Gun Phobia

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: nwtrucker


So we can drop the plane analogy because it is a poor one. Cool.

Ever heard of self-driving cars? They’re coming. I, for one, am very glad. I hope they are required everywhere for everyone — they will save millions of lives. We cannot trust people to drive cars, because they have proven themselves to be unworthy overall.

Refer to the post previous to yours.

I could say the same thing to someone who carries a gun for protection. Don’t trust people so you need to carry a gun? Talk about projection!

The main motive to buy guns is more often hobby-related anyway (thrillseeking, showing off; the sellers of guns know their marketing tools and how to create a demand; Hollywood serves its purposes for that too, ending up acting in the best interests of the military industrial complex Eisenhower talked about, but often an inadvertent result of acting on the economic concept of 'demand and supply'). It has little to do with protection, self-defense or the original motive behind the 2nd amendment. That's just a marketing-argument that the NRA and similar groups like to promote to win souls (as the expression goes and because the majority of the most influential people in these organizations are self-professed Christians of the hypocritical kind in rural America*, incidentally also people who voted for Trump, their shining beacon and example of financially succesful hypocrisy and lying or scamming people; and sometimes an excuse to mitigate the conflict between their own behaviour and whatever is left of their conscience, 'if it's ok for the president of the US...' or 'if the president can get away with it and still be admired by many or voted into office...', that idea).

*: See the 2 links in my previous comment

Perhaps some people need another course at the Trump University, their parrotted arguments and misrepresentation of the situation are becoming a bit transparent. Sometimes the show is a bit funny though, does Trump really need a reminder on a piece of paper of the phrase "I hear you"? Can't he just remember that little trick?

Ooh, there's the Bohemian Grove guy again on CNN talking all serious as if he's worth listening to, more WWF wrestling with bozos who associate with people performing these rituals that Alex Jones likes to make some money off again (how convenient for all involved as people are distracted from the things mentioned in the 2 links in my previous comment):

Don't take me sharing an Alex Jones video the wrong way, just one more con-artist of the Trump-kind.

a reply to: nwtrucker

a reply to: whereislogic


Umm you do know that its not hypocrical to own a weapon biblically speaking. Jesus had armed men escort him alot. turn the other cheek is not a free pass to be killed. that is for non life threatening stuff.

a reply to: yuppa
I wasn't talking about gun-owners in general. I was talking about "the majority of the most influential people in these organizations", referring to the earlier mentioned "NRA and similar groups". So we're talking about those who donate large sums to organizations such as the NRA, those having positions of power and/or influence within the military industrial complex, owners and the biggest investors in arms manufacturing and dealing or those receiving large amounts of money from them, the Marco Rubio's of this world and so on. And the hypocrisy is not referring to a mere love of guns, that hypocrisy would be explained in the videos I was referring to (see the footnote in that comment, don't just focus on my singular example below related to my commentary about "the military industrial complex" and the support it has from those professing to be Christians, silent or in the open or outspoken). Greed is involved as well as...

Luke 6:46 (Jesus teaching)

46 “Why, then, do you call me ‘Lord! Lord!’ but do not do the things I say?

2 Cor. 10:3

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare* [Lit., “we are not doing military service.”] according to what we are in the flesh.

Every church that looks the other way as their members "are ...doing military service" is being hypocritical and dishonest to their Church members (for not telling them that their choice and behaviour is unchristian, the opposite of Christianity). They (the Church leaders and prominent members such as politicians, the earlier mentioned people of power and influence within what president Eisenhower referred to as "the military industrial complex") are not doing what God's Word says they should (or should not) be doing. They are not Christians no matter what they claim to be. There are more things they are not doing that Jesus said they should be doing. Here's a list that covers some of the hypocrisy I was talking about:

Here's something to think about though, did Jesus himself ever carry a sword? Anyway, your statement about Jesus having "armed men escort him alot" is wrong and a twisted presentation or referral to the account before Jesus' arrest where Jesus clearly spoke out against the use of the sword isn't going to make that statement any more true/correct, without error/factual.

Matthew 26:51,52

But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword.

Luke shares another detail, Luke 22:

50 One of them even struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his right ear. 51 But in reply Jesus said: “That is enough.” And he touched the ear and healed him.

