why own a gun?

[Poly]

Originally posted by billygoat

A Christian who would stand by and watch his 17 year old daugter and his own beloved wife brutally, and repeatedly raped by a gang of animals because he can;t stop them; is this man a man? Is he a good husband? Will his wife respect him, and look him in the eye? Is he a godly man, allowing his wife to be abased and treated like an animal. After eight men have raped his beautiful virgin daughter, what manhood does her father have remeining? The best thing he can do is end his miserable pathetic life....His wife and daughter want nothing to do with this coward,

We men sometimes have to die for our woman. Life is not so precious that it is the only thing that matters. I prefer death with honor than life with none. This world is NOT OUR HOME, remember?? Weesa passin thru..your safety and cimfort is NOTHING

No, self respect matters a great deal. Honor still matters. I want to sit at the feet of MY SAVIOUR and hear those long awaited works...well done, son. You did all you could have been expected to do. If I coul;d only kill three of therm before they killed me, then so be it. God is able to heal the worst hurts, but not cowardice and caving in to fear,,,We men must be men:Grizzly: :jeffrson:

POTD :up:

I wonder about those who think you should just step aside and do nothing about the supposedly precious women in their life being raped. I think they try and twist scripture, using it to defend their absence of TF because they're too much of a coward to do what is right. That's pretty low.

 

[aharvey]

Re: carrying a gun

Re: carrying a gun

Originally posted by billygoat

:doh: I don't carry a gun, I carry two guns; and don't even think about comin into my house...I have so many guns I can reach one no matter where I am...I will shoot a bad guy dead...In love of course...sorry I didn't read all the other posts yet..I will, I promise....but what do you mean about a Christian not needing a gun? Criminals don't rape Christian women and rob and kill Christians???

I fully understand the sentiment, "I don't care WHAT Jesus said, anybody comes after me or mine, I'll blow their blankin' head off!" And furthermore, I've also had the "opportunity" to stare down the barrel of a gun while being robbed, and then that of being shot by a second, hidden robber. And I can tell you exactly what your strutting "Ha! And you call yourself a MAN!" posing is worth once you're actually in such a situation.

But does this sound familiar? "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

Look, I didn't write this stuff. You may find it impossible to believe that Jesus would not condone killing even in self defense (how well do you think you could accurately assess, in the heat of a dangerous encounter, whether killing was the only option? Well, no matter what your answer is, you're overestimating your own assessment skills!), but so far no one here's even tried to demonstrate otherwise. You're just counting on 1) never having to deal with this, and 2) hoping that the Big Guy will understand. Fair enough. It does seem, though, that fear has come to dominate your lives rather more than Jesus would have hoped. I heard on the radio this morning how for many moms, the issue of "security" is more important than jobs, or health care, or their children's education, or anything else. What good is a job if my factory gets blown up by terrorists? That's pretty sad, and a totally distorted sense of reality, and not accidentally being fueled by the current Establishment, and indicative of people who, despite their loud claims, must not be very confident in their faith...

 

[BillyBob]

What fear?

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by BillyBob

What fear?

By this do you mean something along the lines of, "No fear here. Break into my house and you'll find out why!" ?

 

[brother Willi]

any thoughts to add or take from here?

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16519

 

[Aimiel]

I believe that Police Officers are ministers of God, on our behalf, and that they don't carry their guns so that they look good. We aren't discussing common sense here, because those without it don't have sense enough to realize it.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

But sure, maybe I don't have the audience and context quite right either.

I was trying to get an understanding of what you understand about the God of the Bible. He didn't change His character between the OT and NT. Thank you for sharing your understanding.

 

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by brother Willi

aharvey, when you get taught the Word of Jesus, with a HUGE dose of FEAR.you get fearfull Christians.

www.acts17-11.com/fear.html

The problem with the Church in America today is that there is no fear of God.:doh:

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Art Deco

www.acts17-11.com/fear.html

The problem with the Church in America today is that there is no fear of God.:doh:

fear when one is saved??

im confused

 

[Crow]

Originally posted by brother Willi

fear when one is saved??

im confused

1. Fear of God.

Not as in fear that He's going to unsave us or something, but as in we fear to make ourselves offensive to the people we respect and love.

