why own a gun?

[brother Willi]

what have we learned?

if you need someone to come over and kill the bad guy, dont call me.
if you want help in any way that dont include the death of anyone but myself, call me

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Prison doesn't work. Has Charles Manson been "reformed"? He himself refuses all forms of available help.

is charles manson a danger to us today?

 

[billwald]

After listening for 40 years to My Old Man saying that he would not permit gunss in his house, I proposed that I post a sign in fron of his house, "GUN-FREE HOUSE." He replied, "You think I am crazy?"

In other words, he could be "righteous" as long as there were other people who would do the killing for him.

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by billwald

After listening for 40 years to My Old Man saying that he would not permit gunss in his house, I proposed that I post a sign in fron of his house, "GUN-FREE HOUSE." He replied, "You think I am crazy?"

In other words, he could be "righteous" as long as there were other people who would do the killing for him.

:chuckle: And also OK with benefiting from having people THINK that he might have guns.

 

[aharvey]

I'm finding it hard to believe 1) that I'm finding BW to be the aggrieved party in this thread, and 2) how steadfastly you guys refuse to even consider his central point, that Jesus himself was consistent and unambiguous about the taking of a life. The responses I've heard to this have been:

1) BW, you're untrustworthy, so why should we believe you?
2) OT quotes.
3) NT quotes that have nothing to do with whether and when it is appropriate to kill.
4) "Common sense" arguments: what would you do if someone tried to kill you/your wife/etc.?
5) I've had a gun since I was a baby, and no one's gonna take that away from me.

Not one of you have seriously considered the implications of the possibility that in fact Jesus didn't give his approval to deadly response in any situation. What it seems to boil down to is that you are more than willing to wield the Bible in defense of any restriction, as long as it doesn't affect you personally.

Harsh? Let's take a few examples:

Evolution: None of you are evolving (not an insult, individuals cannot evolve, only populations), so it does you no harm to insist on a literal interpretation of the OT. So you do.

Homosexuality: There may be an exception or two lurking here, but it's safe to assume that most of you are not homosexual and in fact find the thought personally repulsive. Therefore, it does you no harm to insist on as many sanctions and restrictions on this behavior as possible.

Divorce: The "sanctity of marriage" is a key argument in favor of banning gay marriage. Never mind the fact that the vast, vast majority of people who would violate the sanctity of marriage in a world where gay marriage was allowed would still be those heterosexuals getting divorced. So why isn't there a far larger outcry against the far more widespread violation of this sacrament? Why not calls for a constitutional amendment banning divorce? Because, unlike homosexuality, this one might affect you personally. And even if you don't plan to get a divorce, you do NOT want the option taken away from you. Cattyfan started a very revealing thread not too long ago, criticizing people who get multiple divorces. Odd restriction, I thought; why not just divorces period? Well, turns out she's had a divorce herself, so she knows from personal experience that even a good Christian may find it necessary to violate the sanctity of marriage. But her understanding only applies to the first divorce; she seems to be certain that all subsequent divorces must have some other, unChristian cause.

Guns: I'm sorry, but there is precious little support for the idea that Jesus would be in favor of killing other people to protect yourself. I'd say he was pretty consistent in opposing this idea, and in fact some of his most wistful remarks were to the effect that the biggest obstacle most people would face in getting to heaven involved sacrificing your Christian principles in order to extend your puny temporary moment here on Earth. But hardly anyone here will even consider that idea, and you've made it abundantly clear that you're willing to do whatever it takes in order to extend your puny temporary moment here on Earth.

Bottom line seems to be that you're willing to be very, er, aggressive in your support of particular Christian ideals, but only to the extent that they don't apply to you directly. Which makes you only human, I guess!

 

[cattyfan]

Cattyfan started a very revealing thread not too long ago, criticizing people who get multiple divorces. Odd restriction, I thought; why not just divorces period? Well, turns out she's had a divorce herself, so she knows from personal experience that even a good Christian may find it necessary to violate the sanctity of marriage. But her understanding only applies to the first divorce; she seems to be certain that all subsequent divorces must have some other, unChristian cause.

Interesting you decide to cite me on a thread on which I haven't been posting. Let me refresh your memory: My divorce wasn't something I wanted...and my divorce and anullment met the Biblical criteria for disolution of marriage, which is why a bishop in the Catholic church with whom I had been seeking council for years shepherded me through the process. (see my answer on the Women's Rights thread.)

I still don't approve of divorce at the drop of a hat. People who don't take their vows seriously disgust me.

And of course their would be a higher percentage of divorces for heterosexuals: there is a far greater number of heterosexuals in existance.