The fact that two swords were available among the disciples on the night of Jesus’ betrayal was not unusual for those times (Lu 22:38), and there is evidence that for Galileans in particular it was not uncommon to carry arms. (See The Jewish War, by F. Josephus, III, 42 [iii, 2].)

a reply to: whereislogic

So I guess Jesus saying it wasnt a sin for a soldier to kill in the line of duty is wrong too right? Cherry picking does not suit you.

a reply to: yuppa
This is no place for lengthy responses to those twisting Scripture to suit with their argumentation and psychological projection of cherry-picking bible texts that suit that purpose and start a long debate about it. But for those interested, there's a lot more evidence that the 1st-century Christians did not do military service as 2 Cor. 10:3 spells out for those who prefer to twist as this pastor does:

Here is some of that evidence:

Does God Approve of Warfare? Awake!—2002

a reply to: whereislogic

What you do omit from your post is Jesus never enforced his beliefs on others, either.

He taught by example, not enforcement. Would you enforce that view on the rest of us? Hopefully not. It wouldn't be....Jesus-like.

a reply to: nwtrucker
Historical facts regarding the subject of military service and the 1st-century Christians is not a "view". It is what it is. And no, I would not enforce my views on any of you unlike what Trinitarians have been doing for centuries with the doctrine of the Trinity and instituting a death penalty for those who didn't want to adhere to it or said anything truthful about that doctrine and/or its Pagan origins, wiping out all the Arians or outmaneuvring them politically (King Clovis having a notable part in this butchery or these forced conversions). Or unlike those* forcing people to recite and be brainwashed with the pledge of allegiance, trampling all over the 1st amendment and unlike those using literal tar and feathers on those who spoke out against it and resisted the brainwashing with nationalism, even castrating them (how much hatred does that show by those who have been told to love even their enemies by Jesus and who claim to follow his teachings and his example by calling themselves Christians?). *: again including many self-professed Christians at the head of the pack (or mob), Trinitarians showing their true colors and that, regarding this particular behavioural pattern, they're no different than the Trinitarians who voted in Hitler in Germany around the same time and their treatment of the jews or those who spoke out against their nationalistic views and excessive promotion of extremist patriotism (one of the main agendas of any military industrial complex that needs to sell war and the concept of 'killing for your country', obviously not spelled out like that) in the period 1933-1938, that's one of the reasons why you'll hardly hear about it anymore ('nothing to see here'):

“A careful review of all the information available [shows] that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180 C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.”​—The Rise of Christianity.

“The behavior of the [early] Christians was very different from that of the Romans. . . . Since Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.”​—Our World Through the Ages.

edit on 24-2-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Xcalibur254

It certainly would be if you want to ban others from having a box of matches, or a fireplace...

a reply to: odzeandennz

Twenty-seven times, seventeen after, obviously, the first 10, known collectively as the "bill of rights".

So, it hasn't happened very often. Which is, of course, why the anti's don't want to go that route. Dare I say they fear to?

a reply to: whereislogic

Good to know you wouldn't enforce your VIEWS. Yes they are views.

The fact that your historic references omit so many variables that exist now, in the present, there's no other conclusion than see them as views.

They are so far removed from the current situation as to approach an association level rather than any relevancy to the topic or thread.

a reply to: nwtrucker
I just got sucked in to responding to yuppa zooming in on my usage of the word "hypocrisy", possibly without checking out what's referred to in the footnote I decided to add after deciding to use the word "hypocrisy" and thinking about possible responses I would get for using that word, as if referring to gun ownership (or something else) and not what's referred to in the footnote. The footnote was my attempt to avoid any misunderstanding or misinterpreting of what I was talking about where the * is placed. That won't stop people from reading something else into my words and then commenting or responding to that though, it seems to happen quite a lot on these forums.

My first comment on this page was a direct response to what someone else was talking about concerning the subject of "protection" which in turn was a response concerning the subject of "fear". The comment you were responding to was talking about the historical fact that the 1st-century Christians did not do military service and the fact that 2 Corinthians 10:3 can be literally translated to “we are not doing military service.” These are (well researched and/or documented) facts, not views. Perhaps these are facts you'd rather ignore, I don't know, but that doesn't make them views or any more ambiguous if so desired by some for whom these facts are inconvenient to think about in relation to the topic of the so-called "military industrial complex" and their lobbying organization for the hobby-market, the NRA (the majority or at least a large portion of the most influential members of which profess to be Christians, and which also includes many members that are "doing military service" with no hint or reminder from their teachers in Church, their pastors and such, about 2 Corinthians 10:3 or the historical facts I referred to about 1st-century Christians). Surely one is allowed to bring up what president Eisenhower referred to as "the military industrial complex" in relation to a thread concerning guns (seeing that its main component produces and sells them and stands to gain or lose with the popularity of guns or any gun control laws; another topic that others have discussed in this thread)?

