Proof: Parkland Survivors Screaming For Gun Control Aren't Serious About Fixing The Issues
Comments
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3)
Rulers = Power in Romans 13:3
ἄρχω, used as subst.: one who is in a position of leadership, esp. in a civic capacity.
① one who has eminence in a ruling capacity, ruler, lord, prince
ⓐ of earthly figures, οἱ ἄ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Mt 20:25; cp. B 9:3 (Is 1:10); οἱ ἄ. the rulers Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2). W. δικαστής of Moses (in quot. of Ex 2:14): 7:27, 35 and 1 ClArndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3)
Rulers = Power in Romans 13:3
ἄρχω, used as subst.: one who is in a position of leadership, esp. in a civic capacity.
① one who has eminence in a ruling capacity, ruler, lord, prince
ⓐ of earthly figures, οἱ ἄ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Mt 20:25; cp. B 9:3 (Is 1:10); οἱ ἄ. the rulers Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2). W. δικαστής of Moses (in quot. of Ex 2:14): 7:27, 35 and 1 ClArndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
That doesn't change anything. When the rulers cease to be a terror to evil and become evil, that changes everything.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3)
Rulers = Power in Romans 13:3
ἄρχω, used as subst.: one who is in a position of leadership, esp. in a civic capacity.
① one who has eminence in a ruling capacity, ruler, lord, prince
ⓐ of earthly figures, οἱ ἄ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Mt 20:25; cp. B 9:3 (Is 1:10); οἱ ἄ. the rulers Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2). W. δικαστής of Moses (in quot. of Ex 2:14): 7:27, 35 and 1 ClArndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
That doesn't change anything. When the rulers cease to be a terror to evil and become evil, that changes everything.
That's nowhere in Scripture. Paul wrote Romans 13 under Roman occupation. And they were the powers that be. He also wrote Romans 13 under Nero. And who is more wicked than he?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3)
Rulers = Power in Romans 13:3
ἄρχω, used as subst.: one who is in a position of leadership, esp. in a civic capacity.
① one who has eminence in a ruling capacity, ruler, lord, prince
ⓐ of earthly figures, οἱ ἄ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Mt 20:25; cp. B 9:3 (Is 1:10); οἱ ἄ. the rulers Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2). W. δικαστής of Moses (in quot. of Ex 2:14): 7:27, 35 and 1 ClArndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
That doesn't change anything. When the rulers cease to be a terror to evil and become evil, that changes everything.
That's nowhere in Scripture. Paul wrote Romans 13 under Roman occupation. And they were the powers that be. He also wrote Romans 13 under Nero. And who is more wicked than he?
I'm not sure what part of we need to agree to disagree on this you don't understand? You will NEVER convince me you are right on this and I will never convince you that you are wrong on this.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3)
Rulers = Power in Romans 13:3
ἄρχω, used as subst.: one who is in a position of leadership, esp. in a civic capacity.
① one who has eminence in a ruling capacity, ruler, lord, prince
ⓐ of earthly figures, οἱ ἄ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Mt 20:25; cp. B 9:3 (Is 1:10); οἱ ἄ. the rulers Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2). W. δικαστής of Moses (in quot. of Ex 2:14): 7:27, 35 and 1 ClArndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
That doesn't change anything. When the rulers cease to be a terror to evil and become evil, that changes everything.
That's nowhere in Scripture. Paul wrote Romans 13 under Roman occupation. And they were the powers that be. He also wrote Romans 13 under Nero. And who is more wicked than he?
I'm not sure what part of we need to agree to disagree on this you don't understand? You will NEVER convince me you are right on this and I will never convince you that you are wrong on this.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. But Jesus nowhere teaches your position on violence. Nor does the NT. Jesus based NT ethics on the Sermon on the Mount, as reiterated by Paul, and nowhere do we see Christians doing what you think they should.
My only grief is in what John Says:“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 9–11)
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3)
Rulers = Power in Romans 13:3
ἄρχω, used as subst.: one who is in a position of leadership, esp. in a civic capacity.
① one who has eminence in a ruling capacity, ruler, lord, prince
ⓐ of earthly figures, οἱ ἄ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Mt 20:25; cp. B 9:3 (Is 1:10); οἱ ἄ. the rulers Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2). W. δικαστής of Moses (in quot. of Ex 2:14): 7:27, 35 and 1 ClArndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
That doesn't change anything. When the rulers cease to be a terror to evil and become evil, that changes everything.
