<snip>

the worst response to school murders that our politicians could make would be to further disarm the American citizenry. The heavy death toll may in part be attributed to past legislation making it difficult for citizens to carry side arms. If even one of the students in that university had been armed, Cho Seung-hui could have been stopped. A strong case can be made that in a violent society like our own, it is the duty of every Christian man to be armed such that he is ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor in the face of the ruthless behavior of lawless men. We have one of two futures — a police state full of regulation and controls, where only the state and criminals have access to guns, thus leaving most women and children defenseless to evildoers, or an informed and well-armed population, which is, to my mind, the surest safeguard against lawless men.
From Douglas Phillips - www.visionforum.com

This guy gets it.

Quoted: This guy gets it.

Definitely

I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?  

Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?

Because he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience. You answered it yourself.

Quoted: Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?   Because he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience. You answered it yourself.

But I thought ARFCOM told me that Christians were just as anti-gun as the dems?

Quoted: Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?   Because he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience. You answered it yourself.

Yep.

He finds himself in agreement with Jesus.  (Always a good idea.)

Luke 22:36  Then said (Jesus) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?

No offense to Christians, but I'm comfortable ignoring that classifier and will still
agree with the sentence 100%.

Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?

Because it's a Christian moral ideal to help others.  This is just a manifestation of that ideal.

I find that most Christians are pro 2nd.

Go figure

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?   Because he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience. You answered it yourself.

BTW there is no distinction in what he said, that Christians should only help other Christians... He just reiterated that we should help our neighbors, whatever stripe they may be.

Quoted: Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?   Because it's a Christian moral ideal to help others.  This is just a manifestation of that ideal.

+1

A Christian is commanded by God to help his neighbor(which, in some cases means protecting them).

Someone who is not a Christian might have a set of morals that follow a 'live and let live/die' rule.  As long as im happy and safe and don't go out of my way to harm someone I feel im doing all I need to.  He isn't condemning that attitude, just acknowledging that many people have that attitude.

He doesn't believe its every citizens duty to be armed but he believes its the duty of every Christian that wants to live a God-pleasing life.

Thats what I got out of it anyway.

A good shepherd not only tends the sheep, but fights off the wolves as well.

Quoted: I find that most Christians are pro 2nd. Go figure

Maybe because most Christians know that the King James version was purposely changed from; "thou shalt not commit murder", to "thou shalt not kill".

A big distinction when it was translated for KJ, as he didn't want his subjects to rise in revolt against his overbearing rule.

Quoted: <snip> A strong case can be made that in a violent society like our own, it is the duty of every Christian American to be armed such that he is ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor in the face of the ruthless behavior of lawless men. We have one of two futures — a police state full of regulation and controls, where only the state and criminals have access to guns, thus leaving most women and children defenseless to evildoers, or an informed and well-armed population, which is, to my mind, the surest safeguard against lawless men. From Douglas Phillips - www.visionforum.com This guy gets it.

 This is the closest thing to applause I could find in the animations

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?   Because he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience. You answered it yourself. Yep. He finds himself in agreement with Jesus.  (Always a good idea.) Luke 22:36  Then said (Jesus) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

True, but then there are those who would say to turn the other cheek and if it's in 'God's plan' for you to die then that's his 'mysterious way'.  Each side will draw from the Bible to support their view on this issue.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?   Because he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience. You answered it yourself. Yep. He finds himself in agreement with Jesus.  (Always a good idea.) Luke 22:36  Then said (Jesus) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. True, but then there are those who would say to turn the other cheek and if it's in 'God's plan' for you to die then that's his 'mysterious way'.  Each side will draw from the Bible to support their view on this issue.

Why do you, as a non-religious (as I recall) person, feel the need to post in every religious thread? Because if this was a Muslim thread you'd bring up how Christians were responsible for the Crusades...

So which is it, are Christians wusses that turn the other cheek or are we all warmongering slaughterers...?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?   Because he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience. You answered it yourself. Yep. He finds himself in agreement with Jesus.  (Always a good idea.) Luke 22:36  Then said (Jesus) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. True, but then there are those who would say to turn the other cheek and if it's in 'God's plan' for you to die then that's his 'mysterious way'.  Each side will draw from the Bible to support their view on this issue. Why do you, as a non-religious (as I recall) person, feel the need to post in every religious thread? Because if this was a Muslim thread you'd bring up how Christians were responsible for the Crusades... So which is it, are Christians wusses that turn the other cheek or are we all warmongering slaughterers...?

I never said anyone was a warmongering slaughterer...

But anyway, the reason I made the comment is because I have heard people justify all kinds of contradictory viewpoints with the same Bible so it seems to remain a matter of interpretation.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?   Because he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience. You answered it yourself. Yep. He finds himself in agreement with Jesus.  (Always a good idea.) Luke 22:36  Then said (Jesus) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. True, but then there are those who would say to turn the other cheek and if it's in 'God's plan' for you to die then that's his 'mysterious way'.  Each side will draw from the Bible to support their view on this issue.

Well maybe it's 'God's Plan' that the person that tries to rob me was sapposed to die at the hands of my concealed weapon...  

 That argument works great too.

Quoted: Well maybe it's 'God's Plan' that the person that tries to rob me was sapposed to die at the hands of my concealed weapon...    That argument works great too.

True.  The old 'he needed killin' always seemed simple enough to me.

Ignore the atheists, they have an agenda second only to the media/anti gun people.

They just have to make themselves known in a religious thread.

Quoted: Ignore the atheists, they have an agenda second only to the media/anti gun people. They just have to make themselves known in a religious thread.

Like it or not most anti-gunners identify themselves as Christians and those are the types of things they say, so shooting the messenger is futile.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?   Because he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience. You answered it yourself. Yep. He finds himself in agreement with Jesus.  (Always a good idea.) Luke 22:36  Then said (Jesus) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. True, but then there are those who would say to turn the other cheek and if it's in 'God's plan' for you to die then that's his 'mysterious way'.  Each side will draw from the Bible to support their view on this issue.

It can also be (rightfully) argued that to do nothing when God has given you the ability to resist is the same as deliberately committing suicide, which is a mortal sin for most faiths.

Quoted: I find that most Christians are pro 2nd. Go figure

don't let Dino hear that  

and yes IM pro 2nd  

Quoted: Quoted: Ignore the atheists, they have an agenda second only to the media/anti gun people. They just have to make themselves known in a religious thread. Like it or not most anti-gunners identify themselves as Christians and those are the types of things they say, so shooting the messenger is futile.

I find the exact opposite to be true.

Every Christian that I know is very pro 2nd.

Every atheist that I have ever met has been a socialist/liberal/ or commie. Go figure.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ignore the atheists, they have an agenda second only to the media/anti gun people. They just have to make themselves known in a religious thread. Like it or not most anti-gunners identify themselves as Christians and those are the types of things they say, so shooting the messenger is futile. I find the exact opposite to be true. Every Christian that I know is very pro 2nd. Every atheist that I have ever met has been a socialist/liberal/ or commie. Go figure.

And I know lots of libertarian pro-gun atheists and some cowardly anti-self-defense Christians.  Anecdotal evidence doesn't tell you much of anything.

I've written a paper explaining Scripturally why every Christian should be armed and trained, and why CCW is good for churches.

If you'd like a copy, please EMAIL me.

Quoted: Ignore the atheists, they have an agenda second only to the media/anti gun people. They just have to make themselves known in a religious thread.

And make sure an argument breaks out, so that it gets shuffled off to the religion forum, to make sure they are never confronted with the Good News of Jesus Christ.



Yeah, yer already proving my point.

Quoted: Quoted: Ignore the atheists, they have an agenda second only to the media/anti gun people. They just have to make themselves known in a religious thread. Like it or not most anti-gunners identify themselves as Christians and those are the types of things they say, so shooting the messenger is futile.