Good to know my comments are sticking in your head, but do try to keep them accurate, in context, and complete.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by brother Willi

is charles manson a danger to us today?

To your point: does prison "work"?

what have we learned?

That to you "loving your neighbor as yourself" means siding with evil over innocence.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by cattyfan

Interesting you decide to cite me on a thread on which I haven't been posting. Let me refresh your memory: My divorce wasn't something I wanted...and my divorce and anullment met the Biblical criteria for disolution of marriage, which is why a bishop in the Catholic church with whom I had been seeking council for years shepherded me through the process. (see my answer on the Women's Rights thread.)

I still don't approve of divorce at the drop of a hat. People who don't take their vows seriously disgust me.

And of course their would be a higher percentage of divorces for heterosexuals: there is a far greater number of heterosexuals in existance.

So wouldn't a ban on divorce go much, much farther towards protecting the sanctity of marriage?

Originally posted by cattyfan

Good to know my comments are sticking in your head, but do try to keep them accurate, in context, and complete.

If you'd actually read this post, you would see that your comments are used in context, and accurate. Your thread did not question why a Christian would get a divorce; it questioned why a Christian would get more than one divorce. You gave yourself as an example of a Christian who got one divorce, and gave your justifications. You explicitly question whether those justifications could be used more than once.

I'm sure you don't want to see the relevance of that to this thread, but it's there. People are more willing to cut slack on things that may affect them personally than on things that don't. Think about racial profiling. Virtually all the folks I've heard arguing in favor of it would never be affected by it.

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by brother Willi

i assume you dont wish it on me.

I 'wish it on you' if only for the fact that you'll learn how stupid pacifism really is, when dealing with criminals. They aren't going to learn anything except that yours is a great neighborhood to do as they please without any interference, to speak of.

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

I'm finding it hard to believe 1) that I'm finding BW to be the aggrieved party in this thread, and 2) how steadfastly you guys refuse to even consider his central point, that Jesus himself was consistent and unambiguous about the taking of a life. The responses I've heard to this have been:

1) BW, you're untrustworthy, so why should we believe you?
2) OT quotes.
3) NT quotes that have nothing to do with whether and when it is appropriate to kill.
4) "Common sense" arguments: what would you do if someone tried to kill you/your wife/etc.?
5) I've had a gun since I was a baby, and no one's gonna take that away from me.

Not one of you have seriously considered the implications of the possibility that in fact Jesus didn't give his approval to deadly response in any situation. What it seems to boil down to is that you are more than willing to wield the Bible in defense of any restriction, as long as it doesn't affect you personally.

Harsh? Let's take a few examples:

Evolution: None of you are evolving (not an insult, individuals cannot evolve, only populations), so it does you no harm to insist on a literal interpretation of the OT. So you do.

Homosexuality: There may be an exception or two lurking here, but it's safe to assume that most of you are not homosexual and in fact find the thought personally repulsive. Therefore, it does you no harm to insist on as many sanctions and restrictions on this behavior as possible.

Divorce: The "sanctity of marriage" is a key argument in favor of banning gay marriage. Never mind the fact that the vast, vast majority of people who would violate the sanctity of marriage in a world where gay marriage was allowed would still be those heterosexuals getting divorced. So why isn't there a far larger outcry against the far more widespread violation of this sacrament? Why not calls for a constitutional amendment banning divorce? Because, unlike homosexuality, this one might affect you personally. And even if you don't plan to get a divorce, you do NOT want the option taken away from you. Cattyfan started a very revealing thread not too long ago, criticizing people who get multiple divorces. Odd restriction, I thought; why not just divorces period? Well, turns out she's had a divorce herself, so she knows from personal experience that even a good Christian may find it necessary to violate the sanctity of marriage. But her understanding only applies to the first divorce; she seems to be certain that all subsequent divorces must have some other, unChristian cause.

Guns: I'm sorry, but there is precious little support for the idea that Jesus would be in favor of killing other people to protect yourself. I'd say he was pretty consistent in opposing this idea, and in fact some of his most wistful remarks were to the effect that the biggest obstacle most people would face in getting to heaven involved sacrificing your Christian principles in order to extend your puny temporary moment here on Earth. But hardly anyone here will even consider that idea, and you've made it abundantly clear that you're willing to do whatever it takes in order to extend your puny temporary moment here on Earth.

Bottom line seems to be that you're willing to be very, er, aggressive in your support of particular Christian ideals, but only to the extent that they don't apply to you directly. Which makes you only human, I guess!

:thumb:

POTD

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Aimiel

I 'wish it on you' if only for the fact that you'll learn how stupid pacifism really is, when dealing with criminals. They aren't going to learn anything except that yours is a great neighborhood to do as they please without any interference, to speak of.

