Christianity and self defense

[Freedom1Man]

The right of self defense is innate, it exists even in the most debased lifeforms. Mystic religions or the lack of is irrelevant.

Including, drum roll please.

.
.
.



.
....
.
.
.
Plants.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[solus]

No he isn't. Solus has long demonstrated a negative view of Christianity and shown hostility to some that claim their faith in Jesus. Make no mistake, Solus is a very smart person. He isn't missing the point, he is intentionally bypassing it because it does not follow his anti-faith agenda. He is entitled to his view, whatever it is. My perspective is that trying to have a reasoned discussion with him about the subject is futile. Rather, pray for him, Brother.

i am sorry dr...when i have shown hostility to anybody on this forum regarding their faith...

negative view...there is no negative view from my perspective...as for a reasoned discussion...please, i truly look forward to any sort of discussion based on empirical based evidence instead of 'faith' based emotional rhetoric.

please, please, before we have a pray session to save my soul which you feel is necessary to bring me to your religious belief...(oh dear, hopefully that wasn't the negativity or hostility you reference ~ is it?)

as twain has stated in his autobiography:

"But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most, our one fellow and brother who most needed a friend yet had not a single one, the one sinner among us all who had the highest and clearest right to every Christian's daily and nightly prayers, for the plain and unassailable reason that his was the first and greatest need, he being among sinners the supremestm(sic)?"

ipse

 

[solus]

The right of self defense is innate, it exists even in the most debased lifeforms. Mystic religions or the lack of is irrelevant.

now, SVG, well said and finally someone has reached the unemotional, unbiased, and obvious conclusion of the OPs irrelevant religious Christian postulation on self defense.

ipse

 

[Citizen]

The right of self defense is innate, it exists even in the most debased lifeforms. Mystic religions or the lack of is irrelevant.

<cough, cough>

Are you saying polio, Ebola, and congressmen have a right to self-defense?

 

[drsysadmin]

i am sorry dr...when i have shown hostility to anybody on this forum regarding their faith...

Well we could start with the post you made that got deleted because it was a personal attack. You know - the one in which you tried to claim that I stated that only Christians could be responsible gun owners - when you knew I said no such thing. Intentionally lying about someone specifically over their views in faith (especially intentionally misrepresenting them) is hostile.

Or perhaps you would like to go to:

i go back to a far more earnest premise...why aren't your ranting and ravings over the passages (mark 7:27) and trying to feed this world's children.

Source: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...self-defense&p=2173901&viewfull=1#post2173901

Made in response to Freedom1Man - and you have absolutely no idea if he is trying to feed the world's children or not. Instead, you choose to assume and then castigate a person for what you judge they should or should not do based on your interpretation of a belief system that you call a "myth". I could go on just using stuff in this thread, but the point is made.

negative view...there is no negative view from my perspective

The above already proves otherwise. In addition, at least twice (in this thread alone) you have called Christianity a myth. Throughout this thread you have done your best to put those who profess faith in "traps" by doing things such as trying to equate giving to the church as condoning "sadomasochistic sodomy rituals" and asking what is the difference between a thief who is called a thief and a thief who is called a priest.

The entire premise of the original post was in regards to a faith you do not choose. Yet you could not refrain from interjecting. As a person who does not believe in the Christian religion, you have "no dog in the fight", yet your very first post was in intentional comparison to ISIL. Hardly a neutral or positive angle, Solus.

I won't even go into your "one church" or "God's malaise" comments since you chose to hide them in Latin and German (respectively).

...as for a reasoned discussion...please, i truly look forward to any sort of discussion based on empirical based evidence instead of 'faith' based emotional rhetoric.

I offered one - a discussion on abortion that took into account scientific data. Yet did you touch that subject? No - because you have no interest in reasoned discussion. You have much more interest in demeaning a faith you personally disagree with.

We have "crossed verbal swords" before Solus, and you have not ever had success in those situations. Maybe one of these times you will learn.
Face it - you are hostile to Christianity and those who follow it. Your actions show that.

I will say one thing for you - you can at least be truthful in your signature. If ever a thing matched what you post - it is that:

Noun 1) ipse: an assertation without proof

Source:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ipse

Have a blessed day - and yes - I will pray for you.