Like it or not, most pro-gunners also identify themselves as Christians.  Thats because according to a New York College Survey conducted in 2001, 75% of all Americans call themselves Christians.

Now it's surely not my place to judge anyone, but my guess is that most self proclaimed Anti-Gun Christians aren't the real thing.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ignore the atheists, they have an agenda second only to the media/anti gun people. They just have to make themselves known in a religious thread. Like it or not most anti-gunners identify themselves as Christians and those are the types of things they say, so shooting the messenger is futile. Like it or not, most pro-gunners also identify themselves as Christians.  Thats because according to a New York College Survey conducted in 2001, 75% of all Americans call themselves Christians. Now it's surely not my place to judge anyone, but my guess is that most self proclaimed Anti-Gun Christians aren't the real thing.

Exactly my point.  And they would claim the same about gun-toting Christians.  So there you have it!

Quoted: True, but then there are those who would say to turn the other cheek and if it's in 'God's plan' for you to die then that's his 'mysterious way'.  Each side will draw from the Bible to support their view on this issue.

Ecclesiastes tells us there's a time and season for everything.

There are times to be non-violent. Missionary work is a good example of something where nonviolence is sound policy; as you have mentioned, Jesus Himself taught us to turn the other cheek in certain circumstances. We shouldn't seek revenge for things wrongly done to us; as Christians, we should expect to be wronged, and we should, usually, let it go - always keeping in mind that forgiveness should come easy for people who have been promised to inherit the whole world.

Having said that, we also have to balance this with a responsibility to defend our families. This would extend to friends and innocent victims of crime. We are commanded to defend those who can't defend themselves.

Both notions have a time and a place; they don't contradict each other at all, but rather complement each other; Scripture actually makes it pretty clear as to what situations demand what action.

As a Christian who has changed his views about pacification quite a bit as I've studied the Bible, I still see no problem whatsoever reconciling passiveness with defense.

This was a clear case where defense was called for, and the law of the land interfered with said defense.

Quoted: Quoted: This guy gets it. Definitely

Many people do.  We just happen to have a political system that caters to the loudest cryers.  Soccer moms tend to be that group.  

This country caters to the scared sheep and the coolaid bandaid responses of our politicians to silence their fears.

Ladies and Gents,

When I posted this, It wasn't (and still isn't) about religion -vs- non religion belief systems.

Doug Phillips of Vision Forum is a man that I have taken advice from for many years.  I also have discarded some of his opinions as well.

The newsletter that I snipped this from was far more reaching about living our existance on this earth at the pleasure of God, and how we know not the time of our own death.

Doug Phillips speaks to a wide audience of conservative Christians, that is why the comments are directed towards Christians .  

If you wish to turn this into a religious ranting thread, go do it somewhere else.  

The crux of the snippet I took and posted was that it is our obligation as men (sorry ladies) to protect our wives, children and neighbors.  

And that we should realize that we need to teach our sons about being hero's instead of window jumpers, that we should understand that there may come a time where we or our sons may be the last obstacle between mayhem or murder, and that we should side for freedom, unless we want a police state like the pussified UK and Australia.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This guy gets it. Definitely Many people do.  We just happen to have a political system that caters to the loudest cryers.  Soccer Welfare moms tend to be that group.   This country caters to the scared sheep and the coolaid bandaid responses of our politicians to silence their fears.

Somebody will bitch about the Christian part. As long as everybody looks out for eachother, we will be fine.

Ok, the turn the other cheek thing. In middle eastern culture the slap is considered to be the highest insult possible. Doubly so if the offender comes back with the other side of the hand. It was not considered violent, just degrading. A b---- slap basically. Christ was sayign to not respond violently should someone INSULT you, especially for faith in him. The Bible in other places indicates a moral responsibility to defend one's self, property, and neighbor from a violent attack. If someone insults you, don't fight back. if someone tries to hurt you... DRAW DOWN!

Quoted: Exactly my point.  And they would claim the same about gun-toting Christians.  So there you have it!

They'd be wrong.

