Police Officers Are Mostly Parasites

[Sour Masher]

If folks have not seen it, the Joe Rogan Experience interview with Davis is worth checking out, before it goes away (I think Rogan's stuff will all be off Youtube soon):

[Ken]

If folks have not seen it, the Joe Rogan Experience interview with Davis is worth checking out, before it goes away (I think Rogan's stuff will all be off Youtube soon):

I've seen that one. Daryl Davis has balls of steel.

[Sour Masher]

Like I said--I am not like you, though I can see your viewpoint and at onetime, shared it. Now I'm more realistic and am not gonna tolerate anything I don' t have to and taking shit from bullies is one of those things. I also don't believe people are inherently good--not anymore. More hate? It's hard to believe there could BE more.

I get it...I'm not like me either, btw. My first instinct is anger. I have a temper that I must actively fight against, and I am fiercely protective of those who are being bullied, like you. I don't know what I'd do in some of these situations, if push came to shove. But I try to fight that part of myself. I want to be more like the Daryl Davis' of the world. He has done a lot more good in this world that I have. I think you want to do good too. Hard to argue with his results. Maybe his way is the better way?

[Sour Masher]

GITH, you are no fan of religion. It strikes me that your stance on good and evil actually fits pretty well within a religious context. Does that give you pause to reconsider your stance?

One big problem I have with faiths that base salvation on devotion to a specific God is how ethnocentric and patently unfair the process of salvation is in that context. Let's say you accept and believe, for instance, that God had a "son" who was sent to save humanity, and through him was the only path to eternal bliss and happiness. All other paths were barred. Then, logically, your belief system is favoring all those who got that message and believed that truth, and damning all those that have not. The system makes ignorance a sin punishable by eternal damnation. Not just evil, but ignorance. What kind of system is that? Not one a benevolent God would create.

While I agree with you that some people are just rotten to the core, broken, beyond repair, a disease upon society, what percentage of people in hate groups to you think fit that description, and what percentage are just ignorant, raised in hate and fear and lies, that could be cured of that hate, if only, somehow, they could learn the gospel of love, respect, empathy? Your spray of bullets does not parse such things. It damns the whole room, just like a religion that says billions of people who have not heard the new secret way into heaven all deserve to go to hell (before this thread goes further afield, I realize Christianity has answers for this issue...but they are not good ones to me).

[chancellor]

SM, your Christianity reference is in error, at least according to standard Catholic, Orthodox, and all mainline Protestant churches. If you want the tangent, I’ll be happy to elaborate, but ignorance does not lead to damnation.

[Sour Masher]

SM, your Christianity reference is in error, at least according to standard Catholic, Orthodox, and all mainline Protestant churches. If you want the tangent, I’ll be happy to elaborate, but ignorance does not lead to damnation.

I am aware that the position on the unlearned has evolved over time, as is only logical, but that only tells me that they evolved toward common sense, not that the evolved position has a firmer foundation in scripture than the beliefs espoused in the past by foundational figured such as Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc. The position evolved, because the initial position was absurd, though many still believe it, hence the moral imperative to spread the Word. Even a generous reading, that puts this belief in modern religion on the fringe, with Jehovah Witnesses and the like, ignore the basic tenant of Christianity and Islam that at the very least, the unlearned must know and believe that there is one God who rewards good and punishes evil, or they have no shot at salvation. That excludes a lot of people.

And if you are focused on the difference between damnation and not being saved. If you have a heaven, and you cannot get in based on ignorance, you are being excluded from eternal bliss. If you want to say that the church has evolved past damning unbaptized babies and the unlearned to hell, but admit that many believed and some still do believe that they cannot get into heaven, to me, it amounts to much the same thing. And if you do not concede that belief, surely you concede that those who have heard the message and reject it are barred from salvation, and there, it comes to the same thing. Those that heard and denied may have done so, because they were ignorant. Ignorance instead of evil is still the ultimate sin.

[Teenwolf]

Daryl Davis is brave, but this protestor at Trump rallies is downright suicidal. I love his work. This blow-up pig costume prank is hilarious. He carries a sign that says "All Pigs Matter", at other times "Allah Bless America"... he's used an American flag as a prayer rug at MAGA rallies. Whenever he's asked who's paying him he claims he's being paid $50 by George Soros, CNN, etc.

The right wing loves "triggering libs", with very little counter-fire. This felt cathartic.

[chancellor]

I am aware that the position on the unlearned has evolved over time, as is only logical, but that only tells me that they evolved toward common sense, not that the evolved position has a firmer foundation in scripture than the beliefs espoused in the past by foundational figured such as Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc. The position evolved, because the initial position was absurd, though many still believe it, hence the moral imperative to spread the Word.

If you mean "evolved over time" from roughly 200 to about 480, that would be accurate. If you're talking since the founding of the US, just to choose a time reference, nope. It's a common canard, but wholly inaccurate and not in accordance with any orthodox teachings of any major Christian religion.

As for Islam, that I'm unable to comment on. I've never tackled that topic relative to Islamic theology.

