Postvieww said:

False! I was no fan of Obama but the color of his skin had absolutely nothing to do with it. The cries of racism from the left is usually nothing pmore than a talking point in many cases used just to shut down debate.

Click to expand...

I could post many pictures of the Tea Party holding racist signs, but won't in this thread.

essentialsaltes said:

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) took to X on Thursday and vowed to “use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”

Higgins said that any social media accounts from people who “ran their mouths with their smartass hatred, celebrating the heinous murder of that beautiful young man” must come down.

The Louisiana Republican also demanded that any users who posted those “belittling” posts be “banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER.”

“I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked. I’m basically going to cancel with extreme prejudice these evil, sick animals who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination,” he wrote.

Free Speech! Cancel Culture!

Click to expand...

I agree that those who did belittle the death of Charlie Kirk should not be banned from the internet platforms and should not have their videos taken down BUT like they do with TV shows, movies, video games and some books these people's website should have a tag on them saying this is a website with hateful speech on it.

Now before you argue, "who determines which websites should be labeled with this message", know right now I am only talking about websites that praised the death of Charlie Kirk. From that point on, there should be a bipartisan committee that will label future horrendous events and those praising those horrendous events.

The people of the US need to see what hateful and evil speech is. And I not talking about stuff like "abortion is right or abortion is wrong" or "LGBTQ society is right or LGBTQ society is wrong". That is not hate speech that is debating speech. But when someone praises killing or the death of someone who supports any of those options - that's hate speech. Label those people's websites so all the world will see what hate is.

And one more point before I sign out here. What God has said is off the table but people who take what God has said and twisted it to kill other people, those people are in play. Now, did I cover all my bases. I guess I'll find out if people start throwing weird scenarios at me.

Oh and the only way you can have the label taken of the website is by denouncing truthfully the horrendous stuff said and the person converts to Catholicism (or Orthodoxy or alright Evangelicalism, maybe traditional Anglican too, it's up for debate on Baptist )(boy am I going to catch it for this last statement, but all in fun).

What is funny is that Bill Pulte's parents had two primary residences, though not since Pulte raised this accusation.

Local tax officials in both states told Reuters that claiming more than one home as a primary residence isn’t generally allowed in their jurisdictions and could be punishable by fines or back taxes. After Reuters contacted tax officials in Bloomfield Township, Michigan, to inquire about the dual claims, Darrin Kraatz, director of assessing, on Thursday said the township “as of today” would revoke the exemption on the Pultes’ residence there.​

Click to expand...

HIs parents may have to pay back taxes thanks to Pulte making his accusations against Cook, who clearly told bankers that the home in Florida is a vacation home.

durangodawood said:

Per..... "Network Contagion Research Institute". lol/

Doesnt sound sounds like a rabbit hole worth exploring.

Click to expand...

As reported by CBS.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

YOU say it was inaccurate...

Click to expand...

It's factual. Here is the original video of Goodbye Blue Sky from The Wall. It's a scathing indictment of violence resulting from Christianity, as you'll see. In his recent tours, the symbolism was expanded to include other religions and monetary symbols. You can see it here, starting a minute into the video.

Any other facts you want to argue with?

childeye 2 said:

' Equality' needs to be clarified, objectively speaking. But for me, the sentiment of Love your neighbor as yourself would infer equality. Another thought that comes to mind is that Jesus said to sell all your possessions and give to the poor and you will have riches in heaven.

Click to expand...

This was in context of wrath coming and the destruction of the temple and Exile from the land. It does not speak to secular Government.

FreeinChrist said:

No, the great divider was not Obama. It was the right who reacted in horror at the idea of a black president and their racism came roaring out.

Click to expand...

False! I was no fan of Obama but the color of his skin had absolutely nothing to do with it. The cries of racism from the left is usually nothing pmore than a talking point in many cases used just to shut down debate.

NxNW said:

Never happened.

Click to expand...

Sure it did.

Trump's America Alone policies have helped drive our antagonists together (Russia, China, Iran, NK) and our friends together with each other (but further from us).

