Reply With Quote
It does matter in more ways than one, but, regardless, it's a useful tool to drive the ignorant. I would rather people get an education and think for themselves, but I understand that's difficult to achieve.
Manifest Destiny wasn't about others.
It does matter in more ways than one, but, regardless, it's a useful tool to drive the ignorant. I would rather people get an education and think for themselves, but I understand that's difficult to achieve.
I do. Look at the WSJ video I posted above to Midnight. It explains without any political proselytizing how gun makers got around these placebo laws. I don't post proselytizing vids intentionally.
The intent of the law is for outcome A. Outcome A doesn't happen because the people who push for these laws don't understand what they are actually doing. It's either lazy or intentionally made placebo legislation. It's why the same assault weapons (in reality) are still sold in California despite a ban on them a decade or so ago.
And you could pick a better figure to emulate than Jesus.
Well, we disagree. Without the law there's no consequences... again, finding loopholes in a law only means we have to augment it, now that they're placebo.
Plenty of cases on this, including the regulation on explosives as we discussed, and there's nothing placebo about them, Tannerite notwithstanding.
If you can own the same weapon regardless, what teeth did the law have? So you cannot drop the magazine now without a slight maneuver to the frame. Now the gun doesn't meet the criteria to be banned but the effects of using that gun in the same way one could have used the original Colt AR-15 is exactly the same. Although the law will punish people for manufacturing and selling the original Colt AR-15 in California, the adjusted version only addresses cosmetic features, does nothing for the effectiveness of the platform as a killing tool if so desired.
I'd call that placebo legislation. The fact many people think California actually banned the gun is testament to that fact.
If someone like me, a relative neophyte gun person knows ahead of time that ineffective measures will be added into the legislation and it is, then sure it's a placebo and no, they will not change that.
I'd much rather have the Paddocks of the world have to shoot that way 30 floors up across the strip than have him use a bump stock, but you think it's exactly the same so win-win.
But that's the point we're discussing. You can't just own dynamite, generally speaking. What you're pointing out is that assault weapon regulation in general is much more lax, and that's what we're saying that needs to be addressed. Whether people are going to try and cir vent any laws is besides the point, that happens on almost every realm (taxes comes to mind).
You're assuming Christians can't "think for themselves" in the same way as someone with an "education." Or that someone with an education can't be indoctrinated with any manner of counterproductive to dangerous ideas. I don't see any difference in someone using Stoic philosophy to try and make sense of it all vs. someone using Christianity to make sense of it all. As long as those ideas are used rationally and sensibly, I don't have an issue. The biggest atrocities committed in the 20th century were influenced by a misinterpretation of Nietzsche and Darwinian evolution. The Nazis took Nietzsche's Superman concept way too literally and they used Darwinian evolution to justify eugenics (so did many other countries around the world). Point is, secular philosophy and ideas supposedly informed by science aren't inherently more "enlightened," because interpretation of those ideas still has to be filtered through human perspective. Depending on the perspective, those ideas can be used for good or for evil.
Evangelical Christianity is different than stoicism in that the rules are in essence rigid and unchanging.
If a Christian comes across a moral quandary such as sexuality, instead of using logic and reason to make decisions, they have been found to default to whatever the Bible says cuz God
Christianity has a built in flexibility in this regard because the Bible clearly states "Only God can judge." It's not the individual Christian's place to judge another person for their "sins." To clarify, I'm not a Christian, but the ideology is by no means morally bankrupt nor inherently more or less dangerous than another religion, secular philosophy, political ideology, etc.
That's because your NRA overlords haven't tried to convince your easily-manipulated ass that it's your god-given right to own dynamite. One social media ad from TP USA and you'd be in here creating a thread a day whining that you can't buy it. Such a tool.
Oh, but if you want to single out Evangelical Christianity, I agree that their interpretation of the religion leads to self-righteousness and dogmatic inflexibility.
"Only God can judge" is actually exactly why Christianity is inflexible. God's rules are laid out in the Bible. Same with Islam/Quran.
Christian legislators don't do the judging anyway. They propose the legislation which concerns me when it comes to things like public education.
Yeah, pretty much any person that is an extreme [insert religion] is a terrible person to have shaping public policy.
If they can keep their religion to themselves then we're good for the most part.
I don't think Christians can't think for themselves, I was merely responding about following X, Y or Z tenets. I rather people follow them not because of muh faith, but because they did their homework and understand where they come from, why they exist, and how they came to be (which in a nuts is what education is). Why they should be challenged, why you take some things wholesale and some not. There's nothing on Darwinian science that directly correlates to eugenics, it just takes a misunderstanding of science with a twisted mind, and an apparatus very akin to organized religion (lack of critical thinking, appeal to authority, dubious moral standards, etc) for that to flourish. Nietzsche was never a scientist.
The point is, science might certainly not be perfect, but should we apply the same rigorous scientific method in other realms, a lot of these phonies wouldn't be around, and this would be a better place.
