Ideas on how to curb mass shootings.

[Zeke's Chaingun]

You are just outright wrong. Your biblical knowledge is abysmal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

Very first paragraph:

"Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt."

I am not wrong, you're resorting to dishonesty again. I said "sin", I did not say "Original Sin".

Sin
noun
1.
an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.
"a sin in the eyes of God"
-------------
My use of the word fit just perfectly as I stated. You're trying to change what I was responding to by switching to Original Sin which is not what we were talking about in my post.

I did mention Original Sin earlier, in the context of how ridiculous it is because manking never had an Adam and Eve as the first of it's species. This is scientifically proven. We evolved as an animal into what we call the human species. There was never a "first human". There is a range in our ancestry that we generally accept modern man first existed.

Since the Original Sin story is false, then this whole system of Sin is undermined. I am further undermining it by underlining the idea that an animal that by nature cannot be perfect cannot be considered sinful in any divine sense.

See, you admit that falling is wrong. It is failing.

The right way to walk is upright, on two legs. If you fall on your butt...well that is the wrong way to walk.

Again, failure does not entail success, and success does not imply you failed. There are some things you will just succeed at on the first try. The two often go hand-and-hand, but not necessarily.

I admitted no such thing, and you yet again demonstrate your propensity to lie. How do you reconcile that with your Faith?

There is no sense in repeating myself on this irrelevant point. I've made it and you resort to lying about what I am doing. Failure is not wrong and it is not sinful. I feel I have demonstrated that fairly enough and if you refuse to accept it then we'll just move on.

They go to hell (for not accepting Christ)

There you have it folks! All it takes for this "moral God" to condemn you to an eternity of hellfire is for you to not accept the word of his followers! It doesn't matter that there is no evidence that grants this particular myth any greater claim to truth than any other myth in history, this "goodly God" will send you there for eternity for not guessing right! This is certainly the being we should go to for morality!

You are missing the point. Hell is not given as a motivation to follow Christ. You should accept Christ because accepting Christ is the right thing to do. If you are still looking at things from a risk/reward perspective, you have not truly accepted Christ.

A) I am not looking at choosing something based upon a risk/reward perspective. I choose something based upon it's supporting evidence - of which you have none. I condemn this idea as vicious, immoral, and utterly nonsensical based upon it's reward/risk system.
A perfect diving being must have perfect logic and reason, and the logic and reason behind an eternal infinite reward/punishment system for obscure unassisted choices in a very finite lifespan is uncomprehensively dumb.

Let's take a second to understand infinity. A Googol is the number "1" followed by 100 zeros. An incredibly large number. A googolplex is considered so unimaginably large that you could not even write it out as there isn't enough space in the known Universe to do it. Yet the number googolplex is exactly the same distance from infinity as is the number 1.
In your own acknowledged stance, a person who failed to guess right on Jesus - since there is no evidence to validate it as being true - they must pay the price of infinity in Hell for the mistake one makes in this very finite life. A modern child could come up with a superior system than this. Your system is one that would fit right in with bronze age sheepherders.

B) You have in NO WAY demonstrated that choosing Christ is the right thing to do. Since there is not any evidence that gives greater credence to Christianity over any myth one can think of you have all your work ahead of you before you can make such a claim as it being the right thing to do.
Your position is easy to understand from the inside looking out. You're a part of a cult that has taken hold of your mind and fashioned a world view that cannot exist in any other way. From the outside looking in it is painfully obvious that you are holding no greater grasp on truth than any claimsayer in the history of mankind. There is nothing special about your position. For someone who has been bought hook, line, and sinker it will certainly appear that way, however that is how such things work. It is how they presently work on members of other ridiculous cults. You are the same as them, preachers of truth who all equally devoid of it.

God is all-good. Morality stems from God. By definition, He cannot commit an immoral act.

If you judge something He does as immoral, it your moral compass that is messed up, not His.

So God rewards child sacrifice in the Bible and thus child sacrifice is a moral act. The Bible tells us to stone to death all non-virgins on their wedding night and thus it is a moral act. Got it.

You couldn't have made it any more plain for anyone reading this. Religion is not a source of morality. Religion takes otherwise good and sensible people and gives them cause to do and say wickedly evil things.

Strawman. I acknowledge all of those things. Can you please not make up arguments for me? I am more the capable of supplying you with my own.

Oh really? So how many non-virgins have you slain? How many Jesus-deniers have you added to your kill count? If you say zero then you are choosing which parts of the Bible to obey and which ones to ignore. You are in fact choosing to obey your own morality.

Strawman. I didn't say that you said that. You said that Christianity approaches things from a reward/punishment angle. I corrected you. Nothing more.

No, you lied and I corrected you above.

But people are sinful by nature. You already admitted this. Why are you going back on your words?

I never admitted this and have spent much time discarding "sin" completely. That has been the basis of my argument and that has been plain to anyone reading this. You once more resort to lies and misinformation. Does the Bible grant you permission for dishonesty when confronted by an infidel?

Ah! So you admit that your system of morality is flawed. Let me quote an earlier post of yours.

There, you argue that certain actions are immoral because they "upset the natural social order". Now you are saying that sometimes moral action is the one that upsets the natural social order.

Clearly, this is a contradiction, and natural social order can have relationship to morality.

You are going to have to come up with a new morality system. You have just contradicted yourself.

