Reading Brooks and Wohlforth's America Abroad really made me rethink my priors on this. And I think that the bad things (wars of misadventure, coups and assassinations, etc.) aren't necessary evils to achieving the good parts. Or at least I hope.

websites.umich.edu/~eandersn/so... Elizabeth Anderson's complete fisking of her chapter “Where the Boys Are” is a perfect distillation of her intellectual dishonesty and bankruptcy.

It's from 2013 but Niobe Way's Deep Secrets: Boys’ Friendships and the Crisis of Connection is a really interesting book on that transition from the emotionally intimate and open relationships of boys in childhood and early adolescence to our later isolation and distrust as we become adults

I am very excited about seeing it in IMAX next week. I didn't see it in theaters in 2014.

Thanks for telling me about it; I found it at the library and it's very interesting so far

Maybe Alexander Braun's introductory essay for Taschen's George Herriman's Krazy Kat: The Complete Color Sundays 1935-1944. I liked the way it placed him in the broader intellectual and artistic trends of the period and the ways he was innovating, often years before the non-comics world caught up.

At least, I've been finding it worthwhile to read as an outsider because it has made me feel more confident that people who aren't reading in hateful ways aren't simply deluding themselves, which is basically what I'd been convinced of before. If they were, I'd think the whole exercise futile.

Maybe it's not possible ultimately to settle or unify, but I still think it's worthwhile (and possible) for Christians to have reasoned discussions about their faith and its scriptures and traditions.

I think we're on the same page until the end and that's where we're differing. I think that if we read their reasoning we could assess those arguments. Why do they say that the other argument is wrong and theirs is right? Even if they wouldn't acknowledge it, I do think we could, at least sometimes.

I agree, but then that's why I'm not religious lol. I'm taking it as a given that whoever we're talking about do agree on some premises like God's existence, the ability of sacred texts to communicate God's desires for us, etc. I'm not particularly confident in either but I can entertain the idea

Did I? I'm actually not sure I understand, can you explain?

IOW, two Christians arguing on theological grounds for the validity of their interpretations. They might also use the empirical evidence to bolster their case (or mutually support both sides of their case), but my emphasis was on the theological argument.

If I myself were arguing why hitting kids is bad, I would point to harms and outcomes, yes, and they would reject this as evidence when it is contradicted by their interpretation of the Bible, as you said. But when I suggested that sort of argument, I meant a person making a theological argument.

First, it's nice to see you here! And second, I guess it depends. If it's a subject where both sides can't both be right (here, one side says beating kids is obligatory; the other says it's bad), I think we could look at their arguments and come to a conclusion.

Well, perhaps not "win" but I'd like to think they could persuade. I've been persuaded by the theology reading I've done in recent years, albeit as a nonreligious person, that the worst interpretations generally seem the least well-supported.

I don't disagree that various expressions of a given religion, good or bad, are all examples of that religion, but do you think they are all equally valid? You gave an example of corporal punishment of children. Couldn't one side of that debate say to the other, you're doing it wrong and be correct?

Guess I may as well stop lurking at some point. I thought it was probably to do with how badly they lost in Kitzmiller v. Dover, which made it clear that it wasn't going to viable route of attacking evolution in schools. But I'm just speculating.