The meek shall inherit the duckstack1
Welcome to your favorite weather report, The Duckstack. I’m head meteorologist bobdaduck here to forecast some unusual weather coming up due to the astral readings of our chief astronomer, bobdaduck2. Between him and our other chief astrologist3, they’re fairly sure there will be a meteor shower this Sunday. That’s right, meteors. They’re going to fill up the rain gauge.
The nature of a meteor is, that’s right, space ducks. And when it hits the atmosphere the air friction causes it to light up like a candle, giving the impression of a light streaking through the sky, as the duck re-enters the atmosphere. That’s where all the ducks come from. And we’re here to warn you, they’re coming. Most of the smaller ducks evaporate on re-entry and the larger ones mostly burn down to normal size4 so… Bring an umbrella, I guess. And stay away from parks that have ponds, because those are where they tend to aim their landing. This is chief meteorologist bobdaduck, signing off. Back to you5.
New Game: Air Hockey
Get practicing, we’re going straight to the olympics.
Okay so everyone already knows ice hockey. You’ve got a bunch of burly dudes wearing tons of pillows and they beat the crap out of each other with sticks. Its great American fun. Not quite as American as baseball, but still. They probably drink drinks with ice in it after the game, but I’m not really an ice hockey expert and haven’t studied all the rules. However, we’ve got a great idea. If you don’t have ice, why not just skate on air? Ice rinks are cold and expensive to maintain, but air is, by our best estimates, basically everywhere.
Obviously, you will need to change some things around. Instead of ice skates, you’ll need to wear air skates, but the pillows, sticks, and beating the crap out of everyone can stay. Basically I’m imagining something like Quidditch, but for men. With this sport, we should be able to outcompete ice hockey for a spot at the olympic games, we just have to get popular enough. Please drop what you are doing and begin playing now.
Some Comparative Theology
Some doctrines are true, some doctrines aren’t yet are taught as true, some doctrines are taught as false yet are believed anyway, because of the implication. An analysis of directionality.
Amongst what I call “wider” Christianity, meaning basically all non-Latter-Day Saint branches, people are taught that basically what makes God divine is the mere attribute of uncreatedness. A lot of this comes from Aquinas I believe, or possibly crossover from Plato’s Theory of Forms. In either case, people are taught that your relationship with God is: Creator, created. That you are essentially a sentient object- they call it a “creature”. So a common attack against Latter-Day Saints is “You think Jesus is a creature”, meaning they think, that we think, that Jesus is a “created being”. Its all propaganda, since we believe all intelligence is uncreated and since they (and we) believe Jesus wasn’t always mortal (meaning his body was clearly “created” by any pragmatic definition).
The point is- this is very important to them, this is *the* thing that God is. I have had dozens, possibly hundreds, of Catholics tell me, verbatim, that “uncreatedness” is the only reason to worship God. It is explicitly the reason given by the Vatican for not recognizing Latter-Day Saint baptisms, despite us baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. It is on this basis that nearly every Christian denomination justifies calling The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to be “Not true Christians.”
I wrote a couple weeks ago about “proofs” for The Divine. These proofs became very popular around the time period of Aquinas. You are probably familiar with the “intelligent design6” argument. There are a lot more. People like Renes Descartes would lock themselves up in their hut and come out with new philosophical arguments ‘proving’ the existence of God, and they would present these proofs to popes and kings as glorious new paving in the great theological foundation. I believe all of these proofs are laden with fallacy, but for my purposes here its more important to point out that they significantly constrain God’s attributes and metaphysics.
As one example, a point of wider Christian faith is that God created everything “ex nihilo”, or from nothing. That all laws, all matter, all physics didn’t exist until he made them. Combine with the doctrines of omnipotence, and omniscience (each also implied by the creeds), you get a God in “total control”, which implies various forms of Calvinism and God being responsible for evil and suffering, since God under these definitions “could” have made things another way, and also predicted how his creations would go. If you don’t agree with these statements its fine, this is more an example of Christianity’s “direction”. Philosophically, it seeks to be unicausal. One hammer, everything else a nail. I believe it does this out of a sense that it honors God. I digress.
Under this framework, most descriptions God uses for himself in the Bible aren’t true. God isn’t “really” a father (in the sense of siring genetic children), God doesn’t “really” get angry, Christ isn’t “really” human, etc. I know normal Christians would rebut me here, saying he’s “fully human and fully God”, but 100% + 100% = 200%, that’s not something human attainable and I think most congregants sense it. Christ is “a different sort of person.” When Christians say Christ was “fully human”, do they mean he lusted, got scared, made mistakes and learned from them, didn’t know what would be the outcomes of his actions, or that he could have kids? I submit they usually do not. As with most Christian doctrines, the lay understanding appears to be that he’s more like a meta-human, or perhaps a puppet for God’s essence to use7.
The problem is, I don’t know why you would pray in this framework. The further you export God as a platonic ideal, the more you abstract, the less meaning everything has. Everything that happens is part of a grand micromanaged plan, its all calculated, and we are but billiard balls following the tracks of our set natures within God’s cosmic rube goldberg machine. God already knows what you’re going to pray for, why bother praying? God is already going to do whatever he was already going to do, since he’s all powerful, so why change? And so on. At first glance, these doctrines might seem like they increase faith- after all, it causes you to believe God is very powerful. But faith is an action word, and I think it is apparent that these doctrines actually serve to promote laziness and inaction.