The really exciting thing is how he's helped drive our friends and antagonists together (India, Russia).

Benaiah468 said:

Most Jews today are descended from the Kingdom of Judah, which included the Tribe of Judah, Benjamin, and the Levites, the Levites, those from priestly families with the surname Cohen (or Levy/Levite) can typically trace their lineage back to the tribe of Levi. However, in religious and cultural consciousness, knowledge of exact tribal affiliation (e.g. Judah, Benjamin, Levi) has mostly been lost today.

Click to expand...

Ok, that is what I thought....

Benaiah468 said:

For most Jews today, belonging to the House of Judah is more of a historical-religious concept than a personal identity issue. The conscious connection to the tribe of Judah is rarely a topic in everyday life.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is why I used the term Judea, to express this exact thing.

Benaiah468 said:

Thus, the House of Judah has retained its identity to this day, even during its captivity in Babylon. Over the centuries, they have always known that they belong to the House of Judah, while the House of Israel has lost its identity; not least because of this, it cannot preach about it. The ten tribes have become a large mixed people without their own identity.

The House of Judah maintained its connection to Zion/Jerusalem and felt alienated in exile. The House of Israel found a new home among the nations of the world. They did not weep when they thought of Zion

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. Ps 137:1-5

The connection to their roots and their homeland was completely severed.

Ezekiel describes the House of Israel in detail in a vision as a field full of dead bones:

The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,... Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord... Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Ezek 37:1, 4, 11

Bones are no longer identifiable; only when flesh grows over the bones can the corresponding person be identified again. Just as Joseph's dead bones were brought back to the land of Israel, so the dead bones of the ten lost tribes will be brought back to the land of Israel

Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Ezek 37:12

During the process of opening the graves, that is, during the return to the land of Israel, the ten tribes will learn that He is their Elohim:

And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord. Ezek 37:13-14

Until the return, there will be two distinct houses, the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

Judah is explicitly commissioned by G-d to lead the family:

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Gen 49:10

Let us look at history to see how Judah accepted this leadership role and tried to fulfil it.

When the Israelites return from Egypt to the Promised Land, it is Judah who leads the entire people (based on the order of the camp). He leads the eastern part of the camp. After Joshua steps down, it is Judah whom G-d wants to lead in wars. Judah is expressly told to take charge:

Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the Lord, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand. Judges 1:1-2

And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of G-d, and asked counsel of G-d, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up first. Judges 20:18

While the ten tribes in the north were separated from their covenant with G-d (cf. Jer 3), (the house of Israel separated itself through its Torah-less deeds from the Father), Judah was allowed to remain in the covenant despite its deeds, because they repeatedly repented and did penance! This is something the other tribes can learn a lot from.

As a result, Judah, Benjamin, Levi and many from the other tribes who had defected to Judah (cf. e.g. 2 Chr 15) called themselves ‘Jews’. Mordecai, for example, refers to himself as a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin (Est 2:5). This is important for us to know today. Over the centuries, many from the other tribes joined the house of Judah. However, the house of Judah primarily consists of the tribe of Judah. The division of Israel and the separation of the ten tribes from the covenant had another very significant consequence: the Sanhedrin (the supreme court) fell completely into the hands of the house of Judah!

Judah was blessed by G-d with a special task. And according to these verses, this task includes Judah's right to enact laws.

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Gen 49:10

So until Shiloh comes (a reference to the Messiah) and all (!) peoples obey Him, Judah will possess this authority.

Jacob's blessing to Judah also contains the very interesting statement

The sceptre (Hebrew: shebet) shall not depart from Judah Gen 49:10a

Among other things, the word shebet means ‘clan’ or ‘tribe’!

What does that mean?

On a deeper level, the verse says that the identification as a tribe/clan shall not depart from Judah! So while the other tribes lose their identity (they have mixed among the nations), Judah will always be recognisable as Judah!

Today's Jews represent the house of Judah.

