Gun Control

[trickery dickery dock]

Assuming you're not simply trolling, how do you reconcile your alleged Christian beliefs with the way you treat the people here? You're like the guy I saw last Friday with a Jesus fish on his car who tried to run down a pedestrian in a crosswalk at the supermarket. Or the other guy I saw last Monday with a Jesus fish on his car who was parked across two spots right in the front row of the parking lot at work.

Excuse me, have I tried to harm ANYONE? All I'm doing is arguing against stupid ideas. Just because you and your liberal friends apparently aren't capable of justifying your convoluted beliefs, you're calling 'foul' and attacking my relationship with God? Real mature. If you'd like to debate the issues, I'd welcome it.

[AndrewH]

fixed that for you

Ah but see the NRA is not telling people that they're not responsible enough to own guns. They're trying to protect the right to do so, should you choose to. I'm not saying everyone should own a gun, it's up to you, but the important thing is that you have that option. If the Brady Bunch had their way, you wouldn't have the option.

Of course if the people as a whole feel that that part of the constitution is wrong or confusing then it's also up to the legislation to ammend it.

Absolutely, just like we did for the beginning and end of Prohibition. Of course, I don't think that 3/4 of the state legislatures would ever be in favor of a ban on firearms. Or even significant restrictions.

There are parts of Califonia that are just as conservative as the general population in the midwest or the south.

Oh I know, believe me there are parts of NJ that are every bit as conservative as the bible belt. Problem is it's the big cities who have the most influence in the legislature. NJ has some pretty inane gun laws but they're still nothing like California's.

[Fencer X and Y]

Excuse me, have I tried to harm ANYONE? All I'm doing is arguing against stupid ideas. Just because you and your liberal friends apparently aren't capable of justifying your convoluted beliefs, you're calling 'foul' and attacking my relationship with God? Real mature. If you'd like to debate the issues, I'd welcome it.

All right trickery I'll bite. Just for funsies let's discuss a theological issue (this thread has run it's course anyway). I've read in our previous posts that being gay is a sin. I can imagine that you think it's a sin since it is written so in the old testament. Fair enough. Can I also assume then that you belive that people that eat pork, or worse yet people that work on the Sabath are also evil and will also go to hell? You keep claiming you're not a troll. If you want to prove it, in a rational manner (that means no name calling, no talking about the liberal agenda, etc...), please explain your position on why the evangelical faith accepts that even though the covenant was broken and the old testament isn't applicable anymore even if a gay person accepts Jesus he'll still go to hell.

[trickery dickery dock]

All right trickery I'll bite. Just for funsies let's discuss a theological issue (this thread has run it's course anyway). I've read in our previous posts that being gay is a sin. I can imagine that you think it's a sin since it is written so in the old testament. Fair enough. Can I also assume then that you belive that people that eat pork, or worse yet people that work on the Sabath are also evil and will also go to hell? You keep claiming you're not a troll. If you want to prove it, in a rational manner (that means no name calling, no talking about the liberal agenda, etc...), please explain your position on why the evangelical faith accepts that even though the covenant was broken and the old testament isn't applicable anymore even if a gay person accepts Jesus he'll still go to hell.

Simple. Eating pork and working on the Sabbath were CEREMONIAL laws, which are subject to change (God wanted to keep the Israelites separate to prepare them for the coming of The Lord. Once He came, He opened the door to anyone who would accept him.) CEREMONIAL laws were dismissed after Jesus, however, MORAL laws were not. Homosexuality is covered by MORAL laws, which were not changed, as God does not change and always speaks the truth.

Furthermore, it is a secular MYTH that the New Testament does not condemn homosexuality. Read the First Epistle to the Corinthians (6:9-10): 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That is not to say that there is no hope for the homos. There is still hope for homosexuals. Even if they can't change their orientation (although it is clearly possible, as there are many, many cases of this happening with enough work, Prayer, and self-discipline), they can STOP PRACTICING homosexuality, accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and REPENT.

[Beeblebrox]

All right trickery I'll bite. Just for funsies let's discuss a theological issue (this thread has run it's course anyway). I've read in our previous posts that being gay is a sin. I can imagine that you think it's a sin since it is written so in the old testament. Fair enough. Can I also assume then that you belive that people that eat pork, or worse yet people that work on the Sabath are also evil and will also go to hell? You keep claiming you're not a troll. If you want to prove it, in a rational manner (that means no name calling, no talking about the liberal agenda, etc...), please explain your position on why the evangelical faith accepts that even though the covenant was broken and the old testament isn't applicable anymore even if a gay person accepts Jesus he'll still go to hell.

I like the way you acknowledge being gay as a sin but then make the leap to eating pork and working on the Sabbath and you are going to hell. Comparing apples and oranges there. For one, eating pork and working in the Sabbath are both covered in the New Testament. Two, there are many, many sins that we all commit, no one is perfect. Three, we do not have to be free from sin to get into heaven since it is impossible for us to be free from sin and that is why Jesus died for our forgiveness.

Please do not make such broad accusations against Christians. It is clear you know a little bit about Christianity but maybe you need a little more study.

[fencerchica]

Excuse me, have I tried to harm ANYONE? All I'm doing is arguing against stupid ideas. Just because you and your liberal friends apparently aren't capable of justifying your convoluted beliefs, you're calling 'foul' and attacking my relationship with God? Real mature. If you'd like to debate the issues, I'd welcome it.

Dude, you need meds. Badly.

[Fencer X and Y]

Simple. Eating pork and working on the Sabbath were CEREMONIAL laws, which are subject to change (God wanted to keep the Israelites separate to prepare them for the coming of The Lord. Once He came, He opened the door to anyone who would accept him.) CEREMONIAL laws were dismissed after Jesus, however, MORAL laws were not. Homosexuality is covered by MORAL laws, which were not changed, as God does not change and always speaks the truth.

Furthermore, it is a secular MYTH that the New Testament does not condemn homosexuality. Read the First Epistle to the Corinthians (6:9-10): 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That is not to say that there is no hope for the homos. There is still hope for homosexuals. Even if they can't change their orientation (although it is clearly possible, as there are many, many cases of this happening with enough work, Prayer, and self-discipline), they can STOP PRACTICING homosexuality, accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, and REPENT.

So Idolatry isn't a CERMONIAL law? And eating pork is a CERMONIAL law. Please show me anywhere in the old testament where it say and "G-d said these are my CERMONIAL laws though shall not eat pork. These are my MORAL laws though shall not worship anyone besides me." Don't spend too much time looking it ain't there. Trust me. I probably studied the old testament a whole lot more then you. And straight from the source. Anyway getting back to our discussion why should the "homos" stop practicing if the accept Jesus? Why should they repent? Do you repent for worshiping three gods instead of one? No? If you don't have to repent for Idolatry why should they repent for Homosexuality. I thought that Jesus died for all of our sins. Or did he only die for the CERMONIAL ones. Because honestly if Jesus only died so that you could eat pork that was kind of a waste in my opinion.

[Fencer X and Y]

I like the way you acknowledge being gay as a sin but then make the leap to eating pork and working on the Sabbath and you are going to hell. Comparing apples and oranges there. For one, eating pork and working in the Sabbath are both covered in the New Testament. Two, there are many, many sins that we all commit, no one is perfect. Three, we do not have to be free from sin to get into heaven since it is impossible for us to be free from sin and that is why Jesus died for our forgiveness.

Please do not make such broad accusations against Christians. It is clear you know a little bit about Christianity but maybe you need a little more study.

It is not comparing apples and oranges both working on the Sabath and homosexuality are sins punishable by death in the old testament. Trickery suggests it is because One is a ceremonial sin and another is a moral sin. I have never heard such a distinction before and I wonder where he got it from. How are eating pork and working on Saturdays covered in the New Testament?

If we all commit sins then why are Christians so tough on the homosexuals? All they're doing is commiting sins just like anyone else. No one is perfect.

[erooMynohtnA]

It is not comparing apples and oranges both working on the Sabath and homosexuality are sins punishable by death in the old testament. Trickery suggests it is because One is a ceremonial sin and another is a moral sin. I have never heard such a distinction before and I wonder where he got it from. How are eating pork and working on Saturdays covered in the New Testament?

While it's not in the Bible, Paul said so. Just like in fencing, most faiths ignore the book and accept whatever they were most recently told by someone in a position of authority, turning only to the book to reinforce what they were told as correct.

By the way, not eating pork is a sin. If there were ever proof of God's love, it is bacon, not some zombie Jew.

If we all commit sins then why are Christians so tough on the homosexuals? All they're doing is commiting sins just like anyone else. No one is perfect.

