Why I quote Bible Scripture re. firearm ownership and self defence.

Why I quote Bible Scritpures re, firearm ownersip and self defence to Christians.

It was suggested this morning in another thread on this board not to quote Scripture in my argument for armed self defence as this falls on deaf ears when athiests and others who believe in other god's read them. Thats a fair enough request. I have been asked this on several other boards also.

Last time I looked America and Australia were still regarded as Christian countries with a majority of Christian peoples who believe the Bible. I personally tried for ten long years of serious study to try and dissprove the Bible as being a book of man made fairy stories. In this quest I have failed miserably.

The reason I use Scriptures in promoting self defence and even the death penalty, both which are being constantly attacked by all and sundry, including many Christians is because God Himself ordained self defence and the death penalty.

Many so called Christians are calling for the abolition of the death penalty in countries where it is still law. They do so without knowing the very book they allegedly believe in and which was inspired by God Himself. They quote Scripture in their argument, four in fact and these are the four Scriptures which teach, "Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:21; Matthew 5:21; and Romans 13:9. Feel free to look them up!

What these Christians deliberately ignore if they in fact know this is that God made an EVERLASTING covenant with Noah after the flood which instructs mankind and governement that if someone ignores the commandment "Thou shalt not kill," then man has the right to defend himself and government has the command which states that the blood of anyone deliberatly killed shall be avenged by the shedding of the murderes blood.

When God instituted human government by law after Noah's flood, He gave Noah certain laws by which to govern the human race, and man was then held responsible for self-government (Gen. 9:1-7).

There are six very important laws which God gave Noah and his decendants. These Laws were:

(1) "Be fruitful and multply, and replenish the earth" (Gen. 9:1, 7).

(2) "Into thine hand are they [animals] delivered" (Gen. 9:2).

(3) "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have i given you all things" (Gen. 9:4).

(4) "The blood thereof shall ye not eat" (Gen. 9:4).

(5) "WHOSOEVER SHEDDETH MAN'S BLOOD, BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BY SHED: for in the image of God made he him" (Gen. 9:5-6).

And last but not least;
(6) "I have established my covenant with you . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . FOR PERPETUAL GENERATIONS . . . the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the "EVERLASTING COVENANT" between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth" (Gen. 9:8-17).

These few laws have been the basis of all laws of God and man in every age since the flood of Noah.
It was at this time God constituted capital punishment, and God has never revoked this particular law, "Whosoever sheddeth man's blood, BY MAN shall HIS BLOOD BE SHED (Gen. 9:5-6)." This law will continue as an eternal law, and as is revealed in (Isiah 11:4-9; 65:20-25).

If one believes God, He created all men and if men decided to worship other god's then thats between them, their god, and the real; God Himself, not me? Gods laws and commandments were made for all men regardless of race, color or belief.

Now I am not preaching to athiests of which I once was, in fact I studied the Bible thoroughly for over ten years trying vainlessly to DISSPROVE IT AS A BOOK FULL OF man made FAIRY STORIES and I have failed miserably!

Remember the 2A was framed by the very men who staunchly believed in God and the Bible so Americans can and still do thank them for their efforts.

George Washington
1st U.S. President

"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian."
--The Writings of Washington, pp. 342-343.

John Adams
2nd U.S. President and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Suppose a nation in some distant Region should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God ... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be."
--Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, Vol. III, p. 9.

Thomas Jefferson
3rd U.S. President, Drafter and Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event."
--Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
--The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 385.

John Hancock
1st Signer of the Declaration of Independence

"Resistance to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. ... Continue steadfast and, with a proper sense of your dependence on God, nobly defend those rights which heaven gave, and no man ought to take from us."
--History of the United States of America, Vol. II, p. 229.

Benjamin Franklin
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Unites States Constitution

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped.

"That the most acceptable service we render to him is in doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.

"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, is the best the world ever saw, or is likely to see;

"But I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and more observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in his government of the world with any peculiar marks of his displeasure."
--Benjamin Franklin wrote this in a letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale University on March 9, 1790.

Cheers, Haz.

I personally don't have any problem with it. People believe different things and that's fine with me.
If get your beliefs from the Bible or Santa or secret messages from The catcher in the rye, as long as you support the rights as confirmed in the Bill of Rights I'm all for it.

Haz. said:

I personally tried for ten long years of serious study to try and dissprove the Bible as being a book of man made fairy stories. In this quest I have failed miserably.

Click to expand...

You must not have tried very hard then.

