|Oscar Wildcat |
At a little past the five minute mark you can hear the caller's head explode.
|Innocent Bystander |
It kinda sucks that they're mostly preaching to the choir.
If you have to decide which laws make sense and what don't in your belief system, what is the point of having a predefined set of them at all? I think that is the main difference and comes across pretty well.
I also find it interesting that very often the criteria by which the decisions concerning the practicality/sensibility/point of religious rules are made are very often the result of secular, scientific reasoning which would never have come to pass if we lived in a 100% religious world.
Maybe it's more a matter of emphasis then. Pretty often, when asked "how do you decide what you should and should not do", the guy answers "I use reason"; it would be helpful if he added "... and so do you, let me show you". Focusing on "I use reason" emphasizes and exaggerates differences that aren't there so much, and puts up a roadblock.
And yes, it really does call into question what good the rule book is. Which would be a great point to make, but first you've got to show that a person's sense of right and wrong doesn't originate from the rule book.
It's like someone talked this guy into calling, just as a Christmas gift to this show.
|MacGyver Style Bomb |
I think he broke that poor boy's mind.
I like the fact that these guys were hardcore practicing Christians that have such a solid understanding of the Bible. It is refreshing from the other Nietzsche fanboy "ranters" on youtube.
|Night Train to Mundo Fine |
This is great up until around 5:00, when the Dr. Ray starts criticizing the idea of salvation. The concept that even the worst of us can be "saved" and should be forgiven is one of the only unabashedly good things about traditional Christianity. Salvation was meant to be a change in sinner's overall personality rather than mere lip-service to religion--that is, the hypothetical rapist would renounce and express remorse for his crimes and become a better person as a result of conversion. The 'loophole' approach is considered false and frankly ineffective--if the rapist were not actually saved but merely claimed salvation, he'd still be going to hell within the caller's theological system. Ray rightfully eviscerates the caller on the need for a hell in the first place, but with the wrong point. "Mercy is a suspension of justice." What the fuck?
The best justice incorporates mercy anyway as a matter of course. Reducing a penalty because it is unduly harsh or counterproductive could be called "mercy", or it could also be called "not compounding the original injustice with a sentencing injustice".
I must disagree. salvation is a loathsome concept, at least in terms of religion. It means that a magical wizard priest man can simply wave his hand and declare ANYONE who puts forth whatever effort the religion requires as "saved" regardless of their crime or offense to mankind. The reason it gives people hope and is interpreted as such a great facet of religion is because people know it's a lazy, easy way out of actually doing anything to redeem themselves in any actual way that's effective, so it's much more attractive. Also, conceding that religion's great saving grace is salvation, means that you also HAVE to concede then that religion is qualified to make judgments in the opposite direction, and that condemning people to hell or to death or whatever is totally A-OK because they know what they're talking about.
Whiskey, Catholics don't do sola fide; they're saved through the church and the sacraments. Mortal sins prevent salvation, but they can be forgiven if someone is truly penitent, which is closer to what Night Train was saying. It sounds to me like Darrel is conveniently assuming that justice requires retribution, which is unfortunate.
(but he still kicked that guy's ass)
He's right that "there are no consequences" comes closer to describing Christian morality than a secular one. But he doesn't undertand that retribution isn't always necessary for justice (well, Kant might disagree I guess). There is always a back and forth between law and equity (which is interesting... you'd figure God could make a system of laws so perfect that he wouldn't have to forgive anyone... whatever).
What it comes down to is what he says at 8:20: "how is that relevant to the truth of your religion?"
|Cherry Pop Culture |
This was refreshing. And was recorded on my birthday :D
| Register or login To Post a Comment|