If Christ is 200% human (something unachievable by normal people) then its actually sinful to try to emulate him. Christ “taught with authority, and not as the scribes8”, but you as a mortal need to restrict yourself to teaching like scribes (deferring to scripture). Christ could judge people but you can’t. Christ could keep the commandments perfectly, but its not actually reasonable to expect regular people to. (How this is usually expressed to me is “the point of the commandments is just to show you how impossible keeping commandments is.”) Christ could have people look up to him but you shouldn’t. Christ could be prideful but you can’t. Christ could forgive sins but you can’t. Christ could do miracles but you can’t. Christ can be a God but you can’t, to name a few common ones. (Christians indeed constantly say this was the sin of Adam and Eve- not disobedience, but wanting to be like God.) In this framework Christ becomes not a role model, but a mythic parable like Hercules and similiar. You can see how restrictive this is, if I’m right. Instead of a theology aimed at expanding the soul of man and reaching new heights, the doctrine trends instead to “put man in his place.” There’s a time and place for putting you in your place, but I don’t think its always. I do not believe mankind is innately loathsome, only that mankind can be. Christ could be free from original guilt, but you can’t. You have to be guilty about yourself, innately.
Extrapolating, I think it is difficult for many Christians to believe such a being “actually” cares, either. Its more like he super-cares. His love is so loving it doesn’t even look like love, its the pure boundless adoration at a level we can’t even comprehend. So why bother. In my opinion you might as well not call it love at that point, it just dilutes the word. Pragmatically speaking, people are going to pair out meaningless variables. Similar with other attributes described in the creeds of Christendom, its all poetry for how incomprehensible and beyond us he is and none of these words mean anything concrete. Here’s C.S. Lewis:
The word gentleman originally meant something recognizable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone "a gentleman" you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not "a gentleman" you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman; any more than there now is in saying that James is a fool and an M.A. But then there came people who said—so rightly, charitably, spiritually, sensitively, so anything but usefully—"Ah, but surely the important thing about a gentleman is not the coat of arms and the land, but the behavior? Surely he is the true gentleman who behaves as a gentleman should? Surely in that sense Edward is far more truly a gentleman than John?"
They meant well. To be honorable and courteous and brave is of course a far better thing than to have a coat of arms. But it is not the same thing. Worse still, it is not a thing everyone will agree about. To call a man "a gentleman" in this new, refined sense, becomes, in fact, not a way of giving information about him, but a way of praising him: to deny that he is "a gentleman" becomes simply a way of insulting him. When a word ceases to be a term of description and becomes merely a term of praise, it no longer tells you facts about the object: it only tells you about the speaker's attitude to that object. (A "nice" meal only means a meal the speaker likes.)
A gentleman, once it has been spiritualized and refined out of its old coarse, objective sense, means hardly more than a man whom the speaker likes. As a result, gentleman is now a useless word. We had lots of terms of approval already, so it was not needed for that use; on the other hand if anyone (say, in a historical work) wants to use it in its old sense, he cannot do so without explanations. It has been spoiled for that purpose.
What we’re left with is a sterile God enacting a sterile plan that we are mere cogs in. You can argue against all of this of course- you can say, ‘but the bible says God is love!’ and so on, but I’m not sure there’s actually a way around these implications with the doctrines of noncontingence and the unmoved mover and so forth. This might be why Catholics have saints to pray to instead- more human. All of these “proofs” for God rely on calculating a sort of necessary basis for existence, and really only work if you treat God more as a variable than a sentience. Or a meta-sentience, if you prefer. So sentient the concept of sentience doesn’t even make sense.
The Bible itself dedicates approximately zero effort to proving God’s existence. Not a factor at all. If you tallied up all the verses that talk about metaphysics there would be like, 20. Joseph Smith too spent no effort whatsoever proving God’s existence, but spent sermon after sermon seeking to prove Gods character. Instead of focusing on the mystical aspects of God as the things most necessary to have a knowledge9 about, to Joseph’s mind it was God’s personality that makes up his true nature, and the most vital thing to teach to the saints.
As an example, what we tend to emphasize about Christ is not his half-God genetics, (which classical trinitarians emphasize through words like “essence” and “consubstantiality”) but rather his compassion in sacrificing for us, his obedience to his Father, and his keeping the commandments in righteousness. Likewise, we don’t worship God because he has no discernable origin but rather because he is our Father. It isn’t so different, in some ways- its still veneration based on his position, but with this weight, what he “does” is a lot more important. Anyone can be a parent, but to be a righteous parent is far more difficult, and far more laudable. How much more impressive then, is it to be a perfect parent? I find myself unable to be impressed by the classical trinity at all. If you’ll permit me to speak from personal bias10, “there’s an entity that can just do whatever and it does it” just really doesn’t seem like a strong guide for how people aught to live, and why. I followed this model of God when I was younger, and my experience was that it directly blocked me from receiving answers to prayers, which is why I am passionate about it.