VW_Factor said:

You must not have tried very hard then.

Click to expand...

+1,000,000,000,000 or so.

twoskinsonemanns said:

I personally don't have any problem with it. People believe different things and that's fine with me.
If get your beliefs from the Bible or Santa or secret messages from The catcher in the rye, as long as you support the rights as confirmed in the Bill of Rights I'm all for it.

Click to expand...

Hi 'twoskins,'

I agree.

Thats the thing about religion. There is no scientifically verifiable proof of "religion" as an idea. You must have faith in it.

Beauty of America? Believe or have faith in a paperclip, it doesn't matter. Thats your choice and freedom to do so.

However..

Certainly one to stand up and say that you tried "very hard" to prove against religion is.. well.. You may get the idea..

VW_Factor said:

You must not have tried very hard then.

Click to expand...

I was once an athiest, had no interest in any god or any religion, in fact I was the last person a religious door knocking bible bashing follower of God wanted to meet.
I wasted much of my youth, many years went by, I eventually married had children and then it happened. One of my children was diagnosed with a fatal disease with absolutly no hope of ever recovering. I spent weeks blaming myself and every other person and thing I could to try a reason why such a young healthy child must die?

Months later, in hospital, my wife and I were told by doctor it was only a matter of hours or at the most day's and we would loose our child. I left the bed side walked down the hallway and noticed a chapel at one side. As a last resort, in abject sorrow mixed with hatred I entered. I knelt down not knowing what to do and I started talking. Here, as best as I can remember is what I said;

"Well God, if you exist, heal my child please. Heal my child and prove to me that you exist!" yeh, I cried, I left the chapel and returned to the bedside. Long story short, my child is now a middle aged adult with children and a grandchild. The specialists could not believe my child had fully recovered, the little gangreen riddled near death body was compleatly healed? One even said, "This is a mirical."

Believe it or not I still had my doubts about God so I started an in depth study to try and dissprove its authenticity. I failed. Each year of carefull step by step investigation convinced me even more that God does indeed exist.

If ten years of serious study was not hard enough what would be. I continued for ten years because as the years went by it became obvious to me I was on a mission impossible. I tried to dissprove the existence of a higher power, God, because His commandments seriously restricted my way of life. I know now that disbalief in God and His book, if one knows it, is because to admit belief one must change ones way of life, for many like myself, often for the better. I would like to see a gathering of the most intelligent minds in the world, believers and non-believers working together and using the largest and most powerful computer in the world, or all of them linked together, and having access to all and every resorce they need, want, and require supplied to them, and money unlimited to spend on the project, and taking as long as they deemed necessary, create just one human female egg, a male sperm or as many as necessary, join them and implant these two into a healthy womans uterus and produce a perfect male or female baby human being.

If that was too hard, how about they try, using all the resorces mentioned above create a sentient being of any kind? If thats too hard, how about a humming bird or a whale? I know, maybe a frog sounds easier. Maybe just one "acorn seed." If they could get it right and create one acorn seed I wonder if they planted it in the ground what would happen? Would it grow into a huge OAK TREE?

If sentient life is too hard, maybe they could "BIG BANG" up a galaxy, not, how about a comet, no, what about just one small rock out of absolutly nothing? If they were given an unlimited amount of high explosive maybe they could "BIG BANG" up something useful other than a large hole on the ground?

Lets assume they could create one of the special species of tree that grows in the Amazon jungle that relies totally on one species of leaf cutter ant to survive, and these ants also cannot survive on any tree but this certain species of tree. I wonder which one would they create first in the hope it or they does not die before they can comeup with the goods to create the other? Too hard? Ok. Out of absolutly nothing create a car or a ship or maybe just one huming birds feather and one gorillas tooth.

If they cannot, then I would suggest there must be some higher power that did create these things. Maybe there is a God?

VW_Factor said:

You must not have tried very hard then.

Click to expand...

I'm sure the OP didn't intend this thread to turn into an "is the Bible true" argument. However, when one is motivated to question and perhaps change the very foundations of their belief system, there's probably a good chance they've given the time they think it deserves.

Consider that we talk of rights... it is our "belief" that we have rights that makes them real. The argument is that they are self-evident, but of course that argument does not suffice in certain circles.

