GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
Post Reply
User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 15391
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by hugodrax » Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:45 am

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:30 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:24 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:06 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:57 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:45 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:37 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:30 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:26 am
Your hate for conservative Christians is your god.

Article is a direct attack on Christians and you support that. Its very strange that it is not labeled "Alabama has a gun problem" or "Man kills teen due to strange gun laws". No, it says a "Christian gun toting NRA conservative who secretly worships at the alter of guns purposefully set up a bad gun deal to kill a teen because he knew that's how it was going to be done legally"
Was anyone involved in the situation a Christian? YOU DONT KNOW
Did this incident happen because it was in the bible belt? YOU DONT KNOW
Was anyone involved in the incident completely infatuated with guns to the point of worship? YOU DONT KNOW
This was horrible journalism. Those three things listed in the article were assumed and not proven. That my Bob friend is FAKE NEWS. I hate it when it is done on the right or the left. You cant even say that he is just writing opinion. Look at the title "MAKE NO MISTAKE: THIS IS FACT" yet he provides no facts.
This could have been two racist liberals. We wont know in this article because they just assumed the opposite due to Social Justice. Social Justice teaches us that everyone in the social group of the bible belt fits this standard. We are allowed to judge on social group with a broad brush. If it happens in the Bible Belt then the fact is white, Christian, conservative, backwoods red-necked anti-science bigots.
LOL!!
Apparently I satisfied a troll by feeding it.
First, it is an opinion piece--not "news". Second, it is a criticism of how American Christians equate Americanism with Christianity. Third, oh no! Someone may disagree with you! What to do? I know...TRUMP ATTACK! You say I may be an idolater..YOU'RE THE IDOLATER! LOL!!

I love it.
We have talked about this before so you know I don't play team politics. Screw Trump or praise Trump on the basis of what he does not on the basis of what team I'm on. The fact is this article sparked nothing in me about Trump, nothing in me about the 2nd Amendment. This struck straight at Christianity. I urge everyone to reread the article. How did they link this to Christianity at all? It is anti-Christian and as you said, you love it.

If you love it because you think it gets at Trumpers then I have this question for you. Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? If you are getting in bed with anti-Christians because they are anti-Trumpers you may want to rethink your morals.
This article is not about Trumpers. It does criticize Christians with tying Americanism to Christianity.

No, I said that you are using a Trump tactic of "Im not X.. YOU'RE X!" instead of dealing with the issue at hand.

Oh, and if you think I am anti-Christian... well.. I just don't know how I can live with that. <sniff!>
Exactly! It criticizes Christians of tying Americanism to Christianity. A problem that I believe should be addressed. But in what way does the story he is writing about relate to this problem at all? Because the people involved were Christians? Because they worship at the alter of guns? This is a sloppy attack on Christianity because there is zero basis that Christianity has anything to do with the situation at hand.

Look at it from this perspective.

"Pornography IS the God of the Bible Belt!"
Last Saturday two men were found watching pornography....... in Alabama.
It's a fair criticism. And Christianity as a religion is fair game to criticize. Guns and religion are tied together in the minds of many and Lord knows it seems that many Americans think the second amendment is in the Bible somewhere. The fact that you see it at as attack on Christianity would seem that the criticism was fairly levied.
My word, Bob. How much of what you say do you actually believe?
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
Jester
Pastor
Pastor
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by Jester » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:09 am

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:30 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:24 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:06 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:57 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:45 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:37 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:30 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:26 am
Your hate for conservative Christians is your god.

Article is a direct attack on Christians and you support that. Its very strange that it is not labeled "Alabama has a gun problem" or "Man kills teen due to strange gun laws". No, it says a "Christian gun toting NRA conservative who secretly worships at the alter of guns purposefully set up a bad gun deal to kill a teen because he knew that's how it was going to be done legally"
Was anyone involved in the situation a Christian? YOU DONT KNOW
Did this incident happen because it was in the bible belt? YOU DONT KNOW
Was anyone involved in the incident completely infatuated with guns to the point of worship? YOU DONT KNOW
This was horrible journalism. Those three things listed in the article were assumed and not proven. That my Bob friend is FAKE NEWS. I hate it when it is done on the right or the left. You cant even say that he is just writing opinion. Look at the title "MAKE NO MISTAKE: THIS IS FACT" yet he provides no facts.
This could have been two racist liberals. We wont know in this article because they just assumed the opposite due to Social Justice. Social Justice teaches us that everyone in the social group of the bible belt fits this standard. We are allowed to judge on social group with a broad brush. If it happens in the Bible Belt then the fact is white, Christian, conservative, backwoods red-necked anti-science bigots.
LOL!!
Apparently I satisfied a troll by feeding it.
First, it is an opinion piece--not "news". Second, it is a criticism of how American Christians equate Americanism with Christianity. Third, oh no! Someone may disagree with you! What to do? I know...TRUMP ATTACK! You say I may be an idolater..YOU'RE THE IDOLATER! LOL!!

I love it.
We have talked about this before so you know I don't play team politics. Screw Trump or praise Trump on the basis of what he does not on the basis of what team I'm on. The fact is this article sparked nothing in me about Trump, nothing in me about the 2nd Amendment. This struck straight at Christianity. I urge everyone to reread the article. How did they link this to Christianity at all? It is anti-Christian and as you said, you love it.

If you love it because you think it gets at Trumpers then I have this question for you. Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? If you are getting in bed with anti-Christians because they are anti-Trumpers you may want to rethink your morals.
This article is not about Trumpers. It does criticize Christians with tying Americanism to Christianity.

No, I said that you are using a Trump tactic of "Im not X.. YOU'RE X!" instead of dealing with the issue at hand.

Oh, and if you think I am anti-Christian... well.. I just don't know how I can live with that. <sniff!>
Exactly! It criticizes Christians of tying Americanism to Christianity. A problem that I believe should be addressed. But in what way does the story he is writing about relate to this problem at all? Because the people involved were Christians? Because they worship at the alter of guns? This is a sloppy attack on Christianity because there is zero basis that Christianity has anything to do with the situation at hand.

Look at it from this perspective.

"Pornography IS the God of the Bible Belt!"
Last Saturday two men were found watching pornography....... in Alabama.
It's a fair criticism. And Christianity as a religion is fair game to criticize. Guns and religion are tied together in the minds of many and Lord knows it seems that many Americans think the second amendment is in the Bible somewhere. The fact that you see it at as attack on Christianity would seem that the criticism was fairly levied.
False. The attack on Christianity was in the headline.

Had the article been written in a way that replaced "Bible Belt" with "Inner City Birmingham". Had the article replaced "God" with natural rights. Then and only then if I drew the conclusion that it was an attack on Christianity I would be a loony ideologue.
The article also confuses rights according to the Constitution. It explains how rights are not created equal because of government oppression. This assumes that government gives rights. This is an error. God gives rights and the constitution protects the rights God gave us. If there are any unlawful limitations on your rights it is un-Constitutional.
The article doesn't seem to be worried about the rights it thinks are being infringed but rather arguing that we should infringe more on other rights because we have done it before. The enemy of the government is an un-perverted God given right.
You have the right to worship as you please, unless your God demands peyote.
An an original constitutionalist would suggest this is government overreach.
You have the inalienable right to pursue happiness - until it infringes on the public good.
This is an oxymoron. Either he wrote this quick or he hasn't read the constitution. He didn't want to write "infringes others rights". This is plainly in the constitution so I don't know what he is complaining about here.
You have a right to a speedy trial, but speedy's in the eye of the beholder. You have the right not to be saddled with excessive bail. But a judge decides what is excessive.
I agree with him here on both of these. The problem here is this is caused by massive government inflation. A government that can fit back into the box it came in wouldn't have the funds for this kind of crap and would have to push things through faster. That's were big government leftist come in and delay trials and executions that can drag on for 30 years. I understand they want to prevent mistrials but you cant complain about long trials if you want policy. Perhaps bail wouldn't cost so much if the trials went faster and they didn't have to hold them in a cell and feed them.
And you have the right to keep and bear arms. It's a right like any other, to be respected and protected and guided by logic, wisdom and common sense.
I believe this is where he shows his hand. He is not upset all other rights have been infringed and taken over by government. He is upset that this one hasn't been.

But this is how the article went. I will complain about the Constitution and when I link it to Christianity you then will become an Americanized Christian. This is a leftist tactic that doesn't allow Americans to defend the Constitution. Can I not know that I have been saved by the God of all things and agree with the Constitution?
I smoke a cigar because the body is a temple and the temple needs incense. -Michael Knowles

Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

When chaos manifests itself, what makes you think that anyone tame will be good for anything? -Jordan B. Peterson

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32672
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:30 am

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:45 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:30 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:24 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:06 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:57 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:45 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:37 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:30 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:26 am
Your hate for conservative Christians is your god.

Article is a direct attack on Christians and you support that. Its very strange that it is not labeled "Alabama has a gun problem" or "Man kills teen due to strange gun laws". No, it says a "Christian gun toting NRA conservative who secretly worships at the alter of guns purposefully set up a bad gun deal to kill a teen because he knew that's how it was going to be done legally"
Was anyone involved in the situation a Christian? YOU DONT KNOW
Did this incident happen because it was in the bible belt? YOU DONT KNOW
Was anyone involved in the incident completely infatuated with guns to the point of worship? YOU DONT KNOW
This was horrible journalism. Those three things listed in the article were assumed and not proven. That my Bob friend is FAKE NEWS. I hate it when it is done on the right or the left. You cant even say that he is just writing opinion. Look at the title "MAKE NO MISTAKE: THIS IS FACT" yet he provides no facts.
This could have been two racist liberals. We wont know in this article because they just assumed the opposite due to Social Justice. Social Justice teaches us that everyone in the social group of the bible belt fits this standard. We are allowed to judge on social group with a broad brush. If it happens in the Bible Belt then the fact is white, Christian, conservative, backwoods red-necked anti-science bigots.
LOL!!
Apparently I satisfied a troll by feeding it.
First, it is an opinion piece--not "news". Second, it is a criticism of how American Christians equate Americanism with Christianity. Third, oh no! Someone may disagree with you! What to do? I know...TRUMP ATTACK! You say I may be an idolater..YOU'RE THE IDOLATER! LOL!!