 

[OC for ME]

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=man+charged+in+the+death+of+mother+and+unborn+child

http://www.wsfa.com/story/30630782/...er-unborn-child-shot-and-killed-in-montgomery

Interesting conundrum where the state is concerned. Does a Christian have a obligation to pick up arms and defend the life of the unborn child?

I don't know...these days. The state clearly picks and chooses as it sees fit...for political gains...obviously.

If a citizen kills a unborn child, even mistakenly (as a result of a reasonable pursuit of self defense), the state is more than ready, and willing (maybe), to redefine the status of that fetus to that of a human being.

It is not, in my view, "Christianity" that is (should be) the focus but the individual Christian.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

<cough, cough>

Are you saying polio, Ebola, and congressmen have a right to self-defense?

LOL.....hey now I'm sure Ebola and Polio are quite insulted at being put on the same level as congressmen!

 

[solus]

The post that was deleted is, at this point, doesn’t exist and therefore irrefutable one way or the other.


However, since you provided an overview…your belief I ‘intentionally misrepresented’ your statements:
Post #81 12-27-2015, 09:52 PM: However, with that said - the guy who wrote the first article has EVERY RIGHT to believe that Christians shouldn't arm themselves. I have EVERY RIGHT to believe they should.
If your (sic) not a Christian - well that's another discussion entirely but I will pray for you in the hope that the Lord will open your ears to His call. Then I hope He encourages you to be a RESPONSIBLE gun owner (and carrier).


I’m sorry dr, you stating you are going to pray hoping my ears are open to hear the siren to heed the calling so I can be encouraged to be a responsible gun owner isn’t the same as an analogy of saying only those that believe can carry…really? and you construe that as a hostile intent towards you…?


Freedom is an adult, therefore, he can adjudicate his own grievance.


Negativity…
First, was 25 December the day the child was born? Yes or no?


Second, is it a fact the religious holiday celebrated started off as a pagan week long festival of debauchery? Yes or no?


Third, when another member offered an explanation the celebration changed to religious, I provided empirical based evidence, w/cite, the only reason was due to the church trying to attract pagan converts and acquiesced continuing certain festival favors to encourage the pagans to participate. historical fact: true or false?


Fourth, you offered the explanation of the present scheme as a showing of love. Again, I provided empirical based evidence, w/cite, in the 10th century the catholic church trying to attract pagan converts and acquiesced continuing certain festival favors to encourage the pagans to participate the on the 25th. historical fact: true or false?


There is no emotionalized negativity in any of those statements as they are documented historical fact! If your answer to the first question was NO ~ then the 25th is nothing more than a myth.


I am truly sorry, for whatever circumstances where you are unaware of or you have a problem with your own faith’s past, but unfortunately that is your issue(s).

Your definition of success is something you have conjured in your mind as there is no contest except what you believe exists. Objective empirical data is discussable ~ period! unfortunately you have not offered any.


Sorry, abortion is not a discussion of religion based on empirical based data that is an emotionally biased BS topic that women have allowed men to dominate.


Finally, I recommend you consult with nightmare re the meaning of my name(s).
ipse

 

[stealthyeliminator]

There is no emotionalized negativity in any of those statements as they are documented historical fact! If your answer to the first question was NO ~ then the 25th is nothing more than a myth.

That's just not how it works, bud. Tantrum as much as you like, it doesn't make a hill of beans. Please do not insult us by insinuating that your posts are merely your sharing of what you think is interesting trivia, and we are misconstruing. Nobody here is that naive.

 

[drsysadmin]

Solus, your a smart person most of the time, but for some reason you really do make this too easy sometimes for me....

The post that was deleted is, at this point, doesn’t exist and therefore irrefutable one way or the other.

On the contrary - the Moderator made note that the comment why it was deleted - you decided to make it "personal". Had it been a benign statement, the post would not have required moderator action.
Now whether that was hostility aimed at me because I professed my faith or because you don't like me personally for taking you to school in the past - can be debated. Either way - it proves your past hostility - which you claim to not have.

