The People Vs. Common Sense

Mogg writes "GamerGod.com has a new article up entitled "The People Vs. Common Sense, A Citizen's View at Michigan's SB-0146 Law," commenting on the new Michigan state video game law. "Have we made absolutely certain books and movies are not degrading the minds of our children and video games and all computerized representation of violent and sexual acts are the cause of an increase of depraved sociopaths??" Very nicely written piece.

Comments

Re:Thesaurus whore

[metternich]

Or perhaps he simply spends some time reading books that were written back when people actually used the English Language to its full potential.

Re:Thank God...

[Mr Guy]

Because it would have been suicide?

Because when a society began to do well they needed to be protected militarily so they weren't conquered?

A good system is one that runs without interference. As a general rule, God follows his own rules. "Miracles" (Laws governing physical universe being directly broken) in the Bible are relatively few and far between, especially compared to the sacred texts of other religions.

God taught his people to be self sufficient and conquered those who would have very willingly conquered them. Preemptive first strike is a sound defensive strategy if preservation is your goal.

What is wrong?

[anomaly]

I think it comes down to this:
What is wrong? What is right? Is anything right?

In American culture, the only two things that are understood to be right for all people at all times are these:
1. All truth is relative. Therefore: Don't force your beliefs on others - sometimes interpreted as "don't express your beliefs around me, you kook!" :)

2. The individual's right to pursuit of happiness is the only sacred thing.

On what do you base your opinion that it's "wrong to kill people because of their beliefs?"

Some things are absolutely true. Physiologically speaking, electrocution (within certain parameters) will defintely kill you. Mathematically speaking, 2+2=4 all day long. For some reason it seems hard for many people to accept that certain things are absolutely true with respect to morality.

If you design a mechanical device, is it not your place as the designer to define what ways use of the device is destructive to the device, and what ways are non-destructive? If there is a God who created people, is it not His place to define acceptable and unacceptable norms? If that is true, then is it not also acceptable for Him to determine what to do about people who are in the area of unacceptable norms?

I'm interested to hear your response.

Respectfully,
Anomaly

You are right

[anomaly]

Most so-called Christians have little idea what Christ taught, are filled with pride, and dishonor His name with their behavior.

Of course, I tend to disagree with a number of your points above, but we are in violent agreement about the understanding of and implementation of what Christ taught.

A couple of points worth discussion - sadly I only have time for one right now:
most of that was thrown out by Christ as being wrong
A study of this topic is in order to appreciate exactly what Christ taught - more than can reasonbly be covered here, but following your example, I'll quote Christ

"Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled."
Mt 5:17-18

Jesus did not say that the Old Testament was wrong. Largely he said that the religious types of his day (and prior) had missed the point - focused more on appearing righteous than actually being righteous. Much more to be said, but I've got to run right now...

With respect to my having to teach others morality, the question is "what evidence do you have that the flying spaghetti monster - or whatever diety you have in mind - produced the document you claim provides his authority?"

I have several tests that can be applied to documentation to evealuate whether it is reasonable to pay any attention to what they say. These include: Internal consistency, external consistency, and preservation of the text over time.

How does your theoretical document fare when these ideas are considered?

Respectfully,
Anomaly