I think it is less about the right being self-evident, and more about many people feeling it is unnecessary. The city folk (yes, I was raised in a city where here are now millions of us) think they no longer need weapons to defend themselves, and that those with weapons present an unreasonable danger.
Today, I read for the first time the 1871 Texas law and subsequent 1872 and 1876 court rulings where we became the first state to outlaw the wearing of weapons. The 1872 ruling states in part:
"The law under consideration has been attacked upon the ground
that it was contrary to public policy, and deprived the people of
the necessary means of self-defense; that it was an innovation upon
the customs and habits of the people, to which they would not
peaceably submit. We do not think the people of Texas are so bad as
this, and we do think that the latter half of the nineteenth
century is not too soon for Christian and civilized states to
legislate against any and every species of crime. Every system of
public laws should be, in itself, the purest and best system of
public morality. We will not say to what extent the early customs
and habits of the people of this state should be respected and
accommodated, where they may come in conflict with the ideas of
intelligent and well-meaning legislators. A portion of our system
of laws, as well as our public morality, is derived from a people
the most peculiar perhaps of any other in the history and
derivation of its own system. Spain, at different periods of the
world, was dominated over by the Carthagenians, the Romans, the
Vandals, the Snevi, the Allani, the Visigotbs, and Arabs; and to
this day there are found in the Spanish codes traces of the laws
and customs of each of those nations blended together into a system
by no means to be compared with the sound philosophy and pure
morality of the common law."

So there you have it, even 1871 Texas was above needing guns, and riding your horse, even while traveling long distances, meant you could only travel unarmed. Interestingly, the ruling effectively supported the law outlawing carrying of guns or knives of any kind, while those clever people said, paraphrasing, that carrying wasn't really illegal "because we still allow officers of the law to carry them."

The 1872 rulings are at: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/english_v_state.txt

I found the mindset disturbing, yet apropos to the current discussion.

VW_Factor said:

Thats the thing about religion. There is no scientifically verifiable proof of "religion" as an idea. You must have faith in it.

Beauty of America? Believe or have faith in a paperclip, it doesn't matter. Thats your choice and freedom to do so.

However..

Certainly one to stand up and say that you tried "very hard" to prove against religion is.. well.. You may get the idea..

Click to expand...

Like I said VW_, I tried and failed. As an athiest I found this an interesting read.

Scientific Evidence of God
By Bob DutkoWhile Intelligent Design skeptics may claim there is no evidence of God, the actual scientific evidence for God's existence is overwhelming, scientifically answering the question, "does God exist?".

In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.

The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.

Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.

Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities.
Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible).
Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible, or
Option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics.

Believe it or not, a 5 year old child could be an atheistic scientist's worst nightmare by merely asking him “where did everything come from if God didn't make it?” What that child is actually asking in scientific terms is “how do we have a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by the creation of energy and matter in the closed system of the universe if there is no Creator capable of doing that?”
Many times people who do not believe there is evidence of God have claimed that a faith in God is only a matter of faith and that it can not be proven scientifically. They say "does God exist ?....if so, prove it to me". When confronted with this, we must fully understand what it means to “prove” something. The fact is that none of us were there when the universe came into being, so technically, none of us can “prove” what happened. We can't “prove” God did it and the atheists can't “prove” everything came into being on it's own, so what we have to do is examine the evidence based on science to determine the most plausible explanation. For example, if I see a beautiful sand castle on the beach with intricate design, but no one there along with it, I can not “prove” someone made it, just as someone else can not “prove” the sand castle made itself from the wind, waves and sand randomly interacting with one another, and where and how did the sand come from?? so we have to determine what logic and reason tell us is the most plausible explanation, based on scientific evidence and examination.

I understand your reasoning, and do not totally disagree with it, but... there are more appropriate venues for scriptural references. Pax...

The bible is for Racists, Rebels, and Tax Protesters.

Race means origin. So if someone is of a different race then they are not of the same origin.

Sorry, being Christian is a racial issue as far as my studies have lead. As for the book being the 'commanding word of god' if the was 100% true then why would the Council of Nicea edit out the parts they didn't like?

It's nice that you've 'studied the bible' but have you read any of the works of Philo? Likely not. Philo was a chap that lived in the time that Jesus was supposed to live. Not once in his works is Jesus even mentioned despite the fact that he hung out with an apostle (after Jesus was supposed to have ascended) who was hanging out with Jesus before that.

The bible was talking about Natural Law. He is the word and the word was law. "He" was god. The early Christians were simply saying that they followed natural law. Their God was Natural Law. Besides anyone who believes the Sabbath is on Sunday is not a Christian anyways as they are practicing a non/anti-christian practice.

