I don’t see how this is Pharisaic in nature. The way I read it, the issue is: what is wine? The definition of a thing and debate around the definition is something that everybody does. Just remember the hot dog/sandwich war which took the lives of so many… Pharisaic concerns would be about nonessential things like the color of the bottle the wine is in, the cork or bottle cap, etc.
What materialists and some scientists forget is that matter matters. What materialists, some scientists, gnostics, and some Protestants forget is that matter has spiritual matters. God became man so that man could become God - Athanasius [1]
Jews (and thus Jesus) followed particular instructions by to obtain material effects (think Passover or Jericho). Similar to preparing a meal, particular ingredients and particular processes yield a particular result. Change some of the ingredients and you get a different result.
What Jesus did in the Last Supper was to elevate material behaviors to produce spiritual effects. He takes the Passover meal and uses it to share his divinity.
If wine and bread is needed to share his divinity, then the questions of what is wine and what is bread are of the utmost importance for a Catholic.
Y'shua of Nazareth seemed not to have cared much, if at all, for formalities or strict definitions — see his answer, in Luke 10:25-37 [0], to the lawyer's question, what must I do to inherit eternal life? (TL;DR: Love God, love your neighbor — and your neighbor is everyone, even your enemy.)
You are right, Jesus hated those Pharisaic formalities that prevented people from actual loving others. However Jesus did participate in other Jewish “formalities”. He celebrated the Passover, the festival of tents, he was presented at the temple, and so on.
To say Jesus believes all formalities are bad is not true.
For this partially question, what is wine, I don’t think it is preventing us from loving God and neighbor. I do think it is important because of the centrality of wine in the Gospels. T he miracle of the wedding feast at Cana, image of the vine and branches, and with the culmination of the last supper.
Beautiful! Yes, Jesus did give us the prime directive. However unlike the Pharisees he willing “to lift a finger” to help with them. He gave us his teaching. He gave us his Church. He gave us the Holy Spirit to live out the prime directive.
He also gave us the Eucharist. The body of Christ doesn’t distract us from our work - it allows us to do our work better. So to debate about the Eucharist is how athletes debate about training regimens or diets. If we can improve how we prepare ourselves for the work that need to be done, we can do the will of God better.
Wine can of course be anything at all. It could be milk, or used motor oil, or hydrofluoric acid. It need not even be a liquid, or tangible. Wine could be a really bad poem by an amateur, or a class of neutron stars that astrophysicists have yet to discover.
Shame on the Catholic Church for trying to pin down a word so that it means one thing and one thing only.
The argument is not that the definition of wine is malleable (which it definitely can be without falling down your slippery slope), but that being picky about the definition misses the point of the Eucharist entirely.
Well, when Jesus was incarnated on Earth his primary focus was on how we just have to be loose with our definition of wine.
I don't know why the Catholics have such a problem with this. Pretty much every story you read about Jesus, he was pointing out how wine could be anything. Even water.
So yeh, being picky about the definition of wine is probably the most blasphemous thing anyone could say or do.
Again: I don't think this is a mainstream Catholic church thing. You'll see downthread people besides myself relating stories of priests consecrating Triscuits or wine parishioners brought back from trips. Eastern-Rite Catholics all use leavened bread, apparently.
Traditionalist Catholicism (tradcath-ism) is not the same religion as Roman Catholicism. It's a weird splinter thing.
Traditionalist catholics celebrate the mass as it always was. The new religion you are alluding to that would consecrate a triscuit is what is out of lines. You can't accuse a group that stays the same as creating a new religion while you consecrate snacks from the grocery store.
Nevertheless, there is no objection to using eastern rite leavening or wine made from grapes from elsewhere. The eastern rites are just doing what they've always done and the wine just has to be grape wine and fermented. This is not a novel rule. It's how it's always been done. You can read any older document on the matter to realize the so called traditionalists are not creating a new religion.
That's fine! Every religion has an intricate set of justifications for its practices and I generally respect them all. All I have to say about traditionalist Catholics is that they aren't mainstream Catholics.