I love it.
We have talked about this before so you know I don't play team politics. Screw Trump or praise Trump on the basis of what he does not on the basis of what team I'm on. The fact is this article sparked nothing in me about Trump, nothing in me about the 2nd Amendment. This struck straight at Christianity. I urge everyone to reread the article. How did they link this to Christianity at all? It is anti-Christian and as you said, you love it.

If you love it because you think it gets at Trumpers then I have this question for you. Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? If you are getting in bed with anti-Christians because they are anti-Trumpers you may want to rethink your morals.
This article is not about Trumpers. It does criticize Christians with tying Americanism to Christianity.

No, I said that you are using a Trump tactic of "Im not X.. YOU'RE X!" instead of dealing with the issue at hand.

Oh, and if you think I am anti-Christian... well.. I just don't know how I can live with that. <sniff!>
Exactly! It criticizes Christians of tying Americanism to Christianity. A problem that I believe should be addressed. But in what way does the story he is writing about relate to this problem at all? Because the people involved were Christians? Because they worship at the alter of guns? This is a sloppy attack on Christianity because there is zero basis that Christianity has anything to do with the situation at hand.

Look at it from this perspective.

"Pornography IS the God of the Bible Belt!"
Last Saturday two men were found watching pornography....... in Alabama.
It's a fair criticism. And Christianity as a religion is fair game to criticize. Guns and religion are tied together in the minds of many and Lord knows it seems that many Americans think the second amendment is in the Bible somewhere. The fact that you see it at as attack on Christianity would seem that the criticism was fairly levied.
My word, Bob. How much of what you say do you actually believe?
I believe that any religion and any institution derived from that religion are subject to criticism. I also believe that the more adherents of that religion and/or its institutions say they are not subject to criticism then the more likely they need to be criticized.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32672
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:37 am

Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:09 am
The article also confuses rights according to the Constitution. It explains how rights are not created equal because of government oppression. This assumes that government gives rights. This is an error. God gives rights and the constitution protects the rights God gave us. If there are any unlawful limitations on your rights it is un-Constitutional.
This, right here, is the issue and may be why he tied gun rights to the Bible belt. Did God give us the right to bear arms? And if so, did He give us the right to own guns? The freedom of speech? Right to assembly? A free press? No, but this is how Americanism gets tied to Christianity.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 15391
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by hugodrax » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:38 am

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:30 am
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:45 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:30 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:24 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 10:06 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:57 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:45 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:37 am
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:30 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:26 am
[quote=UncleBob post_id=1123121 time=1487860233 user_id=139]
Make no mistake: The gun is God in the Bible Belt
Your hate for conservative Christians is your god.

Article is a direct attack on Christians and you support that. Its very strange that it is not labeled "Alabama has a gun problem" or "Man kills teen due to strange gun laws". No, it says a "Christian gun toting NRA conservative who secretly worships at the alter of guns purposefully set up a bad gun deal to kill a teen because he knew that's how it was going to be done legally"
Was anyone involved in the situation a Christian? YOU DONT KNOW
Did this incident happen because it was in the bible belt? YOU DONT KNOW
Was anyone involved in the incident completely infatuated with guns to the point of worship? YOU DONT KNOW
This was horrible journalism. Those three things listed in the article were assumed and not proven. That my Bob friend is FAKE NEWS. I hate it when it is done on the right or the left. You cant even say that he is just writing opinion. Look at the title "MAKE NO MISTAKE: THIS IS FACT" yet he provides no facts.
This could have been two racist liberals. We wont know in this article because they just assumed the opposite due to Social Justice. Social Justice teaches us that everyone in the social group of the bible belt fits this standard. We are allowed to judge on social group with a broad brush. If it happens in the Bible Belt then the fact is white, Christian, conservative, backwoods red-necked anti-science bigots.
LOL!!
Apparently I satisfied a troll by feeding it.
First, it is an opinion piece--not "news". Second, it is a criticism of how American Christians equate Americanism with Christianity. Third, oh no! Someone may disagree with you! What to do? I know...TRUMP ATTACK! You say I may be an idolater..YOU'RE THE IDOLATER! LOL!!

I love it.
We have talked about this before so you know I don't play team politics. Screw Trump or praise Trump on the basis of what he does not on the basis of what team I'm on. The fact is this article sparked nothing in me about Trump, nothing in me about the 2nd Amendment. This struck straight at Christianity. I urge everyone to reread the article. How did they link this to Christianity at all? It is anti-Christian and as you said, you love it.

If you love it because you think it gets at Trumpers then I have this question for you. Is the enemy of my enemy my friend? If you are getting in bed with anti-Christians because they are anti-Trumpers you may want to rethink your morals.
This article is not about Trumpers. It does criticize Christians with tying Americanism to Christianity.

No, I said that you are using a Trump tactic of "Im not X.. YOU'RE X!" instead of dealing with the issue at hand.

Oh, and if you think I am anti-Christian... well.. I just don't know how I can live with that. <sniff!>
Exactly! It criticizes Christians of tying Americanism to Christianity. A problem that I believe should be addressed. But in what way does the story he is writing about relate to this problem at all? Because the people involved were Christians? Because they worship at the alter of guns? This is a sloppy attack on Christianity because there is zero basis that Christianity has anything to do with the situation at hand.

Look at it from this perspective.

