Trump just went full Infowars

[KCfromNC]

as i told you it's your words that were misrepresenting what is said - my words were accurate - yours were not

In what way, specifically?

 

[rjs330]

Note that Jesus' last words on the subject do not contradict His previous words.

For Luke 22:36b means that every Christian should obtain the sword of God's Holy Spirit, which is the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17, Hebrews 4:12). The "two swords" which are enough for all Christians (Luke 22:38) represent the two main parts of God's Word: the Old Testament and the New Testament. Luke 22:36b cannot mean that every Christian should obtain a physical weapon, for otherwise two physical weapons would not have been enough for all of the apostles (Luke 22:38). And Luke 22:36b cannot mean that any Christian should obtain a physical weapon to attack other people with, even in self-defense. For Christians are elsewhere commanded not to defend themselves when they are attacked, but to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). For those who take up a physical weapon to attack other people, even in self-defense, will perish by a weapon (Matthew 26:52).

Also, the apostle Paul, who taught after Jesus Christ, showed in the Bible that Christians do not employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18). Instead, Jesus Christ at His first coming set the example for what Christians are to do when they are physically attacked by people (1 Peter 2:19-23). They are to go meekly like sheep to the slaughter (Romans 8:36, Psalms 44:6,22), just like Jesus did (Isaiah 53:7). Obedient Christians do not fear death (Hebrews 2:15), and do not love their lives unto death (Revelation 12:11b), but hate their lives in this world, so that they might retain eternal life (John 12:25, Mark 8:34-38). For obedient Christians know that being killed is no loss for them, but gain (Philippians 1:21), as it will bring their still-conscious souls into heaven to be with Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:8), which is far better than remaining in this fallen world (Philippians 1:23).

During the future Tribulation of Revelation chapters 6 to 18 and Matthew 24, Christians (not in hiding) will have to face martyrdom with patience and faith to the end (Revelation 13:7-10, Revelation 14:12-13, Revelation 20:4, Matthew 24:9-13), just as Christians have always had to spiritually overcome in the face of martyrdom (e.g. Revelation 2:10-11).

*******



The Second Amendment is fine, for non-Christians, and for Christian hunters and target shooters.

But it is against God's Word for Christians to ever use physical weapons against people. For Christians are not to employ physical weapons or any other violence against people (Matthew 5:39, Matthew 26:52; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18).

But God does allow civil authorities to employ weapons and violence against criminals (Romans 13:3-4). And Christians are to obey, and pay their taxes to support, civil authorities (Romans 13:1-6).

*******



And neither do we, by violent self-defense.

-

It is sometimes asked: "Does the Lord call us to just sit back and allow ourselves to be killed, when it is not the Lord's time to call us home?"

The answer is: If it is not the Lord's time to call us home, then He will not allow murderers to come and kill us, or allow any other form of death to come to us (Psalms 91). But if it is our time, then He could allow us to be murdered, and we should face that without any fear (Revelation 2:10) or complaint, but even with thankfulness (1 Thessalonians 5:18), that we can then enter heaven, which is far better than remaining in this fallen world (2 Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:21,23).

Also, what gives us the right to kill someone who is attacking us, if it is not the Lord's time for that person to die? God might still want to save that person's soul and help him to change and be a nice person. And how can God do that if we kill that person while he is still an unrepentant non-Christian, so that when he dies his soul goes to hell? If Stephen the martyr in the book of Acts could ask God to forgive those who were stoning him to death (Acts 7:59-60), so that even they might be saved from hell, then we should also show mercy to everyone (Matthew 5:7, Matthew 6:15), even if they are about to kill us.

As always the scripture is for YOU as an individual. It does not tell us to stand by and let someone else be murdered or assaulted .How is it loving your neighbor to allow them to be murdered or raped Or tortured etc.? It's a violation of the law of love. It's a serious error to take scripture hat is meant as an instruction book for the individual and force it into a society and broaden it's scope. A good example is giving. God commands us to give. He does not command us to force others to give.