"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us"

[Insipiens]

It is not comparing apples and oranges both working on the Sabath and homosexuality are sins punishable by death in the old testament. Trickery suggests it is because One is a ceremonial sin and another is a moral sin. I have never heard such a distinction before and I wonder where he got it from. How are eating pork and working on Saturdays covered in the New Testament?

Trickery is obviously from a very interesting and unusual branch of Christianity. Describing working on Saturdays as a "ceremonial sin" and therefore less important given that it prohibition is supportable on a very strict interpretation of the ten commandments is quite interesting.

Eating pork (or proscribed food in general) is discussed in the Acts of the Apostles and was obviously a major topic that needed to be sorted out. I know there is reference in at least one of the letters of St Paul as well but cannot be bothered to slack of work long enough to find the references.

Working on the Sabbath is "covered" in the gospels (possibly the rest of the new testament) when Jesus cures the sick on the Sabbath. But then Jesus' point was arguably more about what "Keeping the Sabbath holy" meant than saying it is alright to work on the Sabbath.

If we all commit sins then why are Christians so tough on the homosexuals? All they're doing is commiting sins just like anyone else. No one is perfect.

Which is why we need Christianity And yes you are right, no one is perfect and all they are doing is committing sins just like everyone else. There are far worse things going on in the world that should make us cry out for justice.

[Insipiens]

While it's not in the Bible, Paul said so. Just like in fencing, most faiths ignore the book and accept whatever they were most recently told by someone in a position of authority, turning only to the book to reinforce what they were told as correct.

But conveniently the Church got to decide what went into the book (i.e. the Bible). And by "it's not in the Bible, Paul said so" you appear to imply the letters of St Paul (i.e. our best source of what "St Paul said") are not in the Bible. Is that what you meant?

If there were ever proof of God's love, it is bacon

QFT

[Fencer X and Y]

Trickery is obviously from a very interesting and unusual branch of Christianity. Describing working on Saturdays as a "ceremonial sin" and therefore less important given that it prohibition is supportable on a very strict interpretation of the ten commandments is quite interesting.

Eating pork (or proscribed food in general) is discussed in the Acts of the Apostles and was obviously a major topic that needed to be sorted out. I know there is reference in at least one of the letters of St Paul as well but cannot be bothered to slack of work long enough to find the references.

Working on the Sabbath is "covered" in the gospels (possibly the rest of the new testament) when Jesus cures the sick on the Sabbath. But then Jesus' point was arguably more about what "Keeping the Sabbath holy" meant than saying it is alright to work on the Sabbath.


Which is why we need Christianity And yes you are right, no one is perfect and all they are doing is committing sins just like everyone else. There are far worse things going on in the world that should make us cry out for justice.

Thank you Insipeins. I have actually heard the Jesus curing the sick intepertation before. To me that explanation doesn't work that well because doctors are allowed to work on Sabath anyway. Now if Jesus had gone and build a house, worked in a store, or maybe drove a delivery truck well then you may have an argument.

Anyway still a much better presented argument then Trickery or Beeblebrox.

While it's not in the Bible, Paul said so. Just like in fencing, most faiths ignore the book and accept whatever they were most recently told by someone in a position of authority, turning only to the book to reinforce what they were told as correct.

By the way, not eating pork is a sin. If there were ever proof of God's love, it is bacon, not some zombie Jew.

Fair enough. Although like I said my objection still stands as to why idol worshiping isn't a ceremonious sin, since really that's what kept the jews separate from other nations.

I bet even you'd be surprised how many converts you'd get if you ever started a church of bacon.

[Insipiens]

Thank you Insipeins. I have actually heard the Jesus curing the sick intepertation before. To me that explanation doesn't work that well because doctors are allowed to work on Sabath anyway. Now if Jesus had gone and build a house, worked in a store, or maybe drove a delivery truck well then you may have an argument.

Anyway still a much better presented argument then Trickery or Beeblebrox.

Thank you. I will take the last sentence as a compliment, although I think we will both agree it's not saying much. Apologies if I am answering questions you are asking sarcastically in response to other posts so you actually know all I am saying.

Of course the question is a lot more complicated but the basis for the suggestion that the working on the Sabbath question is covered in the Bible is primarily that story, I believe.

If you really want a more mainstream Christian discussion, you could try the Apostolic Letter of John Paul II, Dies Domini, (you cannot get much more mainstream than the Pope - you can get more brief) available here in English:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...domini_en.html

This goes into many different aspects of Sunday as replacing the Sabbath in celebration, being a day of celebration and a day of rest. For this last point see paragraphs 64 ff

I bet even you'd be surprised how many converts you'd get if you ever started a church of bacon.

