Take a Cold Bath

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n04/lucy-wooding/take-a-cold-bath

by diodorus • 1 year ago

36 30 1 year ago

lrb.co.uk

aikinai• 1 year ago

https://archive.is/2025.02.26-183951/https://www.lrb.co.uk/t...

d3nj4l• 1 year ago

Not about cold plunges, as I'd expected, but interesting nevertheless. The author of the book reviewed also wrote one of the best (and my personal favourite) books on The Reformation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reformation:_A_History

HenryBemis• 1 year ago

pointing out that the Bible ‘is a library, not a book’, full of contrasting views and narratives.

With the risk of sounding blasphemous, yes it is a library. It is a buffet. You get fish, you get meat, you get salad, you get fruits. There is something for everyone. Pick what you want, ignore the rest, and we're all happy.

I also wonder 'when', if ever, we will learn the truth about 'the Bible' (or other similar documents of 'holy' value). I wonder if in those bookshelves that the Vatican or in the Holy Mountain (Athos) store all the previous versions that show the evolution of the document.

And I wonder if they would ever release the evolution of the document with numbers of pages, chapters, authors, years, so we can see the 'timeline' (kinda like a changelog in a Policy document).

MrMcCall6• 1 year ago

The truth is simple, yet insidiously difficult to manifest:

We are to self-evolve ourselves such that we are completely compassionate.

Our love for our fellow human beings leads us to understand how we sometimes act selfishly with them, causing them unhappiness. Love for them then dictates that we need to be better people, so we turn to our Creator to help us overcome our selfish impulses, that are borne of our animal nature and cultures' pack-mentalities.

By sending love to our Creator (who needs nothing of the sort), the universe resonates that love back into our heart. That reflective compassion gives us the strength to make better choices, which leads us to actually becoming better.

Love is powerfully transformative. First, we must transform ourselves towards greater love, then we must help transform our societies to compassionately care for all our fellow human beings.

That is the ENTIRE purpose of religion: to help us create peace and happiness for ALL human beings.

And this absolutely is kindof selfish on my part, because helping others learn this greatest of all truths is a benefit to my own happiness. But the purity of my purpose here requires this message to have no material benefit for me, only karmic benefit.

Peace be with you all. Compassion is the way, and, as Rumi said, "The Way goes in."

[As to the Vatican, they traded their souls for a small price when they covered up their mass child rape (and are now declaring bankruptcy instead of paying their victims). A Catholic person can connect with God and become consumed by love, but the power organization that is the Catholic Church has damned themselves to hell, because they chose money over truth and compassion. Jesus says precisely what will happen to those who harm children.]

tsimionescu• 1 year ago

You may claim that this is the purpose of religion, but religious texts have MANY more things to say than this message. For example, where in all of your nice description does the prohibition against eating pork but not beef fit in? Where does the prohibition against same-sex love fit into the universal compassion? Where does the stoning of jews who don't observe the Sabbath fit in?

And these are just some of the major laws of Judaism and Christianity that I'm most familiar with. Similar prohibitions and encouragements can be found in a leach and every religious practice on Earth, and they have literally 0 to do with universal love. So why believe that religion is all about universal love when religious practices insist on so many other things?

spacebanana72• 1 year ago

That is the ENTIRE purpose of religion: to help us create peace and happiness for ALL human beings.

This is a very Abrahamic take. The ancient "God Kings" like the Roman Emperors or followers of Marduk like Nebuchadnezzar didn't place much value on peace and happiness. If anything they actively despised it.

jl6• 1 year ago

It’s always possible that there is a Vatican Super Secret Archive that has been successfully hidden from the world, but the regular Secret Archive isn’t actually secret (and in fact isn’t called the Secret Archive any more), because it’s now open to researchers.

Same for Mount Athos, where materials are being catalogued by various projects.

Further knowledge about the origins of the bible are more likely to come from archeological finds, like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

huhkerrf• 1 year ago

There's no need to imply a shadowy conspiracy to hide the "truth". You can look at, for example, The Dead Sea Scrolls and compare them to the Masoretic texts: https://news.nd.edu/news/dead-sea-scrolls-yield-major-questi...

Spoiler alert: there are some differences, but many more similarities.

spacebanana72• 1 year ago

Imagine the difficulty of running a conspiracy to change Biblical texts. You'd have to find and modify every copy of scripture everywhere on the planet. The only people who realistically could've attempted this might've been a Roman Emperor or an early corrupt Pope.

