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:
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.
It equips carnal minded people for killing under what they think are justifiable reasons.
No it doesn't actually. That is the major point you miss. Criminals will get guns no matter what and kill no matter what. And whether you think so or not, the Bible actually states there are justifiable reasons for killing. I know that may shock you, but they are there.
You cannot justify killing because criminals do it. How do you fit in with James' view?
“From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:1–4)
Once again a passage taken out of its context. Is that all you know how to do?
Isn't James speaking about the Zealot types? Similar to our own Zealot types?
Actually I would consider you a zealot. That being said, yes, James is, but you still take it out of context and misapply it to our current conversation.
The Zealots were violent. I'm not. Nor is anyone who follows Christ.
Perhaps you should lookup the definition of zealot....
Rather than argue word meanings, let's look at what James says and then ask, who might this apply to today?
You have to look at in context and in the whole of Scripture Dave, including the OT. And you, and I mean you personally now, need to understand the people you are trying to apply it to.
You do not understand the NRA or people who support gun rights. You think you do but you don't. You apply an understanding to them based on what a certain section of the population applies to them. An understanding that is not reality.
No matter how you approach it, NT Christians have no involvement with killing for any reason.
But it is not forbidden either. There's the problem Dave. You ignore the whole of Scripture and take a section of Scripture, and because that section of Scripture doesn't deal with a topic that was dealt with in the part you ignore you take it that it means that is forbidden. That is a horrible hermeneutical approach and flat wrong.
Love your enemies? Do not resist violence? Put away your sword? etc. etc...
Love your enemies, yes. Where does it say do not resist violence? Where does it say to always put away your sword? In fact, Jesus said to purchase a sword.
If you carefully read the Sermon, Jesus says to love our enemies. He also tells us not to resist (physical) evil (violence) when hit on the face, but to turn the other cheek too. If we cannot do this, we will never be able to do what demands even more courage. Jesus told Peter to put away the sword when he used it for self defence.
- I agreed we are to love our enemies. This does not mean let our enemies run over us.
- Jesus did say to turn the other cheek. But he was not talking about self-defense. He was talking about vengence. There is a major difference in those two.
- Jesus did not tell Peter to put the sword away for using it in self defense and to say so is ignorant at best. The situation was something Peter did not understand. He would have stopped what would have saved the entire world. And, Peter was not acting in self-defense. He was not personally being threatened, nor was Jesus, yet. He was being arrested. There is a major difference.
Once again, you take things out of their context to misapply a meaning that doesn't exist to a situation that is not relevant.
“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Who did no sin, (if Jesus says to love our enemies, it is sin if we do not) neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:” (1 Peter 2:21–23)
We do not see your understanding of the Sermon on the Mount anywhere in scripture. And Jesus also told Peter to put away the sword rather than defend himself and the group with it.
Once again your classic move of taking things out of context. And with Peter, you totally ignored my rebuttal to your position. To put it simply, you misinterpreted that passage.
Please show examples of Jesus or any of the NT believers doing what you would do in a violent situation.
Unlike you I take the whole Bible, not just the NT. Exodus 22 permits self-defense.
Are you saying Jesus and the NT believers did not? Surely they would act out your understanding of the Sermon if it were true.> @davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@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.
It equips carnal minded people for killing under what they think are justifiable reasons.
No it doesn't actually. That is the major point you miss. Criminals will get guns no matter what and kill no matter what. And whether you think so or not, the Bible actually states there are justifiable reasons for killing. I know that may shock you, but they are there.
You cannot justify killing because criminals do it. How do you fit in with James' view?
“From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:1–4)
Once again a passage taken out of its context. Is that all you know how to do?
Isn't James speaking about the Zealot types? Similar to our own Zealot types?
Actually I would consider you a zealot. That being said, yes, James is, but you still take it out of context and misapply it to our current conversation.
The Zealots were violent. I'm not. Nor is anyone who follows Christ.
Perhaps you should lookup the definition of zealot....
Rather than argue word meanings, let's look at what James says and then ask, who might this apply to today?
You have to look at in context and in the whole of Scripture Dave, including the OT. And you, and I mean you personally now, need to understand the people you are trying to apply it to.
