shirgall

I'm betting it's because you used the word "violently", actually.

"Objective" and "Christian" and why you rejected the definitions I offered.

And you would be wrong. You never engaged on clarifying definitions therefore there is no value in engaging with you on the distractions you interjected.

Since this "agreeing on definitions" problem has persisted from the beginning, I'm going to have to pull the trump card here:

Indeed, one should imagine that "How do you know?" and "Compared to what?" and "Show your work," is implicitly asked of every poster.

Do you understand that one cannot judge another's intent but only their actions? We have no mechanism to directly sense or measure another's sense of justification for an activity. Another could say they are justified, and might be able to demonstrate that they are justified via communication, but you cannot know if another feels justified. In lethal force scenarios there is seldom any leisure in making such a determination. That's why the "immediate" criteria is part of the statement, let alone the "otherwise unavoidable" part.

Weird, that's not what the thread is about. The thread was about incompatible definitions of "objective" and "Christian". If you are implying that my construction was an excuse for violence, then it's clear you may not have compatible definitions of the words I used in my statement about judicious use of lethal force. If we cannot come to common definitions of words, we are making keyboard noises at one another and not debating or even conversing. I made an effort to come to a consensus and it's going nowhere.

How did that prove that Stef was objectively Christian?

It doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified.

There are important differences in definitions and in poisoning the well. The difference between an excuse and a justification is that the action is either wrong or right. I'm claiming the use of force in response to a lethal threat is right and you, by claiming it is an excuse, are claiming it is wrong. You are equivocating. There are a lot of examples of people saying God told them to do something heinous. The fact that heresy existed as a crime is plenty. Perhaps "The Great Schism" is a significant conflict that one could point to. I'm getting less and less value from this conversation and am likely to end my own participation in it.

He didn't say dangerous, he said disingenuous. The very way you ask the question casts a negative light on one side of the argument. It implies atheists are nihilists in general. While some are, not all are.

Didn't say you invented it, but religions, superstitions, and myths were all were invented. I don't need religion to understand violence. Religion doesn't explain anything about violence better, more clearly, or in more depth. It does provide violent people with an excuse to be violent, but violent people will always find an excuse. Therefore I should not waste my time with it.

The unforgivable sin is to invent a conceptual category called "sin", then insist it is analogous to disease, and finally assert that only adherents to a specific non-empirical conceptual system can be cured.

At no point did I say violence was the only answer but instead of a tool for use in limited circumstances. I made a claim about when its use would be moral. The statement does not rely on any of the what you have included above. I do not seek submission but survival. You refer to winning a war and I agree that the deaths of so many people is intensely regrettable, and a failure of reason. I judge countries by the same yardstick that I do individuals. was a particular group's response to the war an effort to save from grievous harm or annihilation oneself or the innocent? I consider that appropriate. Claiming I'm an adherent of Christ because of a standalone logically consistent statement that has no basis in religious teachings or faith of Christ is incorrect.

I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct. What does the question have to do with the conversation?

Neither I nor several generations of my ancestors believe in the divinity of anyone. As I pointed out, if you go back far enough, there's Norse, there's Greek, there's Romani, etc. My mother may have been religious, as she gave me my name which is indeed the same as a religious historical figure (and one of the most common call-in show names), but I was never indoctrinated. As an aside, my Romani heritage probably gives me the most cynicism about religion as a tool for profit and manipulation. "Cross my palm with silver and I will tell you your future."

Probably because calling people Christians who are not (and whose parents weren't and whose grandparents weren't) is not just incorrect, it's offensive. When I stopped by this thread I had no intention on wasting my time, I just wanted to post a helpful explanation. I don't think we can come to agreement on definitions, therefore we have no basis on which to argue.

Women doing everything they can to retain their sexual market value by appearing youthful, aroused, fertile, and healthy as long as possible, and flaunting their resources to stratify society. Men like nubility and pulchritude so they're not going to complain too much.

From my experience it's the women raising the stakes and the men playing along.

"objectively" identifying a person with a concept? Objective facts do not depend on a mind for existence, but you are applying it to a concept. "Christian" describes a person that adheres to Christianity, which means at a minimum believing in the importance of Jesus... the least believing in Jesus's divinity are cultural Christians and Deists. however, philosophy focusing on things that are true whether or not you believe them doesn't sound the same. You are basically saying northern European values are Christian no matter what you actually believe, and that stretches the term to a lack of meaning. To get personal, how much I live my ancestor's Viking, Celtic, or Pagan Greek values might make me objectively Norse using this logic. I'm sorry you are under Loki's spell and I will burn a hamburger as an offering to Freya both to see your mind cleared and because my daughter likes them overcooked.

Single shooter, armored with a lot of ammunition, backed up with bombs, in a crowded semi-captive environment, with a political agenda, and where police response was hampered by innocents in the same scene. Asymmetrical warfare in practice.

I'm pretty sure MMD was commenting on the unusual definition of "objective" and "Christian".

For me (since this is totally subjective) it's when it becomes noticeable. Everyone tries to look marriageable to some extent. Men try to look like they have resources. Women try to look like they have healthy eggs.

Remember the 2011 Norway attack is a model for this sort of shooting... and that had a higher death toll.

You will find that the gals who are good at it make it far more subtle... but then there's the downside that they spent a lot of time learning how to do that instead of something productive. I suppose finding the best man possible is productive in their eyes, though. Many grains of salt in this recipe.