But even those people wouldn't have been unable to modify the Dead Sea Scrolls, as those weren't discovered until well after the Roman empire ended / Papal authority of all Christians faded. There are also many other ancient manuscripts, some discovered relatively recently (i.e post reformation) and a couple dating back into the first millennium BCE [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

svilen_dobrev• 1 year ago

This book opened my eyes on the topic, some time ago:

  Ever Since Adam and Eve: The Evolution of Human Sexuality

  by Malcolm Potts and Roger Short, 1999

An anthropological view over the human culture.. very broad and deep. Definitely worth the long reading.

MrMcCall6• 1 year ago

The final sentence of this review is this:

MacCulloch’s unspoken conclusion might well be that religion should begin again from scratch.

The Great(est) Command(ment) is to love our Creator with all our being, and then love our neighbor as ourself.

As Jesus was of the House of David, and the Quran states that the Gospels were sent by God just as it was, there is the single foundation upon which religion rests.

Now, if only people earnestly sought to live their lives according to that greatest of commandments, to thus love their enemies and to treat others like they were treating Jesus, himself.

Of course, the paradox of tolerance requires that we love the oppressed more than the oppressor, so if we have to deal with folks with Nazi-like tendencies, we must love them (in our hearts) while we strip them of their power to harm others.

As with all things human, our having free will means it is completely our choice whether we seek to obey any of God's commands. Just know that we all reap what we sow, for good or ill, so I suggest you act on behalf of others' happiness whenever possible.

b800h• 1 year ago

paradox of tolerance requires that we love the oppressed more than the oppressor

You can't retrofit this onto biblical commands to love everyone equally. The Paradox demands nothing, and certainly doesn't have primacy over core religious tenets.

MrMcCall6• 1 year ago

No command ever says to love everyone equally.

We are to fill our hearts with love, so that even if we have to protect the oppressed, we are not to be filled with hate or rage or take any pleasure in vanquishing the aggressor.

We are to treat people according to what the society needs, for God's Will is peace and happiness for all human beings.

roenxi• 1 year ago

This article seems to be missing important context - prior to the mid 20th century sex had profound implications - it resulted in more babies, STDs (all diseases, really) which were much more threatening and the risks to the womans health in the event of pregnancy and/or abortions must have been a major concern. The workarounds to that were all terrible. And there was nothing in the way of social safety nets and not a lot of productive work for single mothers as I understand it.

It doesn't make sense to look at pre-1950s attitudes to sex as a religious phenomenon - or if it does it has to be acknowledged that religion wasn't working with the world we've built for ourselves today. There were real practical concerns that have only recently been worked around. It does seem fair to trace religious traditions on the subject but that really isn't the elephant in the room; sex had to be looked at through a different lens 100 years ago.

bitcoin_anon2• 1 year ago

There were real practical concerns that have only recently been worked around.

I would add the caveat that things have not been completely worked out yet. I agree that religious customs around sex served a practical purpose.

However, easier access to sexual pleasure seems to have unintended consequences. Traditionally, a woman and her family should be damn sure that a particular man is worthy of female costs of pregnancy. So there was more pressure exerted on men to be worthy of sex. Easy access to sexual pleasure lowers the bar for men.

stefs• 1 year ago

eh. "Easy access to sexual pleasure lowers the bar for men." if you mean that undesirable men are able to have sex for pleasure (without procreation) and thus don't need to better themselves in the eyes of women (i.e. in a moral and/or social sense), i doubt that's accurate. there was always prostitution and sexual violence as an outlet for those unwilling to better themselves.

if you mean that in a biological, evolutionary sexual selection sense, then easier access to sexual pleasure _with birth control_ doesn't change the big picture at all either.

of course, if a man wants to start a family - for love, stable companionship, socially/culturally accepted and probably easily accessible sex and, finally, passing on his genes - the need for bettering himself still applies now as it did then.

WhereIsTheTruth• 1 year ago

It's always funny reading pagans arguing about middle eastern religions

Boogie_Man• 1 year ago

The idea that David and Johnathan were having homosexual relations is a fairly recent one and (ironically) is to some extent reflective of the "nohomo bro" culture we currently inhabit. It deserves to be classed along with "Sherlock and Watson" and "Batman and Robin" relationship theories wherein the evidence is "dude look at this that's gay".

Male-Male homosexual relations are expressly forbidden in Pauline Christianity and it is not necessary to utilize Levitical law or Sodom to make this argument. Right wrong or indifferent, this is the case.

Please do not use this information to behave hatefully

mitchbob• 1 year ago

https://archive.ph/2025.02.26-183951/https://www.lrb.co.uk/t...

Take a Cold Bath

Related Stories