"Pornography IS the God of the Bible Belt!"
Last Saturday two men were found watching pornography....... in Alabama.
It's a fair criticism. And Christianity as a religion is fair game to criticize. Guns and religion are tied together in the minds of many and Lord knows it seems that many Americans think the second amendment is in the Bible somewhere. The fact that you see it at as attack on Christianity would seem that the criticism was fairly levied.
My word, Bob. How much of what you say do you actually believe?
I believe that any religion and any institution derived from that religion are subject to criticism. I also believe that the more adherents of that religion and/or its institutions say they are not subject to criticism then the more likely they need to be criticized.
[/quote]

Yes, that's fair enough, I suppose. The last bit doesn't necessarily follow, but I certainly agree with the first bit. Do you think that article did a good job of expressing criticism? Do you think you know the hearts of men sufficiently to be the critic?

I don't ask to be a dick. I read that article and found it polemical and filled with good sentiment, but the two didn't seem linked. And reading what you said, it seems the very fact somebody feels attacked is in itself proof that he needed to be attacked. That doesn't follow.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32672
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:49 am

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:38 am

Yes, that's fair enough, I suppose. The last bit doesn't necessarily follow, but I certainly agree with the first bit. Do you think that article did a good job of expressing criticism? Do you think you know the hearts of men sufficiently to be the critic?

I don't ask to be a dick. I read that article and found it polemical and filled with good sentiment, but the two didn't seem linked. And reading what you said, it seems the very fact somebody feels attacked is in itself proof that he needed to be attacked. That doesn't follow.
Well first, these are my beliefs which are just as subject to criticism. :D If you read my posts you may find that I don't criticize people's motives. I do criticize policies or theologies or other ideas as expressed.

Second, I thought he did a piss-poor job laying out his argument in his opinion piece but that the thesis is sound enough to consider.

Third, if someone internalizes a criticism and feels attacked then (1) that is on the reader and (2) could be a sign that the criticism hit home.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 15391
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by hugodrax » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:04 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:49 am
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:38 am

Yes, that's fair enough, I suppose. The last bit doesn't necessarily follow, but I certainly agree with the first bit. Do you think that article did a good job of expressing criticism? Do you think you know the hearts of men sufficiently to be the critic?

I don't ask to be a dick. I read that article and found it polemical and filled with good sentiment, but the two didn't seem linked. And reading what you said, it seems the very fact somebody feels attacked is in itself proof that he needed to be attacked. That doesn't follow.
Well first, these are my beliefs which are just as subject to criticism. :D If you read my posts you may find that I don't criticize people's motives. I do criticize policies or theologies or other ideas as expressed.

Second, I thought he did a piss-poor job laying out his argument in his opinion piece but that the thesis is sound enough to consider.

Third, if someone internalizes a criticism and feels attacked then (1) that is on the reader and (2) could be a sign that the criticism hit home.
Consider this a piece in my ongoing series "How Not to Fight With Bob."

Point the first, excepting the motives of Mr. Trump and his supporters/henchmen, is freely granted. You're usually pretty good at that.

Second, completely agreed. Sound thesis thumped by polemical writing.

Third, part the first: Usually, but not always. Sometimes the intent is in fact to make the reader feel attacked. Third, part the second: I have a difficult time with this; while it is certainly possible that it hit home because there's at least a kernel of truth in the criticism, it seems at least as likely to me that something can hit home because it was an ad hominem attack--and that's the kind I don't blame the reader for taking offense.

Now, applying the principles to a completely spurious ad hominem attack. The brother of tuttle has been accused of being a gun-totin', beer-swillin', cousin-humping son of the backwoods what think God Almighty, who can only be truly approached through the King James Bible, gave him the God-given right to have himself an AR. Because the young man has never even considered humping a cousin and does not own an AR, he got angry. Does he have the right to do so? Was there something in that article that might have set him off quite intentionally? In other words, was the intent of the author to piss off the tuttle's brothers of the world just for fun?
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32672
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:12 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:04 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:49 am
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:38 am

Yes, that's fair enough, I suppose. The last bit doesn't necessarily follow, but I certainly agree with the first bit. Do you think that article did a good job of expressing criticism? Do you think you know the hearts of men sufficiently to be the critic?

I don't ask to be a dick. I read that article and found it polemical and filled with good sentiment, but the two didn't seem linked. And reading what you said, it seems the very fact somebody feels attacked is in itself proof that he needed to be attacked. That doesn't follow.
Well first, these are my beliefs which are just as subject to criticism. :D If you read my posts you may find that I don't criticize people's motives. I do criticize policies or theologies or other ideas as expressed.

Second, I thought he did a piss-poor job laying out his argument in his opinion piece but that the thesis is sound enough to consider.

Third, if someone internalizes a criticism and feels attacked then (1) that is on the reader and (2) could be a sign that the criticism hit home.
Consider this a piece in my ongoing series "How Not to Fight With Bob."

Point the first, excepting the motives of Mr. Trump and his supporters/henchmen, is freely granted. You're usually pretty good at that.

Second, completely agreed. Sound thesis thumped by polemical writing.

Third, part the first: Usually, but not always. Sometimes the intent is in fact to make the reader feel attacked. Third, part the second: I have a difficult time with this; while it is certainly possible that it hit home because there's at least a kernel of truth in the criticism, it seems at least as likely to me that something can hit home because it was an ad hominem attack--and that's the kind I don't blame the reader for taking offense.