[Sour Masher]

If you mean "evolved over time" from roughly 200 to about 480, that would be accurate. If you're talking since the founding of the US, just to choose a time reference, nope. It's a common canard, but wholly inaccurate and not in accordance with any orthodox teachings of any major Christian religion.

As for Islam, that I'm unable to comment on. I've never tackled that topic relative to Islamic theology.

Well, I disagree that this matter was settled 1500 years ago. Again, Calvin was clear he believed salvation was possible only through Christ and the Church (which is even more problematic). He said, "beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for." I cite Calvin, because you mention the US, and he obviously had a tremendous influence on Christianity in America. And even if you put stock in the inclusivists, their arguments, again, are problematic, because they still rely on "heathens" knowing God in their imperfect/wrong way and following him in some way...it seems like an easy and ambiguous out to me.

But putting that aside, just because the position evolved, does not matter much when the faith is based on the Bible. The Truth is the Word. While theologians may interpret scripture differently based on shifting social values and opinions, the scripture itself offers conflicting views on this--the original view and the one still held by many today had scriptural support. Here are some examples that support the position that the unlearned have no path to God (and beyond them, I still argue that those who have heard the Word and rejected it can also be thought of as ignorant, much like those raised in hate reject that all people deserve equal treatment...they were raised that way and often do not understand the new message of love).

1 John 5:11-12
And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

1 Corinthians 3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

You can deny these claims, and make counterclaims based on other scripture, and much smarter folks than me that know the Bible better than me have, but none of it has convinced me that it is anything more than very smart people wriggling toward a more comfortable conclusion that allows them to believe their God does not exclude the ignorant from heaven, when the scripture itself suggests he does. Pointing to conflicting scripture just proves how convoluted and contradictory the totality of the Christian canon is.

[chancellor]

Well, I disagree that this matter was settled 1500 years ago. Again, Calvin was clear he believed salvation was possible only through Christ and the Church (which is even more problematic). He said, "beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for." I cite Calvin, because you mention the US, and he obviously had a tremendous influence on Christianity in America. And even if you put stock in the inclusivists, their arguments, again, are problematic, because they still rely on "heathens" knowing God in their imperfect/wrong way and following him in some way...it seems like an easy and ambiguous out to me.

But putting that aside, just because the position evolved, does not matter much when the faith is based on the Bible. The Truth is the Word. While theologians may interpret scripture differently based on shifting social values and opinions, the scripture itself offers conflicting views on this--the original view and the one still held by many today had scriptural support. Here are some examples that support the position that the unlearned have no path to God (and beyond them, I still argue that those who have heard the Word and rejected it can also be thought of as ignorant, much like those raised in hate reject that all people deserve equal treatment...they were raised that way and often do not understand the new message of love).

1 John 5:11-12
And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.

1 Corinthians 3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

You can deny these claims, and make counterclaims based on other scripture, and much smarter folks than me that know the Bible better than me have, but none of it has convinced me that it is anything more than very smart people wriggling toward a more comfortable conclusion that allows them to believe their God does not exclude the ignorant from heaven, when the scripture itself suggests he does. Pointing to conflicting scripture just proves how convoluted and contradictory the totality of the Christian canon is.

You can disagree all you want, but the issue was resolved bridging virtually every major Christian faith a long, long time ago. You're tilting at windmills that literally don't exist in any major canon, and haven't for literally hundreds of years.

[Sour Masher]

You can disagree all you want, but the issue was resolved bridging virtually every major Christian faith a long, long time ago. You're tilting at windmills that literally don't exist in any major canon, and haven't for literally hundreds of years.

I ask this sincerely--how can an issue be resolved and a consensus be accepted by the faithful, if it contracts the words of the scripture and those attributed to Christ himself? How do you reconcile what you say is the universal current response to this issue (I'd appreciate if you point me to evidence for this being completely settled for one and all for centuries) with the scripture and conflicting positions both historical and current within Christianity? What makes something "true" within a religion based on the Word of God? It isn't the consensus of theologians, is it? It is the Words attributed to God, and that seems to be in conflict with the majority opinion right now, isn't it? How can you say that exlusionist concepts do not exist in any major canon, when the Bible is the canon and it exists there?

ETA: And I'd be grateful for what brand of inclusivism you are saying is considered accepted truth among all Christians, because my understanding is that it differs a great deal across denominations and churches. My understanding is that the most widely held inclusivist position is that faith in God is still required. Is that not your contention? Please point me to the evidence to the contrary. My understanding of the inclusivism position may be lacking. I looked around for something that summarizes the things I've read on it and this site seems as good as any: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/a...-havent-heard/. It is written by an Evangelical in the reformed tradition with an MDiv and who has written many books on Christianity. It covers the many flavors of inclusivism, universalism, and pluralism, showing that there is no clear consensus, lots of room for debate based on scripture, and a confirmation that the historical position of the church has been to teach exclusivism, in its many forms.