However, since you provided an overview…your belief I ‘intentionally misrepresented’ your statements:
Post #81 12-27-2015, 09:52 PM: However, with that said - the guy who wrote the first article has EVERY RIGHT to believe that Christians shouldn't arm themselves. I have EVERY RIGHT to believe they should.
If your (sic) not a Christian - well that's another discussion entirely but I will pray for you in the hope that the Lord will open your ears to His call. Then I hope He encourages you to be a RESPONSIBLE gun owner (and carrier).

I’m sorry dr, you stating you are going to pray hoping my ears are open to hear the siren to heed the calling so I can be encouraged to be a responsible gun owner isn’t the same as an analogy of saying only those that believe can carry…really? and you construe that as a hostile intent towards you…?

See - this is where you make it TOO easy.

First, the prayer is for the eternal good of the unbeliever's soul - as anyone with your level of scholarship in Christian theology well knows. In fact, even a layperson would gather that from the first sentence. My first concern for anyone is the state of their soul. Note the context -"If you are not a Christian....." - then my first act would be to pray for your soul. That was not in any way aimed at you, Solus, but was rather a blanket statement since I pray for any and all who are not believers. Next - I note the less important thing - that I hope once your soul is taken care of, that you be led to being a responsible gun owner by the Spirit. Given the CONTEXT of the original question: whether or not CHRISTIANS should use self defense - such a comment is entirely consistent with the question asked. It was you - in your HOSTILTY to faith that chose to find offense where none was given.

Nothing in the statement I made claimed that non-Christians should not be allowed to own guns. Nor did it state that non-Christians can not be responsible in the ownership of a firearm. You chose however, both in your deleted comment and your post above to claim otherwise.

Are the two analogous? Lets see... Is:
Me praying that Christians be called to be responsible gun owners.
the same as?
Me claiming only Christians CAN be responsible gun owners.
Nope - not analogous at all.

Not only is it apparent at first glance that they are not the same thing - when taken in the context of the original question the comparison becomes even more ludicrous. Yet you try to make it out of your vehement opposition to those of faith. You did so by intentionally ignoring the context of the question put forth and LOOKING for something to use as a "gotcha" in an attempt to make someone of faith look bad. That, Solus, is the epitome of hostility to Faith and/or those who profess it. The only other viable explanation is a lack of intelligence - and we all know that is NOT the case in regards to you, Solus.

Assumes a TV pitchman's voice: "But WAIT! There's MORE!

Regarding Freedom1Man - you asked - and I quote:

i am sorry dr...when i have shown hostility to anybody on this forum regarding their faith...

(My highlights)
Now you say:

Freedom is an adult, therefore, he can adjudicate his own grievance.

You, dear Solus, asked a question. I answered it directly by pointing out your blatant judgmental castigation and hostility to Freedom1Man (centered on his faith). The fact you don't LIKE the answer does not negate its accuracy in response to your query. If you are unable to deal with the answers you get - perhaps you should be more cautious in asking the question then.....

Of course - that was simply your way of attempting to deflect any responsibility for your actions. Just as your intentional disregard for the other points of proof I put forth in an attempt to avoid dealing with those facts. Things such as your trying to form an analogy between a Christian promoting pacifism and ISIL who beheads people. Or your attempt to equate giving to the church as condoning homosexual sadomasochistic rituals, or asking if there was a difference between a priest and a thief.

Allow me to quote you yet again, friend Solus....

as for a reasoned discussion...please, i truly look forward to any sort of discussion based on empirical based evidence

By this time - anyone reading these has either burst into laughter at this statement of yours, or simply shook their head and seen it for the fallacy it is. You say you want debate - and you challenge me on a statement I made, asking a question that demanded proof to back up my perspective. I answered that question clearly - and instead of debate any relevant points, you deflect and dodge. Instead of answering the proof with counterpoint (which is how a discussion / debate actually works), you run to another set of questions to be answered...

What is even more laughable - not only do you now run from the discussion you started by challenging me with your question - you revert to more deflection with an interesting series of questions.
Though why they are interesting is not their subject matter itself in this case - but the fact that the questions have NOTHING to do with either:

1) The challenge you offered me regarding your demonstrated hostility to matters of and those of faith
-OR-
2) The original question posed by the author of this thread.

