Evidence for God from Science

I sometimes wonder, what if the early church had the right to use guns?...

Jesus advised obtaining a sword to be a common-sense protection.

Philip wrote:

I sometimes wonder, what if the early church had the right to use guns?...

Jesus advised obtaining a sword to be a common-sense protection.

Yeah and followed it by the equally confusing "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Philip wrote:Jesus advised obtaining a sword to be a common-sense protection.

Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

neo-x wrote:Yeah and followed it by the equally confusing "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

Peter cut off the right ear of the high priest's servant whose name was Malchus from John 18.

He did so unprovoked. Peter was not defending himself but struck out with anger.

I find that particular story interesting as a teaching tool. In verse 52, Jesus does give authority to defend oneself from harm.

However, sometimes when you think you are doing God's will in life, you inadvertently cut the ears off unsuspecting people so they can no longer hear the message.

Christ is in the habit of making sure the ears are attached, so that they can hear the message. Reattaching the ear of Malchus is the last miracle He performed before the crucifixion.

But Jesus' response was correct if used in the context of the passage, because it means to strike out at those who oppose you, unprovoked. History has proven, that those who take up the sword against their brothers and sisters, who go to war for reasons that having nothing to do with self defense, do die from the sword in the end.

neo-x wrote:I sometimes wonder, what if the early church had the right to use guns?...

They were most likely familiar with Paul's statement in the epistle to the Ephesians. And they took that statement very seriously.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

However, even if they did have the right to use guns at that time, I would be willing to bet they would have never used them, except for defensive purposes.

Philip wrote:

Ed: If there's been a 90-day waiting period to buy one then it would have increased the odds of the FBI looking into it and maybe stopping the whole thing.

Do you REALLY think a guy with terrorist organization contact and funding is going to be stopped by such - that is delusional! And I say that as having no problem with a 90-day wait.

A guy with contacts to terror organizations might not be stopped by a waiting period, but we've never seen that. So far we've seen two lone wolf shooters with no connections to anybody. Anything that checked their momentum or complicated their plans might have helped. There are no guarantees, but that's no reason not to work the odds as best we can.

Philip wrote:

Ed: If AR-15s were illegal then he'd have had to go out and find an illegal gun dealer. He might have been unable to find one.

More wishful thinking. PLUS he doesn't need an AR-15. All he needs is a large-caliber handgun with multiple clips that are far more concealable. Illegal sellers are all over. Drug deals all over have them. All one needs is enough cash and contacts. And you can bet terrorist organizations will equip their plants with whatever they need.

Hand guns aren't as accurate or powerful and/or don't have 30-round clips. Every time the shooter has to reload there's at least a small chance that something will go wrong or someone in the crowd will have a chance to rush him. Handguns are still plenty deadly, but again, we're playing the odds here and every little bit helps. If he'd had a pistol rather than an assault rifle* then maybe some of those fatalities would have gotten survivable wounds instead. Maybe. There are no guarantees, but that's no reason not to try.

Philip wrote:I'm not denying that some sensible laws and waiting periods aren't a good idea - they ARE. But we better also better be focusing on shutting the pipeline of vast numbers of people coming from areas radicalized or heavily influenced by such. That's just common sense. If you get enough well-funded operatives with the support of technology and bomb-making skills coming in - or people that are communicating with their terrorist backers and those with the expertise to train and advise them, we'll start seeing large bombings as well. Now we can see the problem of illegals is much greater - don't know who or what people are illegally here - it's danger that will likely begin to be exploited by terrorists.

We don't have a pipeline pouring vast numbers of people from radicalized areas into our country. Yes, we're letting some immigrants in, but vast numbers? No. Furthermore, neither of the recent shooters was an immigrant. The Orlando shooter's parents came here from Afghanistan in the 1980s, decades before 9/11, and at a time when we were deliberately arming our radical Muslim allies in order to mess with the Soviets. The shooter himself pledged his loyalty to both Hezbollah and ISIS, apparently unaware that they're on different sides of the sectarian conflict. This guy wasn't an illegal, or an immigrant, or a refugee, he was an American who didn't even understand the politics behind the war with ISIS.

