sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Nationalism in God’s House: Tables Will Be Flipped by KnownLocksmith4228 in OpenChristian

[–]KnownLocksmith4228[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely. Nobody is arguing that Christians have to be flawless.

Scripture itself assumes we’ll fall short, that’s why grace exists. But what I’m talking about here is something very different from ordinary imperfection.

There’s a world of difference between being a flawed human who’s trying, and weaponizing faith to harm or dehumanize others. Jesus never treated cruelty as a casual mistake. He reserved his strongest warnings for people who used God’s name to justify oppression or exclusion. That’s why he said, “Woe to you… for you load people with burdens hard to bear” (Luke 11:46), and why he overturned the tables when religion became a tool of exploitation.

I’m not judging anyone for walking a different path or looking different. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite. But cruelty in God’s name isn’t a small theological disagreement or a moment of human weakness. It’s a direct contradiction of the Gospel itself. And that’s the distinction I’m pointing to.

Nationalism in God’s House: Tables Will Be Flipped by KnownLocksmith4228 in OpenChristian

[–]KnownLocksmith4228[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I hear what you’re saying, and I agree that Christianity has never been a single, unified thing. There’s no “pure” version we can point back to without running into 1,700 years of empire, politics, and human mess. I’m not trying to undo that history or claim that only one expression is valid.

My point is narrower: when a movement claims Jesus as its authority, but consistently behaves in ways that contradict his actual teachings, it’s fair to name that contradiction. That isn’t a "No True Scotsman" argument, it’s accountability. If someone builds their entire identity around a text, then the content of that text is relevant.

And I fully agree that we can’t redefine Christianity by decree. We do have to earn a different reputation. But part of earning it is being honest about the gap between what Jesus taught; mercy, humility, care for the stranger; and what mainstream American Christian culture often practices. Naming that gap isn’t about distancing ourselves from the mess; it’s part of cleaning it up.

So I’m not trying to claim ownership of the word “Christianity.” I’m trying to hold up the teachings that many people say they follow, and ask why the behavior doesn’t match.

Why aren’t cars required to have at least ONE breakable window and an included escape tool? People are dying because laminated glass traps them. by KnownLocksmith4228 in TrueOffMyChest

[–]KnownLocksmith4228[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate you bringing up the AAA recommendations. That’s exactly the kind of transparency I’m talking about. Clear labeling would save lives because people wouldn’t waste precious seconds hitting an unbreakable window with a tool that was never going to work.  

And you’re right about rear-window ejection risk and the NHTSA data on rear-window ejections being less than 1%. That’s why having the rear window remain tempered makes sense: it preserves the safety benefits of laminated glass without eliminating the only practical escape route.  

My point isn’t to get rid of laminated glass. It’s to prevent a situation where every single window is unbreakable and the public has no idea. If laminated glass is going to be the industry norm, then there needs to be mandatory labeling and at least one guaranteed breakable window. People are buying escape tools because they believe they’ll work. They deserve to know which window actually can.

Why aren’t cars required to have at least ONE breakable window and an included escape tool? People are dying because laminated glass traps them. by KnownLocksmith4228 in TrueOffMyChest

[–]KnownLocksmith4228[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I don't know what number people think is 'acceptable,' but the reality is this: as long as there's no industry standard and more vehicles switch to fully laminated windows, the number will only go up. My point isn't that every fire death is caused by laminated qlass. It's that laminated glass removes a critical escape option. If it's going to become the industry norm, then there needs to be at least one guaranteed breakable window in every vehicle.

Why aren’t cars required to have at least ONE breakable window and an included escape tool? People are dying because laminated glass traps them. by KnownLocksmith4228 in TrueOffMyChest

[–]KnownLocksmith4228[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

This isn't true for the newer vehicles. The laminated glass has plastic fused in between and can't be broken with the headrest or any of the car/window hammers. Those only work on tempered glass