It was you who asked the question: "Would you enforce that view on the rest of us?" and bringing up the concept of 'enforcing one's views on others'. My response to you, if it was too off-topic was a response to that question+historical examples of those who enforced their views on others (based on factual data again). Please don't hold it against me when I'm responding in a bit more detail than most would or than what you would possibly prefer to see.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. -Sir Winston Churchill.

a reply to: whereislogic

Fair enough. Although one can find 'historical examples' for just about any view.

originally posted by: Lysergic
I like make a circle out of my guns and then I lay in the center.

Only then I know I am safe.

Hey I know a guy like that.


K~

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
a reply to: Xcalibur254no...no

naw guns stomp tyranny or any chance of tyranny

in scripture Jesus said if one has no sword....sell your coat and buy one.....but not to draw it

Luke 22:36-38

Then he said to them: “But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, ‘He was counted with lawless ones.’ For this is being fulfilled concerning me.” 38 Then they said: “Lord, look! here are two swords.” He said to them: “It is enough.”

Might there have been a specific purpose that Jesus had in mind referred to in verse 37 for which only 2 swords were already enough, clearly demonstrating Jesus was not telling all Christians to buy swords or the modern equivalent for the rest of time?

Since someone else brought up Scripture and Jesus concerning the account above on page 1 without any objections that it was too off-topic from anyone and since I already said something about the rest of that same account, I'll share some more detailed information about it:

Jesus’ words at Luke 22:36, “Let the one having no sword sell his outer garment and buy one,” would not indicate that his disciples were about to enter into a hazardous life. Rather, he desired to have a sword available among his followers on that night in order to demonstrate clearly that, though they would come into circumstances that could easily provoke armed resistance, he did not intend to resort to the sword but would give himself up voluntarily in harmony with God’s will. Thus, when Peter did react and try to put up armed resistance, lopping off the ear of Malchus, Jesus ordered him: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Mt 26:52; Joh 18:10, 11) Certainly, Peter’s sword and the other one at hand would have availed little against such a large group of armed men, and by trying to use them, they would undoubtedly have ‘perished by the sword.’ (Mt 26:47) More important, such attempted delivery of Jesus would have failed, being completely contrary to Jehovah God’s purpose. (Mt 26:53, 54) As it was, later that day Jesus could plainly state to Pilate: “If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”​—Joh 18:36.

Source: Arms, Armor: Insight, Volume 1

Does anyone know of any other instance in the Scriptures where Jesus told someone to buy a sword?

Understanding: Insight, Volume 2

Relationship to Knowledge and Wisdom. Understanding must be based on knowledge, and it works with knowledge, though it is itself more than mere knowledge. The extent and worth of one’s understanding is measurably affected by the quantity and quality of one’s knowledge. Knowledge is acquaintance with facts, and the greatest and most fundamental facts relate to God, his existence, his invincible purpose, his ways. Understanding enables the person to relate the knowledge he acquires to God’s purpose and standards, and thereby he can assess or evaluate such knowledge. The “understanding heart is one that searches for knowledge”; it is not satisfied with a mere superficial view but seeks to get the full picture. (Pr 15:14) Knowledge must become ‘pleasant to one’s very soul’ if discernment is to safeguard one from perversion and deception.​—Pr 2:10, 11; 18:15; see KNOWLEDGE.

Details are important when it comes to understanding. Details are left out when it comes to propaganda, marketing or selling philosophies/views/ideas or ideologies, certain ways of thinking or when arguing or leaving wrong impressions about a particular fact or set of facts (which includes incorrect interpretations or views of those facts, drawing incorrect conclusions based on not having all the facts or considering all the facts, such as verse 38 of Luke ch.22 and its relation to verse 36 and the rest of the context, the whole account that demonstrates why Jesus said what he said in verse 36 and what purpose it served).

As a life long gun owner and hunter I don't believe in forcing people to do anything against their will.
Force is not how to build trust or understanding.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
A gun is a device designed for only one purpose. I'd argue that being afraid of something that has the sole job of killing is hardly irrational. Thus, fear of guns is not a phobia.

So you think it's perfectly reasonable to be afraid of an inanimate object?

More like gun fetishists that are by far the minority trying legitimize their mental disorder.



a reply to: nwtrucker

originally posted by: soundguy
More like gun fetishists that are by far the minority trying legitimize their mental disorder.



a reply to: nwtrucker

So what's your fetish? Is it a mental disorder, as well?