Wondering how the left media will cover the Texas church shooting.

[Gmoney4WW]

Which is a problem I have with the modern church. People don't actually live the teachings of Christ. They profess one thing and then completely ignore the super important tenants that are really what sets Christianity apart from other religions. If you want to carry a gun around for your protection from the bad men of the world... that's fine. Just don't profess Christianity while you do it.

I'd be intrigued to know how Jesus would view people bringing weapons of war and violence into his temple when he didn't even allow traders into it. He cast out those who promoted greed. Do we think he would cast out those who promoted violence as well?

Followers of other religions are just as flawed as Christians. You see evils amongst us, but not amongst others. Your preachings are of self loathing. When I say 'your preachings' I am speaking of Democratic preachings.

There are many teachings in the Bible that can be interpreted many ways in both the old testament and the new. The old testament has not been thrown out by Christians either. They are both read from in every church from the teachings of Christ. Your reading of the Bible can be way too narrow when you want it to be, and way too wide when you want it to be.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/erik-raymond/should-christians-defend-themselves/

https://www.crossway.org/articles/a-biblical-argument-for-self-defense/

 

[TUMe]

Britain banned (most) handguns and most semi autos in 1997... did it have that effect there? I mean, there are similar sorts of criminals.... there a criminal organizations as well... and even terrorist cells... and not to many of the crimes there have involved guns.

When Boris Johnson was mayor of London, one of his big accomplishments was a major reduction in knife murders. People wanting to kill someone usually find a way and knife murders came back under the current mayor. Elizabeth Borden took an ax and gave her mother 40 whacks. Piano wire works. I had access to many highly poisonous materials in my work career. I have never been formally charged with murder.

 

[astonmartin708]

Followers of other religions are just as flawed as Christians. You see evils amongst us, but not amongst others. Your preachings are of self loathing. When I say 'your preachings' I am speaking of Democratic preachings.

There are many teachings it the Bible that can be interpreted many ways in both the old testament and the new. The old testament has not been thrown out by Christians either. They are both read from in every church from the teachings of Christ. Your reading of the Bible can be way too narrow when you want it to be, and way too wide when you want it to be.

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/erik-raymond/should-christians-defend-themselves/

https://www.crossway.org/articles/a-biblical-argument-for-self-defense/

Wow they really had to meander around to justify to themselves that what they were doing was okay. There were several logical leaps in there that were entertaining. I still think they're just telling themselves what they want to hear and disregarding what the bible actually says though. They both referred to one specific verse while omitting a handful of others that say more explicitly that you aren't to want for your own protection / defense.

Also, the "The lord is my shepard" quote is from a Psalm of Daniel in the old testamentThere are other verses as well, that mention the nations of the world casting down their arms for God will judge disputes between nations.... Anyone arguing that Jesus didn't profess pacifism is selling you a bill of goods.

 

[astonmartin708]

When Boris Johnson was mayor of London, one of his big accomplishments was a major reduction in knife murders. People wanting to kill someone usually find a way and knife murders came back under the current mayor. Elizabeth Borden took an ax and gave her mother 40 whacks. Piano wire works. I had access to many highly poisonous materials in my work career. I have never been formally charged with murder.

Yes, I'm aware that there are other ways to kill people. However; none are as effective or specifically designed for killing a man so much as a firearm is. Knife wounds are orders of magnitude less fatal in most cases. Also, it's more difficult to harm multiple people in an open space with a knife. Also, a police officer arriving at a scene would have an advantage (at a medium distance) over a person with a knife... so it could make our officers' jobs easier at times. There is a reason that most police in the UK don't even carry guns. It's because they don't tend to need them.

 

[TUMe]

Aston, most of us, including you have been through this discussion before. But the answer is basic. All you have to do is get a Constitutional Amendment. You can get an amendment for things people want. 18 year old vote passed all the hurdles. Prohibition passed then later failed because what people wanted changed. Women can vote. There are term limits for presidents. There are 33 amendments or 10 original plus 23 more. Why isn't there repeal of the Second Amendment [Wow they got that one in pretty early?] The answer is because more people support it than oppose. It is called democracy.