Sorry, I felt that I had to make this point again...  we need to teach our sons about being hero's instead of window jumpers

What is America raising as protectors of family freedom and faith??

Quoted: Quoted: <snip> A strong case can be made that in a violent society like our own, it is the duty of every Christian American to be armed such that he is ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor in the face of the ruthless behavior of lawless men. We have one of two futures — a police state full of regulation and controls, where only the state and criminals have access to guns, thus leaving most women and children defenseless to evildoers, or an informed and well-armed population, which is, to my mind, the surest safeguard against lawless men. From Douglas Phillips - www.visionforum.com This guy gets it.

[Tean America theme]Americans fuck yea! Comming to shoot your evil doing asses!!![Team America theme].

Quoted: A good shepherd not only tends the sheep, but fights off the wolves as well.

Well said!

Quoted: Quoted: I find that most Christians are pro 2nd. Go figure Maybe because most Christians know that the King James version was purposely changed from; "thou shalt not commit murder", to "thou shalt not kill". A big distinction when it was translated for KJ, as he didn't want his subjects to rise in revolt against his overbearing rule.

I think it's best to avoid comparing translations with former translations and go to the text that set the standard.
In the original language of this wording, which would have been Hebrew, a language that like many has multiple words that could be used to discribe a given context and as with our language, it is the context that matters. In the Old Testament the word "Kill" has 3 primary expressions that it can be referred to.

- Sahat: meaning "to slaughter, kill". This was the most common word used in the Hebrew language first seen in Gen. 22:10.

- Harag: "to kill, slay, destroy". It's largest use was to show the taking of life, whether animal or human. It rarely shows premeditation as in murder.

- Rasah: "To murder or slay". Ex. 20:13, Duet. 5:17

Harag or Sahat were not the words that were used in the 6th commandment. The word used there is "Rasah". Rasah is seen most of the time in the Old Testament in legal writings that deal with God's regulations on life.

It speaks about premeditated killing so a translation that says "Do not murder" would most clearly reflect what the Hebrew language was saying. The Old Testament recognizes the difference between premeditated murder and self defense.  
It is interesting that King James had his translators change the wording to try to bring a hedge of protection that he felt he needed. I've never heard or read that. The only things that I've read is that the death penalty was lifted for translation work of the King James version and some various guidelines were implemented for anyone who did a translation of the Scripture.

Whatever the case history may be with King James, most other translations (before and after KJ) had dealt with the wording as in the original by leaving "commit murder" there.
I enjoy getting to the truths that are given so it shows a clearer picture of the text.

This guy seems to get it too. We are dealing with a problem of human nature---an internal (not external) problem. Only God's love can solve it.


www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266812,00.html


Aftermath of the Virginia Tech Tragedy: American Hands-On Courage
By Father Jonathan Morris

E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION  
FNC




• Video: Father Jonathan Speaks Out on Virginia Tech's Tragedy
• E-mail Father Jonathan

When a local tragedy becomes national news, as in the Virginia Tech massacre, America responds first with compassion and then with courage. It’s the way we work. News teams descend upon ground zero and begin to narrate the story. We pry them for every detail. Who did it? How? Where? Why?

Our obsession with the latest bit of news is not morbid curiosity, like useless rubbernecking at the site of a highway crash. No. It’s our way of tapping into and sharing someone else’s misfortune. From our couches and our cars, we mourn for others who are mourning.

That’s compassion, and it’s a good thing.


Then, we roll up our sleeves and get to work — determined to never, ever allow anything like this to happen again, we set our attention upon fixing the problem once and for all. We review structures and revamp laws.

We could call this American hands-on courage, and it too, I think, is a good thing.

At least it’s well-intentioned.

In the upcoming weeks, when the shock waves emanating from the rolling hills of Virginia begin to taper off, we will see a national conversation about school security, gun laws, psychiatric medicine and immigration policy unfold around us. Politicians at every level will propose bills that promise to keep our children safe or safer. Universities will roll out their revised programs for freshman orientation weekend. Police forces will outline new and improved first-response strategies.