I loved my father and cherished his love. I wanted to please him and make him proud of me, so I was always afraid to do something which would disappoint him and make him ashamed of me. It would have been impossible for me to do anything which could make him stop loving me, but I feared to hurt his feelings by doing something he would find offensive.

2. Yes, you are. Nothing new.

 

[Aimiel]

Terror is what God is to the unsaved. To those who are saved, we reverence Him, with fear only that we might overlook Him, or do something to grieve His Holy Spirit. When we respect His Presence, showing Him honor, He is pleased. I want to be in His Presnece, so I fear Him (show Him reverence). He is still God, to Christians, even though He has adopted us as sons. The fear of The Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh
I was trying to get an understanding of what you understand about the God of the Bible.

In 20 words or less? Are you asking me about the specific issue here (i.e., the level of deadliness approved by Jesus) or overall?

Originally posted by Nineveh
He didn't change His character between the OT and NT.

Well, we might have a bit of an issue here. It may be the same God in the OT and the NT, but it's not the same reporters, not the same context, not the same audience. Also, to use one of Bob b's favorite arguments, the more ancient the documentation is, the inherently less reliable it's likely to be. Just because the NT might be an accurate historical record doesn't make the OT one.

Just for the sake of argumentation, to the extent that the Epistles are considered part of the NT, I'll also toss out that Paul seems a curious choice for attaining Scriptural status. He has always struck me as being rather misogynistic, full of himself, and sometimes just not very nice (and I don't mean in the tough love way). Perhaps not surprising, given what he must have been like as Saul, but surprising that his opinions reached such an exalted status.

Originally posted by Nineveh
Thank you for sharing your understanding.

Let's be clear. I don't make any great claims to understanding here (if you want to share my understanding, pop back to the Origins forum sometime!).

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

In 20 words or less? Are you asking me about the specific issue here (i.e., the level of deadliness approved by Jesus) or overall?

No, I was trying to point out that maybe you don't see where brotherWilli is in error because your understanding of the subject matter is less than complete.

Well, we might have a bit of an issue here. It may be the same God in the OT and the NT, but it's not the same reporters, not the same context, not the same audience. Also, to use one of Bob b's favorite arguments, the more ancient the documentation is, the inherently less reliable it's likely to be. Just because the NT might be an accurate historical record doesn't make the OT one.

I suggest the audience is the same. The subject matter in that context is new to the audience's ears. Further I suggest the OT carried many years by "the people of the Book" is more reliable than you may believe.

Let's be clear. I don't make any great claims to understanding here (if you want to share my understanding, pop back to the Origins forum sometime!).

I was offereing you some information that might make the "apparent" points brotherWilli is making more clear as to their errors.

Should I see somethng of interest in the Science forum to comment on, I'll be sure to do so

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

No, I was trying to point out that maybe you don't see where brotherWilli is in error because your understanding of the subject matter is less than complete.

And your understanding of the subject matter is complete?

This seems odd, to say the least, in a discussion group. I am not unfamiliar with the Bible. I may not have mastered it to the extent that others here at least think they have, but there isn't a book that I haven't read (not mined for quotes) more than once. But since when is that a legitimate explanation for why a particular set of arguments aren't even discussed?

Originally posted by Nineveh

I suggest the audience is the same.

That cannot be completely true, since lots of the OT audience no longer existed when the NT first appeared. You may consider this a trivial point, but I do not, as these folks were most definitely the target audience of the OT, whereas you can only infer that we are part of the OT target audience.

Originally posted by Nineveh

The subject matter in that context is new to the audience's ears. Further I suggest the OT carried many years by "the people of the Book" is more reliable than you may believe.