Now, applying the principles to a completely spurious ad hominem attack. The brother of tuttle has been accused of being a gun-totin', beer-swillin', cousin-humping son of the backwoods what think God Almighty, who can only be truly approached through the King James Bible, gave him the God-given right to have himself an AR. Because the young man has never even considered humping a cousin and does not own an AR, he got angry. Does he have the right to do so? Was there something in that article that might have set him off quite intentionally? In other words, was the intent of the author to piss off the tuttle's brothers of the world just for fun?
I don't know the author's intent, do you? We could contact him and ask, I suppose, but short of that, who knows? Well, unless he states it. When someone reads unknown intent into a post or any writing that is on the reader. Some of that is natural--read Fish's work on that--but that only clouds the argument: the point the author is making. All we have is the rhetoric.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Jocose
a large Chinese man named Wu
a large Chinese man named Wu
Posts: 19803
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Moonbase Alpha
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by Jocose » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:15 pm

By golly, I think y'all cured my insomnia! Thanks and goodnight!
"And for Freds sake, DO NOT point anyone towards CPS or you'll put them off of both Christianity and pipe smoking forever." ~ FredS

Image

User avatar
Thunktank
Terminal Lance. Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Terminal Lance.  Perpetual Sea Lawyer. Unicorn Aficionado
Posts: 20861
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Ad Orientem

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by Thunktank » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:22 pm

When I read the article, I remembered one time when I bought a 22 from a farmer when I was 16. The cultural gulf is huge! Now I live in CA and shudder at the thought of selling any gun private party even with background checks. In one culture, guns are everywhere and farm tools, the other guns are basically bad and a freedom to be tolerated.

Opinion pieces dominate news and news itself is judged by a lower standard than ever. Here we are doing pretty much the same thing with each other while arguing over the purity of news. I actually believe that the public needs to demand fair and balanced news from professional news organizations free of opinion of any kind. No vendetta to suppprt either. And that news may only cover one event at a time as thoroughly as possible no matter how boring the details. But we are going to have to watch it as opposed to the more entertaining opinions. Good luck chuck.

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 15391
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by hugodrax » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:27 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:12 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:04 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:49 am
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:38 am

Yes, that's fair enough, I suppose. The last bit doesn't necessarily follow, but I certainly agree with the first bit. Do you think that article did a good job of expressing criticism? Do you think you know the hearts of men sufficiently to be the critic?

I don't ask to be a dick. I read that article and found it polemical and filled with good sentiment, but the two didn't seem linked. And reading what you said, it seems the very fact somebody feels attacked is in itself proof that he needed to be attacked. That doesn't follow.
Well first, these are my beliefs which are just as subject to criticism. :D If you read my posts you may find that I don't criticize people's motives. I do criticize policies or theologies or other ideas as expressed.

Second, I thought he did a piss-poor job laying out his argument in his opinion piece but that the thesis is sound enough to consider.

Third, if someone internalizes a criticism and feels attacked then (1) that is on the reader and (2) could be a sign that the criticism hit home.
Consider this a piece in my ongoing series "How Not to Fight With Bob."

Point the first, excepting the motives of Mr. Trump and his supporters/henchmen, is freely granted. You're usually pretty good at that.

Second, completely agreed. Sound thesis thumped by polemical writing.

Third, part the first: Usually, but not always. Sometimes the intent is in fact to make the reader feel attacked. Third, part the second: I have a difficult time with this; while it is certainly possible that it hit home because there's at least a kernel of truth in the criticism, it seems at least as likely to me that something can hit home because it was an ad hominem attack--and that's the kind I don't blame the reader for taking offense.

Now, applying the principles to a completely spurious ad hominem attack. The brother of tuttle has been accused of being a gun-totin', beer-swillin', cousin-humping son of the backwoods what think God Almighty, who can only be truly approached through the King James Bible, gave him the God-given right to have himself an AR. Because the young man has never even considered humping a cousin and does not own an AR, he got angry. Does he have the right to do so? Was there something in that article that might have set him off quite intentionally? In other words, was the intent of the author to piss off the tuttle's brothers of the world just for fun?
I don't know the author's intent, do you? We could contact him and ask, I suppose, but short of that, who knows? Well, unless he states it. When someone reads unknown intent into a post or any writing that is on the reader. Some of that is natural--read Fish's work on that--but that only clouds the argument: the point the author is making. All we have is the rhetoric.
Heh, and that ends the series. I always thought I was a professional Bullpucky artist. I bow to the master.

Part of the ability to read critically is to determine intent. Part of the ability to write effectively is to have a purpose. If you attempt, even for a moment, to tell me that that author wasn't trying to call anybody who disagreed with him a flaming redneck, I'll leave you be. The language was purposefully polemical. Part of reading is to determine what is meant. Charitably, I agree. But to tell me not to attempt to determine the intent, I have a hard time with that.
Last edited by hugodrax on Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
Jester
Pastor
Pastor
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by Jester » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:35 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:37 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:09 am
The article also confuses rights according to the Constitution. It explains how rights are not created equal because of government oppression. This assumes that government gives rights. This is an error. God gives rights and the constitution protects the rights God gave us. If there are any unlawful limitations on your rights it is un-Constitutional.
This, right here, is the issue and may be why he tied gun rights to the Bible belt. Did God give us the right to bear arms? And if so, did He give us the right to own guns? The freedom of speech? Right to assembly? A free press? No, but this is how Americanism gets tied to Christianity.
If a man was found raping your wife would stop him with force? If you were being aggressively attacked on the street would you use your fist as a weapon? If a person was attacking your family or stranger in any way, do you have a God given right to bear an arm and use it against that person? Did God give us a right to defend ourselves? I think you would have to drive a real hard case to show me otherwise.
Guns make it easy to kill people... so do rocks.