If you look at what was said in the works of Plato you'll find that the character of Jesus must have been quite the student of Plato. He really did not say anything that Plato didn't when it comes right down to it. Besides most of the books about Jesus were written many years after his alleged death or ascension.

I find it interesting that Plato speaks of lost advanced civilizations while the bible talks about observing objects from those civilizations. Jonah and the whale, being a perfect example.

Now as to the second law (theory) of thermal dynamics. It's false plain and simple.


I normally keep my religious beliefs to myself but this thread seemed to scream for a counter argument.


Besides even the OP violates the laws found in the bible. Mark of the beast being one.

Haz.

I understand your belief and got no problem with it. But an exercise to convince people science proves god is a crap-shoot.

I'm glad your child made it. It's great. It's not a miracle.
My 4 year old niece hit by a speeding car had a whole church and people across the country praying for her. But god chose in his infinite wisdom to destroy that family instead.

Also the idea that because we can't explain the existence of energy or recreate life (a task that took billions of years you want recreated in a few years of there being intelligent beings) automatically proves there has to be a god is silly. And what if the child asks "where did god come from".

I don't fault your position. Many people faced with their own, or god forbid, their child's mortality reach for answers. And hope....
Coming face to face with that sort of finality causes people to reach, and believe.

Just to move to a slightly lighter tangent...

I am against the death penalty even though I am for the death penalty.

Simply because we have verified that way too many people have been convicted and put to death (as well as lengthy prison sentences) who were innocent. If errors could be removed from the criminal justice process, I would be all for it.

georg jetson said:

I'm sure the OP didn't intend this thread to turn into an "is the Bible true" argument.

Click to expand...

Perhaps he should not have started the thread in such a manner? Especially when stated specifically that he has studied quite deeply into the subject for 10 years and found proof. Also, it is sort of written into the topic.

paramedic70002 said:

Just to move to a slightly lighter tangent...

I am against the death penalty even though I am for the death penalty.

Simply because we have verified that way too many people have been convicted and put to death (as well as lengthy prison sentences) who were innocent. If errors could be removed from the criminal justice process, I would be all for it.

Click to expand...

I understand your mixed emotions over the death penalty, however, police officers, judges, juries, attorneys are all human beings, and as such they are imperfect. Society does it's best to convict only those found guilty by a jury of their peers, as flawed as that may be. The rest may simply fall under the heading of "Collateral Damage", as sad as that may be. I know I'd be upset if I were part of the collateral damage! Pax...

Gil223 said:

I understand your mixed emotions over the death penalty, however, police officers, judges, juries, attorneys are all human beings, and as such they are imperfect. Society does it's best to convict only those found guilty by a jury of their peers, as flawed as that may be. The rest may simply fall under the heading of "Collateral Damage", as sad as that may be. I know I'd be upset if I were part of the collateral damage! Pax...

Click to expand...

This is not really true. Prosecutors and police are in the business of convictions, and the truth doesn't always enter into this process. Frequently, their judgement is clouded by the need to convict or mistaken belief that they are correct. Sometimes a logical leap is made in the wrong direction. The process is corrupted by the presence of certain lawyers who game the system in both directions.

We should never chance a wrongful conviction in the name of "saving lives". Think Tom Selleck in An Innocent Man. Blind belief in the judicial process is not the way to go.

paramedic70002 said:

Just to move to a slightly lighter tangent...

I am against the death penalty even though I am for the death penalty.

Simply because we have verified that way too many people have been convicted and put to death (as well as lengthy prison sentences) who were innocent. If errors could be removed from the criminal justice process, I would be all for it.

Click to expand...

It's better to let 10 guilty men walk than to convict one innocent man.

QUOTE=Freedom1Man;1808516.The bible is for Racists, Rebels, and Tax Protesters.

Race means origin. So if someone is of a different race then they are not of the same origin.

"Sorry, being Christian is a racial issue as far as my studies have lead. As for the book being the 'commanding word of god' if the was 100% true then why would the Council of Nicea edit out the parts they didn't like?"

Click to expand...

.
The Council of Nicea took place in 325 A.D. by the order of the Roman Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine. Nicea was located in Asia Minor, east of Constantinople. At the Council of Nicea, Emperor Constantine presided over a group of Church bishops and leaders with the purpose of defining the true God for all of Christianity and eliminating all the confusion, controversy, and contention within Christ’s church. The Council of Nicea affirmed the deity of Jesus Christ and established an official definition of the Trinity—the deity of The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit under one Godhead, in three co-equal and co-eternal Persons.
Constantine, a converted Christian (debatably), called for a council meeting to be held in Nicea with the bishops of the Christian church to resolve escalating quarrels and controversy mounting to a bitter degree of disunity among the church leadership concerning theological issues. The failing Roman Empire, now under Constantine’s rule, could not withstand the division caused by years of hard-fought, “out of hand” arguing over doctrinal differences. Like men today, lets ban or get rid of things we dont want, like, or dissagree with. In fact, the early Catholic Church banned the Bible alltogether for fear that if the people found out the truth of the Scriptures and what they taught, they would leave the church in droves.