I have not contradicted myself. First, let's not forget that you just admitted that slavery is okay because it might disturb the social order. Let's keep that focus on the forefront here.

Society is an ever evolving thing. It is in the interest of man to ever evolve to a more moral, fair, and equal society. We began our history in small groups that were hunter gatherers and slowly evolved to work together in much larger groups. Since that time we have improved how we treat one another, and we are still evolving our society in that direction - with great difficulty thanks in part to the parties of God who constantly stand in the way of this (ie homosexuality, women, slavery, Promised Land, etc). If a society is one that violates and destroys the individual rights of others then it should be undermined and improved so that all can have freedom and liberty.

The example I used before was in regards to immoral action affecting the life and liberty of the society. A society that carries slaves and regards women as property is a society that is already infringing upon the rights and liberties of others. That in itself is an immoral act for the advancement of that society - particularly from those who suffer the evil of others. Those who believe that it is their right to own the lives of others. Reason and logic are the tools used to establish a moral society.

Exactly. We agree. Unless the child is taught that he/she ought to make moral decisions, they are at increased risk for making immoral decisions. Why are you arguing with me on this? It should be self-evident.

I am arguing against your use of the word sin. I deny the use of that word as there is no apparant Divine Law without a Divine Creator.

 

[Zeke's Chaingun]

More strawmen. The barn is going to be empty before long.

That's not a straw man. I am wondering if you even know what a straw man is.

I'm not ignoring anything from the Bible. I stand by it, word for word.

So what is your non-virgin and infidel kill count? How many have you stoned to death? Have you put out your eye for sinning? Have you cut off your hand yet? You are an admitted sinner, have you followed the commandments of Matthew 5:27-32? Or will you instead attempt to twist the meaning of words clearly written?

Advances in Nazi medicine also benefited all of mankind. Where the Nazi's moral?

I never said the Nazi's were moral, I said that greed and coveting things are not necessarily evil or good. It can be either. I clearly said this.

Your argument that "I covet wealth, and make a good invention that benefits everyone" is basically a "ends justify the means" argument. Those have all been utterly destroyed. See: Any philosopher of ethics in the last 4000 years.

THIS is a straw man. I did not say the ends justify the means. That was not my point at all. I was very clear, yet in your deluded state you appear incapable of comprehension. To covet something or to posses greed is not necessarily evil or good on it's own. If my greed for power leads me to murder all opposition and their families (Like in North Korea) that is clearly a bad thing. However if I covet wealth and to accomplish this goal I invent something that benefits mankind and make a profit off of it, then my greed served mankind as a good thing.

My point should be clear. To covet or possess greed is not necessarily good or bad in of itself. That is later defined by your action.

Yes. And? Moral and Immoral character do not cancel each other out. You can do both immoral and moral things. You should strive to minimize the immoral, and maximize the moral.

You're avoiding the point. You attempted to have it one way. According to you our propensity to do immoral things makes us immoral, but you do not acknowledge or propensity to do moral things as making us moral. You're trying to have it only one way and that betrays you.

I contend that we are both moral and immoral. We are natural creatures and we behave within our natural ability to behave. This is not sinful, it is natural. I do not believe an immoral act is sinful because I deny the argument from Divine Authority. I believe that morality and immoralty is something that we use reason and logic to define within our lives and our world.

A definition that describes everything isn't a useful definition.

Your argument is

Everything that exists is natural. No things that are supernatural are natural. Therefore, no supernatural things exist.

This is a textbook examples "Begging the question"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

I deny your framework. I will help you out.

Everything we have evidence for is a part of the natural Universe/Multiverse. There is no evidence of anything supernatural existing. We live in a natural Universe/Multiverse

It appears the fallacy in your thinking is that science has a monopoly on truth. It doesn't. There are many paths to truth. Things can be true, even if science hasn't discovered it yet. The earth revolved around the sun for billions of years before scientists figured it out.

Science is a method of discerning truth. The most effective method that we have. The Earth revolved around the Sun for billions of years and it was only scientific reasoning that discovered this to be true. It was Faith-thinking that supported the incorrect answer. The same goes for disease. Science discovered Germ Theory, Faith-based thinking argued demonic possession. We can go on and on with this. Scientific analysis is incredibly more efficient and discerning the truth over Faith-based thinking.

The universe is full of truths that science has not, or cannot uncover.

Science should be used as a tool. You are turning it into a dogma.

There is much that we do not know, absolutely. Our use of Science hasn't revealed all of the secrets of the Universe to us, yes. But at least it's WORKING.

To the latter line, that's nonsense. I am doing no such thing.

Science works. Science constantly is and constantly has been replacing Faith-based reasoning for centuries. So much that used to be the province of religion is being taken over by actual knowledge revealed to us through scientific inquiry. The holes that religion occupies grows ever smaller. Faith-based reasoning - which is the bedrock of religion - has demonstrated time and time again it's utter failure while science continually works and increases our actual knowledge and reveals truths that religion cannot even begin to touch upon.

How much more elegant and beautiful is the Universe with the knowledge of science? How much more interesting is the Universe understanding that it was once a tiny thing and expanded during inflation to the unimaginable size it is today? How much more interesting are galaxies and solar systems with our understanding of gravity? How much more remarkable is life with our understanding of Evolution?

 

[Serana]

Don't leave guns lying around the house for psychopaths to steal. Keep them secure.