I don't think that we have many, if any, terror cells in the United States. That's the kind of thing that the FBI, CIA, DIA, Homeland Security, and all the rest are well suited to deal with. My main concern is radicalized individuals. We have mass shootings perpetrated by lone gunmen all the time. It's obvious to the entire world that we're extremely vulnerable to that kind of attack, and terrorist organizations are actively encouraging American Muslims to give it a go. That's a solid reason for implementing stricter gun control.

Anyway, I agree that it's important to keep a close eye on who comes into the country, but I don't accept the claim that we're not already doing that. We could probably do better - there's always room for improvement - but the claim that Obama is flooding our country with dangerous radicals is a lie and banning all members of any particular religion from entering our counter is un-American and likely to do more harm than good.






* Yes, I know that the AR-15 doesn't fit the legal definition of "assault rifle" but please. It was designed for military use, it's been used by armies around the world, and it has far more in common with an M-16 or M-4 than it does with a hunting rifle.

neo-x wrote:I sometimes wonder, what if the early church had the right to use guns?...

The church was a thousand years old when guns were invented.

edwardmurphy wrote:

neo-x wrote:I sometimes wonder, what if the early church had the right to use guns?...

The church was a thousand years old when guns were invented.

I hope you see the point I was trying to convey.

neo-x wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:

neo-x wrote:I sometimes wonder, what if the early church had the right to use guns?...

The church was a thousand years old when guns were invented.

I hope you see the point I was trying to convey.

I really don't. Are you imaging what it would be like if the early Church had been more militaristic?

Crazy news on the gun control front:

1) SCOTUS rejected the appeal on the semiautomatic weapons bans in NY and CT, meaning that the door is wide open for other states to follow suit.

2) The liberal, anti-gun, commies at the NRA said that Trump's claim that bringing guns to clubs and bars would make people safer "defies common sense" and also "defies the law."

I love it when things get rational!

edwardmurphy wrote:The liberal, anti-gun, commies at the NRA ...

and

edwardmurphy wrote:rational

somehow don't go together.

Byblos wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:The liberal, anti-gun, commies at the NRA ...

and

edwardmurphy wrote:rational

somehow don't go together.

It's called baiting, and you fell for it.

Fakeedit: now we fell for it!

If I was trying to bait him it would have been called trolling, but that's not really what I was doing. I was just being ironic, since the NRA speaking out about Trump's irresponsible pro-gun rhetoric is kind of a man-bites-dog situation.

edwardmurphy wrote:If I was trying to bait him it would have been called trolling, but that's not really what I was doing. I was just being ironic, since the NRA speaking out about Trump's irresponsible pro-gun rhetoric is kind of a man-bites-dog situation.

The NRA is wrong and is being politically correct it is a fact that had bullets had been fired back at this terrorist not as many people would have died in this attack,especially if he didn't know they were packing,he knew they were not packing and they were easy targets.Things could have been much different had bullets been flying in the opposite direction. We just have this idea it is not wise to mix guns and drinking together and so this was a gun-free zone which made it an easy target. Conventional wisdom is not always right.

Let's see...

Didn't regulations make it a gun free zone, which made it a enticing target?

The Muslim murderer knew people wouldn't have guns there to defend themselves.

Ed: We don't have a pipeline pouring vast numbers of people from radicalized areas into our country. Yes, we're letting some immigrants in, but vast numbers? No.

Oh, nnnnnoooooooooooo, Ed, there's no pipeline:

Throughout the Obama Administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning that it is nearly certain the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the President’s watch. It has also been reported that migration from Muslim-majority countries represents the fastest growing class of migrants. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... countries/)

"The Middle East represents the fastest-growing bloc of immigrants admitted into the country on visas, according to a census data-based report authored by the Center for Immigration Studies. Student visas for Middle Eastern countries have similarly grown enormously, including 16-fold increase in Saudi students." (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -migrants/) And just where did the 9-11 hijackers come from? Yep! How stupid are we???!!!

