Church shooting in East Texas

7,315 Views | 196 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Star Wars Memes Only
booboo91
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:25a, 1/6/21
My 2 cents on Guns and protection:

1) Having gun is like having an insurance policy, you don't need it until you need it, and then you probably wish you had it.

2) One size does not fit all. I firmly believe God calls some of us to be martyrs/ pacifist and also firmly believe he calls some of us to be protectors. It was a good thing Hitler was stopped with force/violence (only way to stop him), it is a good thing for a father to protect his family (lots of ways of doing this and force/violence is one of them).

3) I am huge history fan, and we live in a rare time in world history in the USA with so much peace and prosperity(hopefully this does not change soon). A lot of history has been brutal - lots of raping, pillaging and death (tribal warfare). History of man is doing bad things to one another.

God gave us a brain we need to use it we also need to pray everyday for discernment.

"Gotta know when to Hold them, Know when to Fold them and Know when to Run"- Kenny Rogers (for you younger folks)
Reply Quote
4
Pro Sandy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dumpster Fire • 6:43a, 1/6/21
AG
And something about live by the sword, die by the sword
Reply Quote
2
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 7:55a, 1/6/21
AG
AstroAg17 said:
Guns are also excellent toys. Target shooting is pretty fun, and it's done for entertainment in many cases rather than as practice for self defense. Assassinating cans and clays is a good time.

Not to be all 'Dad' about it, but, I think the term 'toy' is too frivolous. But it is fun and a great hobby. Its also my limited experience that the people that are enthusiastic about this sport / hobby have the a lot of respect for what kind of damage a bullet can do and take gun safety seriously.


Reply Quote
1
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:59a, 1/6/21
Quote:
1) Having gun is like having an insurance policy, you don't need it until you need it, and then you probably wish you had it.

I appreciate your comments booboo. Your touched on it in item 3, but really understand the issue we need to add to your analogy here:

The cost of that insurance premium is really high. Like so high that it calls into question the economics of even having that insurance policy.

What I mean is that having a gun creates access and there's a tremendous responsibility to avoid any horrific incidents that are possible with this access. No gun owner disagrees with that.
Reply Quote
Star Wars Memes Only
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TxAgPreacher • 8:24a, 1/6/21
TxAgPreacher said:
I carry everywhere I go. If someone shoots at me, my family, or my church family we are heavily armed, and will shoot back! Security meeting coming up soon for our security team. Not everyone is a sheepdog, but someone must protect the flock.


Ahh, yes, one of the rare churches that reads from the lesser known Gospel of Biggie.
Reply Quote
7
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 8:46a, 1/6/21
AG
diehard03 said:
Quote:
1) Having gun is like having an insurance policy, you don't need it until you need it, and then you probably wish you had it.

I appreciate your comments booboo. Your touched on it in item 3, but really understand the issue we need to add to your analogy here:

The cost of that insurance premium is really high. Like so high that it calls into question the economics of even having that insurance policy.

What I mean is that having a gun creates access and there's a tremendous responsibility to avoid any horrific incidents that are possible with this access. No gun owner disagrees with that.


Can you quantify this fear? How do you substantiate this 'cost' of the insurance policy? What do you mean by that? What is the 'cost'?

Edit: for clarity this is an epistemological question. You know this cost is high. How do you know what you know? What assumptions are layered into it? That's what I'm getting at.
Reply Quote
1 edit
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:25a, 1/6/21
Quote:
Can you quantify this fear? How do you substantiate this 'cost' of the insurance policy? What do you mean by that? What is the 'cost'?

Edit: for clarity this is an epistemological question. You know this cost is high. How do you know what you know? What assumptions are layered into it? That's what I'm getting at.

I don't know that i'd label it fear. It's just a risk assessment not unlike life insurance. I do think it skews high for a few reasons:

* These instances of really wanting it are low, generally. My likelihood to run into a situation where I feel I need it are extremely low.
* Even having the gun in those instances does not guarantee success
* There's an escalation risk one must wrestle with - having your gun might cause worse things to occur that would ordinarily....ie, see the incident that caused this thread
* I must take actions to ensure that my family is not a victim of the firearm due to negligence. Some of those actions further increase the probability of home defense being successful (ie, getting to a locked away firearm, etc). Kids are also stupid and there's risk regardless of how well you teach them.
* Risks associated with gun access to someone with suicidal ideations.
* Personally, I don't have a high value of "gun culture", ie being a part of a community that enjoys them.

Can I quantify these things perfectly? No. But I hope you don't interpret that as unworthy of being considered.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 10:12a, 1/6/21
AG
diehard03 said:
Quote:
Can you quantify this fear? How do you substantiate this 'cost' of the insurance policy? What do you mean by that? What is the 'cost'?