He tells us to turn the other cheek. He does not tell us to force others to do the same.

 

[Speedwell]

As always the scripture is for YOU as an individual. It does not tell us to stand by and let someone else be murdered or assaulted .How is it loving your neighbor to allow them to be murdered or raped Or tortured etc.? It's a violation of the law of love. It's a serious error to take scripture hat is meant as an instruction book for the individual and force it into a society and broaden it's scope. A good example is giving. God commands us to give. He does not command us to force others to give.

He tells us to turn the other cheek. He does not tell us to force others to do the same.

So Jesus tells us that unlimited secret ownership of guns is OK? I just don't get the connection.

 

[Truthfrees]

So Jesus tells us that unlimited secret ownership of guns is OK? I just don't get the connection.

how do you get that from what he said?

he said nothing like that - there is no connection - that is why you can't find one

 

[rjs330]

how do you get that from what he said?

he said nothing like that - there is no connection - that is why you can't find one

Bingo!

 

[Speedwell]

Bingo!

So where do you stand on gun registration? Does that amount to confiscation, a violation of our "God-given right to own guns?" That's the Christian Right's Bible-based position.

 

[Lady Bug]

How can one know for sure that they aren't paid protestors?

 

[rjs330]

So where do you stand on gun registration? Does that amount to confiscation, a violation of our "God-given right to own guns?" That's the Christian Right's Bible-based position.

It's a constitutional question not a Biblical one. Most of us in the right support the Constitution. It has NOTHING to do with the Bible. We in America believe that God has endowed man with certain inaliable rights. Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The designers of the Constitution believed that the peoples right to keep and bear arms was one of the rights that allows us to hold onto the inaliable rights. My arguments for gun ownership are solely based on a constitutional argument and not a Biblical one.

 

[Bible2+]

Truthfrees said in post #156:

. . . God trains our hands for war -

But not physical war (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18).

Truthfrees said in post #156:

in every war there is an attacker and a defender - to not be prepared for war is asking for trouble -

That brings to mind some other non-pacifist arguments. For example:

"Was it not because of a pacifist eagerness to appease Hitler that the world suffered the loss of over forty million lives?"

No, pacifists have never killed anyone. It was only war-makers who killed the over forty million people who died in World War II.

-

"But was it not Chamberlain's bowing to a despot's demands which made the war inevitable?"

No, and it is curious that the war-makers would condemn Chamberlain for handing an ethnically-German part of Czechoslovakia over to Hitler, when the war-makers themselves would later turn around and hand over not only all of Czechoslovakia, but also all of the rest of eastern Europe, to Stalin. So who bowed to a despot more than the war-makers themselves, and even after they had caused the completely-unnecessary deaths of over forty million people in a war?

-

"So we should have just let Hitler continue the slaughter of innocents in the Holocaust?"

No, and note that World War II was not actually fought over the Holocaust, but over the political control of countries. Also, even if it had been fought over the Holocaust, should over forty million people be killed in a war to try to save six million people alive? Instead, what could have saved them alive would have been a U.S. offer to receive, as immigrants, all of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled people whom Hitler thought were weakening Germany. Hitler could have agreed to let them all go, for he would have seen it as a way for them to (in his mind) weaken his ultimate rival the U.S. instead. But Roosevelt didn't want any Jewish immigrants coming to the United States. A boatload of them was even turned away.

Also, who supports the idea of a shooting war to stop the current Holocaust of millions of aborted babies who are being brutally murdered in abortion clinics around the world each year? Who are more innocent than these little babies? And yet where are the war-makers put who try to defend these innocents by killing anyone who would harm them? They are put into prison, as murderers; or they are put into insane asylums, as crazy people.

-

"Your position would only allow dictators and tyrants to rule the world."

No, for pacifism as it spreads eventually undercuts tyrants. For it robs them of soldiers willing to fight their wars for them.

Why do you think that dictators today are outlawing pacifism as "extremism"?