That's nowhere in Scripture. Paul wrote Romans 13 under Roman occupation. And they were the powers that be. He also wrote Romans 13 under Nero. And who is more wicked than he?
I'm not sure what part of we need to agree to disagree on this you don't understand? You will NEVER convince me you are right on this and I will never convince you that you are wrong on this.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. But Jesus nowhere teaches your position on violence. Nor does the NT. Jesus based NT ethics on the Sermon on the Mount, as reiterated by Paul, and nowhere do we see Christians doing what you think they should.
My only grief is in what John Says:“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 9–11)
Well I don't put a lot of stock in interpretations that are from left field from somone who doesn't adhere to Hebrews 10:24-25
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3)
Rulers = Power in Romans 13:3
ἄρχω, used as subst.: one who is in a position of leadership, esp. in a civic capacity.
① one who has eminence in a ruling capacity, ruler, lord, prince
ⓐ of earthly figures, οἱ ἄ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Mt 20:25; cp. B 9:3 (Is 1:10); οἱ ἄ. the rulers Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2). W. δικαστής of Moses (in quot. of Ex 2:14): 7:27, 35 and 1 ClArndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
That doesn't change anything. When the rulers cease to be a terror to evil and become evil, that changes everything.
That's nowhere in Scripture. Paul wrote Romans 13 under Roman occupation. And they were the powers that be. He also wrote Romans 13 under Nero. And who is more wicked than he?
I'm not sure what part of we need to agree to disagree on this you don't understand? You will NEVER convince me you are right on this and I will never convince you that you are wrong on this.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. But Jesus nowhere teaches your position on violence. Nor does the NT. Jesus based NT ethics on the Sermon on the Mount, as reiterated by Paul, and nowhere do we see Christians doing what you think they should.
My only grief is in what John Says:“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 9–11)
Well I don't put a lot of stock in interpretations that are from left field from somone who doesn't adhere to Hebrews 10:24-25
That's OK, but you still need to get around Jesus and the non violence of NT ethics.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3)
Rulers = Power in Romans 13:3
ἄρχω, used as subst.: one who is in a position of leadership, esp. in a civic capacity.
① one who has eminence in a ruling capacity, ruler, lord, prince
ⓐ of earthly figures, οἱ ἄ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Mt 20:25; cp. B 9:3 (Is 1:10); οἱ ἄ. the rulers Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2). W. δικαστής of Moses (in quot. of Ex 2:14): 7:27, 35 and 1 ClArndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
That doesn't change anything. When the rulers cease to be a terror to evil and become evil, that changes everything.
That's nowhere in Scripture. Paul wrote Romans 13 under Roman occupation. And they were the powers that be. He also wrote Romans 13 under Nero. And who is more wicked than he?
I'm not sure what part of we need to agree to disagree on this you don't understand? You will NEVER convince me you are right on this and I will never convince you that you are wrong on this.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. But Jesus nowhere teaches your position on violence. Nor does the NT. Jesus based NT ethics on the Sermon on the Mount, as reiterated by Paul, and nowhere do we see Christians doing what you think they should.
My only grief is in what John Says:“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 9–11)
Well I don't put a lot of stock in interpretations that are from left field from somone who doesn't adhere to Hebrews 10:24-25
That's OK, but you still need to get around Jesus and the non violence of NT ethics.
No I don't actually. I use the whole Bible, not just bits and pieces taken out of context.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3)
Rulers = Power in Romans 13:3
ἄρχω, used as subst.: one who is in a position of leadership, esp. in a civic capacity.
① one who has eminence in a ruling capacity, ruler, lord, prince
ⓐ of earthly figures, οἱ ἄ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Mt 20:25; cp. B 9:3 (Is 1:10); οἱ ἄ. the rulers Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2). W. δικαστής of Moses (in quot. of Ex 2:14): 7:27, 35 and 1 ClArndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
That doesn't change anything. When the rulers cease to be a terror to evil and become evil, that changes everything.
That's nowhere in Scripture. Paul wrote Romans 13 under Roman occupation. And they were the powers that be. He also wrote Romans 13 under Nero. And who is more wicked than he?