The Torah imposes signs of the covenant on G-d's people. The most important of these are the Sabbath, the feast days and circumcision; cf. Gen 17:11; Ex. 31:13, 31:17, 13:3-9.

These signs of the covenant are observed by Jews to this day.

Today's Jews observe the days of fasting prophesied in Zechariah:

Thus saith the Lord of hosts; The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love the truth and peace. Zec 8:19

Isaiah indirectly promised that the name Israel would pass to Judah. In this respect, it is no coincidence that today's state is not called Judah State or something similar, but Israel:

Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, Isa 48:1a

These points, together with the statement about tribal identification, are the clearest signs that the biblical references to the house of Judah must be attributed to today's Jews. No other ethnic group can claim to have this wealth of scriptural references applied to them.

In many places, it is stated that the house of Judah will return to the land of Israel. And this is exactly what we are witnessing today.

Click to expand...

I think it might be this way.....The fullness of promises and blessing to Abraham Was divided up among the tribes. Each having a portion. Each tribe shares in the portion of the others when in unity. When divided the portions are missing for fullness.
Isreal in the division of the kingdom.
2Sa 20:1 And there happened to be there a man of Belial, whose name was Sheba, the son of Bichri, a Benjamite: and he blew a trumpet, and said, We have no part in David, neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: every man to his tents, O Israel.
1Ki 12:16 So when all Israel saw that the king hearkened not unto them, the people answered the king, saying, What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance in the son of Jesse: to your tents, O Israel: now see to thine own house, David. So Israel departed unto their tents.
But there is one which is also the first born......which receives a portion above his brethren too.....always among the tribes that inheritance through the firstborn only.

essentialsaltes said:

That is neither here nor there.

Click to expand...

Who are the experts then and is there any disagreement among them and do you know that there isn’t?

essentialsaltes said:

You are mistaken about the nature of science.

Click to expand...

What is the nature of science?

Jerry N. said:

Being empathetic is a very useful trait. I too am not very interested in chit chat, but I’ve learned that it is very important. Suppose you are at a bus stop, and a person starts to talk to you about the weather. Three things are happening or one or two:

• The person is afraid and wants to be reassured that you mean them no harm.
• They are lonely and want social interaction and recognition that they matter.
• They might actually care about the weather.

My point is that the content of the chit chat may not have any importance, but deeper things are going on that require a level of kindness.

I had an old man come up to me at the supermarket, and he started a conversation about the product I was buying. He really didn’t care about the product or me, but he was desperate for interaction in the form of conversation and a smile. It would be unkind not to give them to him.

Click to expand...

I`m aware of that, and I can see the difference and normally know what they are seeking. I have always given if it is to support another. However things like sitting in a room all day and all people do is chit chat to an extreme noise level, or a gathering where it is the same no or if someone trying to be friendly never ever after a longer time get further down and I do not mean like not getting used to each other kinda like. It is just draining then. empty. point is, not forever,please. there are those that do prefer it to always be a superficial level. I am not that type

peter2 said:

Thank you for i feel your post like an encouragement, Godcrazy, even if the

sometimes sounds little to me

Click to expand...

I think all he wants is for us to do what we can, in the moment we are. He have compassion and mercy for our weaknesses. with all new tech that is here and coming , and that we hear about, we can do it bit by bit. Think about it how they have ruined earth in the past or behaviour earth is still standing.

No one actually espousing racist statements or taking on fascist actions should be killed for that. No different than those people who lost their lives for merely fighting for equal civil rights. Regarding the OP, I am not sure who those white men are aiming to fight. They never defined them, but the next day there were a flurry of bomb threats to Historically Black Colleges. Was there a bit of racism in that action?

Clare73 said:

Salvation has been by faith in Jesus Christ (the promise) since Abraham.

Click to expand...

Gen 15:6 says it all. Abraham didn't know Christ let alone His revelation-he just believed God in any case.

ThatRobGuy said:

https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/charlie-kirk-shooting-tyler-robinson-firing-squad/

I felt that this aspect of the conversation deserves its own thread, as it's a specific facet of the conversation that shouldn't get lost in the sea of the other matters relating to this topic.