"It's nice that you've 'studied the bible' but have you read any of the works of Philo? Likely not. Philo was a chap that lived in the time that Jesus was supposed to live. Not once in his works is Jesus even mentioned despite the fact that he hung out with an apostle (after Jesus was supposed to have ascended) who was hanging out with Jesus before that."

Click to expand...

.
Flavious Josephus, a Roman Historian wholived at the time and who never hung with Jesus wrote; "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.[47] ”

Have you read the writings of Josephus? The Testimonium Flavianum (meaning the testimony of Flavius [Josephus]) is the name given to the passage found in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities in which Josephus describes the condemnation and crucifixion of Jesus at the hands of the Roman authorities.[48][11] The Testimonium is likely the most discussed passage in Josephus and perhaps in all ancient literature.

"The bible was talking about Natural Law. He is the word and the word was law. "He" was god. The early Christians were simply saying that they followed natural law. Their God was Natural Law. Besides anyone who believes the Sabbath is on Sunday is not a Christian anyways as they are practicing a non/anti-christian practice.'

Click to expand...

.
The Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel. This is how serious may Jews are about keeping the Sabbath. They try and come up with any means possible to break the day pretending to keep it.


Jews now use their teeth to work mobiles
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25621096-5012895,00.html
ULTRA-orthodox Jews have come up with a way to operate their mobile phones on the Sabbath and religious holidays - by using their teeth.

Many of the ultra orthodox volunteers and workers at Israel's Magen David Adom emergency services work on the Sabbath and were confronted with the dilemma of how to activate their mobile phones without violating religious rules, IPU.com reported. To confirm response to dispatch, workers are permitted to hold a small metal pin between their teeth and press the necessary buttons on the phones.
In the New Testament, which many Jewish sabbath keepers ignore, sabbath keeping was done away by Christ himself. he rose from the dead on Sunday, he first appeared to His disciples on Sunday, Pentecost allways falls on a Sunday. I can give many scriptural references in which God said He would do away with sabbaths, new moons feast days and holy days of Jewish worship.

"If you look at what was said in the works of Plato you'll find that the character of Jesus must have been quite the student of Plato. He really did not say anything that Plato didn't when it comes right down to it. Besides most of the books about Jesus were written many years after his alleged death or ascension.

I find it interesting that Plato speaks of lost advanced civilizations while the bible talks about observing objects from those civilizations. Jonah and the whale, being a perfect example."

Click to expand...

.
There is no mention of Jesus having anything to do with Plato in any Scripture. However he was castigated for keeping company with sinners, tax collectors and publicans. he Himself said to His detractors,I have come to save sinners not the self rightious.

"Now as to the second law (theory) of thermal dynamics. It's false plain and simple."

Click to expand...

.
Thats you opinion and you are entitled to believe it with no argument from me.

"I normally keep my religious beliefs to myself but this thread seemed to scream for a counter argument.'

Click to expand...

As did this post.

"Besides even the OP violates the laws found in the bible. Mark of the beast being one."

Click to expand...

I dont recall ever mentioning anything regarding the Mark of the beast?

Know your enemy is one of my motto's. They are always mostely within. They use every possible tactic to get their way. They won a major battle Down Under with their $500,000,000 steal back and ban, they havent won the war, yet! Dont let them get a toe hold in your neck of the woods.

Gil223 said:

I understand your reasoning, and do not totally disagree with it, but... there are more appropriate venues for scriptural references. Pax...

Click to expand...

Hi Mate.

Yes there are more appropriate venues for scriptural references, but when an alleged christian comes to me and many have over the years, and as a last desperate attempt to force me to change my mind on firearm ownership, throw scriptures at me saying God doesnt agree with guns, God doesnt condone the death penalty, God says thou shalt no kill, I am armed with many counter scriptures which teach the exact opposit. There are many scriptures which teach a well armed man is at peace, a righteous man falling before the wicked is a troubled fountain and a currupt spring, sell your cloak and buy a sword, etc.