4 ms·

Can you give a source for this?

Reason077 4y ago
A quick search turned up this collection of wisdom: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_a_seriously_a_super_crazy_person_quotes/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_...
- user3939382 4y ago
  Some of the examples that he’s crazy there are just rules from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can disagree with it but being Catholic doesn’t make you crazy.
  - fs111 4y ago
    > You can disagree with it but being Catholic doesn’t make you crazy. Yes it does. Just because crazy ideas are spread by an old religious organization does not make them any less crazy. There is no provable god. Any of their beliefs are just that, beliefs. Nothing they "teach" can be verified or measured. It is all made up nonsense and you might as well call it crazy. People do not raise from the dead. We die, that's it.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I don't think it's necessary to denounce religion to criticize these views, and that's usually viewed as flamebait.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      > Just because crazy ideas are spread by an old religious organization does not make them any less crazy. I agree with this, for provably wrong, generally accepted as wrong, or blatantly contradictory statements. But from a secular perspective, believing in god(s) is just an approximation or heuristic. Some people need or want that. For my own thinking I've judged it as an questionable axiom that creates a logic hole large enough to drive a bulldozer through, but to each their own. What actually matters is the conclusions and behaviors a person builds on top of it.
    - anon291 4y ago
      Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality does not require there to be a God. In fact the reasoning is entirely secular. You may disagree with it, but that is the case. Catholic moral teaching on slavery is based on there being a God. When it comes to marriage, the church believes that relations between men and women that can result in the generation of a child are worthy of special privileges. Relations between impotent men or women who cannot have sex are similarly not considered marriage. If you can find two men or two women who produced a child, the church would change its beliefs, but no one has been able to do so. Note that there's no dependence on their being a god for this one. The fact that heterosexual couplings produce children is an observation. That this relationship should come with societal privilege is a statement one can come to through reason.
      - pmarreck 4y ago
        > Relations between impotent men or women who cannot have sex are similarly not considered marriage Is this indeed so?
        anon291 4y ago
        Yes, men who cannot have erections due to permanent disability or women without vaginas (whether due to surgery or existing disability) cannot marry in the church. It's always been the case.
        pmarreck 4y ago
        I thought I heard about all the dumb things in the church, but I thought wrong
  - maxbond 4y ago
    In my limited understanding as a non-Catholic, some of these are Traditionalist Catholic takes (notably the geocentrism), eg, rejecting the mild reforms of Vatican II. So, it being just the Catechism is something I think many Catholics would take issue with. I can't imagine any of the Catholics I've ever met offering up a defense of slavery.
    - user3939382 4y ago
      Some, some are almost verbatim out of the current (post-Vatican II) Catechism.
  - jsjohnst 4y ago
    Except he’s not “Catholic” (at least by what most define that as). Apparently he’s a sedevacantism follower.
  - voytec 4y ago
    It's ancient stuff which can be interpreted and translated to modern language but should not be taken literally. Apart from this, religions were created as means of society control. Some people need religion, some can find spirituality without it, some don't have such needs. This guy appears to be a person who would set someone on fire to make sure that they're not a witch.
    - user3939382 4y ago
      > It's ancient stuff which can be interpreted and translated to modern language but should not be taken literally. That's a debate that belongs to the Bible not the Catechism. The Catechism is updated all the time and published in an authorized modern English version.
  - thefounder 4y ago
    >> You can disagree with it but being Catholic doesn’t make you crazy. No more crazy than some people in the middle east. They are not crazy but you can say they are religious fanatics or as the people in the U.S prefer to say Right-Wing
Beltalowda 4y ago
https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_a_seriously_a_super_crazy_person_quotes/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_... Don't think it matters though; theft is still theft even if the victim is a nutjob, and it's still theft if he didn't protect his keys well enough. But today a crime is okay if you don't like someone. Hmkay.
- trudler 4y ago
  On a second thought: He reads like an extremely religious person. This actually makes me doubt the "tax evasion" story.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tonetheman 4y ago
    [dead]
- petee 4y ago
  I see it as accepting karma; the guy is clealy an idiot and an ass, and was responsible for losing their own money. Like if someone spread their money all over their lawn to show off; when it gets stolen, I'm not supporting the theft, but I can definitely laugh at the "victim" who did it to themselves. There is room for personal responsibility here...
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    There's a difference between "I'm ok with this" (which is what the comment further upthread said) and "lol, what an idiot". The first indicates approval of the crime, the second does not. Plus, it was purely based on his personal views, and not his op-sec (or lack thereof). Besides, it's not like he strewn all his money on the lawn; stealing the wallet + GPG key still took some significant effort. More like leaving a lot of money in the house with a shabby door and lock: not a smart idea, but you'd still have to break through the front door – crappy as it may be – to get at it. It wasn't a "crime of opportunity".

