Ah yeah the Siberian fox experiment is interesting. They found that the tamer foxes had a tendency towards neoteny, ie. basically retaining juvenile features and slower development, and they even lost some of their intelligence too which was interesting. The same has happened with dogs, physically they’re closer to juvenile wolves and generally they’re also less intelligent than wolves.
Didn’t know someone had tried the same with panthers and cheetahs though, that’s pretty surprising. Sounds like a bit of a project to tame panthers of all creatures when even housecats aren’t as domesticated as eg. dogs
Rabbits engage in coprophagy to extract more nutrients using their short digestive tracts. Is this analogous to training ML models on AI-generated output?
There’s a conservative chud in these comments who apparently thinks this is exactly what Jesus taught.
Political satire is dead; it’s impossible to satirize conservatives because for any ridiculous joke anyone can come up with, there’ll be N + 1 conservatives out there going “yeah that’s exactly what I believe”
Supply-side economics is a macroeconomic theory postulating that economic growth can be most effectively fostered by lowering taxes, decreasing regulation, and allowing free trade.
Supply and demand are two major parts of capitalist economic theory, Regan implimented economic relief for the supply side of the economy only. Corporations, owners, importers, and resource owners, like oil, gas, food, industries. While totally ignoring demand side, that’s the working class side of the economy, if there isn’t enough money in the demand side of the economy, it will eventually collapse. Which has happened several times, why are we still here and still doing this? Because were not a capitalist economy. We’re a state capitalist economy. Financial institutions fail? Government bail outs, stagnating wages hurting demand? Work tax credit, still not enough money in the market? Deregulate credit lenders, payroll still can’t cover basic living? SNAP program subsidized the cost of living, letting owners continue to stagnate wages while not paying enough to keep the middle class capable of participating in the market.
We’ve been doing this a long time.
The State now controls the economy, almost exclusively helping corporations and the very rich, with no strings attached.
That’s why 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck! All they have to do is invest the pennies they have left over! Crazy how a group of people that motherfucking huge aren’t just pulling themselves up by their bootstraps!
I think the moral of that story is that you should at least make a bare minimum effort in order to justify your existence. The Parable of the Wedding feast has a very similar lean: there, a guy gets thrown out of the wedding (after having been invited for free because the original guests wouldn’t come) because he wouldn’t even dress up for it.
The point is, there ARE examples of Jesus cutting people off because they’re not worth his continued investment in them.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your point sounds like, “[The god of my religion] does not find your existence is worth enough to help, therefore, the United States Government is not obligated to change a system where 60% of it’s citizens are not financially stable.”
I just want to point out that in the wedding illustration, that guy who gets thrown out it’s not because he didn’t put an effort dressing
He was thrown out because he he could not have got inside the building without the wedding garment
So he shouldn’t be there
That’s why they thrown him out
Because he was not recognized as being one of the invited AND chosen in any of the 3 rounds of invites that went out , the dude had to go.
The whole deal is basically telling people at the time that each rejected invitation made you part of his enemies, and even then if you tried to pass as if you had been invited and chosen, you’d be found out
Okay but it still roughly fits the situation in the OP, doesn’t it? He got thrown out because he wasn’t producing the expected result (i.e. being a proper wedding guest).
The meme is attempting to caricature Conservative’s idea of Jesus by alleging that the biblical Jesus would never put profit over people. But as the parables I mentioned show, that is in fact inaccurate and thus promotes a liberal caricature of Jesus who feeds people endlessly without ever asking for anything in return.
yeah remember when Jesus said “if I were to feed you, it would disincentivize you from finding a job and just enable your laziness. Use your god-given talents to feed yourself you moocher” and then gave all the fish and bread to the rich?
It’s almost like I worded the end exactly like that because I know that’s LiTeRaLlY what it says you utter cabbage. I was just parodying your Supply Side Jesus concept further; it’s not like that was the central message that Jesus had, except in conservative readings of course
I mean, I hope I’m not saying anything too controversial here, but I think it’s pretty well understood that one of the major theological differences between Christians and Jews is how they feel about Jesus.
Are you seriously taking something that is called a “parable” literally? Do you need help in understanding what a parable is? The whole thing is not even about money, but about god (the master) and his stewards who shall work on spreading the gospel while Jesus is gone. Those who spread the word of god shall be rewarded and those who are resentful of god will be punished. It has nothing to do with that capitalist shit people like you interpret into it.
Okay, but that’s exactly what’s happening in the OP’s picture, isn’t it?
I mean, without any context we are left to assume what “lack of results” means but if all he did was eat and made no effort to spread the gospel, then he’s basically the wicked servant in that parable, no?
It is about carrying their responsibilities to his kingdom with diligence
The talents, a thing of Great value then, represent the mandate to go about preaching and making disciples
Each of the receivers were expected to carry out their duties using the talents diligently, that is, doing said preaching/ disciples work
That one who worked against his master interest by hiding that talent, showed bad faith and a bad spirit and is to be a warning on the need to remain diligent in multiplying that talent, basically exhorting them to do “business” with it to increase it (that is, to keep on preaching and making disciples)
I did, and though we can expect those with a talent to be profitable, what about those with a tenth of one?
Let’s put that parable in modern terms. One day a hedge fund manager decided to leave the country for a while to his other home overseas. He went and told His workers to go and be profitable with the money. And so he gave one a million dollars , another 100, 000, and another $50,000.
The one with a million dollars, invested his money and time into making a new business. He managed to turn that $1 million into $2.3 million. The one with 100,000 managed to make $170,000 with shrewd investing. But the man with $50,000 sat on it and didn’t do anything. He put it in a savings account and left it there.
The hedge fund manager came back, and saw how successful the other managers were. And he asked the one with 10k "Why didn’t you do anything with what I gave you?