Here is a passage that sums up my understanding:

"Historically, the church has primarily taught church exclusivism, gospel exclusivism, special revelation exclusivism, or pessimistic agnosticism. They have typically regarded optimistic agnosticism as problematic, general revelation inclusivism as an error, and world religions inclusivism, postmortem evangelism, universalism, and pluralism as very serious errors."

Do you disagree with his breakdown and the claims about the historical stances of "the church" (though I recognize that his use of that singular term is problematic)? I can think of even modern examples that seem pretty mainstream to me that preached exclusivism, like Billy Graham, for most of his life (after 60 years of preaching exclusivism, he switched right at the end). Do you not consider Billy Graham to be mainstream?

The Christians I most admire adhere to inclusivism, but not everyone does, and I'm still not clear on the specific inclusivist stance you are saying is agreed upon by all mainstream Christians. I suspect it still excludes many from heaven, does it not?

[Sour Masher]

My larger point, related to this thread was that GITH's stance of "kill them all and let the God I don't believe in sort them out" is flawed. It is consistent in my belief that the answer is not to do away with police, but to educate and reform them. Defunding police and allowing private security that is even less regulated fill that void is going to make things worse, not better. And trying to end hate groups by fulfilling their white genocide fantasy and going in to shoot them all like a left-wing Dylan Roof is not the answer. I hope most of us can agree on that.

[GwynnInTheHall]

My larger point, related to this thread was that GITH's stance of "kill them all and let the God I don't believe in sort them out" is flawed. It is consistent in my belief that the answer is not to do away with police, but to educate and reform them. Defunding police and allowing private security that is even less regulated fill that void is going to make things worse, not better. And trying to end hate groups by fulfilling their white genocide fantasy and going in to shoot them all like a left-wing Dylan Roof is not the answer. I hope most of us can agree on that.

First I didn't say-kill em all. And when I say God in any context, it's usually to simply use a saying or the like.

I merely advocate using lethal force to even the odds.

I also have never advocated abolishing the police--I've said fuck those guys and have advocated the reimagining of Law Enforcement, but there will always be a need for security to a degree, just not the degree they're used for today.

People suck and unless you want to become/remain a punching bag, you need to stand up for yourself and words, though they resonate with some or completely ineffective with others. Turning the other cheek doesn't inspire everyone to change their stripes, it just reinforces their notion that you're an easy mark and they can come at you even harder with no threat of reprisal or accountability.

The road you seek to travel is one I walked for decades of my life and got the shit beat out of me doing so--I'm not inclined to allow that to happen anymore. Nor do I care to watch as others get beat down simply for being nice people and trying to do the right thing. Even the Godly have advocated killing to advance their ideals so it's not a new concept to use deadly force as a tool for good.

FWIW if the hate groups are worried they're about to be wiped out it's because they know, deep down, what they espouse is wrong. And they SHOULD be fearful, drive this shit back under the rocks it was living. make it wholly unacceptably through law, social pressure or fear of ones safety to be part of these shit groups. Delegitimize it, make it something you dare to do or risk your life to do.

Simple saying it's bad and you should change has done what? Maybe changed one or two people's lives, but in the end has been essentially ineffective.

And yeah, I have daydreamed about snapping my Thanos fingers and riding the world of all the shitbags at once. A lot less messy than my AK47 at a Klan rally moments.

[Sour Masher]

Even the Godly have advocated killing to advance their ideals so it's not a new concept to use deadly force as a tool for good.

Well, that was my point in going down the religion rabbit hole. It was a specific rhetorical strategy based on my audience of one for that post--you. I was hoping if I got you thinking about how your stance of right and wrong, good and evil, the saved and the damned, lined up with religion, which you think should be abolished, you'd rethink your stance. I figured if I said your stance was very Christian, based on your feelings about Christianity, you'd be like, wait a minute, maybe I need to rethink this. But it clearly didn't work .

And that is okay, cuz we are all just talking and venting here. I know you are not gonna go Rambo at a clan meeting any time soon any more than I am going to go give them all hugs and tell them their hate is born of fear and ignorance. We both know you'd end up dead or in prison, and I'd probably end up the same way.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Well, that was my point in going down the religion rabbit hole. It was a specific rhetorical strategy based on my audience of one for that post--you. I was hoping if I got you thinking about how your stance of right and wrong, good and evil, the saved and the damned, lined up with religion, which you think should be abolished, you'd rethink your stance. I figured if I said your stance was very Christian, based on your feelings about Christianity, you'd be like, wait a minute, maybe I need to rethink this. But it clearly didn't work .

And that is okay, cuz we are all just talking and venting here. I know you are not gonna go Rambo at a clan meeting any time soon any more than I am going to go give them all hugs and tell them their hate is born of fear and ignorance. We both know you'd end up dead or in prison, and I'd probably end up the same way.

maybe we can team up, you go in first and do your Kumbaya thing and after they run you out and are Yukking it up saying dumbass libertard, I walk in with the AK and get em while their guard is down.....I mean that 'd REALLY be the Christian thing to do right? Try to convert them and then when they refuse--kill em?