Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

Chit-Chat » What was your red pill moment? » 4/18/2018 6:42 pm

Etzelnik
Replies: 15

Go to post

One day around a year and a half ago while I was reading Micah 6:6-8, it actually struck me that the prophet wasn't just saying fluffy nonesense. It is actually true. I am still of a very ritualistic bent, but realizing the ultimate purpose, and I mean really, really feeling it in your bones is a complete life-changer.

Practical Philosophy » Theory of Evolution - yes or no » 4/18/2018 6:34 pm

Etzelnik
Replies: 21

Go to post

Our physical bodies = (probably) the result of divinely orchestrated evolution
Our souls = not the result of evolution; God's living breath

That more or less sums up my view.

Religion » Cognitive Science of Religion (CSR) » 4/17/2018 10:37 am

Etzelnik
Replies: 10

Go to post

Is it so difficult to maintain that God had us evolve in precisely such a manner as would bring us to know Him? I don't think so. 
I don't either think that just because we have an ulterior (evolutionary) motive in believing, then that belief is "debunked". You have to address the epistemology, not the motive.

Practical Philosophy » Is Christianity compatible with nationalism? » 2/27/2018 1:11 pm

Etzelnik
Replies: 63

Go to post

Clinias, you've mentioned Eric Nelson here on several occasions, so I thought you might want to know this.

You've interested me enough to read Nelson's The Hebrew Republic, but unfortunately for you I got too interested. Did you know Nelson also wrote a fascinating book (The Royalist Revolution, currently gracing my bookshelf) wherein he argues that the American Revolution was in fact an assertion of Royalist sentiment against Parliament gone rogue?

I don't know how much I agree with his theses, but if you're going to pick and choose which of his viewpoints hold water and which don't, you had better explain why. Also, fun fact (from Wikipedia). Nelson is a (irreligious) Jew. His grandparents were holocaust survivors.

Practical Philosophy » School Shootings, Nihilism and Rage » 2/23/2018 8:30 am

Etzelnik
Replies: 31

Go to post

The Constitution is a Federalist, not an Anti Federalist document. If you want to know what the Constitution means, you have to know what the Federalists meant. If you don't care what the Constitution means, yes, you should be disenfranchised. The uninformed electorate is poison to any republic. It's not that complicated.

You can disagree with the Federalists if you wish, but the Constitution is their ideas put into practice.

Re: political alignment, I am probably closest to Hamilton of all the Founding Fathers. Personally, I admire Washington the most. Does that position me clearly enough?

Practical Philosophy » Hypothesis on the definition of lying » 2/23/2018 8:16 am

Etzelnik
Replies: 9

Go to post

Clinias wrote:

Good God man, do you have nothing better to do than to create legalese in the manner of the way we talk to people?  My God, talk about anal-retentiveness. Haven't you heard, "Keep it simple, *****". 

Alright, we all have to be mind-readers to accomplish this task. What next, you're going to pass out crystal balls?[/color]
 

 
For someone who invokes Socrates every chance he gets, you do have a most remarkably unsocratic manner (and philosophical method).

Practical Philosophy » School Shootings, Nihilism and Rage » 2/23/2018 8:09 am

Etzelnik
Replies: 31

Go to post

seigneur wrote:

An important part that you are missing: The well regulated militia was meant for the security of the state. It explicitly says so in the amendment. The government was not supposed to employ a standing army (as can be derived from the historical debate around the amendment, not directly in the amendment), but similarly the people were not supposed to use their guns against the government, but for the security of the state (and this is directly in the amendment). Gun rightists miss this part.

You skipped an inconvenient word "the security of a free state".

Have you read The Federalist Papers? If you are an American, it's a must read. I myself don't think anyone who hasn't read it should be qualified to vote. In any event, No. 46 clearly states that the intended structure is that everyone have guns, while the state only heavily train a small proportion of them (the substitute for the standing army). The reason everyone else is armed is not only for personal defense, but also for the clear purpose of fighting the government if it becomes an instrument of tyranny.

I am not sure that the American people have the necessary virtue to maintain this system anymore, but it is an important check in the constitution. I am also genuinely unsure whether Clinias actually cares about the constitutional factor. He does, after all, consider it an evil Masonic document.

Re: "regulated"

It was what I was taught. I am on my phone now so I will look into it later.

Practical Philosophy » School Shootings, Nihilism and Rage » 2/23/2018 7:09 am

Etzelnik
Replies: 31

Go to post

@Miguel 
The well regulated militia is meant to be to the exclusion of a standing army. The people are supposed to be the army. This is so the government is unable to employ an army against the people's freedoms. 
I might add that well regulated in the 18th century meant well-equipped. 

Practical Philosophy » School Shootings, Nihilism and Rage » 2/23/2018 7:05 am

Etzelnik
Replies: 31

Go to post

Virtue + guns = no school shootings 
Virtue + no guns = no school shootings 
No virtue + no guns = no school shootings 
No virtue + guns = massacres all over the place

It's all quite simple. 

Another point, which reinforces Clinias, is that why exactly are we referring to a 19 year old as a child? In antiquity, a child became an adult with his physical maturity. In later times, that age has slightly gone up. In our times, however, people in their early 20s still consider themselves (and are considered by society) to be "children" 
 

Chit-Chat » What have you changed your mind on? » 2/21/2018 8:45 am

Etzelnik
Replies: 13

Go to post

1 - I used to be an anti-philosophical theist. The schools I attended portrayed philosophy as evil and heretical. It was only after I secretly borrowed Plato from my grandpa as a teenager that I realized philosophy was imperative. Now I believe its study in a religious imperative for those who are capable.

2 - I used to be radically right-wing. Now I'm still extremely socially conservative, but I've shifted leftwards on certain aspects of fiscal policy. What I realized was: what's best for the "economy" (read: a few people making all the money) is not always the most moral.

3 - I've grown alot more humanist with regards to the status of those who profess the other Abrahamic Religions.

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum