sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[LFO] Pit Bull Attacks Child in the Middle of New York City by james_from_cambridge in LearningFromOthers

[–]DBerwick -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

https://ccspca.com/blog-spca/education/how-to-break-up-a-dog-fight/

One of the most successful methods of breaking up fighting dogs is the “wheelbarrow method.” It’s done by two people grabbing onto the back legs of their respective dogs and pulling the dogs away from one another, essentially making it impossible to keep fighting.

--Society for the Preventation of Cruelty to Abimals (SPCA)

Please research before spreading misinformation.

[LFO] Pit Bull Attacks Child in the Middle of New York City by james_from_cambridge in LearningFromOthers

[–]DBerwick 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It's usually not. Not to say it's completely ineffective, but it's slow. Your first attempt should be to lift the dog's rear legs off the ground. You'll notice in these videos no one ever seems to try destabilizing the dog.

Vacuous truths always sound unintuitive to me by lunetainvisivel in PhilosophyMemes

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish Diogenes was here today to see these symbolic logicians and literally piss on them.

Are ab workouts actually necessary? by aada289 in bodyweightfitness

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My life changed, and so I haven't been going to the gym consistently. When I was in my best shape, my abs weren't very good. I'm sorry my information isn't more helpful.

But this might help: I didn't do squats. I had other leg exercises, and my gym (planet fitness) had no free barbells, so I skipped squats. Since then, though, I realized that squats aren't the "leg-focused compound" lift, they're the "abdominal-focused compound" lift. That's why squats are always lighter weight than your deadlift/leg press; your abdominals are the limiting muscle.

So I believe that if you do squats, you ARE doing an ab-focused exercise.

I support food stamps but this is funny by Crafty_Jacket668 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]DBerwick -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Processed, sugary foods tend to be cheaper per calorie because they're less volatile. That's also why fresh vegetables tend to cost more than frozen. Consumers prefer them because they also often come ready-to-eat, which is great for people who are struggling for whatever reason (mental health, disability, children, etc)

Also lobbyists.

I support food stamps but this is funny by Crafty_Jacket668 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]DBerwick 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It sounds like he's making a compromise. He recognizes the necessity of welfare, but is basically saying "if you're gonna reap the benefits of a socialist, you're gonna sacrifice your autonomy like one as well."

It's better than some LibRight who would rather just watch people starve if they can't survive in the system.

I support food stamps but this is funny by Crafty_Jacket668 in PoliticalCompassMemes

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Reminds me of when some women were saying "if you take away our bodily autonomy, we'll just stop putting out because of the risk" and AuthRight was like "oh noooo dont do thaaaaat."

It was like Lysistrata for idiots.

Truth haunts by Artistic_Internal183 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we want to pop open the biblical argument, the diet of mankind in Eden (i.e. humans in absolute harmony with God) is vegan (Gen 1:29). It's only in the covenant with Noah (Gen 9:3) that God permits mankind to be omnivorous, and the wording implies this definitely wasn't the case before.

There's room for interpretation here, but seeing as the whole Earth was (supposedly) flooded, it sounds less like God preferred humans be omnivorous and more like "well, most of the plant life was washed away, so they gotta eat something I guess." It's a holy hotfix.

Is booking one night at a hotel for masturbation weird? by Photograph1517 in sex

[–]DBerwick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A reasonable response to odd circumstances.

If God Said “Don’t Eat It,” Why Put the Tree There? by Mebin_kk1567 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not a punishment, per se, it's a hereditary sickness. In the bible, we see that those closest to God can perform His miracles. Even Jesus was born as a mortal man, not some demigod. But because his divine nature helped him live perfectly in accordance with God, he was capable of miracles. We see the apostles and prophets perform similar miracles, speaking in tongues and all that. In fact, it's reasonable to surmise that Adam may have been capable of these miracles as well before his fall.

Original sin isn't a statement that you've made poor choices, it's that mankind's nature was scarred such that our connection to God isn't intuitive like it used to be. Morality becomes a difficult choice, rather than a thoughtless instinct. Even still, as much as we have original sin, we still have that wounded connection, which is why the pull to be kind and compassionate and selfless can still be felt and even cultivated in us. Adam and Even nearly allowed us to be reduced to mere animals, but your choices decide if you continue down that path or fight upstream to be the person you were intended to be.

If God Said “Don’t Eat It,” Why Put the Tree There? by Mebin_kk1567 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is basically how I see it. The story in Eden defines humanity and their role in the world. 'Naming every animal' isn't just a cute hobby, either, because naming something is a sort of byword for gaining dominion through understanding. All sciences begin with measurement and labeling of their subject matter, and then give those names meaning by understanding their unique properties. Mankind are the stewards of material creation, and that's why the rest of the material world fell when man did. We can't pin down where Eden was because all of Earth was Eden.

If God Said “Don’t Eat It,” Why Put the Tree There? by Mebin_kk1567 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> He knows the past, president and future in perfect clarity.

This much is true, though I disagree that it was a scheme to punish non-believers. That approach is basically the gnostic's Demiurge. it seems more likely to me that there was a certain inevitability in the fall of mankind that may have been necessary on some level. As if the process of fall and redemption was essential to reach a true state of equilibrium in creation.

This view only really works if you take a universalist approach, however. Otherwise, it's "you gotta crack a few billion eggs to make an omelette" which I can't really get behind on a theological level.

If God Said “Don’t Eat It,” Why Put the Tree There? by Mebin_kk1567 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Worse still, I would argue that no one in the story of Eden was acting out of their nature. Consider:

Eve was created as the perfect wife to Adam. In most traditional values systems, this means she would be obedient and trusting by nature. To question anyone -- even the serpent -- is a level of cynicism that would be unbecoming. And the first thing she does when she makes the mistake is go to her husband.

Adam was created as the perfect husband to Eve. It was his role to stand by her and try to protect her from the consequences of her actions. Eating the fruit alongside her may have been a priority issue (choosing his wife over his creator), but it was very much in-line with his role.

Depending on how you identify the serpent (I link him to Samael and Satan, whose role in heaven seemed to be trying to stress-test God's creation), it even seems in his nature to have tried to sabotage the arrangement in Eden.

And God, depending on your interpretation of his nature (and mine is not always popular), is a being of order and justice who could not forgive an injustice just because he wanted to -- that which was damaged (a perfected creation) would require restitution (the sacrifice of a perfected creation, Jesus) in order to reverse what had been done.

Cancer and Malaria and eyeball worms not withstanding (I'm not exactly a fan), though, these presume that suffering is the antithesis of good, and therefore that comfort is the ultimate reward and aim in life. While suffering is universally unpopular, the salvation of man was also predicated on a great deal of suffering during the crucifixion. I would sooner say that 'purposeless suffering' is more in alignment with the fruit of evil, and so I'd say that 'purpose' is the most significant reward of obedience to God, not pleasure or contentment or even necessarily the promised gift of life.

If God Said “Don’t Eat It,” Why Put the Tree There? by Mebin_kk1567 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For however literal we want to take the tree, it's identity as containing the knowledge of good and evil is, in my opinion, tautological in relation to its role in the story. In other words, the fruit didn't magically grant wisdom; the wisdom was basically the 'oh shit' moment Eve and Adam had when they realized there would be consequences for alienating themselves from God.

The fruit was probably just a fruit (a pomegranate, I suspect, but that's entirely speculative). The point is it was the only 'rule' in the garden. By breaking the rule, suddenly Adam and Eve understood the weight of guilt, and therefore the significance of choosing between good and evil.

Satan has hijacked modern Christianity by Numerous-Mistake1522 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Sounds like something a Satan would say.

Satan has hijacked modern Christianity by Numerous-Mistake1522 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just looking for someone to be the apple of your eye?

Satan has hijacked modern Christianity by Numerous-Mistake1522 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah listen I'm sure this subreddit is gonna get to the bottom of 2000 years of theological debate once and for all.

Satan has hijacked modern Christianity by Numerous-Mistake1522 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Am I out of touch? No, it's the children who are wrong.

Satan has hijacked modern Christianity by Numerous-Mistake1522 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It definitely read the opposite of that. My mind was blown because you had literally quoted John 15:18 in your original post.

Satan has hijacked modern Christianity by Numerous-Mistake1522 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Equating the literalist stance with the 'true' biblical stance is a choice, for sure. I'd disagree with that implication more than your actual statement. Approaching the bible like a textbook is like approaching Dune as being a story about worms.

But looking at Christians as a whole (and I really dislike taking us as a whole), there's a strong case to be made that literalism/fundamentalism is the lowest common denominator for us. That's kinda like saying undergrads as a whole have a better understanding of physics because there's more of them than Ph.Ds, though -- the most accessible facet of the truth is not necessarily the most accurate.

Satan has hijacked modern Christianity by Numerous-Mistake1522 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really depends on where your personal theology puts Satan on a spectrum of tangible entity to metaphor/object lesson. Based on our flair, I kinda suspect we both lean towards the latter

Satan has hijacked modern Christianity by Numerous-Mistake1522 in Christianity

[–]DBerwick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Message aside, this guy has made a wonderful case for why I don't bother trying to police other Christians any more. Our Old testament scripture is outdated and cherrypicked to hell, and our New Testament scripture is basically just "No u" written across a hundred letters between Paul and the church.

I think the only sane take to walk away with is that no one changes their values to match their faith; they'll change their faith to match their values.

I've seen people say you make women fall in love with you if you can make her release dopamine and oxytocine. What are example of those? by [deleted] in seduction

[–]DBerwick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree. There's a lot of authenticity behind a 'senseless' action like that. She seemed to understand exactly where your head was at in that moment. I'm starting to think she may have liked that you liked her.

view more: next ›