The most popular word I've heard in this context, one utterly alien to the scientific community, is "inerrant." Furthermore, a great many folks are insistent that this means there is not one single error in the Bible. By "more reliable than I may believe" do you mean "inerrant"?

Originally posted by Nineveh

I was offereing you some information that might make the "apparent" points brotherWilli is making more clear as to their errors.

Sorry, I missed the information you were offering.

Originally posted by Nineveh

Should I see somethng of interest in the Science forum to comment on, I'll be sure to do so

It's been pretty quiet lately. That's partly why I started roaming a bit.

 

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by aharvey

And your understanding of the subject matter is complete?

Enough to see his error.

But since when is that a legitimate explanation for why a particular set of arguments aren't even discussed?

I can't speak for everyone on this thread. But, as for me, I didn't feel like getting into it all, he doesn't seem to want to know. It's not as if most of the points you have raised haven't been addresses many times on TOL.

That cannot be completely true, since lots of the OT audience no longer existed when the NT first appeared.

The audience is Israelite Jesus is speaking to. Since the time of Moses, that's the majority of the audience.

By "more reliable than I may believe" do you mean "inerrant"?

I said what I meant.

It's been pretty quiet lately. That's partly why I started roaming a bit.

It's always good to expand your horizons

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Crow
Fear of God.

Not as in fear that He's going to unsave us or something, but as in we fear to make ourselves offensive to the people we respect and love.

I loved my father and cherished his love. I wanted to please him and make him proud of me, so I was always afraid to do something which would disappoint him and make him ashamed of me. It would have been impossible for me to do anything which could make him stop loving me, but I feared to hurt his feelings by doing something he would find offensive.

i agree, and understand:thumb:


fear of death then?

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Enough to see his error.

Well, I'm sorry you can't be bothered to provide that extra little bit of understanding that would make it clearer for everyone (well, okay, me).

Originally posted by Nineveh

I can't speak for everyone on this thread. But, as for me, I didn't feel like getting into it all, he doesn't seem to want to know. It's not as if most of the points you have raised haven't been addresses many times on TOL.

I hope you're not speaking for everyone on this thread! It's closing in on 300 posts. That's an awful lot of pointless yammering if no one feels like getting into it all! And yet, it's been content-free enough that you're probably pretty representative...

Originally posted by Nineveh

The audience is Israelite Jesus is speaking to. Since the time of Moses, that's the majority of the audience.

I wonder how the audience had changed over that several thousand(?) year span. What document written to Americans in 1800 would have the same meaning and relevance in 4800? How accurate are the descriptions of the early explorers?

Originally posted by Nineveh

I said what I meant.

Well, then we're back to square one. The only way to demonstrate that something is "more reliable than I may believe" is by demonstrating the accuracy of some specific part that I consider to be unreliable.

Originally posted by Nineveh

It's always good to expand your horizons

This is more of a blast from the past than a horizon expander. In any case, it doesn't really expand my horizons much to know that some people think brother Willi is off base; I came to that conclusion in the Origins thread long ago. But just because someone is wrong about something doesn't mean he or she is wrong about everything, or that it might not be worthwhile to explore the pros and cons of his argument.

But please, if you don't feel like getting into this, don't. I'm not going to rattle this cage anymore.

 

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by aharvey

This is more of a blast from the past than a horizon expander. In any case, it doesn't really expand my horizons much to know that some people think brother Willi is off base; I came to that conclusion in the Origins thread long ago. But just because someone is wrong about something doesn't mean he or she is wrong about everything, or that it might not be worthwhile to explore the pros and cons of his argument.

:thumb:

:think: they loved me when i debated you:think:

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by brother Willi

:thumb:

:think: they loved me when i debated you:think:

I guess that makes them oh-for-two! By the way, sorry for continuously referring to you in the third person in this thread. I don't want to hijack this thread from you!

 

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by brother Willi

i agree, and understand:thumb:


fear of death then?

Who said anything about fearing death? Just because you don't want to do something doesn't mean you fear it. I don't want to do laundry, but I don't fear it.