 

[astonmartin708]

Aston, most of us, including you have been through this discussion before. But the answer is basic. All you have to do is get a Constitutional Amendment. You can get an amendment for things people want. 18 year old vote passed all the hurdles. Prohibition passed then later failed because what people wanted changed. Women can vote. There are term limits for presidents. There are 33 amendments or 10 original plus 23 more. Why isn't there repeal of the Second Amendment [Wow they got that one in pretty early?] The answer is because more people support it than oppose. It is called democracy.

And more people supported the Iraq war than opposed it (initially) but it doesn't mean it was a good idea. Just because lots of people like to do bad things doesn't mean that I should stop professing and prodding them to do good things. I'll keep trying to make people realize that there is a better way for us to live based on:

Evidence - Other countries with few guns have fewer crime problems
Logic - Fewer guns mean fewer gun violence incidence as long as we enforce the laws restricting them and police those that refuse to follow the laws.
Beliefs - We can all agree that a world in which we don't have to carry weapons at all times would be preferable to one where we do. It's even written in various ways in the religious text that many of us follow.

 

[TUMe]

And more people supported the Iraq war than opposed it (initially) but it doesn't mean it was a good idea. Just because lots of people like to do bad things doesn't mean that I should stop professing and prodding them to do good things. I'll keep trying to make people realize that there is a better way for us to live based on:

Evidence - Other countries with few guns have fewer crime problems
Logic - Fewer guns mean fewer gun violence incidence as long as we enforce the laws restricting them and police those that refuse to follow the laws.
Beliefs - We can all agree that a world in which we don't have to carry weapons at all times would be preferable to one where we do. It's even written in various ways in the religious text that many of us follow.

You are pushing this as a religious issue. That is fine, but most people don't practice what they preach, indeed most religious texts contradict themselves from place to place. Ask yourself this question. If you were unarmed and someone was running towards you with a spear and you saw a loaded gun on the table, would you pick it up? I would.

 

[lawpoke87]

Wow they really had to meander around to justify to themselves that what they were doing was okay. There were several logical leaps in there that were entertaining. I still think they're just telling themselves what they want to hear and disregarding what the bible actually says though. They both referred to one specific verse while omitting a handful of others that say more explicitly that you aren't to want for your own protection / defense.

Also, the "The lord is my shepard" quote is from a Psalm of Daniel in the old testamentThere are other verses as well, that mention the nations of the world casting down their arms for God will judge disputes between nations.... Anyone arguing that Jesus didn't profess pacifism is selling you a bill of goods.

A non-Christian trying to convince Christian's they shouldn't be able to defend themselves, their children and their friends against bad guys who want to kill them based on his interpretation of the Bible is an interesting argument. Frankly, telling any group they aren't entitled to defend themselves against someone trying to kill them and their family is absurd in 2019.

 

[astonmartin708]

You are pushing this as a religious issue. That is fine, but most people don't practice what they preach, indeed most religious texts contradict themselves from place to place. Ask yourself this question. If you were unarmed and someone was running towards you with a spear and you saw a loaded gun on the table, would you pick it up? I would.

You make the first actual reasonable assessment that I agree with here.

Yes, I would pick up a loaded gun. Or a bat, or a computer monitor, or anything else I could get my hands on. It's simple survival instinct; however, it's much easier to deal with someone running towards you with a spear than someone point a gun at you. At least with a spear you have some options. You can:

Run Away
Fight the spear guy
Call out for help
Pick up a defensive tool somewhere around you

With a gunman antagonizing you, you have less chances to survive if he really wants you dead.

 

[astonmartin708]

A non-Christian trying to convince Christian's they shouldn't be able to defend themselves, their children and their friends against bad guys who want to kill them based on his interpretation of the Bible is an interesting argument. Frankly, telling any group they aren't entitled to defend themselves against someone trying to kill them and their family is absurd in 2019.

No.. I'm telling you that you're completely entitled to it (as the law stands now)... but that you would be forsaking your religious beliefs (or at least what your religious beliefs are supposed to be) to do so. I'm not telling you that you can't... I'm just asking you to decide which is more important to you.

 

[URedskin54]

No one had to explain what constitutes a failure in the policy of allowing pretty much anyone to own a gun. No one from the gun lobby has ever said, "This is where we draw the line to how many innocent citizens can be murdered by our weapons"

No one is going to be able to forsee all of the consequences of literally any policy. However; I have repeatedly addressed the concern you're referencing. I never said I would take away guns from police. And it's not like police would be dealing with anything they're not already... which is people with guns. Except, now... fewer citizens would have guns for them to worry about and they could tend to focus on the real bad guys. A ban on a sort of firearm or all firearms in general would not cause deaths.

People refusing to comply with a law might cause deaths. But that's a different issue. What has caused deaths is letting people who shouldn't be allowed guns have them... which you still have refused to address.

My mind completely blown by your inability to understand what was said to you. I’m not sure if it’s intentional but I’m not sure why I bothered

 

[astonmartin708]

My mind I quite literally blown by your inability to understand what was said to you.

Same to you.

 

[URedskin54]

"The Lord is my Shepard, I lack Nothing....

Even though I walk
through the darkest valley;
I will fear no evil
for you are with me
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me."

Now, I wouldn't say I'm a Christian by modern or ancient standards... but that seems pretty explicit to me. I'm not saying you have to live by these various teachings... but if you say you are, then you shouldn't be carrying a gun into church.

Lol wtf are you on about?

 

[URedskin54]

Same to you.

There is not a single thing I’ve said back to you that demonstrates that I don’t comprehend what you’re saying to me. That last response for you was so far off I legitimately question whether you do this crap on purpose just to troll

 

[lawpoke87]

No.. I'm telling you that you're completely entitled to it (as the law stands now)... but that you would be forsaking your religious beliefs (or at least what your religious beliefs are supposed to be) to do so. I'm not telling you that you can't... I'm just asking you to decide which is more important to you.

...and what I'm saying is a non-Christian has no business or standing to interpret what a Christian's personal interpretation of the Bible is or isn't. Especially when said interpretation flies in the face of logic and common sense. Just like I have no standing to instruct a Muslim or Hindu as to how they should interpret their holy scriptures. I am extremely thankful that this Christian nation did not follow your interpretation over the past two hundred plus years.

...and yes, Aston is somewhat of a troll at times But he's our troll and keeps things entertaining.

 

[astonmartin708]

...and what I'm saying is a non-Christian has no business or standing to interpret what a Christian's personal interpretation of the Bible is or isn't. Especially when said interpretation flies in the face of logic and common sense. Just like I have no standing to instruct a Muslim or Hindu as to how they should interpret their holy scriptures. I am extremely thankful that this Christian nation did not follow your interpretation over the past two hundred plus years.

...and yes, Aston is somewhat of a troll at times But he's our troll and keeps things entertaining.

I wouldn't dare comment on the beliefs of Jews, Muslims or Hindus etc... because I wasn't brought up their religions. I wasn't taught about them to any degree. Even though I may not consider myself a Christian, that doesn't mean that I don't understand what the teachings of Christ were or why they set him apart from mere mortal men.

The reasons I don't consider myself a Christian are largely to do with the things we're talking about now:

1) That logic often contradicts what we are told to believe.
2) That if I am to adhere to the professed beliefs, I might have to suffer for them.

Some "Christians" try to explain away what they've been told or not told to do in the Bible. (like the links G$$$ posted) They make excuses. They try to find loopholes. They chalk it up to differing interpretations. Well, this is one thing (along with meekness) that I strongly feel isn't interpretable. Your actions (refusing worldy sinful vices like greed, envy, fear or hatred) along with your belief in The greater power is supposed to grant you the Lord's favor. Christianity is special because of what it espouses differently from other religions. In essence...what makes it special is that it goes against practicality and logic at times and it's supposed to prove that your God is greater than the world itself. God is supposed to exist outside logic or reason.

I don't call myself a Christian because I recognize that I'm not able to accept something that defies logic and reason. It seems like most of you guys aren't able to accept that either... you're just not willing to recognize it.

 

[lawpoke87]

I wouldn't dare comment on the beliefs of Jews, Muslims or Hindus etc... because I wasn't brought up their religions. I wasn't taught about them to any degree. Even though I may not consider myself a Christian, that doesn't mean that I don't understand what the teachings of Christ were or why they set him apart from mere mortal men.

The reasons I don't consider myself a Christian are largely to do with the things we're talking about now:

1) That logic often contradicts what we are told to believe.
2) That if I am to adhere to the professed beliefs, I might have to suffer for them.

Some "Christians" try to explain away what they've been told or not told to do in the Bible. (like the links G$$$ posted) They make excuses. They try to find loopholes. They chalk it up to differing interpretations. Well, this is one thing (along with meekness) that I strongly feel isn't interpretable. Your actions (refusing worldy sinful vices like greed, envy, fear or hatred) along with your belief in The greater power is supposed to grant you the Lord's favor. Christianity is special because of what it espouses differently from other religions. In essence...what makes it special is that it goes against practicality and logic at times and it's supposed to prove that your God is greater than the world itself. God is supposed to exist outside logic or reason.

I don't call myself a Christian because I recognize that I'm not able to accept something that defies logic and reason. It seems like most of you guys aren't able to accept that either... you're just not willing to recognize it.

Or they can point to contradictions found in the Bible....there are many...and form beliefs on how they believe God would want them to live their lives. One of those beliefs in many cases is a duty to protect their families from those who wish to harm them. You're not going to find many people who don't believe based on the totality of the Bible that God does not want his people to protect themselves and their children from those trying to kill them.

 

[astonmartin708]

There is not a single thing I’ve said back to you that demonstrates that I don’t comprehend what you’re saying to me. That last response for you was so far off I legitimately question whether you do this crap on purpose just to troll

Considering the fact that I've challenged you TWICE, to justify the deaths of innocents that were enabled by the amendment (and associated laws) that you're defending and you've still yet to answer me.... I'd say you're either not comprehending it... or you're just trying not to respond.

As the person attacking those laws.... I've already made my assertion why they should be changed:

Because more innocent people are dying as a result of what they're allowing people to do with firearms than would be dying in their absence. My evidence to that fact is literally every industrialized peer nation that has comprehensive gun laws have fewer fatal criminal acts. Japan, Germany, The UK, most of the rest of the EU... etc...

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Of course Christ professed pacifism. Anybody who said anything else would be ignoring most of his teachings. It's amazing that one quotes several bible teachings for protecting oneself and you focus on the one verse that they both use. It might be that that was one they both saw as immediately obvious in it's advocacy for protecting oneself, not that it was the only one they found or quoted.(Which it was not. First link: Ps. 82:3-4, Exodus 22:2-3, Nehemiah 4:16-18,Lk. 11:21,Mt. 12:29 Second Link: Very limited quoting of the Bible. The one area of the bible that he didn't actually quote but referred to is identical to one quote in the first.)

These were things I found in very limited research taking less than 5 minutes. It was not comprehensive research, which is what you are treating it as. They made decently stated comments that were not all tied to the old testaments, and that was all I was looking for in my very short research.

Of course Christ who advocated pacifism as more important over all the other possibilities, would not teach self defense in every other word of the bible. The fact is that he didn't advocate only pacifism. That doesn't mean you will find copious teachings that did not advocate pacifism, it will be quite the opposite. Just because The New Testament did not copiously talk about self defense does not mean that you should completely ignore the few places that it was talked about.

If you take these teachings as divine teachings that are correct in everything that they teach then it would be sacrilege to ignore any of it's words, including those on self defense in the few places they are talked about. If all the teachings are divine then there would be no teachings on self defense, if that were the position of Christ. That it speaks of self defense anywhere is an advocation of the divine right of self defense, just as it is an advocation of Pacifism. The two do not have to be independent if there are exceptions to the rules given.

This is sort of an aside, but still relevant. Here is a link talking about the limited places the bible talks about self defense, and various points about that issue:
https://www.clarkssummitu.edu/self-defense-and-the-christian/

Arguing with you is an exasperating lost cause. You will grab onto anything you can find to argue the opposite point, regardless of it's lack of sensible logic. Troll like, not that different than aTUfan, only on the opposite side.

 

[astonmartin708]

Or they can point to contradictions found in the Bible....there are many...and form beliefs on how they believe God would want them to live their lives. One of those beliefs in many cases is a duty to protect their families from those who wish to harm them. You're not going to find many people who don't believe based on the totality of the Bible that God does not want his people to protect themselves and their children from those trying to kill them.

The duty to protect one's self or his family is not something that the Christ himself ever espoused (to my knowledge). I'll admit there are many more references to the use of violence in the old testament.... but if you're going to disregard Christ's words for those of the old testament then I would basically call you Jewish rather than Christian. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

Even the Jews have some verses though, that talk about the eventuality of mankind throwing aside their weapons and letting God settle disputes between nations. (Not that this references self defense)

 

[lawpoke87]

The Bible is largely silent on the issue of self defense. Exodus gives a few words “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed” Words written over 2000 years ago aren't always on point in today's world of guns, etc....

I know of no scripture which forbids one from defending their family or really even addresses it.

 

[astonmartin708]

Of course Christ professed pacifism. Anybody who said anything else would be ignoring most of his teachings. It's amazing that one quotes several bible teachings for protecting oneself and you focus on the one verse that they both use. It might be that that was one they both saw as immediately obvious in it's advocacy for protecting oneself, not that it was the only one they found or quoted.(Which it was not. First link: Ps. 82:3-4, Exodus 22:2-3, Nehemiah 4:16-18,Lk. 11:21,Mt. 12:29 Second Link: Very limited quoting of the Bible. The one area of the bible that he didn't actually quote but referred to is identical to one quote in the first.)

These were things I found in very limited research taking less than 5 minutes. It was not comprehensive research, which is what you are treating it as. They made decently stated comments that were not all tied to the old testaments, and that was all I was looking for in my very short research.

Of course Christ who advocated pacifism as more important over all the other possibilities, would not teach self defense in every other word of the bible. The fact is that he didn't advocate only pacifism. That doesn't mean you will find copious teachings that did not advocate pacifism, it will be quite the opposite. Just because The New Testament did not copiously talk about self defense does not mean that you should completely ignore the few places that it was talked about.

If you take these teachings as divine teachings that are correct in everything that they teach then it would be sacrilege to ignore any of it's words, including those on self defense in the few places they are talked about. If all the teachings are divine then there would be no teachings on self defense, if that were the position of Christ. That it speaks of self defense anywhere is an advocation of the divine right of self defense, just as it is an advocation of Pacifism. The two do not have to be independent if there are exceptions to the rules given.

This is sort of an aside, but still relevant. Here is a link talking about the limited places the bible talks about self defense, and various points about that issue:
https://www.clarkssummitu.edu/self-defense-and-the-christian/

Arguing with you is an exasperating lost cause. You will grab onto anything you can find to argue the opposite point, regardless of it's lack of sensible logic. Troll like, not that different than aTUfan, only on the opposite side.

I would quickly not that a number of those references are from the Old Testament prior to Jesus' teachings. Which I always take with a grain of salt because some of Jesus' words contradicted the Jewish religion that came before him. After all, that's part of the reason the Jewish leaders wanted him dead.

Also, the "strong man" metaphor referenced in Luke and Matthew isn't referring to self defense. The "strong man in the armor" is pretty universally recognized to be Satan in that metaphor because that section of the bible is dealing with exorcism. And Jesus is able to conquer Satan by superior power and take the strong man's things (the souls he controls). I don't think those are good examples of self defense in the bible. I think you're grasping at straws to be honest.

 

[astonmartin708]

The Bible is largely silent on the issue of self defense. Exodus gives a few words “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed” Words written over 2000 years ago aren't always on point in today's world of guns, etc....

I know of no scripture which forbids one from defending their family or really even addresses it.

I agree.

My argument is that, if I profess to live by those words from 2000 years ago. And I take solemn vow after solemn vow to do so.... and I profess to believe them with all my heart.... then maybe I should think about actually trying to follow some of the more clear and poignant ones made by the guy who's name is on the title of the belief system. Basically, I'm just saying, do your best not to be a hypocrite (even though we all can be at times - I know I can be HA!)

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Now you retreat to the old testament vs new testament, which I knew you would. Just took you a little while to go there. Likely because new testament was immediately mentioned. You distill it down to ignore the old testament in whole now, because you are Jewish if you don't. I'm so glad there are no biblical scholars out there who devoted their whole lives to issues you distill in a few words. I pulled all the old and new T. quotes out of those articles that I found in a few minutes. And you immediately dismiss Old T. ignoring earlier discussion about the two issues, because it suits your argument.

I'm not grasping at straws, I'm simply pointing out that you can't drop the line that it is hypocritical for a Christian Church to have a security guard in church, based on their teachings and say you are justified. The bible teaches that government can and will protect you. That form of government is loosely defined in the bible.(mentioned in the first link)

Government could be considered a trained security guard hired by the church in the way it is so loosely defined by the bible.(And lots of those security guards are literally, by today's definition, government. They are on and off duty, and retired police officers and military.) What stipulation are you using to make that claim. Do you simply want every security guard to be an on duty police officer or member of the military dispatched there for that purpose? I find that you are grasping at lint in your navel.

It is laughable that you justify that every Christian out there should go into a church with no one to protect them. This is such gray area that you apply to a black and white lens. Philosophically you feel the need to argue for another 100+ deaths in churches over the past 10 years or so, or otherwise call all church attendees that attend a church service hypocrites. Whatever.

 

[astonmartin708]

Now you retreat to the old testament vs new testament, which I knew you would. Just took you a little while to go there. Likely because new testament was immediately mentioned. You distill it down to ignore the old testament in whole now, because you are Jewish if you don't. I'm so glad there are no biblical scholars out there who devoted their whole lives to issues you distill in a few words. I pulled all the old and new T. quotes out of those articles that I found in a few minutes. And you immediately dismiss Old T. ignoring earlier discussion about the two issues, because it suits your argument.

I'm not grasping at straws, I'm simply pointing out that you can't drop the line that it is hypocritical for a Christian Church to have a security guard in church, based on their teachings and say you are justified. The bible teaches that government can and will protect you. That form of government is loosely defined in the bible.(mentioned in the first link)

Government could be considered a trained security guard hired by the church in the way it is so loosely defined by the bible.(And lots of those security guards are literally, by today's definition, government. They are on and off duty, and retired police officers and military.) What stipulation are you using to make that claim. Do you simply want every security guard to be an on duty police officer or member of the military dispatched there for that purpose? I find that you are grasping at lint in your navel.

It is laughable that you justify that every Christian out there should go into a church with no one to protect them. This is such gray area that you apply to a black and white lens. Philosophically you feel the need to argue for another 100+ deaths in churches over the past 10 years or so, or otherwise call all church attendees that attend a church service hypocrites. Whatever.

I didn't mean to assert that non of the Old Testemant wasn't valid... just that when Jesus specifically mentioned a doctrine I would expect it to supersede the teachings of the old testament to most Christians. Call me crazy lol.

Extending the role of the government to a private security guard is unlikely. You don't think that they didn't have private protection in the 1st century? Of course they did. In fact we know they did from the Roman's writings on the fall of the Roman Republic. If they had meant to relate security guards to the government they would have done so.

In any case, my point has never really been that Christians should not have security guards in churches. It is that Christians, by virtue of their messiah's teachings, should be the first ones to support disarmament of the civilized members of their society. They should see that there wouldn't really be a need for a gun in the church if they were at far less risk of harm while they were there.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

You continually state in different ways that we could disarm ourselves and that there would be less viable threats to the church by mentally unstable maniacs. That genie popped out of the bottle many years ago. You are talking about undoing at least a hundred years of history that has led to the state of our society with the simple act of legally disarming our populace. It's not possible.

On the note of government and it's definition, you ignore the idiosyncrasies of our society as compared to theirs. There were not off duty guards of the republic who would be hired by the church or any other separate entity from the government. Also there was no separation of church and state.

Your definition of government then and now takes so little things of this nature into account. These are only two points about the definition of government then,(by the church) that are cause for a gray area. And you didn't even address that many of them are not off duty. There are on duty police officers at many church services on the approval of the police force. I don't have the time anymore, I have New Year's Eve preparations I have to attend to rather than this inane argument.

 

[astonmartin708]

I didn't mean to assert that non of the Old Testemant wasn't valid... just that when Jesus specifically mentioned a doctrine I would expect it to supersede the teachings of the old testament to most Christians. Call me crazy lol.

Extending the role of the government to a private security guard is unlikely. You don't think that they didn't have private protection in the 1st century? Of course they did. In fact we know they did from the Roman's writings on the fall of the Roman Republic. If they had meant to relate security guards to the government they would have done so.

In any case, my point has never really been that Christians should not have security guards in churches. It is that Christians, by virtue of their messiah's teachings, should be the first ones to support disarmament of the civilized members of their society. They should see that there wouldn't really be a need for a gun in the church if they were at far less risk of harm while they were there.

Have a good New Years. Truly. Be safe.

 

[maverickfp]

Oh aston. So in your world... all Christians should just sit there and be murdered without attempting to save themselves?

 

[astonmartin708]

Oh aston. So in your world... all Christians should just sit there and be murdered without attempting to save themselves?

There are ways to make yourself safer without committing violence yourself. Especially in our modern era.

 

[lawpoke87]

There are ways to make yourself safer without committing violence yourself. Especially in our modern era.

Yup....having the capacity or assets in place to commit violence is often sufficient to prevent the same. See the Secret Service for example or armed officers in banks.

 

[URedskin54]

Considering the fact that I've challenged you TWICE, to justify the deaths of innocents that were enabled by the amendment (and associated laws) that you're defending and you've still yet to answer me.... I'd say you're either not comprehending it... or you're just trying not to respond.

As the person attacking those laws.... I've already made my assertion why they should be changed:

Because more innocent people are dying as a result of what they're allowing people to do with firearms than would be dying in their absence. My evidence to that fact is literally every industrialized peer nation that has comprehensive gun laws have fewer fatal criminal acts. Japan, Germany, The UK, most of the rest of the EU... etc...

The reason I don't answer is because I asked you a very simple question and rather than answer you've tried to deflect. Because what you actually want to do is get me to answer your question and then focus on my answer rather than having to answer what was asked of you. You gave a bizarre response that didn't even approach answering the question, and now you're rambling on and on about how a true follower of Jesus is supposed to act in a way that lets his family get slaughtered in church. This has all run it's course and it's apparent it's going nowhere. Take a break.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

The reason I don't answer is because I asked you a very simple question and rather than answer you've tried to deflect. Because what you actually want to do is get me to answer your question and then focus on my answer rather than having to answer what was asked of you. You gave a bizarre response that didn't even approach answering the question, and now you're rambling on and on about how a true follower of Jesus is supposed to act in a way that lets his family get slaughtered in church. This has all run it's course and it's apparent it's going nowhere. Take a break.

Have a good New Years. Truly. Be safe.

Well at least he did wish himself a Happy New Year.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I would quickly not that a number of those references are from the Old Testament prior to Jesus' teachings. Which I always take with a grain of salt because some of Jesus' words contradicted the Jewish religion that came before him. After all, that's part of the reason the Jewish leaders wanted him dead.

Also, the "strong man" metaphor referenced in Luke and Matthew isn't referring to self defense. The "strong man in the armor" is pretty universally recognized to be Satan in that metaphor because that section of the bible is dealing with exorcism. And Jesus is able to conquer Satan by superior power and take the strong man's things (the souls he controls). I don't think those are good examples of self defense in the bible. I think you're grasping at straws to be honest.

Oh and by the way, you dismissing this quote from the bible was actually you clutching at straws. The quote was of verse 21, not 21 and 22. It does not matter what is said in verse 22, it's not relevant because in verse 21 it has already advocated protecting your belongings, the message about Satan is not germane to the issue. I will give you that the Mathew verse is not as applicable, but not exactly for the reason you stated.

But if you really want to take that issue to it's hilt.(yes that was intentional) Then the Word of God was teaching one to maintain your strength in the word of the lord, to not allow yourself to be influenced by Satan when protecting your goods. An interpretation would be to not let greed, elimination/lessening of your love for others, the vigor of how you defend your belongings, etc, etc allow Satan to win the battle and take your soul.(Thus dividing your spoil between he and ye.) That is attacking how you defend your belongings, not if. I really didn't want to go off on some biblical analysis, but you insisted with your nattering.
________________________________________
21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his
goods are safe; 22 but when one stronger than he attacks him and
overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and
divides his spoil.

 

[astonmartin708]

Yup....having the capacity or assets in place to commit violence is often sufficient to prevent the same. See the Secret Service for example or armed officers in banks.

In a way this is the same conundrum with Nuclear deterrence. Should we work on de-escelating the situation or making ourselves more powerful than our enemies?

 

[lawpoke87]

In a way this is the same conundrum with Nuclear deterrence. Should we work on de-escelating the situation or making ourselves more powerful than our enemies?

I would argue the security guard at the bank (a target) is a much better example of a deterrent. Bad people have been robbing banks since banks came into existence. It wasn’t long before we realized the best way to stop that action is to place a deterrent in the bank.

 

[astonmartin708]

I would argue the security guard at the bank (a target) is a much better example of a deterrent. Bad people have been robbing banks since banks came into existence. It wasn’t long before we realized the best way to stop that action is to place a deterrent in the bank.

The security guard at most places are unlikely to carry firearms. Go figure.

Probably because the companies don't trust the guards to always make correct decisions in every tense situation and they don't want to be held liable for wrongful deaths or collateral damage.

 

[lawpoke87]

The security guard at the bank is unlikely to carry a firearm. Go figure.

They all carry firearms in the banks I frequent. They are sheriffs deputies and all carry.

 

[astonmartin708]

They all carry firearms in the banks I frequent. They are sheriffs deputies and all carry.

Sorry, changed my text before you responded. Banks, may have officers assigned there.... however there is a difference between officers and the general public. And I still stand by the fact that 80% of security personnel aren't allowed by their employers to carry guns during their work.

 

[URedskin54]

however there is a difference between officers and the general public.

True. Police are statistically about 6x more likely to commit a crime than a concealed carry holder.

 

[maverickfp]

Aston never answers any questions. Lol. Talks in circles. He just must be a troll. So disingenuous.

So aston...try again. Your plan wouldve been to let more people die in the church while waiting on cops than to kill the murderer after 6 seconds of him starting to shoot?