Thus - your questions are AT BEST a deflection away from your challenge, and at worst (given their subject) more attempts by you to get a person of faith to answer in some way that allows you to play the "gotcha" card. Either way - they prove your claim totally false. What's more - I pointed out a subject I was willing to have a purely rational, empirically based discussion on - ie: abortion. Yet you have refused that. I can't say I am surprised since you have proven to date entirely incapable of an actual debate or discussion unless it is - as your last set of questions show - intended to in some way belittle or demean the beliefs of others. Thus, once again, proving your hostility.

So - nice try changing the subject, but it won't fly with me.

Finally, I recommend you consult with nightmare re the meaning of my name(s). ipse

Oh - I feel no need to follow that recommendation. After all - while I respect Nightmare and his intellect, I hardly think him more authoritative a source that the one I listed. After all - the definition fits you so well - as you continue to prove.

And I am still saying a prayer for you tonight.

 

[drsysadmin]

That is merely a dictionary definition for a word, an atom of a sentence. Solus ipse is a phrase and sentence fragment meaning Himself alone.

While I understand what Solus INTENDED with his attempt at being inventive and smart using the term at the end of his every post, the ironic reality that the word ipse on its own does in fact represent him quite well is not lost on me. He may have intended a witticism, but I am perfectly free to turn it on its ear in any way I see fit, and his standard of posts make it clear that my interpretation is entirely valid - whether he would wish it so or not. On that score he has only himself to hold accountable for it.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

While I understand what Solus INTENDED with his attempt at being inventive and smart using the term at the end of his every post, the ironic reality that the word ipse on its own does in fact represent him quite well is not lost on me. He may have intended a witticism, but I am perfectly free to turn it on its ear in any way I see fit, and his standard of posts make it clear that my interpretation is entirely valid - whether he would wish it so or not. On that score he has only himself to hold accountable for it.

Great! So now you can't complain when he turns your posts on its ear either.

 

[drsysadmin]

Great! So now you can't complain when he turns your posts on its ear either.

Oh he can try... though I don't tend to provide quite the same opportunities in regards to pointing out irony, nor do I deflect and make challenges and then run and hide from them as he has done. So good luck to him in any further attempts he makes.

 

[drsysadmin]

Perhaps. But like your CERT and SIEM, not in context. You are done. Buh bye!

Nope - It seems you are somewhat mistaken...
Not done. :lol:

 

[Citizen]

Great! So now you can't complain when he turns your posts on its ear either.

Hold it! Just hang on a second! I spent a good amount of time assembling this computer desk and getting it leveled up. I have no interest in turning my screen or desk just so I can read on-ear posts. Please stop suggesting these things!

 

[solus]

That's just not how it works, bud. Tantrum as much as you like, it doesn't make a hill of beans. Please do not insult us by insinuating that your posts are merely your sharing of what you think is interesting trivia, and we are misconstruing. Nobody here is that naive.

tantrum...nay nay

interesting trivia....documented scholarly religious history of a time when the good religious order was not behaving quite so 'christian' if you will.

naive... perhaps in the eye of the beholder.

ipse

 

[solus]

Dr, your recent epistle is quite illuminating…
1. Because someone else decided it was personal does not make it so ~ unless of course, the reason it was deleted was because you felt affronted and went to the moderator?
2. Your tirade of you claiming: didn’t say this or mean that or, or…is growing olde; but your words remain: ‘I will pray for you in the hope that the Lord will open your ears to His call. Then I hope He encourages you to be a RESPONSIBLE gun owner (and carrier).
3. Thank you you did provide a response but my response still stands…freedom is still an adult if he feels slighted!
4. With interest I noted a distinct lack of response to my query(ies).


Finally, you have a presumption because I question I am not…while you profess and yet you blindly believe…you jump into an automatic blind salvation mode without appropriate knowledge…


Finally…does anybody need the religious establishment, any religious establishment to find 'fulfillment'?