With the high-profile killings that have recently happened, would death penalty being carried out on Tyler Robinson (should he be convicted) be warranted?

I ask that question with the caveat.

Normally I'm against the death penalty. But in this instance, would the death penalty being carried out by firing squad be a "pressure release valve" of sorts that could stave off more extreme outcomes (that could cause even more deaths) resulting from pent up "need for retributive justice"?


I think of what Obama (and a bipartisan plurality of politicians) said regarding his decision to give Seal Team Six the "go ahead" to take out Bin Laden. (and no, I'm not comparing Tyler to Bin Laden in terms of the scale of crimes, just using it to highlight the overall concept)

The decision was described with comments in the theme of "justice and closure". (emphasis on the closure part)

Now, the decision could've just as easily been "we'll find the right time to capture him, and bring him back to the US to stand trial, and give him life in prison", but they obviously went the other way on that.

Is that a direct appeal to the baser urges of human nature and the "need for vengeance as a form of closure"? Obviously...

But I think they understood that "he's just going to locked up forever" wouldn't have given a lot of people the same level of closure as knowing that a bunch of Seal Team Six guys lit him up like a Christmas Tree.

I do think one can make a pragmatic case for why the death penalty is the lesser of evils (in the long term) in some specific cases.


If people don't get that sense that "actual justice has been done", they'll start finding irrational ways to seek out that sense of closure, and you'll start getting a bunch of Bernie Goetz copycats on the subways.


Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I think justice should be swift and final, not the least of all to demonstrate the consequences of premeditated murder.

ralliann said:

Jews today know what tribe they are from?

Click to expand...

Most Jews today are descended from the Kingdom of Judah, which included the Tribe of Judah, Benjamin, and the Levites, the Levites, those from priestly families with the surname Cohen (or Levy/Levite) can typically trace their lineage back to the tribe of Levi. However, in religious and cultural consciousness, knowledge of exact tribal affiliation (e.g. Judah, Benjamin, Levi) has mostly been lost today. For most Jews today, belonging to the House of Judah is more of a historical-religious concept than a personal identity issue. The conscious connection to the tribe of Judah is rarely a topic in everyday life.

Thus, the House of Judah has retained its identity to this day, even during its captivity in Babylon. Over the centuries, they have always known that they belong to the House of Judah, while the House of Israel has lost its identity; not least because of this, it cannot preach about it. The ten tribes have become a large mixed people without their own identity.

The House of Judah maintained its connection to Zion/Jerusalem and felt alienated in exile. The House of Israel found a new home among the nations of the world. They did not weep when they thought of Zion

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof. For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion. How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land? If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. Ps 137:1-5

The connection to their roots and their homeland was completely severed.

Ezekiel describes the House of Israel in detail in a vision as a field full of dead bones:

The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones,... Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord... Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Ezek 37:1, 4, 11

Bones are no longer identifiable; only when flesh grows over the bones can the corresponding person be identified again. Just as Joseph's dead bones were brought back to the land of Israel, so the dead bones of the ten lost tribes will be brought back to the land of Israel

Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord G-D; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Ezek 37:12

During the process of opening the graves, that is, during the return to the land of Israel, the ten tribes will learn that He is their Elohim:

And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord. Ezek 37:13-14

Until the return, there will be two distinct houses, the house of Judah and the house of Israel.

Judah is explicitly commissioned by G-d to lead the family:

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Gen 49:10

Let us look at history to see how Judah accepted this leadership role and tried to fulfil it.

When the Israelites return from Egypt to the Promised Land, it is Judah who leads the entire people (based on the order of the camp). He leads the eastern part of the camp. After Joshua steps down, it is Judah whom G-d wants to lead in wars. Judah is expressly told to take charge:

Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass, that the children of Israel asked the Lord, saying, Who shall go up for us against the Canaanites first, to fight against them? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand. Judges 1:1-2

And the children of Israel arose, and went up to the house of G-d, and asked counsel of G-d, and said, Which of us shall go up first to the battle against the children of Benjamin? And the Lord said, Judah shall go up first. Judges 20:18

While the ten tribes in the north were separated from their covenant with G-d (cf. Jer 3), (the house of Israel separated itself through its Torah-less deeds from the Father), Judah was allowed to remain in the covenant despite its deeds, because they repeatedly repented and did penance! This is something the other tribes can learn a lot from.