Why is it Americanized Christianity to believe that I have God-given rights? Is it because Chinese Christianity would say that we have little to no rights?
I smoke a cigar because the body is a temple and the temple needs incense. -Michael Knowles

Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

When chaos manifests itself, what makes you think that anyone tame will be good for anything? -Jordan B. Peterson

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32672
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:48 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:27 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:12 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:04 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:49 am
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:38 am

Yes, that's fair enough, I suppose. The last bit doesn't necessarily follow, but I certainly agree with the first bit. Do you think that article did a good job of expressing criticism? Do you think you know the hearts of men sufficiently to be the critic?

I don't ask to be a dick. I read that article and found it polemical and filled with good sentiment, but the two didn't seem linked. And reading what you said, it seems the very fact somebody feels attacked is in itself proof that he needed to be attacked. That doesn't follow.
Well first, these are my beliefs which are just as subject to criticism. :D If you read my posts you may find that I don't criticize people's motives. I do criticize policies or theologies or other ideas as expressed.

Second, I thought he did a piss-poor job laying out his argument in his opinion piece but that the thesis is sound enough to consider.

Third, if someone internalizes a criticism and feels attacked then (1) that is on the reader and (2) could be a sign that the criticism hit home.
Consider this a piece in my ongoing series "How Not to Fight With Bob."

Point the first, excepting the motives of Mr. Trump and his supporters/henchmen, is freely granted. You're usually pretty good at that.

Second, completely agreed. Sound thesis thumped by polemical writing.

Third, part the first: Usually, but not always. Sometimes the intent is in fact to make the reader feel attacked. Third, part the second: I have a difficult time with this; while it is certainly possible that it hit home because there's at least a kernel of truth in the criticism, it seems at least as likely to me that something can hit home because it was an ad hominem attack--and that's the kind I don't blame the reader for taking offense.

Now, applying the principles to a completely spurious ad hominem attack. The brother of tuttle has been accused of being a gun-totin', beer-swillin', cousin-humping son of the backwoods what think God Almighty, who can only be truly approached through the King James Bible, gave him the God-given right to have himself an AR. Because the young man has never even considered humping a cousin and does not own an AR, he got angry. Does he have the right to do so? Was there something in that article that might have set him off quite intentionally? In other words, was the intent of the author to piss off the tuttle's brothers of the world just for fun?
I don't know the author's intent, do you? We could contact him and ask, I suppose, but short of that, who knows? Well, unless he states it. When someone reads unknown intent into a post or any writing that is on the reader. Some of that is natural--read Fish's work on that--but that only clouds the argument: the point the author is making. All we have is the rhetoric.
Heh, and that ends the series. I always thought I was a professional Bullpucky artist. I bow to the master.

Part of the ability to read critically is to determine intent. Part of the ability to write effectively is to have a purpose. If you attempt, even for a moment, to tell me that that author wasn't trying to call anybody who disagreed with him a flaming redneck, I'll leave you be. The language was purposefully polemical. Part of reading is to determine what is meant. Charitably, I agree. But to tell me not to attempt to determine the intent, I have a hard time with that.
There is a difference between suspecting and knowing. What metric would you use to measure intent?
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32672
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:48 pm

Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:35 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:37 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:09 am
The article also confuses rights according to the Constitution. It explains how rights are not created equal because of government oppression. This assumes that government gives rights. This is an error. God gives rights and the constitution protects the rights God gave us. If there are any unlawful limitations on your rights it is un-Constitutional.
This, right here, is the issue and may be why he tied gun rights to the Bible belt. Did God give us the right to bear arms? And if so, did He give us the right to own guns? The freedom of speech? Right to assembly? A free press? No, but this is how Americanism gets tied to Christianity.
If a man was found raping your wife would stop him with force? If you were being aggressively attacked on the street would you use your fist as a weapon? If a person was attacking your family or stranger in any way, do you have a God given right to bear an arm and use it against that person? Did God give us a right to defend ourselves? I think you would have to drive a real hard case to show me otherwise.
Guns make it easy to kill people... so do rocks.

Why is it Americanized Christianity to believe that I have God-given rights? Is it because Chinese Christianity would say that we have little to no rights?
Cool. Then give up your guns, as Christians, and carry rocks.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Jester
Pastor
Pastor
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by Jester » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:58 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:48 pm
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:35 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:37 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:09 am
The article also confuses rights according to the Constitution. It explains how rights are not created equal because of government oppression. This assumes that government gives rights. This is an error. God gives rights and the constitution protects the rights God gave us. If there are any unlawful limitations on your rights it is un-Constitutional.
This, right here, is the issue and may be why he tied gun rights to the Bible belt. Did God give us the right to bear arms? And if so, did He give us the right to own guns? The freedom of speech? Right to assembly? A free press? No, but this is how Americanism gets tied to Christianity.
If a man was found raping your wife would stop him with force? If you were being aggressively attacked on the street would you use your fist as a weapon? If a person was attacking your family or stranger in any way, do you have a God given right to bear an arm and use it against that person? Did God give us a right to defend ourselves? I think you would have to drive a real hard case to show me otherwise.
Guns make it easy to kill people... so do rocks.