-

"Would not Hitler have conquered the world if everyone in America was pacifist?"

Hitler would have conquered nothing if the German people of his time had been pacifists.

 

[Bible2+]

rjs330 said in post #162:

How is it loving your neighbor to allow them to be murdered or raped Or tortured etc.?

Why didn't the loving Jesus defend the Smyrnans (Revelation 2:10)?

Also, why do you allow babies to be murdered in abortion clinics?

-

Also, we should not try to employ the human "legality" of abortion as the reason for our pacifism toward the slaughter of innocents in abortion clinics. For if we believe that God expects us to employ violence to protect our innocent families, no matter what man-made law might someday forbid that, then how can we claim that God does not expect us to also employ violence to protect innocent babies in abortion clinics, no matter what man-made laws forbid that?

That is, imagine that San Francisco (an extremely liberal city) passes an ordinance which forbids the civilian firing of a gun, or the civilian employment of any other form of violence against anyone at anytime, even in self-defense. And imagine that you and your family are staying at a hotel there when an armed man breaks through your hotel-room door to attack your family. Are you going to say: "Oh, gee, I know that God expects me to defend my family with violence, but I have to be a pacifist now, so I that don't break the city law"? Or are you going to say: "I don't care what any stupid, man-made law says, I must obey God and protect my family with violence".

And if you would say the latter, then on what basis would you decline to say, regarding abortion: "I don't care what any stupid, man-made law says. I must obey God and defend these little babies with violence"?

And if you would reply with something like: "God only expects me to protect my family, not the babies of strangers", then imagine that you see the baby of a stranger in a stroller on the sidewalk outside of an abortion clinic, about to be killed by a crazy homeless man with a knife. Are you going to pass by as a pacifist, because: "God only expects me to protect my own family, not the babies of strangers"? Or are you going to employ violence to save the baby? And if the latter, then what God-supported reason do you have not to rush in and also save the babies inside the clinic, who are about to be knifed by abortion doctors?

Or, imagine that your daughter gets pregnant by her boyfriend, and lets the baby grow in her womb for about six months. You think that she is okay with becoming a mom, but then one day someone tips you off that she is down at the abortion clinic about to be operated on. Are you going to go down there and employ violence to save your own little grandson or granddaughter in her womb from being cut to shreds, to fulfill your God-mandated duty to protect your family with violence? Or are you going to say: "No, I have to let this family member be cut to shreds, no matter what God says, because of the man-made law allowing abortion"?

All of this is said not to in any way encourage violence against abortion clinics, but to show that pacifism is the only consistent, Biblical response to all of the awful evil in the world, just as Jesus Christ taught us:

Matthew 5:39 . . . I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 

[Kentonio]

How can one know for sure that they aren't paid protestors?

I’ve never really understood this, how do conservatives simultaneously believe that there are tens of millions of angry liberals ready to tear down all that they hold dear, but also believe that the only way people could possibly be protesting is if they were being paid?

 

[Truthfrees]

But not physical war (2 Corinthians 10:3-5, Ephesians 6:12-18).



That brings to mind some other non-pacifist arguments. For example:

"Was it not because of a pacifist eagerness to appease Hitler that the world suffered the loss of over forty million lives?"

No, pacifists have never killed anyone. It was only war-makers who killed the over forty million people who died in World War II.

-

"But was it not Chamberlain's bowing to a despot's demands which made the war inevitable?"

No, and it is curious that the war-makers would condemn Chamberlain for handing an ethnically-German part of Czechoslovakia over to Hitler, when the war-makers themselves would later turn around and hand over not only all of Czechoslovakia, but also all of the rest of eastern Europe, to Stalin. So who bowed to a despot more than the war-makers themselves, and even after they had caused the completely-unnecessary deaths of over forty million people in a war?

-

"So we should have just let Hitler continue the slaughter of innocents in the Holocaust?"