Thank you nightmare!!

ipse

as eye stated...bye bye

 

[solus]

Sola fide. Sola scriptura. Sola gratia.

gratias ago tibi

ipse

 

[drsysadmin]

Dr, your recent epistle is quite illuminating…
1. Because someone else decided it was personal does not make it so ~ unless of course, the reason it was deleted was because you felt affronted and went to the moderator?

Oh I don't deny I mentioned it to Grapeshot. Yet you continue to assign viewpoints to me that are inaccurate. Not that I was affronted, I merely noted your intellectual dishonesty and asked if he wanted to deal with it before I schooled you once again. He chose to do so, - yet you couldn't help but show your continuing hatred of faith and then claiming to not have any such sentiment - though it has since been proven.

2. Your tirade of you claiming: didn’t say this or mean that or, or…is growing olde; but your words remain: ‘I will pray for you in the hope that the Lord will open your ears to His call. Then I hope He encourages you to be a RESPONSIBLE gun owner (and carrier).

Oh I am fine with my words. As Stealth noted - your the one on a tirade, friend Solus... My words are clear - as is the Context which you still intentionally ignore. Oddly, you also seem to not be able to either SEE the period between the two sentences or you again choose to ignore it. Not surprising - the plain sense doesn't fit your agenda. It is who you are "making claims" about meanings.

So your deflections and strawmen attacks haven't works - so now your moving on to classic projection.... How predictable....

3. Thank you you did provide a response but my response still stands…freedom is still an adult if he feels slighted!

Whether he chooses to deal with things is irrelevant. You asked a question demanding proof of your actions. I answered it. The fact you deflect because you can't defend against that point speaks volumes.

4. With interest I noted a distinct lack of response to my query(ies).

My lack of response was explained. You issued a challenge against my claim that you show hostility to Christians and their faith. I have since demonstrated it in response. Even now you no longer deny it. Rather you double down with questions designed to trap and create "gotcha" moments.

The questions you have asked regarding Christmas has absolutely nothing to do with whether Christians who choose self defense are in keeping with the teachings of Christ. Therefore they are a diversion and simply yet another attempt by you to create "gotcha" moments at the expense of Christians who foolishly fall into your trap. I am hardly so myopic - and rest assured many here see your attempts for what they are.

does anybody need the religious establishment, any religious establishment to find 'fulfillment'?

It is not for me to decide the path others may choose to take. Which is why I pray for the souls of the lost that they may hear the call regardless of how it reaches their ears.

Finally, you have a presumption because I question I am not…

On the contrary. While choosing to mock and try to trap those of faith does create questions regarding the condition of your heart, you make the situation clear by calling the Scriptures "a story written by men." While Scripture was physically penned by men, believers note that it was "inspired" by God. As such, it is not merely "a story". Your failure to claim Christ (which itself is telling), combined with denying Christ as a mere "myth" and your attempts to demean those of faith make it clear that you have not yet placed your faith in Jesus. It is not presumption, but rather an analytical view of your statements that make it clear.

while you profess and yet you blindly believe…

Really Solus? What, pray tell, do I believe? While I have made it clear that I believe in ELOHIM as well as His personified "Son" EMMANUEL (Jesus) for the salvation of my soul, what else do I believe? What are my views on the controversial subjects in the Christian theology? Do you know? Other than my stated belief that - contrary to most fundamental protestant teachings - that life does NOT begin at conception, I have stated very little. Again - you project your own actions (making assumptions) onto me.

you jump into an automatic blind salvation mode without appropriate knowledge…

Sigh - not only are you making assumptions about what I believe, now you think you can decide what I know based on your faulty assumptions. Friend Solus, not only have you projected, now you are thinking that you are the ultimate arbiter of what people can know and not know, as well as what is "appropriate" knowledge. Egomania is an additional sign of mental illness.

I say this with great love and concern for you Solus - perhaps you should consider getting some help for these continued displays of mental health issues and symptoms.

 

[utbagpiper]

In throwing out the money exchangers in the temple he was directly fighting and defying the ruling class in self defensive measure for his fellow country folk.

Is that how you see it. So are you ok with initiating physical violence where no physical threat is present?