Why is it Americanized Christianity to believe that I have God-given rights? Is it because Chinese Christianity would say that we have little to no rights?
Cool. Then give up your guns, as Christians, and carry rocks.
Why?
I smoke a cigar because the body is a temple and the temple needs incense. -Michael Knowles

Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

When chaos manifests itself, what makes you think that anyone tame will be good for anything? -Jordan B. Peterson

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32672
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:05 pm

Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:58 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:48 pm
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:35 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:37 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:09 am
The article also confuses rights according to the Constitution. It explains how rights are not created equal because of government oppression. This assumes that government gives rights. This is an error. God gives rights and the constitution protects the rights God gave us. If there are any unlawful limitations on your rights it is un-Constitutional.
This, right here, is the issue and may be why he tied gun rights to the Bible belt. Did God give us the right to bear arms? And if so, did He give us the right to own guns? The freedom of speech? Right to assembly? A free press? No, but this is how Americanism gets tied to Christianity.
If a man was found raping your wife would stop him with force? If you were being aggressively attacked on the street would you use your fist as a weapon? If a person was attacking your family or stranger in any way, do you have a God given right to bear an arm and use it against that person? Did God give us a right to defend ourselves? I think you would have to drive a real hard case to show me otherwise.
Guns make it easy to kill people... so do rocks.

Why is it Americanized Christianity to believe that I have God-given rights? Is it because Chinese Christianity would say that we have little to no rights?
Cool. Then give up your guns, as Christians, and carry rocks.
Why?
That way you have your "God-given" right to defend yourself without tying it to a "God-given" right to a gun in the Constitution. That way the nation can have a conversation about gun control without tying it to religion. Would you not have the means to defend and the right to defend even if guns were banned?
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
hugodrax
All Around Nice Guy
All Around Nice Guy
Posts: 15391
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by hugodrax » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:10 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:48 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:27 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:12 pm
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:04 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:49 am
hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:38 am

Yes, that's fair enough, I suppose. The last bit doesn't necessarily follow, but I certainly agree with the first bit. Do you think that article did a good job of expressing criticism? Do you think you know the hearts of men sufficiently to be the critic?

I don't ask to be a dick. I read that article and found it polemical and filled with good sentiment, but the two didn't seem linked. And reading what you said, it seems the very fact somebody feels attacked is in itself proof that he needed to be attacked. That doesn't follow.
Well first, these are my beliefs which are just as subject to criticism. :D If you read my posts you may find that I don't criticize people's motives. I do criticize policies or theologies or other ideas as expressed.

Second, I thought he did a piss-poor job laying out his argument in his opinion piece but that the thesis is sound enough to consider.

Third, if someone internalizes a criticism and feels attacked then (1) that is on the reader and (2) could be a sign that the criticism hit home.
Consider this a piece in my ongoing series "How Not to Fight With Bob."

Point the first, excepting the motives of Mr. Trump and his supporters/henchmen, is freely granted. You're usually pretty good at that.

Second, completely agreed. Sound thesis thumped by polemical writing.

Third, part the first: Usually, but not always. Sometimes the intent is in fact to make the reader feel attacked. Third, part the second: I have a difficult time with this; while it is certainly possible that it hit home because there's at least a kernel of truth in the criticism, it seems at least as likely to me that something can hit home because it was an ad hominem attack--and that's the kind I don't blame the reader for taking offense.

Now, applying the principles to a completely spurious ad hominem attack. The brother of tuttle has been accused of being a gun-totin', beer-swillin', cousin-humping son of the backwoods what think God Almighty, who can only be truly approached through the King James Bible, gave him the God-given right to have himself an AR. Because the young man has never even considered humping a cousin and does not own an AR, he got angry. Does he have the right to do so? Was there something in that article that might have set him off quite intentionally? In other words, was the intent of the author to piss off the tuttle's brothers of the world just for fun?
I don't know the author's intent, do you? We could contact him and ask, I suppose, but short of that, who knows? Well, unless he states it. When someone reads unknown intent into a post or any writing that is on the reader. Some of that is natural--read Fish's work on that--but that only clouds the argument: the point the author is making. All we have is the rhetoric.
Heh, and that ends the series. I always thought I was a professional Bullpucky artist. I bow to the master.

Part of the ability to read critically is to determine intent. Part of the ability to write effectively is to have a purpose. If you attempt, even for a moment, to tell me that that author wasn't trying to call anybody who disagreed with him a flaming redneck, I'll leave you be. The language was purposefully polemical. Part of reading is to determine what is meant. Charitably, I agree. But to tell me not to attempt to determine the intent, I have a hard time with that.
There is a difference between suspecting and knowing. What metric would you use to measure intent?
That changes with the situation, wouldn't you agree? I mean, there's a difference between the rubrics for attempting to determine legislative intent and reading an article. Word choice and tone tell a lot.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is this: are you telling me not to try to determine intent because it is unknowable, or to be damned careful of being cocksure that I've determined the right intent?