My point about being difficult to achieve is that we live in a society that unfortunately devours people. I can't ask a person to do a lot of reading, learning, introspection on their own while they have two jobs and a family to feed. We live in a society that doesn't reward a career in philosophy or anthropology. This is stuff that you have to do largely yourself because of your own innate curiosity understanding why people do A or B or C, or because you want to better yourself.
As much as I come across as a religious hater, I actually think it was a useful psychological/societal tool when we didn't have the basics of society millennia ago and probably did save many lives then. I also know that it can psychologically help, even nowadays, rein in troubled individuals. But those things are not a prominent feature, they're simply utilitarian side effects. It really no different than when people mention that Nazis advanced technology greatly during their run. It's not a false claim, but it came at a ridiculous cost.
But it's not the human being's place to enforce those rules. Only God can "enforce" them, and the Christian would be in blasphemy to claim to know the mind of God and how he would judge any individual person.
That's not motivated by religion but by politics. If you're talking about Christians proposing things like teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution, I don't think the Bible has anything to say about that. Prayer in schools? Nothing to say about that, either. And prayer in schools would contradict the whole "Go to your room and pray" edict in the Bible.
But yes, Evangelicals have bas ized the religion to a cartoon level that deserves criticism to no end.
My point with bringing up Nietzsche and Darwin is that pretty much anything, from continental philosophy to amoral scientific fact, can be skewed and twisted by those "evil minds" you mentioned to justify all manner of atrocities. Organized religion isn't unique in motivating evil people to justify doing evil things.
We really can't do this with regard to belief. Science can't make value judgements and is only useful at discovering empirical fact. Since the existence of God is an unfalsifiable theory, science is rather irrelevant in this case. Pragmatically, the value of believing in God or practicing religion is subjective. Science can't tell that person they're wrong or right in terms of value.But should we apply the same rigorous scientific method in other realms
Since we live in an uncertain universe and there's questions and events that science fact nor empiricism will probably never answer nor make sense of, humans will always have a religious impulse. The "why" questions are beyond science. And that religious impulse doesn't always manifest itself in believing in "sky daddies." I think the next big "religion" over the following decades will be the Transhumanism/Singularity/AI movement, which is just as fanciful to me as believing in Zeus. Mind uploading into a "digital afterlife" to live forever. An omnipotent AI (that is basically God) magically emerging from Moore's Law exponential growth that will solve all our problems. Belief that we're the "ancestors" of some future post-human species that are simulating us for whatever reason. And these ideas are rather mainstream in the technolibertarian set in Silicon Valley. They pay Ray Kurzweil 25K per appearance to "sermonize" about it.As much as I come across as a religious hater, I actually think it was a useful psychological/societal tool when we didn't have the basics of society millennia ago and probably did save many lives then.
But I understand the want. Mortality sucks, so if having faith that you'll eventually be uploaded into Heaven gives you comfort, carry on. Personally, I wish I could believe some of this stuff, whether it's the sky daddy version or the Skynet version.
Only God can judge sinners. Men enforce God's laws on Earth. Leviticus and Deuteronomy lay out society laws and subsequent punishments rather clearly.
Uh are you really saying that prayer in school and creationism are not motivated by religion?That's not motivated by religion but by politics. If you're talking about Christians proposing things like teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution, I don't think the Bible has anything to say about that. Prayer in schools? Nothing to say about that, either. And prayer in schools would contradict the whole "Go to your room and pray" edict in the Bible.
But yes, Evangelicals have bas ized the religion to a cartoon level that deserves criticism to no end.
Just to be clear here
Yes. I think those people are trying to make a political statement with prayer in schools and creationism. The Bible had nothing to say about either. They're motivated by "owning the libs" petulance more than anything else.
The New Testament is supposed to override the Old Testament, right? My feeling about Christianity is that the buck ultimately stops with Jesus. He's the final authority, the living embodiment of God on Earth.
^For that which He said above, that He would make a new testament to the house of Judah, shows that the old testament which was given by Moses was not perfect; but that which was to be given by Christ would be complete.
I thought Genesis 1:1 was common knowledge.
I'll disagree that it's motivated by mostly "owning the libs".
It depends on which type of Christian you ask, but every popular American denomination and many non denominational Christian churches say the Old Testament still counts. They just never talk about the dark, evil parts in Sunday School.The New Testament is supposed to override the Old Testament, right? My feeling about Christianity is that the buck ultimately stops with Jesus. He's the final authority, the living embodiment of God on Earth.
Catholic thought feels God used evolution as his creative method. I still feel they use it to advanced their politics rather than religion. Start here at 6:35.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...ature=emb_logo
"The care more about their political ideology than their religion."
I think that's defined Evangelicals for the past 20 or more years. I remember in the Jesus Camp do entary, they brought out a George W. Bush standee and had the kids pray for him. False idols much? And holy (no pun), do they love Trump.
I mean, just
I grew up in a Catholic family and went to Catholic school all my life (evolution was taught) and I ain't never seen like this. We were taught to love everyone and help the poor and all that good stuff. No fire and brimstone and certainly no praying to cardboard figures of presidents.
Evangelicals are not even christians.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions