Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Fearmongering ad by the NRA

#21
Syne Offline
If you don't think leftists want to get rid of all the guns, you're naive. And the tyranny could just be that of the majority, that could keep people from defending themselves from ordinary crime.

The Bible actually doesn't say "thou shalt not kill". According to the original language, it says "thou shalt not murder". Big difference.
Reply
#22
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:Like why is the NRA upset over the gun age being bumped to 21 years old?

Because they're in bed with the gun manufacturers and gun sellers. And raising the age to 21 means less guns sold. Follow the money.

Quote:If you don't think leftists want to get rid of all the guns, you're naive. And the tyranny could just be that of the majority, that could keep people from defending themselves from ordinary crime.

The question is why they need their guns in the first place. Not because they may be taken away. But because they fear the government becoming tyrannical and putting them in prison or even killing them. It's basically the mentality of a hyperactive 13 year old boy who's watched the movie Red Dawn too many times.

Quote:The Bible actually doesn't say "thou shalt not kill". According to the original language, it says "thou shalt not murder". Big difference.

Jesus said he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. I'm pretty sure that applies to guns too.
Reply
#23
Leigha Offline
Exactly, MR. Jesus seemed more like a pacifist, not a warrior, so it just seems a bit contradictory to cling to a Bible, and cling to a gun. I believe everyone should be permitted to self defend, but the NRA just seems to go way over board with how they perceive and define that ''right.''
Reply
#24
Syne Offline
(Mar 10, 2018 04:49 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Like why is the NRA upset over the gun age being bumped to 21 years old?

Because they're in bed with the gun manufacturers and gun sellers. And raising the age to 21 means less guns sold. Follow the money.
Because either 18 year olds are adults or they're not. Things like alcohol, cigarettes, and driving are privileges, while self-defense and voting are rights afforded to every adult citizen. Equal rights.
Quote:
Quote:If you don't think leftists want to get rid of all the guns, you're naive. And the tyranny could just be that of the majority, that could keep people from defending themselves from ordinary crime.

The question is why they need their guns in the first place. Not because they may be taken away. But because they fear the government becoming tyrannical and putting them in prison or even killing them. It's basically the mentality of a hyperactive 13 year old boy who's watched the movie Red Dawn too many times.
Actually, very few fear governmental tyranny. Self-defense is just a basic human right. You have the right to life, and you have the right to defend that life.
Quote:
Quote:The Bible actually doesn't say "thou shalt not kill". According to the original language, it says "thou shalt not murder". Big difference.

Jesus said he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. I'm pretty sure that applies to guns too.
He also said, "if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one". Does that apply to guns, or are you just cherry-picking? Rolleyes
(Mar 10, 2018 05:00 AM)Leigha Wrote: Exactly, MR. Jesus seemed more like a pacifist, not a warrior, so it just seems a bit contradictory to cling to a Bible, and cling to a gun. I believe everyone should be permitted to self defend, but the NRA just seems to go way over board with how they perceive and define that ''right.''

Jesus also said, "if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one". So the only contradiction is making proclamations about the Bible while being uninformed.
What should I be allowed to do to restrict your ability to defend your own life? What about the lives of your family?
Reply
#25
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:He also said, "if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one". Does that apply to guns, or are you just cherry-picking?


Amazing what a little context can provide:

"Jacques Ellul and John Howard Yoder do not believe Luke 22:36 overturns the many times Jesus urged his followers to turn the other cheek and not resist evil when confronted by violence during his Sermon on the Mount and years of ministry. They show when the passage is taken in context (Luke 22:36-38), Jesus is also aware of fulfilling prophecy and makes a surprising statement that two swords are "enough."[1]

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

— Gospel of Luke 22:36-38, NIV

Ellul, Yoder and Archie Penner claim that two swords could not possibly have been "enough" to defend Jesus from his pending arrest, trial and execution, so their sole purpose must have been Jesus' wish to fulfill a prophecy (Isaiah 53:9-12).[1] As Ellul explains:

The further comment of Jesus explains in part the surprising statement, for he says: "It is necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled according to which I would be put in the ranks of criminals" (Luke 22:36-37). The idea of fighting with just two swords is ridiculous. The swords are enough, however, to justify the accusation that Jesus is the head of a band of brigands. We have to note here that Jesus is consciously fulfilling prophecy. If he were not the saying would make no sense.[2]

This theory is further substantiated by Peter when Peter draws one of the swords a few hours later at Jesus' arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, slashing the ear of Malchus, one of the priests' servants, and Jesus rebukes him saying: "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."(Matthew 26:52)[1]-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sell_your_...uy_a_sword
Reply
#26
Syne Offline
Jesus had zero intent to defend himself against arrest, since it was the fulfillment of prophecy. And there was zero need to demonstrate he was "in the ranks of criminals", since the Romans had already justified arresting him.

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." - Matthew 10:34

In "the meek shall inherit the earth" (Matthew 5:5), the Greek word for "meek" actually translates more accurately to "demonstrating power without undue harshness". It counsels temperance, not disarmament. Similar to how no soldier convert is ever asked to give up their use of arms. The admonitions against "they that take the sword" has an aggressive connotation, illustrated by Peter's eagerness to do violence without violent provocation. It is not a general admonition against arms nor self-defense.

"Turn the other cheek" is an admonition against retaliation/vengeance...i.e. an eye for an eye. Self-defense is neither.

“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up his plunder." - Luke 11:22-23

And there are many instances where Jesus admonishes people to defend the weak, and that there is no greater love but to lay down one's life for a friend (there's a reason using a concealed gun to come to someone's aid is called "Good Samaritan laws"). And every instance of self-defense potentially defends the next, weaker victim.
Reply
#27
Magical Realist Offline
LOL! Turn the other cheek, but carry a bigass gun just in case? You've got one loony interpretation of the spirit of Jesus' teachings.

Unfortunately, after all this gun nut bluster, Jesus's admonition remains solid and clear: "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." That's a pretty stark condemnation of the gun nut lifestyle, excuses of some remote chance for "self-defense" notwithstanding.


[Image: jesus-rile11.jpg]
[Image: jesus-rile11.jpg]

Reply
#28
Syne Offline
Hey, if you think self-defense is "living by violence" instead of "protecting the weak", that's your own idiosyncratic interpretation.
Even soldiers, who could be argued live by violence, were never told to give up their profession.
Reply
#29
Magical Realist Offline
Quote:Hey, if you think self-defense is "living by violence" instead of "protecting the weak", that's your own idiosyncratic interpretation.

LOL! Yeah that gun nut with the AR 15 and the "conceal and carry" permit and the underground bunker is really "protecting the weak".
Reply
#30
Syne Offline
(Mar 11, 2018 02:57 AM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:Hey, if you think self-defense is "living by violence" instead of "protecting the weak", that's your own idiosyncratic interpretation.

LOL! Yeah that gun nut with the AR 15 and the "conceal and carry" permit and the underground bunker is really "protecting the weak".

In tornado alley with a family, of course he is.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)