But will it make any difference? Will any of these practical solutions get to the heart of the problem? I don’t think so, because in this case, the heart of the problem is the human heart itself.

The Virginia Tech gunman, Cho Seung-Hui, was a man whose heart and mind had rotted from within.

We can be sure it didn’t happen overnight. For whatever set of complicated reasons, life — his own and everyone else’s — lost all meaning. It had no sense. It had no value. In fact, for Cho, life became an anti-value; it got in the way of relief.

Raised in America since he was eight-years-old, Cho Seung-Hui was almost as American as the next guy. His parents owned a home and a business. His sister went to Princeton. He would soon be a college grad.

For now, we can only speculate about what may have been the cause of a life gone wrong. Cho Seung-Hui’s writings reveal a heart full of hate, anger and violence. The characters in his plays were victims of abuse. They hated authority and they wanted revenge. So did Cho.

Unfortunately, while Cho Seung-Hui may have been a loner, I don’t think he was alone in his loneliness.

I’ve worked in a university campus ministry. I know there are a countless number of young men and women whose hearts and minds — at least bits and pieces of them — are rotting from within, just like Cho’s. They look desperately and silently for love, to love and to be loved. Carrying emotional baggage from home and with no compelling guides in their newfound world of absolute freedom, they end up looking for happiness in all the wrong places.

The prevailing culture on most college campuses looks a bit like MTV. It’s the world of hooking up, one-night stands, beer funnels and the search for the perfect group of friends. For some, and for a time, this satisfies. And when it doesn’t…? Well, most bounce back. They grow and mature.

But as we’ve seen, some don’t. For whatever reason, there are an increasing number of young people who are missing the internal mechanisms to deal rationally with life’s pains. Of these sad cases we usually don’t hear much at all. Even in their pain, they manage to hold things together. They keep up appearances. They struggle on. And all the time they wonder why they are so different. They wonder why life is losing meaning. Eventually, they look for an out.

Of course, this bleak scenario of meaninglessness isn’t just a college thing; it’s a human thing. What’s gone wrong and what’s the answer?

This I know for sure: better security, more laws and revamped structures are not going to get to the heart of the problem.

The only way to deal with the heart is on a one-to-one basis. The work begins in the home and it continues in every human contact that follows — at work, school and the local gym.

The good news is all of us can make a difference. Are we aware of the suffering around us? Are we willing to reach beyond our comfort level and be love for the loveless? If we have found why life is worth living, are we willing to share that good news with others?

That sounds like a national conversation worth having.

God Bless, Father Jonathan

P.S. On Friday I will post some of your responses to this article. I look forward to hearing from you.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This article is part of a regular blog hosted by Father Jonathan Morris on FOXNews.com. You can invite new readers by forwarding this URL:www.foxnews.com/fatherjonathan.

Quoted: Sorry, I felt that I had to make this point again...  we need to teach our sons about being hero's instead of window jumpers What is America raising as protectors of family freedom and faith??

Have you read The Birkenhead Drill?

link

Good book.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I realize he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience, but why make the distinction that, "it's the duty of every 'Christian man' to be armed such that he's ready, willing, and able to come to the immediate aid of his neighbor."  Isn't that a good goal for every member of a close community, regardless of creed?   Because he's a religious man speaking to a religious audience. You answered it yourself. Yep. He finds himself in agreement with Jesus.  (Always a good idea.) Luke 22:36  Then said (Jesus) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. True, but then there are those who would say to turn the other cheek and if it's in 'God's plan' for you to die then that's his 'mysterious way'.  Each side will draw from the Bible to support their view on this issue. Why do you, as a non-religious (as I recall) person, feel the need to post in every religious thread? Because if this was a Muslim thread you'd bring up how Christians were responsible for the Crusades...