I'm not sure what part of we need to agree to disagree on this you don't understand? You will NEVER convince me you are right on this and I will never convince you that you are wrong on this.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. But Jesus nowhere teaches your position on violence. Nor does the NT. Jesus based NT ethics on the Sermon on the Mount, as reiterated by Paul, and nowhere do we see Christians doing what you think they should.
My only grief is in what John Says:“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 9–11)
Well I don't put a lot of stock in interpretations that are from left field from somone who doesn't adhere to Hebrews 10:24-25
That's OK, but you still need to get around Jesus and the non violence of NT ethics.
No I don't actually. I use the whole Bible, not just bits and pieces taken out of context.
Even the OT does not support your position.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3)
Rulers = Power in Romans 13:3
ἄρχω, used as subst.: one who is in a position of leadership, esp. in a civic capacity.
① one who has eminence in a ruling capacity, ruler, lord, prince
ⓐ of earthly figures, οἱ ἄ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Mt 20:25; cp. B 9:3 (Is 1:10); οἱ ἄ. the rulers Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2). W. δικαστής of Moses (in quot. of Ex 2:14): 7:27, 35 and 1 ClArndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
That doesn't change anything. When the rulers cease to be a terror to evil and become evil, that changes everything.
That's nowhere in Scripture. Paul wrote Romans 13 under Roman occupation. And they were the powers that be. He also wrote Romans 13 under Nero. And who is more wicked than he?
I'm not sure what part of we need to agree to disagree on this you don't understand? You will NEVER convince me you are right on this and I will never convince you that you are wrong on this.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. But Jesus nowhere teaches your position on violence. Nor does the NT. Jesus based NT ethics on the Sermon on the Mount, as reiterated by Paul, and nowhere do we see Christians doing what you think they should.
My only grief is in what John Says:“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 9–11)
Well I don't put a lot of stock in interpretations that are from left field from somone who doesn't adhere to Hebrews 10:24-25
That's OK, but you still need to get around Jesus and the non violence of NT ethics.
No I don't actually. I use the whole Bible, not just bits and pieces taken out of context.
Even the OT does not support your position.
What do you think my position actually is Dave?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
Dave that is just a lie. The guns are NOT designed to kill the maximum number of innocent people. You are being very dishonest right now.
I am not lying. If so. why do bump stocks exist?
Here's a question, do you even know what a bump stock does? I bet you don't.
Why are they working to ban them?
As usual, you don't answer the question. They are working to ban them because of people like you, who listen to only what the media says about them and don't even know what they are and actually do. More importantly, they do not know what they are not and do not do.
Here is what they are not and do not do, they DO NOT turn a semi-automatic firearm into an automatic firearm. Did you know that?
I always make sure of what I say before saying it.
Then you know banning bump stocks is a fruitless endeavor as they don't really change anything. You realize that right? I'm for banning them only because it will look like we give the gun control nuts a bone.
Why would Trump think they are bad?
WASHINGTON — President Trump — under pressure from angry, grieving students from a Florida high school where a gunman killed 17 people last week — ordered the Justice Department on Tuesday to issue regulations banning so-called bump stocks, which convert semiautomatic guns into automatic weapons like those used last year in the massacre of concertgoers in Las Vegas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/us/politics/trump-bump-stocks.html
It said it right there in the first line: under pressure from angry grieving students....
Also, if you listen to the President's remarks, he also doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons.
I think Mr. Trump might know more than we do.
Not if he thinks a bump stock turns a semi-auto into full auto.
I think he knows what he is talking about and possibly we are not as informed. I must admit, I know more about the bible than I do about weapons.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html Even the New York Times shows that it does NOT convert the weapons to automatic weapons, although they make you read carefully to catch that.
In fact, a simple google search shows that you can achieve the same rate of fire WITHOUT a bump stock. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS786US786&ei=u0ChWszIHYOuzwKjsZ74CQ&q=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&oq=bump+fire+without+bump+stock&gs_l=psy-ab.3...37947.40967.0.41164.28.9.0.0.0.0.571.870.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..26.1.571...0.0.vzi2P65-C-I&safe=active
That's fine. But since my point was about mass murder, thinking bump stocks contribute to this, I still believe any weapon that contributes to this should be outlawed. Innocent bloodshed remains evil whether it is Planned Parenthood or the NRA supporting it.
Ok you really need to stop using the line that the NRA supports it, they do not. That being said, anything that contributes to mass murder should be outlawed?
That would mean we need to outlaw every gun out there. What do you consider mass murder?