The second, I get behind one hundred percent. Look at our own interactions--I've certainly been mistaken as to your intent before now. We've felt each other out on a few occasions too, to make sure we weren't trying to get under the other's skin.

The first, I abominate. It's essentially telling me to drop my gloves completely and take it on the chin and not respond. This approach only really works in an academic setting. It's a laboratory approach, for lack of a better term: without absolutely controlled conditions, it fails.

If I was to adopt this approach, I'd be constantly writing follow up letters for definition and never resolving a case. I'd be reading the newspaper and not bothering to try to understand the underlying motives of the author.

Now, on the other hand, I think tuttle's brother is making a great mistake assuming you wrote the article.
Etiam mihi opinio anserem perirent.

User avatar
UncleBob
CPS Theological Dogmatician
CPS Theological Dogmatician
Posts: 32672
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX USA
Contact:

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by UncleBob » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:17 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:10 pm
That changes with the situation, wouldn't you agree? I mean, there's a difference between the rubrics for attempting to determine legislative intent and reading an article. Word choice and tone tell a lot.

I guess what I'm trying to figure out is this: are you telling me not to try to determine intent because it is unknowable, or to be damned careful of being cocksure that I've determined the right intent?

The second, I get behind one hundred percent. Look at our own interactions--I've certainly been mistaken as to your intent before now. We've felt each other out on a few occasions too, to make sure we weren't trying to get under the other's skin.

The first, I abominate. It's essentially telling me to drop my gloves completely and take it on the chin and not respond. This approach only really works in an academic setting. It's a laboratory approach, for lack of a better term: without absolutely controlled conditions, it fails.

If I was to adopt this approach, I'd be constantly writing follow up letters for definition and never resolving a case. I'd be reading the newspaper and not bothering to try to understand the underlying motives of the author.

Now, on the other hand, I think tuttle's brother is making a great mistake assuming you wrote the article.
I'm saying that intent can be knowable if one follows up with the author. If the author says "X" and you suspect "Y" then one needs more evidence. However, one can never know apart from the author's input even if one can suspect. Now, one can treat the author as if their intention is "Y" even though they said "X" but that is on The Reader; it seldom reflects reality and generally tells other readers more about The Reader than the author or the author's intent.
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh." - Robert A. Heinlein

"Many of the points here, taken to their logical conclusions, don't hold up to logic; they're simply Godded-up ways of saying "I don't like that." - Skip

User avatar
Jester
Pastor
Pastor
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by Jester » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:18 pm

hugodrax wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:10 pm
Now, on the other hand, I think tuttle's brother is making a great mistake assuming you wrote the article.
I don't believe he wrote the article. I do believe he stands beside it.
I smoke a cigar because the body is a temple and the temple needs incense. -Michael Knowles

Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

When chaos manifests itself, what makes you think that anyone tame will be good for anything? -Jordan B. Peterson

User avatar
Jester
Pastor
Pastor
Posts: 805
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 1:10 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: GUNS! That's what's happenin'!

Post by Jester » Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:30 pm

UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 1:05 pm
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:58 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:48 pm
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:35 pm
UncleBob wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:37 am
Jester wrote:
Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:09 am
The article also confuses rights according to the Constitution. It explains how rights are not created equal because of government oppression. This assumes that government gives rights. This is an error. God gives rights and the constitution protects the rights God gave us. If there are any unlawful limitations on your rights it is un-Constitutional.
This, right here, is the issue and may be why he tied gun rights to the Bible belt. Did God give us the right to bear arms? And if so, did He give us the right to own guns? The freedom of speech? Right to assembly? A free press? No, but this is how Americanism gets tied to Christianity.
If a man was found raping your wife would stop him with force? If you were being aggressively attacked on the street would you use your fist as a weapon? If a person was attacking your family or stranger in any way, do you have a God given right to bear an arm and use it against that person? Did God give us a right to defend ourselves? I think you would have to drive a real hard case to show me otherwise.
Guns make it easy to kill people... so do rocks.

Why is it Americanized Christianity to believe that I have God-given rights? Is it because Chinese Christianity would say that we have little to no rights?
Cool. Then give up your guns, as Christians, and carry rocks.
Why?
That way you have your "God-given" right to defend yourself without tying it to a "God-given" right to a gun in the Constitution. That way the nation can have a conversation about gun control without tying it to religion. Would you not have the means to defend and the right to defend even if guns were banned?
So you separate yourself from the Constitution because you believe in slavery? No, you stand against it because you agree with the Constitution as do I. For some reason you have this strange notion that agreeing with the Constitution automatically makes chimera Christian-Constitutionalists hybrids. So I can agree with lots of stuff in there until you disagree with it. Then I make guns my god.
I agree with free-speech. Is free-speech my god? I agree with a speedy trial. Is a speedy trial my god? I agree we can bear arms. Does that make bearing arms my god?
I smoke a cigar because the body is a temple and the temple needs incense. -Michael Knowles

Pumpkin Ale is more American than apple pie! -Tuttle

When chaos manifests itself, what makes you think that anyone tame will be good for anything? -Jordan B. Peterson

Post Reply