As a result, Judah, Benjamin, Levi and many from the other tribes who had defected to Judah (cf. e.g. 2 Chr 15) called themselves ‘Jews’. Mordecai, for example, refers to himself as a Jew from the tribe of Benjamin (Est 2:5). This is important for us to know today. Over the centuries, many from the other tribes joined the house of Judah. However, the house of Judah primarily consists of the tribe of Judah. The division of Israel and the separation of the ten tribes from the covenant had another very significant consequence: the Sanhedrin (the supreme court) fell completely into the hands of the house of Judah!

Judah was blessed by G-d with a special task. And according to these verses, this task includes Judah's right to enact laws.

The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Gen 49:10

So until Shiloh comes (a reference to the Messiah) and all (!) peoples obey Him, Judah will possess this authority.

Jacob's blessing to Judah also contains the very interesting statement

The sceptre (Hebrew: shebet) shall not depart from Judah Gen 49:10a

Among other things, the word shebet means ‘clan’ or ‘tribe’!

What does that mean?

On a deeper level, the verse says that the identification as a tribe/clan shall not depart from Judah! So while the other tribes lose their identity (they have mixed among the nations), Judah will always be recognisable as Judah!

Today's Jews represent the house of Judah.

The Torah imposes signs of the covenant on G-d's people. The most important of these are the Sabbath, the feast days and circumcision; cf. Gen 17:11; Ex. 31:13, 31:17, 13:3-9.

These signs of the covenant are observed by Jews to this day.

Today's Jews observe the days of fasting prophesied in Zechariah:

Thus saith the Lord of hosts; The fast of the fourth month, and the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the seventh, and the fast of the tenth, shall be to the house of Judah joy and gladness, and cheerful feasts; therefore love the truth and peace. Zec 8:19

Isaiah indirectly promised that the name Israel would pass to Judah. In this respect, it is no coincidence that today's state is not called Judah State or something similar, but Israel:

Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, Isa 48:1a

These points, together with the statement about tribal identification, are the clearest signs that the biblical references to the house of Judah must be attributed to today's Jews. No other ethnic group can claim to have this wealth of scriptural references applied to them.

In many places, it is stated that the house of Judah will return to the land of Israel. And this is exactly what we are witnessing today.

essentialsaltes said:

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) took to X on Thursday and vowed to “use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”



The Louisiana Republican also demanded that any users who posted those “belittling” posts be “banned from ALL PLATFORMS FOREVER.”

“I’m also going after their business licenses and permitting, their businesses will be blacklisted aggressively, they should be kicked from every school, and their drivers licenses should be revoked.

Click to expand...

Landon Caeli said:

But it evolved 'for the better', or as 'equally good' the whole time.

...Now it going to evolve for the worse.

Click to expand...

I live here (near Liverpool) and it’s great. You seem to be complaining about tigers that don’t exist.

ViaCrucis said:

I'm not aware of a single country that has gotten rid of all guns. Even where guns are otherwise banned, firearms for the purpose of hunting are still permitted.

Click to expand...

Then why the call for the repeal of the 2nd Ammendment from so many? Charlie was killed with a bolt action hunting rifle. Recently killings were done with a revolver.

ViaCrucis said:

There are millions of guns in the US. The idea that each and every single one of them can be accounted for and removed is perhaps not, strictly speaking, impossible. It is, however, incredibly improbable.

Click to expand...

Hey if we are going to stop these killings, which we all want, and are going to say rhat the guns are the problem rhen its what we have to do.