A quick search turned up this collection of wisdom: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_a_seriously_a_super_crazy_person_quotes/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_...

user3939382 4y ago
Some of the examples that he’s crazy there are just rules from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can disagree with it but being Catholic doesn’t make you crazy.
- fs111 4y ago
  > You can disagree with it but being Catholic doesn’t make you crazy. Yes it does. Just because crazy ideas are spread by an old religious organization does not make them any less crazy. There is no provable god. Any of their beliefs are just that, beliefs. Nothing they "teach" can be verified or measured. It is all made up nonsense and you might as well call it crazy. People do not raise from the dead. We die, that's it.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I don't think it's necessary to denounce religion to criticize these views, and that's usually viewed as flamebait.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    > Just because crazy ideas are spread by an old religious organization does not make them any less crazy. I agree with this, for provably wrong, generally accepted as wrong, or blatantly contradictory statements. But from a secular perspective, believing in god(s) is just an approximation or heuristic. Some people need or want that. For my own thinking I've judged it as an questionable axiom that creates a logic hole large enough to drive a bulldozer through, but to each their own. What actually matters is the conclusions and behaviors a person builds on top of it.
  - anon291 4y ago
    Catholic moral teaching on homosexuality does not require there to be a God. In fact the reasoning is entirely secular. You may disagree with it, but that is the case. Catholic moral teaching on slavery is based on there being a God. When it comes to marriage, the church believes that relations between men and women that can result in the generation of a child are worthy of special privileges. Relations between impotent men or women who cannot have sex are similarly not considered marriage. If you can find two men or two women who produced a child, the church would change its beliefs, but no one has been able to do so. Note that there's no dependence on their being a god for this one. The fact that heterosexual couplings produce children is an observation. That this relationship should come with societal privilege is a statement one can come to through reason.
    - pmarreck 4y ago
      > Relations between impotent men or women who cannot have sex are similarly not considered marriage Is this indeed so?
      - anon291 4y ago
        Yes, men who cannot have erections due to permanent disability or women without vaginas (whether due to surgery or existing disability) cannot marry in the church. It's always been the case.
        pmarreck 4y ago
        I thought I heard about all the dumb things in the church, but I thought wrong
- maxbond 4y ago
  In my limited understanding as a non-Catholic, some of these are Traditionalist Catholic takes (notably the geocentrism), eg, rejecting the mild reforms of Vatican II. So, it being just the Catechism is something I think many Catholics would take issue with. I can't imagine any of the Catholics I've ever met offering up a defense of slavery.
  - user3939382 4y ago
    Some, some are almost verbatim out of the current (post-Vatican II) Catechism.
- jsjohnst 4y ago
  Except he’s not “Catholic” (at least by what most define that as). Apparently he’s a sedevacantism follower.
- voytec 4y ago
  It's ancient stuff which can be interpreted and translated to modern language but should not be taken literally. Apart from this, religions were created as means of society control. Some people need religion, some can find spirituality without it, some don't have such needs. This guy appears to be a person who would set someone on fire to make sure that they're not a witch.
  - user3939382 4y ago
    > It's ancient stuff which can be interpreted and translated to modern language but should not be taken literally. That's a debate that belongs to the Bible not the Catechism. The Catechism is updated all the time and published in an authorized modern English version.
- thefounder 4y ago
  >> You can disagree with it but being Catholic doesn’t make you crazy. No more crazy than some people in the middle east. They are not crazy but you can say they are religious fanatics or as the people in the U.S prefer to say Right-Wing

Beltalowda 4y ago

https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_a_seriously_a_super_crazy_person_quotes/ https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/4936kw/lukejr_is_... Don't think it matters though; theft is still theft even if the victim is a nutjob, and it's still theft if he didn't protect his keys well enough. But today a crime is okay if you don't like someone. Hmkay.

trudler 4y ago
On a second thought: He reads like an extremely religious person. This actually makes me doubt the "tax evasion" story.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tonetheman 4y ago
  [dead]
petee 4y ago
I see it as accepting karma; the guy is clealy an idiot and an ass, and was responsible for losing their own money. Like if someone spread their money all over their lawn to show off; when it gets stolen, I'm not supporting the theft, but I can definitely laugh at the "victim" who did it to themselves. There is room for personal responsibility here...
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  There's a difference between "I'm ok with this" (which is what the comment further upthread said) and "lol, what an idiot". The first indicates approval of the crime, the second does not. Plus, it was purely based on his personal views, and not his op-sec (or lack thereof). Besides, it's not like he strewn all his money on the lawn; stealing the wallet + GPG key still took some significant effort. More like leaving a lot of money in the house with a shabby door and lock: not a smart idea, but you'd still have to break through the front door – crappy as it may be – to get at it. It wasn't a "crime of opportunity".