Not trying to pick or throw the thread off on a tangent, but Christians were not responsible for the crusades.  They were Roman Catholics "forgiven" of their sins by the Pontiff before marching off to slaughter, I mean war.  True early Christians were as persecuted by the Roman church as Jews and Muslims.  To the tune of millions over the centuries of the dark and middle ages in fact.  I believe in calling a spade a spade and I just have to correct it when people use Christian and Catholic synomously when speaking of the crusades...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ignore the atheists, they have an agenda second only to the media/anti gun people. They just have to make themselves known in a religious thread. Like it or not most anti-gunners identify themselves as Christians and those are the types of things they say, so shooting the messenger is futile. I find the exact opposite to be true. Every Christian that I know is very pro 2nd. Every atheist that I have ever met has been a socialist/liberal/ or commie. Go figure.

+1 agreed

height=8

Quoted: I find that most Christians are pro 2nd. Go figure Praise the lord, pass the ammo

Every Christian that I know is very pro 2nd. Every atheist that I have ever met has been a socialist/liberal/ or commie. Go figure.

Communism depends on atheism to work.  Communist nations have always been hard on beliefs in a higher power.

That said, I'm not trying to say that all atheists are gun-grabbing commies whatsoever.  Several of my friends who happen to be atheists, are some very  pro 2nd guys.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I find that most Christians are pro 2nd. Go figure Maybe because most Christians know that the King James version was purposely changed from; "thou shalt not commit murder", to "thou shalt not kill". A big distinction when it was translated for KJ, as he didn't want his subjects to rise in revolt against his overbearing rule. I think it's best to avoid comparing translations with former translations and go to the text that set the standard. In the original language of this wording, which would have been Hebrew, a language that like many has multiple words that could be used to discribe a given context and as with our language, it is the context that matters. In the Old Testament the word "Kill" has 3 primary expressions that it can be referred to. - Sahat: meaning "to slaughter, kill". This was the most common word used in the Hebrew language first seen in Gen. 22:10. - Harag: "to kill, slay, destroy". It's largest use was to show the taking of life, whether animal or human. It rarely shows premeditation as in murder. - Rasah: "To murder or slay". Ex. 20:13, Duet. 5:17 Harag or Sahat were not the words that were used in the 6th commandment. The word used there is "Rasah". Rasah is seen most of the time in the Old Testament in legal writings that deal with God's regulations on life. It speaks about premeditated killing so a translation that says "Do not murder" would most clearly reflect what the Hebrew language was saying. The Old Testament recognizes the difference between premeditated murder and self defense.   It is interesting that King James had his translators change the wording to try to bring a hedge of protection that he felt he needed. I've never heard or read that. The only things that I've read is that the death penalty was lifted for translation work of the King James version and some various guidelines were implemented for anyone who did a translation of the Scripture. Whatever the case history may be with King James, most other translations (before and after KJ) had dealt with the wording as in the original by leaving "commit murder" there. I enjoy getting to the truths that are given so it shows a clearer picture of the text.

When KJ had it translated, his people left a later passage in the original text.

St. Matthew 19:17-19

17 "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18 He saith unto him, Which?

Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.

19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

From King James Edition, Printed in Great Britain, Edinburgh, Scotland, 5/24/1933

I had read (cannot recall the source anymore) that KJ was in serious danger politically from his subjects and lesser nobles. He had certain passages emphasized in sermons, particularly the "render unto Caesar what is Caesars", and had the 'thou shalt not kill' added to keep from suffering regicide.

Using the threat of eternal damnation to keep from being deposed violently apparently worked for him.

Quoted: Every atheist that I have ever met has been a socialist/liberal/ or commie.

You need to get out more. I know a whole shitload of godless patriotic gun owners. This site is full of them. I'm agnostic myself, but I'm damn sure a gun owner and hate socialists.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ignore the atheists, they have an agenda second only to the media/anti gun people. They just have to make themselves known in a religious thread. Like it or not most anti-gunners identify themselves as Christians and those are the types of things they say, so shooting the messenger is futile. I find the exact opposite to be true. Every Christian that I know is very pro 2nd. Every atheist that I have ever met has been a socialist/liberal/ or commie. Go figure.

+1000