No, and note that World War II was not actually fought over the Holocaust, but over the political control of countries. Also, even if it had been fought over the Holocaust, should over forty million people be killed in a war to try to save six million people alive? Instead, what could have saved them alive would have been a U.S. offer to receive, as immigrants, all of the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and disabled people whom Hitler thought were weakening Germany. Hitler could have agreed to let them all go, for he would have seen it as a way for them to (in his mind) weaken his ultimate rival the U.S. instead. But Roosevelt didn't want any Jewish immigrants coming to the United States. A boatload of them was even turned away.

Also, who supports the idea of a shooting war to stop the current Holocaust of millions of aborted babies who are being brutally murdered in abortion clinics around the world each year? Who are more innocent than these little babies? And yet where are the war-makers put who try to defend these innocents by killing anyone who would harm them? They are put into prison, as murderers; or they are put into insane asylums, as crazy people.

-

"Your position would only allow dictators and tyrants to rule the world."

No, for pacifism as it spreads eventually undercuts tyrants. For it robs them of soldiers willing to fight their wars for them.

Why do you think that dictators today are outlawing pacifism as "extremism"?

-

"Would not Hitler have conquered the world if everyone in America was pacifist?"

Hitler would have conquered nothing if the German people of his time had been pacifists.

it's fine with me that you are a pacifist - i have no desire to change your mind - just know that Jesus told the disciples to buy a real sword in Luke 22:36 - he didn't tell them to buy a spiritual sword

 

[Truthfrees]

I’ve never really understood this, how do conservatives simultaneously believe that there are tens of millions of angry liberals ready to tear down all that they hold dear, but also believe that the only way people could possibly be protesting is if they were being paid?

both are easily done - the 200 paid protestors against kavanaugh were for the photo op to stir up the anger of socialist democrats against the american way of life -

the latest poll says 33% of young people are preferring socialist democrats like bernie over the old style democrats - that is how you find 10's of million vs paid protestors

 

[Kentonio]

both are easily done - the 200 paid protestors against kavanaugh were for the photo op to stir up the anger of socialist democrats against the american way of life -

the latest poll says 33% of young people are preferring socialist democrats like bernie over the old style democrats - that is how you find 10's of million vs paid protestors

Why would you need paid protesters if 33% of young people already prefer social democrats?

You really think there aren’t 200 people in America who were angry enough about Kavanaugh to come out and protest?

 

[Truthfrees]

Why didn't the loving Jesus defend the Smyrnans (Revelation 2:10)?

Also, why do you allow babies to be murdered in abortion clinics?

-

Also, we should not try to employ the human "legality" of abortion as the reason for our pacifism toward the slaughter of innocents in abortion clinics. For if we believe that God expects us to employ violence to protect our innocent families, no matter what man-made law might someday forbid that, then how can we claim that God does not expect us to also employ violence to protect innocent babies in abortion clinics, no matter what man-made laws forbid that?

That is, imagine that San Francisco (an extremely liberal city) passes an ordinance which forbids the civilian firing of a gun, or the civilian employment of any other form of violence against anyone at anytime, even in self-defense. And imagine that you and your family are staying at a hotel there when an armed man breaks through your hotel-room door to attack your family. Are you going to say: "Oh, gee, I know that God expects me to defend my family with violence, but I have to be a pacifist now, so I that don't break the city law"? Or are you going to say: "I don't care what any stupid, man-made law says, I must obey God and protect my family with violence".

And if you would say the latter, then on what basis would you decline to say, regarding abortion: "I don't care what any stupid, man-made law says. I must obey God and defend these little babies with violence"?

And if you would reply with something like: "God only expects me to protect my family, not the babies of strangers", then imagine that you see the baby of a stranger in a stroller on the sidewalk outside of an abortion clinic, about to be killed by a crazy homeless man with a knife. Are you going to pass by as a pacifist, because: "God only expects me to protect my own family, not the babies of strangers"? Or are you going to employ violence to save the baby? And if the latter, then what God-supported reason do you have not to rush in and also save the babies inside the clinic, who are about to be knifed by abortion doctors?