When you know gods character it empowers you to act, increasing your faith11. Because you feel like you have a place in the world. Instead of thinking you’re a variable on some sort of computer program, you go, “oh, he’s my dad”. And you think of the things you would do for your children, and how you view them, and how you discipline them, and why, and it all just makes sense. He’s not trying to accomplish some ineffable purpose with things like chastity and tithing and not eating pork or coffee12, he’s trying to raise you. This has a great deal more explanatory power than what we might caricature as “harps and clouds” theology, where the purpose of your existence is to praise God. It also gives you something to aspire to, since you aren’t some sort of pet God plans to keep in a terrarium13, but a potential peer. When kids model their parents, they learn about their place in society, what it means to act as an adult, and have adult responsibilities. And maybe, someday, if you’re good, you’ll inherit the family business or whatever. Christ, of course, says that God is specifically our Father in the same way he is his Father14, but most people are extremely uncomfortable with this level of literalness. But I believe, when it is understood, it leads to the miracles written about in the scriptures, it helps a person seek everything that is good and righteous, it gives the strength and confidence necessary to weather storms, and helps people to make decisions that are tough and costly15, but correct.
History
Not mentioning the flour baths again this week16. Too traumatic.
The toddler got into an accident with wood and we ended up having to take care of a lot of splinters. Most of them were easy but getting at one happened to hurt and the toddler declared he would rather keep it. “No, that one is a good splinter!”
The kids have been eagerly smearing things on the kitchen floor all week. In one instance, we were scolding them. “No, get off the ground! Cake doesn't go there!” and the toddler had been laughing and playing and asked “its not funny?” so we informed him “No its not funny.” And he thought a bit to figure out some alternative possibilities and asked: “Is it terrifying?”
The toddler has been learning a lot about letters. He knows all the letters in his name. He tells us his name contains no instances of the number '1’. “There's no 1's in my name!
After burning something in the oven, the toddler exclaimed: “Why is there oven clouds all over?”. It just does that sometimes kiddo.
The toddler woke up crying, so we comforted him, and asked if he was hungry, or if he had a bad dream, and he exclaimed “bad dream!” so we said “I’m here don’t worry.” and he retorted “…But you were there in the dream!”
The baby is very demanding when she wants food, opening her mouth and saying “ahh” insistently. The other day the toddler demanded “I need more papaya!” so we reminded him “How do you ask nicely?” and he responded (imitating his baby sister) “ahhh, ahh!”
A friend observed that talking to four year olds is just facts. As we watch him and his friends yell “pasta is noodles” at each other
Horoscopes
How does your constellation affect you? Read on to find out!
Hermes: If you’re a Hermes, watch out for your sneakers sprouting wings this week. Might not happen, but best to be careful. Never go anywhere outside without something or someone heavy to grab onto.
Hercules: If you’re a Hercules, be careful of beguiling women, three headed dogs, and the river of undead souls. If you see these in the grocery store parking lot, head to another grocery store.
Hephaestus: If you’re a Hephaestus, stay away from fire. Its hot.
Hades: If you’re a Hades, try not to die this week.
Hyperion: If you’re a Hyperion, make sure to wear sunscreen, because this week you’ll be especially prone to sunburns17. Bathe in it.
Homer: If you’re a Homer, Watch out for people eating flowers. Also watch out for people with one eye. Also watch out for parking lot mermaids. Yellow people are right out.
Hank: If you’re a Hank, you’re probably fine. This time.
Trade Goods: Upon The Recent Subway Murder
We received a shipment of Recent Subway Murderers18 lately
Bennett writes about what it means for a society to be averse to taking responsibility for others.
Ducksnax
Plant
™- “Previous” Duckstack -™
irrefutable
no relation
Dave
Thank your lucky stars they haven’t invented fireproof ducks yet
That’s right, back to me. bobdaduck.
Basically just that people don’t find evolution sufficiently explanatory for most phenomena
“Why” is a question here answered by Christians with either “to fulfill God’s narcissism” or “to prove a point”, a topic that could take up an entire separate article.
Matthew 7:28-29And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
To the extent that “knowledge” about the definition of the trinity is even possible, if you’re below ~110 IQ
Surely nothing else I have written is biased at all. Just the facts here. Especially the section about air hockey
John 17:3 Now this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has sent.
(munching on some coffee) “I hope that I’m not in defiance of some ineffable purpose right now”
I hope God likes ducks
John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
We call this “low time preference” in the online right wing extremist sphere
“aren’t you mentioning them now?” shut up
its hot
“‘recent subway murderers’ could be here”, he thought
Jesus taught:
“I am the true vine, and my father is the grape farmer. He cuts off every branch in me that doesn’t bear true fruit. He prunes the fruitful branches, so they’ll bear more abundantly."
As you said, he made mistakes and learned from them.
He is the Way, if we follow him we will experience the same thing.
I guess in LDS theology Charlie Kirk now rules a planet. Maybe Elon Musk can take us there by rocket. A planet ruled by a god who won't allow any leftoids to exist would be nice.