YOU WISH IT ON ME????

think about that.
a man tells you he doesnt think he could ever kill.

and because of that, you want harm to come to my loved ones.

boy I'll bet Jesus likes that idea:kookoo:

all you loving christians here

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Nineveh





That to you "loving your neighbor as yourself" means siding with evil over innocence.

you are:kookoo:

 

[Nineveh]

From you bW, I take that as a complement

aharvey,
Would you be willing to share your knowledge of the Biblical God and how you discern who is actually speaking closely to His words and those who are not?

 

[Aimiel]

Originally posted by brother Willi

and because of that, you want harm to come to my loved ones.

Not because of that, but because you don't hold sound doctrine, or listen to the voice of reason. I pray that you have a 'bone-crunching' encounter with reality, personally, and that God is able to allow some sense to be knocked into that thick skull of yours, before you get taken out of the way for trying to teach others your nonsense. God doesn't care about your flesh, or anyone else's. He cares about your soul, and those of His Little Ones. He doesn't want criminals to rule this planet, or He wouldn't have instituted the governments and laws that we hold dear, or police to back them up. He is The Authority, not you; and I thank Him for the fact that you don't have any. Also, if you don't learn to respect it, you'll never hold any. It takes obedience to be responsible, and those who rebel aren't being responsible to themselves, so God won't put them over anyone else. That's just the way that He decided to do things. :thumb:

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Aimiel

Not because of that, but because you don't hold sound doctrine, or listen to the voice of reason. I pray that you have a 'bone-crunching' encounter with reality, personally, and that God is able to allow some sense to be knocked into that thick skull of yours, before you get taken out of the way for trying to teach others your nonsense. God doesn't care about your flesh, or anyone else's. He cares about your soul, and those of His Little Ones. He doesn't want criminals to rule this planet, or He wouldn't have instituted the governments and laws that we hold dear, or police to back them up. He is The Authority, not you; and I thank Him for the fact that you don't have any. Also, if you don't learn to respect it, you'll never hold any. It takes obedience to be responsible, and those who rebel aren't being responsible to themselves, so God won't put them over anyone else. That's just the way that He decided to do things. :thumb:

in laws and friend have both had 'bone-crunching' encounter with reality.

seams those i know live the news, not just read it.

have i not said jail is needed?

you want me to sceam for the blood of my enemies, those who have wronged others.

the law must always be just.
it must be based on the LAW.

Matthew 5:21
"You have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.'

Matthew 5:22
"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.


~~~~~~~~

Matthew 5:38
"You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'

Matthew 5:39
"But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Matthew 5:40
"If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.

Matthew 5:41
"Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

Matthew 5:42
"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.

Matthew 5:43
"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'

Matthew 5:44
"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

Matthew 5:45
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

Matthew 5:46
"For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Matthew 5:47
"If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

Matthew 5:48
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

aharvey,
Would you be willing to share your knowledge of the Biblical God and how you discern who is actually speaking closely to His words and those who are not?

Nineveh,

I gave you my overall, overwhelming impression on Jesus's perspective on killing, including killing to save your own life. Y'all obviously don't like that impression, and I've already characterized the nature of the objections, none of which seems particularly compelling.

As you well know, it's possible to mine quotes from the Bible to support a rather, er, broad range of contradictory positions. I'll just drop a few your way, and I'm sure you'll find ways to argue that they REALLY show that Jesus did think killing was okay under certain circumstances, but just to humor me, could you at least try to imagine that they might mean something else?

Matthew 16: 25-26, Mark 8: 35-36, Luke 24-25

Luke 17: 33

Matthew 5: 5-9

Matthew 5: 38-48

Matthew 10: 28; 37-39

Matthew 26: 51-52

 

[Balder]

It takes obedience to be responsible, and those who rebel aren't being responsible to themselves, so God won't put them over anyone else. That's just the way that He decided to do things.

Like Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler...the list could go on! So many obedient, responsible people leading us humans! So many people who know that violence and killing are the best ways to keep a "just" society!!!

 

[Aimiel]

All I'm saying is that you say I'm 'unjust' if I am able to save my neighbor's life by taking out the trash that is threatening his life, and that is based on your 'take' on The Word of God. I don't buy it.

 

[Balder]

You've used that phrase before, Aimiel. And the fact that you don't think it unChristian to speak of killing human beings as "taking out the trash" says a lot.

 

[Aimiel]

You're the only person I've ever seen become upset with that term, which says more. Perhaps you take it personally. Maybe you're afraid for a reason. Those who do good don't have anything to fear from authority, only criminals. Are you a criminal?