The one with the 50 k said “I didn’t want to lose any of the money.”
The manager rebuked him though because he could have at least taken 1 year bonds and beat interest.
It’s a parable about using what God gave you. God gives us gifts to bring in profits. Not in money, as that’s not what God really needs, but in faith. You could live for a while with 50k even. But there are people who live paycheck to paycheck who don’t have that 1 talent of silver in the first place. They’re paid 800 dollars bi-weekly. Rent is 800 dollars. Good luck living with 800 left for everything else. And you still call them lazy
What does Jesus say about people with money? Two things stick out to me. The first one are the Rich donors to the the synagogue, and the poor woman who gives a quarter of her wealth to it. Jesus remarks that the woman gave more than those Rich donors ever will. The other is about a rich man who seeks to enter the kingdom of God and ask Jesus how to do this. Jesus tells him that he must give all his money to the poor. The man was disappointed because he had a lot of wealth.
What boggles my mind as a Christian is that we idolize Rich people and shame poor people. When in fact The most pious people I know, are poor
Prosperity Gospel is a scourge and a poor excuse to claim that God is on the side of the rich.
Thanks for your response, but I don’t think I was promoting prosperity gospel? I understand that this parable is a favorite of theirs, but as you correct pointed out, there’s more to Jesus than that, and the point of the parable is by no means to rag on poor people, but on people who make poor decisions.
My understanding is that if someone has little talent but still makes the most of it, that person is still more welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven than someone who has a lot but makes little use of it. In other words, if it was the servant who received the most money who ended up burying it and making no profit, it would have been him who would be cast out instead. See also the Parable of the Wedding Feast, where everyone receives exactly the same (an invitation to the king’s wedding), but one person shows up without the proper clothes on.
What types of poor decisions? Decisions in faith? Family? Finance? Fitness? From the top level comment of the comment thread I read it as finance as that’s the thing related to food in the original post. I read this story as our stewardship of things God gives us. (Everything from the work of our hands to our minds to our relationships to wealth) He who is given much should use them and not keep them hidden away for later
little talent
Talent refers to money in the literal sense (Or more accurately a weight for metals which could be traded as money) It is a large amount of money.
The parable of the wedding feast is about people neglecting their faith and still expecting to be a part of the Kingdom of God. It’s not about how much money they have, but instead if they actually practice their faith. If you know the scriptures, but say you’ll be righteous later, then you’re that person who isn’t clothed for the feast. We are called to keep our faith and grow faith in others with the gifts that God gives us.
Supply Side Jesus on the other hand tells us that it’s not worth investing our time and resources into people who are poor, and that instead the rich will lead us to have an efficient church. That is fundamentally backwards to Christianity, as it is the poor, the hurt and the suffering who need it the most. There’s a reason why some churches put the Beatitudes in their liturgy. But at the same time, this is how our welfare system is run. To get the freeloaders off
Poor decisions with regard to the use of their natural (i.e. God-given) talents. Nobody is ever going to make perfect decisions in all areas of their lives, and that’s not what Jesus requires, either. After all, the whole point of people having different talents is for them to work to together so they can complement each other’s abilities.
From the top level comment of the comment thread I read it as finance as that’s the thing related to food in the original post.
My point was merely to show that the biblical Jesus does in fact stop investing in people because he’s not seeing any results from them. It’s not really my fault if you’re reading in things about shareholder value or whatever, is it?
Supply Side Jesus on the other hand tells us that it’s not worth investing our time and resources into people who are poor, and that instead the rich will lead us to have an efficient church.
Yes, but remember that Supply Side Jesus is a caricature, and it’s created by exaggerating certain aspects of Jesus and diminishing others. But so is socialist Jesus, who only heals and feeds people for free and never asks for anything in return.
That is fundamentally backwards to Christianity, as it is the poor, the hurt and the suffering who need it the most.
I agree, and there are plenty of exhortations on that in the Gospel where Jesus reminds people to use their riches to take care of the poor among them. But he does not let the poor off the hook either, like in the story you mentioned earlier with the poor woman giving what little she has being more righteous than the rich man who donates very little. Meanwhile, proponents of socialist Jesus seem to think they should only ever receive blessings and not be asked to give anything back. They are like the guy in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant, who had his debt forgiven by his master and then beat up his fellow man for owing him a fraction of that.
The long and short of it is that in order for the whole Jesus thing to work, you cannot just sit around all day and wait to be fed. You do at least have to make an effort to contribute something, however little it might me, otherwise you’re wasting your talents.
The only food mentioned is the little kid fishes and bread. If it were more, pretty sure they’d mention it as well.
The whole point was that they were far away from the nearest place to buy food and money for feeding about 15k people would exceed even a yearly salary
Literally there was not enough food in the whole group for a “potluck”
Jesus made a speech, they passed around the baskets his group had for the meal, and suddenly they more than enough
Do you think they had grocery stores? That they catered events? That they even had a salary, and carried money instead of food?
I don’t even know where all these numbers and money focus are coming from, but they weren’t in the text
Everyone shared their lunch… That was the whole thing. They shared the food they were initially unwilling to share, and when everyone was full (including those who came with nothing) they had baskets of leftovers
When they’re asking genuinely, I don’t mind giving a genuine reply. But when it becomes clear they’re doing the online equivalent of filibustering? “You, you specifically are going to pay for it, and I hope it makes you go bankrupt.”
when the far right says, “Who’s gonna pay for it?!”
It’s funny, the obvious answer is “rich people who have magnitudes more money”, but plenty of poor stupid people respond “BuT tHeY aLrEaDy PaY mOrE” as if someone with 100000x as much money as you should get off paying maybe pays 100 or 1000x when you’re paying 25% and they’re paying 5 or 10% of take home.
sopuli.xyz
Hot