........

I have no words.

[42c] I’M CALLING IT ANONS.

I'M CALLING THE DEATH OF QUEEN ELIZABETH II ON 12/27/2020

THREAD POSTED ON DECEMBER 14, 2020

DECEMBER 14, DEC 1+4, D5.

PART ##4 CHESS 4D
PART ##5 CHESS 5D

d4.d5 FaLL of THE QUEEN

[13] DAYS TO PROVE ME WRONG

@ImPranav_M @GunduHuDuGa That's a good qsn, if not a bit nuanced. Avataras are of many varieties and frankly, most of the classification is only for our understanding and not really binding on Paramatma Himself. We can take several approaches to understanding this. If you go by a Vedantic approach,+

@GunduHuDuGa Avatara means that which descends from an exalted state (Taara). Going by Upanishadic observaton of Purnam adham purnam idham, every manifestation of Bhagavan is indeed wholesome. In fact, Avataras usually happen when Iswara is propitiated with certain qualities already+

@GunduHuDuGa described in the Vedas by other Devatas. So, in order to please them, He assumes the form that best envisages the said Vaidika tatvam. For example, Varaha and Nrusimha avatars, though they have sthoola prayojanas, also exemplify the Tejovanna tatvam propounded by Upanishads.+

@GunduHuDuGa All these tatvams ultimately emanate from Him so whatever form He takes is indeed Purna. Now, one may ask then if that's the case, why such a distinction had to be made in the first place. That is because of upasana vidhis and understanding of how Bhagavad tatvam shines+

@GunduHuDuGa with each Leela being performed. Let's take Nrusimha avatar. The purpose of the avatar is neither to save Hiranyakasipu nor rescue Prahlada. For that He need not descend down as H's boons are applicable only for Brahman's creation and not Paramatma Himself.+

Survivorship Bias 101

History is written by the victors. But if we exclusively focus on these successes, we allow survivorship bias to distort our understanding of the world.

But what is "survivorship bias" and how does it work?

Here's Survivorship Bias 101!

👇👇👇

1/ First, a few definitions.

Survivorship bias is the logical error of concentrating on survivors (successes) and ignoring casualties (failures).

When we do so, we miss the true "base rates" of survival (the actual probability of success) and arrive at flawed conclusions.

2/ When we completely ignore failures, we lose our ability to correctly identify the differences between successes and failures.

Put simply, exclusively focusing on successes may actually inhibit our ability to identify (and replicate) the actions that led to such success.

3/ Cicero wrote on the topic over 2,000 years ago.

An atheist named Diagoras is shown portraits of people who prayed and were saved from death at sea as proof of God's existence.

Diagoras replies, "I see those who were saved, but where are those painted who were shipwrecked?"

4/ Cicero cuts right to the point - we cannot conclude that prayer led to being saved from the sea if we ignore those who prayed and then drowned.

Survivorship bias can lead to a deeply-flawed understanding of cause-and-effect relationships.

Let's look at some examples.

As a scholar who has researched and written quite a bit about the Anabaptists, can we set a few things straight?

1. Baptists are not Anabaptists. Their history is theirs; ours is ours. We have similarities, but we are not them. We honor them by not using them for our purposes.

2. Not all Anabaptists were in Münster, and many if not most Anabaptists at the time were just as appalled as we are by the Münsterites. So please drop the tropes equating all Anabaptists with Münster. Informed and honest scholars are known by their right retelling of history.

3. The same truth applies to the other types of Reformation Radicals. There is a great difference between those who have become known as Evangelical Anabaptists on the one hand and Spiritualists, Rationalists, etc. on the other hand. Respect them as you also wish to be respected.

4. Yes, there were Anabaptists who toyed with various heresies, including Arianism, Socinianism, and Celestial Flesh Christology. But there were also many Anabaptists who affirmed, commented upon, and used the traditional Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.

And if you want to do the honest research, you can also find a few heretical Roman Catholic Popes and more than a few heretical Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans. and whomever else you want to talk about. Good historical theology doesn’t play favorites; it speaks the truth.