would you understand that I was talking in generalities?

As far as I’m aware, most people who think the world is naturally just think that such justice comes slowly, and with wild swings away and towards justice happening in the mean time. So you still need to turn the ideal of justice into reality in the mean time either way.

You have to be really careful to distinguish between the position that the canon is temporarily, functionally closed and that it is closed permanently. You can definitely find plenty of people who support the strict position, but I believe that it is less popular than the looser position overall, especially when looking outside of Christian apologetics circles.

There’s a few good reasons to think that the canon is only temporarily closed, not permanently closed:

1. The Bible wasn’t canonized or seen as a single book until after Revelation was written, so it is unlikely that John had the whole Bible in mind.
2. Revelation says that the restriction is on “the book of this prophecy”, i.e., the book of Revelation itself. Even if you correctly consider that “prophecy” is more than just foretelling, there are parts of the Bible that don’t count as that.
3. If you read them carefully, you’ll see that Deuteronomy and Proverbs do not say anything against saying God’s words in a different way or recontextuallizing them to apply them to a different situation. The problem only comes about if you change the meaning of the message.
4. At least according to both Claude and GPT, the idea of a strict closure didn’t take root until the Reformation (about 1.5 millennia later).
5. A non-strict interpretation fits better with the fact that the story of the Bible is not yet finished. If the story is unfinished then it’s likely that God will do more works which ought to be recorded. For example, it would probably be helpful to the people living through the great tribulation to know what the actual history was that led up to that event.

Can someone explain exactly how this “Trump-proofs” the Federal Reserve? I don’t get it.

I thought someone photoshopped Ryan Stiles of Whose Line Is It Anyway fame into the picture

I’m sure that often times “the economy” is used as an excuse for yacht money, but I don’t like the idea of pretending “the economy” doesn’t also include poor people’s grocery money.

I’m in the US as well and pronounce the b.

At my store shoplifters would take stuff out of boxes and packaging and hide them in random places. On a per capita basis they were probably messier than normal shoppers.

So Maltese and Shih Tzus? The earliest date I saw for either of those was 1000 BC and according to Answers in Genesis, the most prominent young earth creation group, Noah’s flood happened at 2300 BC. That means that the meme’s intuition is correct and God never told Noah to bring them on the ark, Christianity is saved!

Yeah, it reminded me of one of those Taekwondo safety videos where the opponent isn’t allowed to do anything to stop them. A shield or some armor would easily negate them swinging the ball end around. A properly timed charge probably could to. Just body-blocking it probably wouldn’t be that big of a deal.

Say I custom built a gun and gave it to someone I know who obviously has severe mental issues: do you think I would have no responsibility for the actions that other person takes? By your logic it seems like I shouldn’t, since the mentally ill person has all the time in the world before they end up making a terrible decision.

linguists have estimated something like 31,000 languages have existed in human history (and that’s the lowest estimate). Currently, there are roughly six thousand languages spoken in the world. We don’t know exactly, because we’re just beginning to classify some languages in remote locations. But using conservative figures, something like 81% of all human languages have become extinct.

What worries linguists, however, is the current rate of language death in the world. Over half the languages spoken today have fewer than 10,000 speakers; that’s about like the population of Wasilla, Alaska. Around 82% of languages have fewer speakers than there are people in Waco, Texas. Linguists estimate that at least half the world’s languages will become extinct in the next one hundred years. That means, on average, a language is dying about every two weeks.

Taken from a page on the University of Houston’s website.

That’s really neat! From what I understand, though, this mountainous region of China is prone to landslides and that seems slightly terrifying in a city like this.

I wonder what the roads are like once they start shedding their leaves.

I get where you’re coming from because people and those directly over them will always bear a large portion of the blame and you can only take safety so far.

However, that blame can only go so far as well, because the designers of a thing who overlook or ignore safety loopholes should bear responsibility for their failures. We know some people will always be more susceptible to implicit suggestions than others are and that not everyone has someone who’s responsible over them in the first place, so we need to design AIs accordingly.

Think of it like blaming an employee’s shift supervisor when an employee dies when the work environment is itself unsafe. Or think of it like only blaming a gun user and not the gun laws. Yes, individual responsibility is a thing, but the system as a whole has a responsibility all it’s own.

Is this actually a thing rich people say? I’ve never heard it said before.

I haven’t played half life. Isn’t the point to make you think more about the story than about the challenge of the game?