"Bacon tastes good, pork chops taste good" as John Travolta says in Pulp Fiction

[trickery dickery dock]

So Idolatry isn't a CERMONIAL law? And eating pork is a CERMONIAL law. Please show me anywhere in the old testament where it say and "G-d said these are my CERMONIAL laws though shall not eat pork. These are my MORAL laws though shall not worship anyone besides me." Don't spend too much time looking it ain't there. Trust me. I probably studied the old testament a whole lot more then you. And straight from the source. Anyway getting back to our discussion why should the "homos" stop practicing if the accept Jesus? Why should they repent? Do you repent for worshiping three gods instead of one? No? If you don't have to repent for Idolatry why should they repent for Homosexuality. I thought that Jesus died for all of our sins. Or did he only die for the CERMONIAL ones. Because honestly if Jesus only died so that you could eat pork that was kind of a waste in my opinion.

Idolatry has nothing to do with this, since I am not a catholic.

Ceremonial and moral laws are terms used by Biblical scholars to categorize laws. I did not mean that they were any less important, only that they are subject to change by God, while moral laws never change.

What I meant was that in the Old Testament, God wanted to keep the Israelites separate from the rest of the world by imposing (ceremonial) rules that forbade the consumption of pork and shellfish.

Homosexuality, like murder, was never meant to be one of these laws, and that's why it was never changed in the New Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus dismisses many of the ceremonial laws in the Old Testament. He never dismisses the law against homosexuality.

[fencerchica]

Idolatry has nothing to do with this, since I am not a catholic.

Cage match: TDD versus Mel Gibson! (I'm sure TDD could show off his mad prowess as a European knight or whatever -- see "kenjitsu v fencing" thread.)

[trickery dickery dock]

Cage match: TDD versus Mel Gibson! (I'm sure TDD could show off his mad prowess as a European knight or whatever -- see "kenjitsu v fencing" thread.)

Ok stalker...

[fencerchica]

Ok stalker...

Hey, that thread is one of the most idiotic things fencing.net has ever seen. Congrats on being a part of it, n00b.

[Fencer X and Y]

Idolatry has nothing to do with this, since I am not a catholic.

I assume you still worship the trinity. Three gods ≠ one god therefore you are still practice idolatry

Ceremonial and moral laws are terms used by Biblical scholars to categorize laws. I did not mean that they were any less important, only that they are subject to change by God, while moral laws never change

What makes you (or Paul if that's who came up with this classification) an expert on which laws are or aren't subject to change by G-d. Also if G-d wanted to change laws wouldn't he just make things right from the beginning. Are you implying that G-d mada a mistake?

Homosexuality, like murder, was never meant to be one of these laws, and that's why it was never changed in the New Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus dismisses many of the ceremonial laws in the Old Testament. He never dismisses the law against homosexuality.

Did you ever read that one small part in the old testament that speaks of the false prophets and how to know who's going to be one. I believe the very first thing it says is that a false prophet will tell you that G-d's laws are no longer important. Again are you saying that the old testament (G-d) made a mistake?

[EdGardner]

How, pray tell, did we go from Guns to God?

I came back to this thread to thank the poster of the "The Commonplace Second Amendment" link as a response to the initial silly post. That is one of the few times I have seen an intelligent response to this "debate."

Dogma (no pun intended) gets tiresome.

I am very much in favor of regulated ownership. I also vote democrat and have been labeled (sometimes self-labeled) as "so liberal, trees hug me."

I shoot, I try to shoot regularly. I possess an appropriate license for my firearms, and wouldn't have it any other way. These things are dangerous items. Any (even NRA offered) safety class stresses the safe handling of firearms. Semantics aside ("guns don't kill people," etc) you have to understand the tool to use it. Those that don't understand that, will hurt themselves (no great loss, perhaps) or others (which, IMHO, is a lot more problematic).

Anyway, thanks for that legal link, very interesting.

[Hauptman]

Excuse me, have I tried to harm ANYONE? All I'm doing is arguing against stupid ideas. Just because you and your liberal friends apparently aren't capable of justifying your convoluted beliefs, you're calling 'foul' and attacking my relationship with God? Real mature. If you'd like to debate the issues, I'd welcome it.

This is too funny. You make no arguments, you merely hurl insults. After spewing almost nothing but ad hominem attacks, you have the nerve to be offended?!

Too funny...