Both Planned Parenthood and the NRA lobby for ends that result in the shedding of innocent blood. The one directly, the other indirectly. But is it OK to place weapons designed to produce mass casualties somewhere knowing they will be used this way?
It is the exception that those guns are used for mass casualties and innocent killing. Let me repeat it is the RARE EXCEPTION. And they do not place those guns where the know it will be used this way. Most mass shootings the guns were obtained either illegally or something brokedown in the gun control systems.
Why do these guns designed for mass casualties exist?
Why is that the question you keep going to? You keep moving the goal posts. One post it is against innocent killings, then it is mass casualties (which could be war). You need to make up your mind what you are against.
Would you use an assault weapon to help overthrow the government if you felt justified?
If that government was sending their military to attack their own citizens? Absolutely.
So you would fight against the God ordained Civil Magistrate?
You know you can try to pull that card on me all you want, but I have already said we do not agree here. If they were sending their military to slaughter their own people YES I WOULD FIGHT THEM.
So, this is why the NRA wants all of these horrible weapons and believes those who lose their lives because of them are worth it???
No. That's why the constitution wants people to have them.
So you think all of the innocent lives lost so you can try to overthrow God's Civil Minister are worth it???
Have I ever said that?
Every time you preach guns instead of Christ you imply it.
Dave I am about sick of your slandering my position, and my character. I do not preach guns instead of Christ. Your insinuation is disgusting and unfounded.
Why not follow Paul's advice?
“For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Corinthians 2:2)
What do you think Paul means there Dave?
I don't think he spent his time campaigning for the Zealots.
As usual you did not answer the question.
What is your calling? To point people in the way of Christ's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount? Or away from it?
I'll answer your question once you actually answer mine.
You've already answered my question dozens of times. I'm only hoping and praying that you will see the beauty in the Sermon on the Mount and start preaching it instead of violence.
In other words you do not have any interest in actual debate and discussion. Noted.
Your debate is with Jesus, not me. I only say what he said in the Sermon on the Mount. And then identify it in the lives of all NT believers. Never did these resort to the violence you preach.
Lies and slander. I don't preach violence.
I've not read one word from you advising people to follow the Sermon on the Mount. But every word from you advises the exact opposite.
I have already established you and I interpret the sermon on the mount differently.
How do you find killing enemies instead of loving them anywhere in the Sermon? Or forcefully resisting evil instead of not resisting it? And so on? You teach the exact opposite of Jesus point for point.
There is more Scripture than just the sermon on the mount.
None of the New Testament supports your position on violence. Nor does the Old when you speak of the violent overthrow of your God ordained Government.
What does Romans 13 actually say about that Government? You really should read it more carefully. It does NOT say never go against your government.
Romans 13 says Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Wow talk about taking a verse WAY out of context.
“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:” (Romans 13:3)
Rulers = Power in Romans 13:3
ἄρχω, used as subst.: one who is in a position of leadership, esp. in a civic capacity.
① one who has eminence in a ruling capacity, ruler, lord, prince
ⓐ of earthly figures, οἱ ἄ. τῶν ἐθνῶν Mt 20:25; cp. B 9:3 (Is 1:10); οἱ ἄ. the rulers Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2). W. δικαστής of Moses (in quot. of Ex 2:14): 7:27, 35 and 1 ClArndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 140). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
That doesn't change anything. When the rulers cease to be a terror to evil and become evil, that changes everything.
That's nowhere in Scripture. Paul wrote Romans 13 under Roman occupation. And they were the powers that be. He also wrote Romans 13 under Nero. And who is more wicked than he?
I'm not sure what part of we need to agree to disagree on this you don't understand? You will NEVER convince me you are right on this and I will never convince you that you are wrong on this.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. But Jesus nowhere teaches your position on violence. Nor does the NT. Jesus based NT ethics on the Sermon on the Mount, as reiterated by Paul, and nowhere do we see Christians doing what you think they should.
My only grief is in what John Says:“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 9–11)
Well I don't put a lot of stock in interpretations that are from left field from somone who doesn't adhere to Hebrews 10:24-25
That's OK, but you still need to get around Jesus and the non violence of NT ethics.
No I don't actually. I use the whole Bible, not just bits and pieces taken out of context.
Even the OT does not support your position.
What do you think my position actually is Dave?