ViaCrucis said:

Notice that I was speaking about mitigating gun violence. The idea that stricter gun laws will completely eradicate gun violence is, as far as I'm aware, a position nobody takes; and therefore arguing against it is merely striking at a straw man. Even a full on gun ban wouldn't eradicate gun violence.

Click to expand...

As we have seen recently banning certain guns doeant matter becauae those certain guns were not used.

And there most certainly are people who want to ban guns period. I've seen them on this board. Bolt action rifles can kill a lot of people and have in the past. Just removing some guns will only result in people using the guns that are available to kill a lot of people.

ViaCrucis said:

This isn't a zero sum game. It's not either completely eradicate all gun violence OR throw our hands up and do nothing.

Click to expand...

Didn't say it was. People are blaming the guns. Therefore the only logical answer is to get rid of the things that are killing people. The guns.

ViaCrucis said:

Making it harder to acquire a firearm, especially for those with a track record of mental health problems, wouldn't have prevented any gun deaths?

Click to expand...

Have you not been reading the posts on this subject? I have suggested that and have been told over and over again rhat is too hard to do. Are we going to require that everyone go through a psych evaluation? What kind of psych eval is the right one to determine that someone is not stable enough to have a gun? Who gets to decide that? There are a LOT of people with mental health problems who aren't dangerous. Why keep.a gun from them? On and on it goes with talking about how difficult and almost impossible that would be.

ViaCrucis said:

But what evidence do you have that stricter gun laws wouldn't have prevented any killings? How did you reach that conclusion? The data I would point to in favor of stricter gun laws reducing gun violence is the fact that this has worked in other countries.

Click to expand...

Yes in many of those countries you can't have a gun without a specified reason to have one. And often its not good enough. Are you going to pass a law requiring every gun owner in America to take a psych test, go through a licensing program with mandatory training? How often do they have to do it? Who's going to pay for the training?

I see there are just as many problems and obstacles to all of that as there is to just banning guns.

Valletta said:

As I've said before, a basic knowledge of history shows that rulers often impose their particular religion on the their subjects. This has happened with Catholics and Protestants. To assume that devout Christians who try and follow Jesus suddenly become less Christian because of the choice of a king or ruler to me is an attempt to usurp the judgment that should be left to Jesus alone.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is true. This is not the fault of those being ruled over. Yet those being ruled over can either choose to support such for survival, or reject it as non Christian and therefore being practiced or enforced by professed Christian entities, as antichrist. Which many did and do. The history of Roman Catholicism is the history of contending Christian professing entities, seeking the support of the state, or at that time Imperial support. Which once obtained, turned into Imperially enforced "Christianity". Which struggle produced, that which we know as the Roman Catholic church today, won. While the leadership of this denomination is still in constant relations with the kings, governments, religions, merchants, craftsmen, and other oligarchs of the world.

She is the original or mother church, of all Christins entities or denominations who have followed this example throughout history. That is in uniting with the state unto worldly enforcement upon all citizens of such nations that have done so. Many Protestants followed this example after gaining their own freedom. Both of which I oppose. As well as any religion uniting with any state unto state or nationally enforced religion. Including the religion of Secular Humanism, which while denying a God and religion, is in fact a religion itself. An unproven belief that there is no God. The enforcement of which is every bit as evil as that of any other, including even greater moral depravity as such has no basis or final authority concerning what is moral and or acceptable or not.

While Gibbons history does not address other religions as much as Christianity, nor extend to the time of Protestantism, the principles and dangers of a united church and state exposed by his works are easily carried over into these areas. I will not consider it off topic on this thread if any should like to point out these same kind of abuses throughout history, committed by other religions and or Protestantism. As I condemn all such violations as non and or apostate Christianity. When applied to those who profess Christianity in any case, of course. As my main objective here and in other threads is to address this specific problem and danger to societies. Without the aid of governments, it is a difficult thing to effect widespread persecution, and conversely an easy thing to effect by government enforced laws of a land.

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Of course YOU do...I wouldn't expect anything else...

Click to expand...

And for good reason, since I provided an example of them publishing inaccurate information.