Or, imagine that your daughter gets pregnant by her boyfriend, and lets the baby grow in her womb for about six months. You think that she is okay with becoming a mom, but then one day someone tips you off that she is down at the abortion clinic about to be operated on. Are you going to go down there and employ violence to save your own little grandson or granddaughter in her womb from being cut to shreds, to fulfill your God-mandated duty to protect your family with violence? Or are you going to say: "No, I have to let this family member be cut to shreds, no matter what God says, because of the man-made law allowing abortion"?

All of this is said not to in any way encourage violence against abortion clinics, but to show that pacifism is the only consistent, Biblical response to all of the awful evil in the world, just as Jesus Christ taught us:

Matthew 5:39 . . . I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

people can only do their best to save life - using violence to save babies from abortion is not what Luke 22:36 is about - if you don't want to save any lives in any way that is fine - if you want to be a pacifist that is fine - just know that others see Luke 22:36 and all the other scriptures @LostMarbels gave you to be literal as well as spiritual

 

[Truthfrees]

Why would you need paid protesters if 33% of young people already prefer social democrats?

You really think there aren’t 200 people in America who were angry enough about Kavanaugh to come out and protest?

because it is a photo op to make it appear people are more interested/angry than they really are - it's a soros agenda for some reason - why does he pay people to protest? - he has some reason to do that - maybe a real time training video to inspire others to do likewise

the fact that they needed to be paid proves that they were not angry enough to come out on their own

 

[Kentonio]

because it is a photo op to make it appear people are more interested/angry than they really are - it's a soros agenda for some reason - why does he pay people to protest? - he has some reason to do that - maybe a real time training video to inspire others to do likewise

the fact that they needed to be paid proves that they were not angry enough to come out on their own

Have you seen the polling on Kavanaugh? Have you listened to the countless furious people on the left about his nomination? The idea that people weren’t angry enough to protest without being paid is nonsensical. Try going and reading a few threads in Democratic Underground and then come back and tell me Democrats aren’t angry enough.

 

[Truthfrees]

Have you seen the polling on Kavanaugh? Have you listened to the countless furious people on the left about his nomination? The idea that people weren’t angry enough to protest without being paid is nonsensical. Try going and reading a few threads in Democratic Underground and then come back and tell me Democrats aren’t angry enough.

well it's all words so far - they are NOT out by the 10's of thousands protesting

don't you think millions of conservatives and libertarians are furious about what was done to bk?

are they out protesting? - no - they are more sensical - they are motivated to vote and exercise their civic duty and privilege

imo most on the left are the same - they know it is nonsense to participate in mob protests - they too know it's more sensical to vote

 

[Truthfrees]

Have you seen the polling on Kavanaugh? Have you listened to the countless furious people on the left about his nomination? The idea that people weren’t angry enough to protest without being paid is nonsensical. Try going and reading a few threads in Democratic Underground and then come back and tell me Democrats aren’t angry enough.

hey my friend - i don't understand your pov

you are for pacifism when it comes to use of weapons but are for violent angry protests when it comes to politics?

so it is wrong to save the lives of your family and friends from murderers - just let them be killed?

but then you want people to form violent mobs when they don't like the peaceful political actions of a judiciary committee?

it seems like you use the bible to support disarming peaceful citizens and IGNORE the bible when you support the activism of angry mobs who oppose peaceful citizens

 

[Kentonio]

hey my friend - i don't understand your pov

you are for pacifism when it comes to use of weapons but are for violent angry protests when it comes to politics?

so it is wrong to save the lives of your family and friends from murderers - just let them be killed?

but then you want people to form violent mobs when they don't like the peaceful political actions of a judiciary committee?

I’m not encouraging violence, I just don’t understand this strange idea that half the country are supposedly furiously angry when it suits, but at the same time they supposedly can’t find a handful of people to protest unless they’re paid to do so. The women’s march in 2017 had between 3.3-5.6 million attendees, and we’re quibbling over 200 protesters? Really?