You do not understand the NRA or people who support gun rights. You think you do but you don't. You apply an understanding to them based on what a certain section of the population applies to them. An understanding that is not reality.
No matter how you approach it, NT Christians have no involvement with killing for any reason.
But it is not forbidden either. There's the problem Dave. You ignore the whole of Scripture and take a section of Scripture, and because that section of Scripture doesn't deal with a topic that was dealt with in the part you ignore you take it that it means that is forbidden. That is a horrible hermeneutical approach and flat wrong.
Love your enemies? Do not resist violence? Put away your sword? etc. etc...
Love your enemies, yes. Where does it say do not resist violence? Where does it say to always put away your sword? In fact, Jesus said to purchase a sword.
If you carefully read the Sermon, Jesus says to love our enemies. He also tells us not to resist (physical) evil (violence) when hit on the face, but to turn the other cheek too. If we cannot do this, we will never be able to do what demands even more courage. Jesus told Peter to put away the sword when he used it for self defence.
- I agreed we are to love our enemies. This does not mean let our enemies run over us.
- Jesus did say to turn the other cheek. But he was not talking about self-defense. He was talking about vengence. There is a major difference in those two.
- Jesus did not tell Peter to put the sword away for using it in self defense and to say so is ignorant at best. The situation was something Peter did not understand. He would have stopped what would have saved the entire world. And, Peter was not acting in self-defense. He was not personally being threatened, nor was Jesus, yet. He was being arrested. There is a major difference.
Once again, you take things out of their context to misapply a meaning that doesn't exist to a situation that is not relevant.
“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Who did no sin, (if Jesus says to love our enemies, it is sin if we do not) neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:” (1 Peter 2:21–23)
We do not see your understanding of the Sermon on the Mount anywhere in scripture. And Jesus also told Peter to put away the sword rather than defend himself and the group with it.
Once again your classic move of taking things out of context. And with Peter, you totally ignored my rebuttal to your position. To put it simply, you misinterpreted that passage.
Please show examples of Jesus or any of the NT believers doing what you would do in a violent situation.
Unlike you I take the whole Bible, not just the NT. Exodus 22 permits self-defense.
Are you saying Jesus and the NT believers did not take the whole Bible? Surely they would act out your understanding of it if it were true.
I have already addressed this. You take things out of context and assume that because the NT doesn't deal directly with an issue that was dealt with already in the OT it means it is forbidden.
Perhaps you don't know that we do not have record of every moment of every member of the church in the NT. Nor do we need it. Why? God already gave us the OT that deals with a whole host of issues.
Let me ask you this, if you were at home and someone broke in and was raping your wife. Are you honestly telling me the Bible says to stand by and let this happen? We do not find that in Scripture.
Do you find killing your enemy in the NT?
It doesn't need to be there Dave.
Jesus never says to wing it, he asks: ““Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and don’t do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46)
Who said anything about winging it? I follow the Bible, the Bible permits violence in matters of self defense. Never does it forbid it. Not once.
““You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. And if someone wants to sue you and to take your tunic, give him your coat also. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks you, and do not reject the one who wants to borrow from you. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they? So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:38–48)
That is not talking about self defense Dave.
How so?
Go back to the eye for an eye passage, it was not talking about self defense either.
How about: “Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head.Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:19–21)
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@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.
It equips carnal minded people for killing under what they think are justifiable reasons.
No it doesn't actually. That is the major point you miss. Criminals will get guns no matter what and kill no matter what. And whether you think so or not, the Bible actually states there are justifiable reasons for killing. I know that may shock you, but they are there.
You cannot justify killing because criminals do it. How do you fit in with James' view?
“From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:1–4)
Once again a passage taken out of its context. Is that all you know how to do?
Isn't James speaking about the Zealot types? Similar to our own Zealot types?
Actually I would consider you a zealot. That being said, yes, James is, but you still take it out of context and misapply it to our current conversation.
The Zealots were violent. I'm not. Nor is anyone who follows Christ.
Perhaps you should lookup the definition of zealot....
Rather than argue word meanings, let's look at what James says and then ask, who might this apply to today?
You have to look at in context and in the whole of Scripture Dave, including the OT. And you, and I mean you personally now, need to understand the people you are trying to apply it to.
You do not understand the NRA or people who support gun rights. You think you do but you don't. You apply an understanding to them based on what a certain section of the population applies to them. An understanding that is not reality.
No matter how you approach it, NT Christians have no involvement with killing for any reason.
But it is not forbidden either. There's the problem Dave. You ignore the whole of Scripture and take a section of Scripture, and because that section of Scripture doesn't deal with a topic that was dealt with in the part you ignore you take it that it means that is forbidden. That is a horrible hermeneutical approach and flat wrong.
Love your enemies? Do not resist violence? Put away your sword? etc. etc...
Love your enemies, yes. Where does it say do not resist violence? Where does it say to always put away your sword? In fact, Jesus said to purchase a sword.
If you carefully read the Sermon, Jesus says to love our enemies. He also tells us not to resist (physical) evil (violence) when hit on the face, but to turn the other cheek too. If we cannot do this, we will never be able to do what demands even more courage. Jesus told Peter to put away the sword when he used it for self defence.
- I agreed we are to love our enemies. This does not mean let our enemies run over us.
- Jesus did say to turn the other cheek. But he was not talking about self-defense. He was talking about vengence. There is a major difference in those two.
- Jesus did not tell Peter to put the sword away for using it in self defense and to say so is ignorant at best. The situation was something Peter did not understand. He would have stopped what would have saved the entire world. And, Peter was not acting in self-defense. He was not personally being threatened, nor was Jesus, yet. He was being arrested. There is a major difference.
Once again, you take things out of their context to misapply a meaning that doesn't exist to a situation that is not relevant.
“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Who did no sin, (if Jesus says to love our enemies, it is sin if we do not) neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:” (1 Peter 2:21–23)
We do not see your understanding of the Sermon on the Mount anywhere in scripture. And Jesus also told Peter to put away the sword rather than defend himself and the group with it.
Once again your classic move of taking things out of context. And with Peter, you totally ignored my rebuttal to your position. To put it simply, you misinterpreted that passage.
Please show examples of Jesus or any of the NT believers doing what you would do in a violent situation.
Unlike you I take the whole Bible, not just the NT. Exodus 22 permits self-defense.
Are you saying Jesus and the NT believers did not? Surely they would act out your understanding of the Sermon if it were true.> @davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@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.
It equips carnal minded people for killing under what they think are justifiable reasons.
No it doesn't actually. That is the major point you miss. Criminals will get guns no matter what and kill no matter what. And whether you think so or not, the Bible actually states there are justifiable reasons for killing. I know that may shock you, but they are there.
You cannot justify killing because criminals do it. How do you fit in with James' view?
“From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.” (James 4:1–4)
Once again a passage taken out of its context. Is that all you know how to do?
Isn't James speaking about the Zealot types? Similar to our own Zealot types?
Actually I would consider you a zealot. That being said, yes, James is, but you still take it out of context and misapply it to our current conversation.
The Zealots were violent. I'm not. Nor is anyone who follows Christ.
Perhaps you should lookup the definition of zealot....
Rather than argue word meanings, let's look at what James says and then ask, who might this apply to today?
You have to look at in context and in the whole of Scripture Dave, including the OT. And you, and I mean you personally now, need to understand the people you are trying to apply it to.
You do not understand the NRA or people who support gun rights. You think you do but you don't. You apply an understanding to them based on what a certain section of the population applies to them. An understanding that is not reality.
No matter how you approach it, NT Christians have no involvement with killing for any reason.
But it is not forbidden either. There's the problem Dave. You ignore the whole of Scripture and take a section of Scripture, and because that section of Scripture doesn't deal with a topic that was dealt with in the part you ignore you take it that it means that is forbidden. That is a horrible hermeneutical approach and flat wrong.
Love your enemies? Do not resist violence? Put away your sword? etc. etc...
Love your enemies, yes. Where does it say do not resist violence? Where does it say to always put away your sword? In fact, Jesus said to purchase a sword.
If you carefully read the Sermon, Jesus says to love our enemies. He also tells us not to resist (physical) evil (violence) when hit on the face, but to turn the other cheek too. If we cannot do this, we will never be able to do what demands even more courage. Jesus told Peter to put away the sword when he used it for self defence.
- I agreed we are to love our enemies. This does not mean let our enemies run over us.
- Jesus did say to turn the other cheek. But he was not talking about self-defense. He was talking about vengence. There is a major difference in those two.
- Jesus did not tell Peter to put the sword away for using it in self defense and to say so is ignorant at best. The situation was something Peter did not understand. He would have stopped what would have saved the entire world. And, Peter was not acting in self-defense. He was not personally being threatened, nor was Jesus, yet. He was being arrested. There is a major difference.
Once again, you take things out of their context to misapply a meaning that doesn't exist to a situation that is not relevant.
“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Who did no sin, (if Jesus says to love our enemies, it is sin if we do not) neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:” (1 Peter 2:21–23)
We do not see your understanding of the Sermon on the Mount anywhere in scripture. And Jesus also told Peter to put away the sword rather than defend himself and the group with it.
Once again your classic move of taking things out of context. And with Peter, you totally ignored my rebuttal to your position. To put it simply, you misinterpreted that passage.
Please show examples of Jesus or any of the NT believers doing what you would do in a violent situation.
Unlike you I take the whole Bible, not just the NT. Exodus 22 permits self-defense.
Are you saying Jesus and the NT believers did not take the whole Bible? Surely they would act out your understanding of it if it were true.
I have already addressed this. You take things out of context and assume that because the NT doesn't deal directly with an issue that was dealt with already in the OT it means it is forbidden.
Perhaps you don't know that we do not have record of every moment of every member of the church in the NT. Nor do we need it. Why? God already gave us the OT that deals with a whole host of issues.
Let me ask you this, if you were at home and someone broke in and was raping your wife. Are you honestly telling me the Bible says to stand by and let this happen? We do not find that in Scripture.
Do you find killing your enemy in the NT?
It doesn't need to be there Dave.
Jesus never says to wing it, he asks: ““Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and don’t do what I tell you?” (Luke 6:46)
Who said anything about winging it? I follow the Bible, the Bible permits violence in matters of self defense. Never does it forbid it. Not once.
““You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. And if someone wants to sue you and to take your tunic, give him your coat also. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to the one who asks you, and do not reject the one who wants to borrow from you. “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they? And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do? Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they? So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:38–48)
That is not talking about self defense Dave.
How so?
Go back to the eye for an eye passage, it was not talking about self defense either.
How about: “Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head.Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:19–21)
Once again not self defense. Do you know the difference between revenge and self defense? They are not synonyms.
-
Where does Jesus, the Apostles, or any NT believer defend themselves using physical force without rebuke?
-
@Dave_L said:
Where does Jesus, the Apostles, or any NT believer defend themselves using physical force without rebuke?irrelevant
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Where does Jesus, the Apostles, or any NT believer defend themselves using physical force without rebuke?irrelevant
How about?
“But remember the former days when you endured a harsh conflict of suffering after you were enlightened. At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and afflictions, and at other times you came to share with others who were treated in that way. For in fact you shared the sufferings of those in prison, and you accepted the confiscation of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you certainly had a better and lasting possession. So do not throw away your confidence, because it has great reward. For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised.For just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay.But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I take no pleasure in him.But we are not among those who shrink back and thus perish, but are among those who have faith and preserve their souls.” (Hebrews 10:32–39)
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Where does Jesus, the Apostles, or any NT believer defend themselves using physical force without rebuke?irrelevant
How about?
“But remember the former days when you endured a harsh conflict of suffering after you were enlightened. At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and afflictions, and at other times you came to share with others who were treated in that way. For in fact you shared the sufferings of those in prison, and you accepted the confiscation of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you certainly had a better and lasting possession. So do not throw away your confidence, because it has great reward. For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised.For just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay.But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I take no pleasure in him.But we are not among those who shrink back and thus perish, but are among those who have faith and preserve their souls.” (Hebrews 10:32–39)
Also has nothing to do with self defense
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Where does Jesus, the Apostles, or any NT believer defend themselves using physical force without rebuke?irrelevant
How about?
“But remember the former days when you endured a harsh conflict of suffering after you were enlightened. At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and afflictions, and at other times you came to share with others who were treated in that way. For in fact you shared the sufferings of those in prison, and you accepted the confiscation of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you certainly had a better and lasting possession. So do not throw away your confidence, because it has great reward. For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised.For just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay.But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I take no pleasure in him.But we are not among those who shrink back and thus perish, but are among those who have faith and preserve their souls.” (Hebrews 10:32–39)
Also has nothing to do with self defense
Can you provide one example of any Christian defending themself, other than vocally, in the NT, without being rebuked for it?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Where does Jesus, the Apostles, or any NT believer defend themselves using physical force without rebuke?irrelevant
How about?
“But remember the former days when you endured a harsh conflict of suffering after you were enlightened. At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and afflictions, and at other times you came to share with others who were treated in that way. For in fact you shared the sufferings of those in prison, and you accepted the confiscation of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you certainly had a better and lasting possession. So do not throw away your confidence, because it has great reward. For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised.For just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay.But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I take no pleasure in him.But we are not among those who shrink back and thus perish, but are among those who have faith and preserve their souls.” (Hebrews 10:32–39)
Also has nothing to do with self defense
Can you provide one example of any Christian defending themself, other than vocally, in the NT, without being rebuked for it?
No, nor can I provide an example of a Christian defending themselves in the NT and BEING REBUKED for it with out extraordinary circumstances.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Where does Jesus, the Apostles, or any NT believer defend themselves using physical force without rebuke?irrelevant
How about?
“But remember the former days when you endured a harsh conflict of suffering after you were enlightened. At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and afflictions, and at other times you came to share with others who were treated in that way. For in fact you shared the sufferings of those in prison, and you accepted the confiscation of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you certainly had a better and lasting possession. So do not throw away your confidence, because it has great reward. For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised.For just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay.But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I take no pleasure in him.But we are not among those who shrink back and thus perish, but are among those who have faith and preserve their souls.” (Hebrews 10:32–39)
Also has nothing to do with self defense
Can you provide one example of any Christian defending themself, other than vocally, in the NT, without being rebuked for it?
No, nor can I provide an example of a Christian defending themselves in the NT and BEING REBUKED for it with out extraordinary circumstances.
So you do not have any scriptural support for self defence under the New Covenant?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Where does Jesus, the Apostles, or any NT believer defend themselves using physical force without rebuke?irrelevant
How about?
“But remember the former days when you endured a harsh conflict of suffering after you were enlightened. At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and afflictions, and at other times you came to share with others who were treated in that way. For in fact you shared the sufferings of those in prison, and you accepted the confiscation of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you certainly had a better and lasting possession. So do not throw away your confidence, because it has great reward. For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised.For just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay.But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I take no pleasure in him.But we are not among those who shrink back and thus perish, but are among those who have faith and preserve their souls.” (Hebrews 10:32–39)
Also has nothing to do with self defense
Can you provide one example of any Christian defending themself, other than vocally, in the NT, without being rebuked for it?
No, nor can I provide an example of a Christian defending themselves in the NT and BEING REBUKED for it with out extraordinary circumstances.
So you do not have any scriptural support for self defence under the New Covenant?
I have scriptural support for self defense and that is all that is necessary. You, however, do not have scriptural support for your position. You just have lack of verses in the New Testament even though they are already in the Old Testament. The support for it in the OT is the Moral Law which is still very much in effect as it is not Ceremonial or Laws meant specifically for OT Israel.
So you lose on this one Dave. I know you can't see it or figure it out, but the fact is you are wrong on this issue and I have Scripture, not taken out of context, to back me up on it and you do not.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Where does Jesus, the Apostles, or any NT believer defend themselves using physical force without rebuke?irrelevant
How about?
“But remember the former days when you endured a harsh conflict of suffering after you were enlightened. At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and afflictions, and at other times you came to share with others who were treated in that way. For in fact you shared the sufferings of those in prison, and you accepted the confiscation of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you certainly had a better and lasting possession. So do not throw away your confidence, because it has great reward. For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised.For just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay.But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I take no pleasure in him.But we are not among those who shrink back and thus perish, but are among those who have faith and preserve their souls.” (Hebrews 10:32–39)
Also has nothing to do with self defense
Can you provide one example of any Christian defending themself, other than vocally, in the NT, without being rebuked for it?
No, nor can I provide an example of a Christian defending themselves in the NT and BEING REBUKED for it with out extraordinary circumstances.
So you do not have any scriptural support for self defence under the New Covenant?
I have scriptural support for self defense and that is all that is necessary. You, however, do not have scriptural support for your position. You just have lack of verses in the New Testament even though they are already in the Old Testament. The support for it in the OT is the Moral Law which is still very much in effect as it is not Ceremonial or Laws meant specifically for OT Israel.
So you lose on this one Dave. I know you can't see it or figure it out, but the fact is you are wrong on this issue and I have Scripture, not taken out of context, to back me up on it and you do not.
Please show at least one Christian in the New Testament that used self-defense without being rebuked, other than defending themselves vocally.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Where does Jesus, the Apostles, or any NT believer defend themselves using physical force without rebuke?irrelevant
How about?
“But remember the former days when you endured a harsh conflict of suffering after you were enlightened. At times you were publicly exposed to abuse and afflictions, and at other times you came to share with others who were treated in that way. For in fact you shared the sufferings of those in prison, and you accepted the confiscation of your belongings with joy, because you knew that you certainly had a better and lasting possession. So do not throw away your confidence, because it has great reward. For you need endurance in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised.For just a little longer and he who is coming will arrive and not delay.But my righteous one will live by faith, and if he shrinks back, I take no pleasure in him.But we are not among those who shrink back and thus perish, but are among those who have faith and preserve their souls.” (Hebrews 10:32–39)
Also has nothing to do with self defense
Can you provide one example of any Christian defending themself, other than vocally, in the NT, without being rebuked for it?
No, nor can I provide an example of a Christian defending themselves in the NT and BEING REBUKED for it with out extraordinary circumstances.
So you do not have any scriptural support for self defence under the New Covenant?
I have scriptural support for self defense and that is all that is necessary. You, however, do not have scriptural support for your position. You just have lack of verses in the New Testament even though they are already in the Old Testament. The support for it in the OT is the Moral Law which is still very much in effect as it is not Ceremonial or Laws meant specifically for OT Israel.
So you lose on this one Dave. I know you can't see it or figure it out, but the fact is you are wrong on this issue and I have Scripture, not taken out of context, to back me up on it and you do not.
Please show at least one Christian in the New Testament that used self-defense without being rebuked, other than defending themselves vocally.
I don't need to, that is beside the point. The fact that you are so fixed on that shows that you are defeated and have no other argument and cannot actually engage the fact that the OT allows for self defense. I accept your surrender.
-
It is not beside the point. The point is that New Testament believers did not use any form of physical violence to defend themselves. When Jesus told Peter to put away the sword, he was being kidnapped and murdered. Had he followed your course of action, we would still be in our sins.
-
@Dave_L said:
It is not beside the point. The point is that New Testament believers did not use any form of physical violence to defend themselves. When Jesus told Peter to put away the sword, he was being kidnapped and murdered. Had he followed your course of action, we would still be in our sins.Wow you really like to make up your own facts.
- You do not know that no NT believer used physical violence to defend themselves or their families.
- Peter was not being kidnapped or murdered. He was defending Jesus who did not wish to be defended. It was an extraordinary circumstance that has no bearing on whether or not the Bible allows us to use self defense.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Go back to the eye for an eye passage, it was not talking about self defense either.As I read Jesus' reference to the "eye for an eye" rule, David, he IS talking about self defense.
After proclaiming that his followers should not resist evil (MT 5.39) Jesus offers the proper response should someone "(slap) you on the right cheek." The proper response is not to defend yourself - not to render the striker incapable of further strikes against you - but rather to make your left cheek available to the striker.
So the fullness of the teaching is a) not to resist evil - which sounds germane to the issue of self-defense - and b) to make yourself available for additional strikes - which also sounds germane to the issue of self defense.
I read the passage as a command to a non-violent response to an assault on one's person.
Where in the text do you find support for your view that Jesus is not referring to self-defense against physical assaults?
As for Peter's use of a sword to cut off the ear of a high priest's servant, can't his action be understood to be an act in defense of Jesus? He and his companions believe the pending assault is unjust. (Luke 22.49) In addition, John's account of the event reports that in the crowd Judas led to arrest Jesus were soldiers armed with weapons. (John 18.3) In that context, why isn't it reasonable to conclude the disciples believed the sword attack was a just defense of Jesus' freedom?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
It is not beside the point. The point is that New Testament believers did not use any form of physical violence to defend themselves. When Jesus told Peter to put away the sword, he was being kidnapped and murdered. Had he followed your course of action, we would still be in our sins.Wow you really like to make up your own facts.
- You do not know that no NT believer used physical violence to defend themselves or their families.
- Peter was not being kidnapped or murdered. He was defending Jesus who did not wish to be defended. It was an extraordinary circumstance that has no bearing on whether or not the Bible allows us to use self defense.
Where is your scriptural support for ANY christian defending themselves in the NT? We mentioned Jesus rebuked Peter for attempting self defence and defending Jesus with the sword.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
It is not beside the point. The point is that New Testament believers did not use any form of physical violence to defend themselves. When Jesus told Peter to put away the sword, he was being kidnapped and murdered. Had he followed your course of action, we would still be in our sins.Wow you really like to make up your own facts.
- You do not know that no NT believer used physical violence to defend themselves or their families.
- Peter was not being kidnapped or murdered. He was defending Jesus who did not wish to be defended. It was an extraordinary circumstance that has no bearing on whether or not the Bible allows us to use self defense.
Where is your scriptural support for ANY christian defending themselves in the NT? We mentioned Jesus rebuked Peter for attempting self defence and defending Jesus with the sword.
For the last time Dave, I don't need it to be in the NT for it to be valid. And also for the last time, the situation with Peter was an extraordinary circumstance and should not be used as a text to ban self defense for everyone.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
It is not beside the point. The point is that New Testament believers did not use any form of physical violence to defend themselves. When Jesus told Peter to put away the sword, he was being kidnapped and murdered. Had he followed your course of action, we would still be in our sins.Wow you really like to make up your own facts.
- You do not know that no NT believer used physical violence to defend themselves or their families.
- Peter was not being kidnapped or murdered. He was defending Jesus who did not wish to be defended. It was an extraordinary circumstance that has no bearing on whether or not the Bible allows us to use self defense.
Where is your scriptural support for ANY christian defending themselves in the NT? We mentioned Jesus rebuked Peter for attempting self defence and defending Jesus with the sword.
For the last time Dave, I don't need it to be in the NT for it to be valid. And also for the last time, the situation with Peter was an extraordinary circumstance and should not be used as a text to ban self defense for everyone.
Please show ANY example from scripture where Christians used self defense other than defending themselves vocally. I can show many times when they ran, hid, and forfeited all rather than compromise Jesus' teachings about loving enemies.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
It is not beside the point. The point is that New Testament believers did not use any form of physical violence to defend themselves. When Jesus told Peter to put away the sword, he was being kidnapped and murdered. Had he followed your course of action, we would still be in our sins.Wow you really like to make up your own facts.
- You do not know that no NT believer used physical violence to defend themselves or their families.
- Peter was not being kidnapped or murdered. He was defending Jesus who did not wish to be defended. It was an extraordinary circumstance that has no bearing on whether or not the Bible allows us to use self defense.
Where is your scriptural support for ANY christian defending themselves in the NT? We mentioned Jesus rebuked Peter for attempting self defence and defending Jesus with the sword.
For the last time Dave, I don't need it to be in the NT for it to be valid. And also for the last time, the situation with Peter was an extraordinary circumstance and should not be used as a text to ban self defense for everyone.
Please show ANY example from scripture where Christians used self defense other than defending themselves vocally. I can show many times when they ran, hid, and forfeited all rather than compromise Jesus' teachings about loving enemies.
Go ahead and post your out of context examples or examples that don't have to do with self defense at all.
-
I'll mention their leaving Jerusalem in 70 AD. Letting Paul down in a basket so he could flee. The many who fled at the time of Stephen's murder. All of the Apostles except one who who died passively at the hands of executioners. The early church for the first couple of centuries and leading up to the Reformation, and during the Reformation.
-
Why are they working to ban them (bump stocks)?
@davidtaylorjr said:
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....
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.Well, David, apparently President Trump - who, in the same thread, you claimed "doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons" - gave a bone to gun control nuts today, given that according to one of his tweets, he's ordered the DOJ to reverse a 2010 ATF ruling that bump stocks were firearm parts, a move that will result in their being banned.
I give credit where I think credit is due, even when I doubt the sincerity and integrity of the process/person due the credit. Well done, Mr President, for taking the step you took today. There is much more to be done, but today you have done something. Thank you.
-
Wow. You and CM are peas in a pod. You can see great dark spots on the sun from a hundred million miles away.
-
@Bill_Coley said:
Why are they working to ban them (bump stocks)?
@davidtaylorjr said:
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....
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.Well, David, apparently President Trump - who, in the same thread, you claimed "doesn't understand that bump stocks do not create automatic weapons" - gave a bone to gun control nuts today, given that according to one of his tweets, he's ordered the DOJ to reverse a 2010 ATF ruling that bump stocks were firearm parts, a move that will result in their being banned.
I give credit where I think credit is due, even when I doubt the sincerity and integrity of the process/person due the credit. Well done, Mr President, for taking the step you took today. There is much more to be done, but today you have done something. Thank you.
You don't even need a bump stock to get the gun to do the same thing. So yes, we gave you a bone, can the gun control nuts shut up now?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
You don't even need a bump stock to get the gun to do the same thing. So yes, we gave you a bone, can the gun control nuts shut up now?I doubt the "nuts" any side of the gun debate will ever "shut up," David. In fact, I doubt CD posters on any side of the gun debate will ever "shut up."
-
N> @Bill_Coley said:
I doubt the "nuts" any side of the gun debate will ever "shut up," David. In fact, I doubt CD posters on any side of the gun debate will ever "shut up."
That would sort of validate Dave L's point: People act according to their nature. Dog like a dog, cat like a cat, etc.
-
You have these kids who do the school killings & then blame it on the NRA & American gun owners.
-
@GaoLu said:
You have these kids who do the school killings & then blame it on the NRA & American gun owners.Exactly. The NRA and American gun owners have ZERO responsibility in these shootings. Period.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@GaoLu said:
You have these kids who do the school killings & then blame it on the NRA & American gun owners.Exactly. The NRA and American gun owners have ZERO responsibility in these shootings. Period.
Why are so many kids "targeting" the NRA? Could it be because they lobby to keep guns designed for mass casualty legal? How can any who support this type of weaponry not share in the innocent bloodshed they produce? Why have them in the first place, if not for killing people?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@GaoLu said:
You have these kids who do the school killings & then blame it on the NRA & American gun owners.Exactly. The NRA and American gun owners have ZERO responsibility in these shootings. Period.
Why are so many kids "targeting" the NRA? Could it be because they lobby to keep guns designed for mass casualty legal? How can any who support this type of weaponry not share in the innocent bloodshed they produce? Why have them in the first place, if not for killing people?
Because the kids are ignorant and brainwashed by liberals and the media. That's why. Plain and simple.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
Why are so many kids "targeting" the NRA? Could it be because they lobby to keep guns designed for mass casualty legal? How can any who support this type of weaponry not share in the innocent bloodshed they produce? Why have them in the first place, if not for killing people?
Because the kids are ignorant and brainwashed by liberals and the media. That's why. Plain and simple.
I don't know WHERE I got the idea that the students who took on the NRA and members of Congress during their Saturday marches in dozens of cities around the world did so as part of their stand against gun violence. Thanks for setting me straight, David. Thanks to your post, I now understand that it's only liberals and the media who are against gun violence and the organizations and Congresspeople who enable it, the ignorant and brainwashed students, simply pawns in an elaborate and sinister scheme to reduce the number of people killed by firearms.
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.