But, actually, by "pipeline," I was referring to the OPPORTUNITY. There is absolutely no way, when letting so many in from areas of radicalization - just look at all of those Saudi students alone - that we can have any idea of knowing who is safe and who is not. And as long as we are letting so many in, and without a very effective vetting/scrutinizing process, the opportunity is undoubtedly there! And we certainly know, from all of the radical Islamists threatening statements that the intention to infiltrate and cause mayhem exists. And so, we know that two things exist: 1) Fairly easy access into the U.S. from areas that would present the greatest risk, and 2) the stated intentions of those radicalized, well-organized and well-funded Islamic factions with proven track records of their ability to cause violence in the West. So, what I'm hearing is, because we've only had lone Islamic guys doing atrocities - and even though we know they were at least in contact with foreign radicals - Ed's insisting that the danger is greatly exaggerated. My question is, how many atrocities are acceptable before our immigrant, illegals and visa policies are seen to be obviously creating opportunity for such murderous organizations to slip in or encourage individuals up to who knows what terrors? In the current and worsening climate that the Islamic threat exists, why would we make it so easy for them? It's just a matter of time.

Philip wrote:

Ed: We don't have a pipeline pouring vast numbers of people from radicalized areas into our country. Yes, we're letting some immigrants in, but vast numbers? No.

Oh, nnnnnoooooooooooo, Ed, there's no pipeline:

Throughout the Obama Administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning that it is nearly certain the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the President’s watch. It has also been reported that migration from Muslim-majority countries represents the fastest growing class of migrants. (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... countries/)

"The Middle East represents the fastest-growing bloc of immigrants admitted into the country on visas, according to a census data-based report authored by the Center for Immigration Studies. Student visas for Middle Eastern countries have similarly grown enormously, including 16-fold increase in Saudi students." (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -migrants/) And just where did the 9-11 hijackers come from? Yep! How stupid are we???!!!

But, actually, by "pipeline," I was referring to the OPPORTUNITY. There is absolutely no way, when letting so many in from areas of radicalization - just look at all of those Saudi students alone - that we can have any idea of knowing who is safe and who is not. And as long as we are letting so many in, and without a very effective vetting/scrutinizing process, the opportunity is undoubtedly there! And we certainly know, from all of the radical Islamists threatening statements that the intention to infiltrate and cause mayhem exists. And so, we know that two things exist: 1) Fairly easy access into the U.S. from areas that would present the greatest risk, and 2) the stated intentions of those radicalized, well-organized and well-funded Islamic factions with proven track records of their ability to cause violence in the West. So, what I'm hearing is, because we've only had lone Islamic guys doing atrocities - and even though we know they were at least in contact with foreign radicals - Ed's insisting that the danger is greatly exaggerated. My question is, how many atrocities are acceptable before our immigrant, illegals and visa policies are seen to be obviously creating opportunity for such murderous organizations to slip in or encourage individuals up to who knows what terrors? In the current and worsening climate that the Islamic threat exists, why would we make it so easy for them? It's just a matter of time.

Plus on top of this you bring up which ed ignores is that the FBI and Homeland Security have been warning about Islamic terrorist attacks,while Obama continues to bring in more Muslim!s ignoring the threat we already face. This is a fact liberals like ed ignore,all while listening to Hillary,the news media,etc as it tries to downplay the threat of Islamic terrorism,because of this election,up until another Islamic terrorist attack happens that proves Trump right and Hillary,Obama,the news media,etc downplaying the threat that they are naive and wrong. All Trump needs to do is go back in the primaries and get the speeches of Hillary downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorism and it will show how naive she's been about it and how right Trump has been about it.

Here are warnings from the FBI and at different times too.

FBI braces for holiday Islamic terrorist attacks in the US
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... r-attacks/

Homeland Security Chief : Islamic terrorist sleeper cells in US, poised to attack.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/08/ho ... sed-attack