To put it mildly, the NRA sets off my "alarm bells". Along with any who support it.
Post edited by Dave_L on -
Doesn't sound like the NRA is the organization for you, Dave. That is OK.
-
@GaoLu said:
Doesn't sound like the NRA is the organization for you, Dave. That is OK.It is not an organization for followers of Christ especially. No more than Planned Parenthood is. Both organizations make possible under law the mass killing of innocents.
-
You have no biblical basis for that position. You can hold that position for yourself but you cannot make it universal.
-
@Dave_L said:
It is not an organization for followers of Christ especially. No more than Planned Parenthood is.I find that we often agree on certain matters and Christians not being part of Planned Parenthood is one of those. I think we could celebrate with a cup of coffee. My wife makes the BEST coffee. Maybe you can stop in sometime?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have no biblical basis for that position. You can hold that position for yourself but you cannot make it universal.
Thou shalt not kill. Or set the stage so others can.......
-
@GaoLu said:
@Dave_L said:
It is not an organization for followers of Christ especially. No more than Planned Parenthood is.I find that we often agree on certain matters and Christians not being part of Planned Parenthood is one of those. I think we could celebrate with a cup of coffee. My wife makes the BEST coffee. Maybe you can stop in sometime?
That would be great!
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have no biblical basis for that position. You can hold that position for yourself but you cannot make it universal.
Thou shalt not kill. Or set the stage so others can.......
Ever heard you shall not add to the words of Scripture? Which you just did....
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have no biblical basis for that position. You can hold that position for yourself but you cannot make it universal.
Thou shalt not kill. Or set the stage so others can.......
Ever heard you shall not add to the words of Scripture? Which you just did....
You are part of the killing if you help create and maintain the environment for it....
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have no biblical basis for that position. You can hold that position for yourself but you cannot make it universal.
Thou shalt not kill. Or set the stage so others can.......
Ever heard you shall not add to the words of Scripture? Which you just did....
You are part of the killing if you help create and maintain the environment for it....
That line is getting really old since it has zero basis in reality, fact, or evidence.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have no biblical basis for that position. You can hold that position for yourself but you cannot make it universal.
Thou shalt not kill. Or set the stage so others can.......
Ever heard you shall not add to the words of Scripture? Which you just did....
You are part of the killing if you help create and maintain the environment for it....
That line is getting really old since it has zero basis in reality, fact, or evidence.
We know people by their fruits. And no matter your motive, your position ends with more innocent people losing their lives than not.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have no biblical basis for that position. You can hold that position for yourself but you cannot make it universal.
Thou shalt not kill. Or set the stage so others can.......
Ever heard you shall not add to the words of Scripture? Which you just did....
You are part of the killing if you help create and maintain the environment for it....
That line is getting really old since it has zero basis in reality, fact, or evidence.
We know people by their fruits. And no matter your motive, your position ends with more innocent people losing their lives than not.
And for the last time, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have no biblical basis for that position. You can hold that position for yourself but you cannot make it universal.
Thou shalt not kill. Or set the stage so others can.......
Ever heard you shall not add to the words of Scripture? Which you just did....
You are part of the killing if you help create and maintain the environment for it....
That line is getting really old since it has zero basis in reality, fact, or evidence.
We know people by their fruits. And no matter your motive, your position ends with more innocent people losing their lives than not.
And for the last time, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
Jesus disagrees with you too:
“The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10)
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
You have no biblical basis for that position. You can hold that position for yourself but you cannot make it universal.
Thou shalt not kill. Or set the stage so others can.......
Ever heard you shall not add to the words of Scripture? Which you just did....
You are part of the killing if you help create and maintain the environment for it....
That line is getting really old since it has zero basis in reality, fact, or evidence.
We know people by their fruits. And no matter your motive, your position ends with more innocent people losing their lives than not.
And for the last time, we will have to agree to disagree on that point.
Jesus disagrees with you too:
“The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.” (John 10:10)
First, no.
Second, that verse has nothing to do with this topic and is taken way out of context.
-
In view of Jesus' stated purpose for coming to earth, I believe we should always ask if our doctrinal or political positions tend to abundant life or detract from it.
-
@Dave_L said:
In view of Jesus' stated purpose for coming to earth, I believe we should always ask if our doctrinal or political positions tend to abundant life or detract from it.I would think saving lives leads to abundant life, that is what the 2nd Amendment allows for.