This is like calling protestants mainstream Catholics because there are more aggregate protestants in the us than Catholics. At some point we must be clear as to definitions. If you start doing things like consecrating triscuits you are not Catholic. You can be whatever you like but it is simply dishonest to say you're Catholic. Anymore than the protestants are.
Why would what’s true and required about the Eucharist (at the most fundamental level) change from, say, 1923 to 2023?
The matter at hand is not a trad thing (but I will disclose that I am in the trad camp): these are just basics covered in e.g. the 1997 Catechism promulgated by John Paul II and the the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which are 100% mainstream.
No. There's simple conventions for adding feature flags (user.some_feature_enabled?). Features are enabled and disabled by changing the code and deploying. This works because deploying new code is fast.
We do use Rollout (https://github.com/jamesgolick/rollout) once in awhile. Most of the time, we like having the history of flipped feature flags in the Git code though.
You need to be in the content, distribution, marketing/PR, talent (writing, acting, tc.) business to kill Hollywood. Thn You need to have billions to pay movie stars, scripts, movie rights, distribution, marketing, crew, equipments, etc. you need to have distribution, marketing,etc. muscle worldwide. Then you need to deal with agents, publicists, cast, crew, writers, etc. unions.
You can disrupt technology, but its hard to disrupt content (there are exception ofcourse (3D, IMAX, Pixar,etc.)
There are numerous benefits to having someone with social influence work for your company. Say your developer has a large following on Twitter.
- Any problem that they don't know how to solve can be solicited to x number of people.
- If they encounter a bug in 3rd party software that your company uses and publicly bitch about it, the better chance you have to get a timely fix.
- If your company uses/creates open source software, it is more visibile, and there is a greater likelihood that more people will contribute to it.
- They market your company.
- They attract more desirable hires.
Klout is really just an arbitrary reputation ranking system, just like the Bartonphink system. However the difference lies in what people conclude from an individual's ranking. People use Bartonphink to rank someone on their pertinence to bartonfink. People use Klout to "measure someone's online influence". This is extraordinarily important to businesses looking to do marketing, sales, customer service, etc.
The point I think you are missing is that Klout, and other ranking systems, can give a quick and objective assessment of someone's value or ability in a certain area.
Here's a list of ranking systems and what they indicate:
Klout -> online influence
StackOverflow -> programming expertise
FourSquare -> loyalty to a business
Credit Score -> fiscal responsibility
HackerNews Karma -> ability to provide interesting and pertinent points of conversation
I understand that, Vrish - and I agree. My point isn't with Klout specifically, but rather the author's explicit assumption that I would even care about it and that if I don't I'm in some sort of online minority.
My "online influence" has zero effect on my professional or personal life, and I suspect the same is true for many other software engineers. That's the point I was making, and the author's first erroneous sentence is roughly where I stopped reading what he had to say.
I disagree, for software engineers it is becoming more important to have a greater online influence. Employers are looking more and more at how involved people are in open source projects (eg. github profiles).
People with blogs and StackOverflow profiles public expose how much they actually know about software development. Then when they have a greater following or more points that is a validation that what are saying is accurate.
I did something like this a while back (http://1week1project.com/tagged/week-9?chrono=1). The hardest thing was trying to set a price, ie Should I pay myself $25 to schedule a dentist appointment?
It would be really cool if you were able have some better way to determine the payout for a certain goal. Perhaps you have your friends vote on it or something like that.
What materialists and some scientists forget is that matter matters. What materialists, some scientists, gnostics, and some Protestants forget is that matter has spiritual matters. God became man so that man could become God - Athanasius [1]
Jews (and thus Jesus) followed particular instructions by to obtain material effects (think Passover or Jericho). Similar to preparing a meal, particular ingredients and particular processes yield a particular result. Change some of the ingredients and you get a different result.
What Jesus did in the Last Supper was to elevate material behaviors to produce spiritual effects. He takes the Passover meal and uses it to share his divinity.
If wine and bread is needed to share his divinity, then the questions of what is wine and what is bread are of the utmost importance for a Catholic.
[1] - https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-so-that-we-might-become-god...