Edit: for clarity this is an epistemological question. You know this cost is high. How do you know what you know? What assumptions are layered into it? That's what I'm getting at.

I don't know that i'd label it fear. It's just a risk assessment not unlike life insurance. I do think it skews high for a few reasons:

* These instances of really wanting it are low, generally. My likelihood to run into a situation where I feel I need it are extremely low.
* Even having the gun in those instances does not guarantee success
* There's an escalation risk one must wrestle with - having your gun might cause worse things to occur that would ordinarily....ie, see the incident that caused this thread
* I must take actions to ensure that my family is not a victim of the firearm due to negligence. Some of those actions further increase the probability of home defense being successful (ie, getting to a locked away firearm, etc). Kids are also stupid and there's risk regardless of how well you teach them.
* Risks associated with gun access to someone with suicidal ideations.
* Personally, I don't have a high value of "gun culture", ie being a part of a community that enjoys them.

Can I quantify these things perfectly? No. But I hope you don't interpret that as unworthy of being considered.


I don't interpret it that way at all. I just think it's helpful to translate as best we can our assessments into reality (for lack of a better term, to ground them on something measurable instead of simply accepting them). This isn't a metaphysical discussion so we certainly have ways to quantify our apprehension and ideas. What we do with that moves back into that philosophical realm but that's ok, not every individual has the same criteria for decision making (much like the Rona decision tree).

How big is that number to make it 'too high'? If you said three out of every four murders was a gun stolen from the person it was used on then sure, I think we all agree it's a huge risk (or likewise if almost every family that owned a gun had someone in the household killed by it). But if 99.9% aren't, should we call that a significant risk? Should it merit heavy consideration?

How much should personal experience factor into this too? If you don't have anyone with ideation, raise your kids to respect them, and treat them appropriately why can't you own one? The cost actually sounds quite low in that scenario.
Reply Quote
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:02a, 1/6/21

Quote:
How big is that number to make it 'too high'? If you said three out of every four murders was a gun stolen from the person it was used on then sure, I think we all agree it's a huge risk (or likewise if almost every family that owned a gun had someone in the household killed by it). But if 99.9% aren't, should we call that a significant risk? Should it merit heavy consideration?

I think trying to parsing everything individually misses the effect on the aggregate, if that makes sense. You're basically introducing several "low likelihood/high impact" variables trying to mitigate a "low likelihood/high impact" variable.

Quote:
How much should personal experience factor into this too? If you don't have anyone with ideation, raise your kids to respect them, and treat them appropriately why can't you own one? The cost actually sounds quite low in that scenario.

Sure, there are many people who have guns their whole lives and through several generations that have no issues arise. But, is the "value add" worth the risk of something bad happening...and that "bad happening" being the loss of a life of a loved one.

To make it clear, there are certain scenarios I envision that would drive me to gun ownership - and that's mainly around choosing to live in area that dramatic increases the likelihood of something happening beyond what it is today.
Reply Quote
Post removed:
by user
12:25p, 1/6/21
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 1:44p, 1/6/21
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:
How big is that number to make it 'too high'? If you said three out of every four murders was a gun stolen from the person it was used on then sure, I think we all agree it's a huge risk (or likewise if almost every family that owned a gun had someone in the household killed by it). But if 99.9% aren't, should we call that a significant risk? Should it merit heavy consideration?

I think trying to parsing everything individually misses the effect on the aggregate, if that makes sense. You're basically introducing several "low likelihood/high impact" variables trying to mitigate a "low likelihood/high impact" variable.

Quote:
How much should personal experience factor into this too? If you don't have anyone with ideation, raise your kids to respect them, and treat them appropriately why can't you own one? The cost actually sounds quite low in that scenario.

Sure, there are many people who have guns their whole lives and through several generations that have no issues arise. But, is the "value add" worth the risk of something bad happening...and that "bad happening" being the loss of a life of a loved one.

To make it clear, there are certain scenarios I envision that would drive me to gun ownership - and that's mainly around choosing to live in area that dramatic increases the likelihood of something happening beyond what it is today.


Parsing it out is how we measure aggregate effect. It's how we go from the abstract feelings to the concrete physical world. Without doing that we are highly likely to capitulate to catastrophizing, anxiety, and fear. Its nice to think defunding the police or restraining them will save lives but the actual measurable effect is the opposite. Watching church online may make you feel like you're still connected or taking it seriously but that actual measurable effect is the opposite, it takes you away from that. Your faith even though it is internal is still measurable and quantifiable through your physical actions. Likewise we must translate this into more than a thought experiment. I think it odd to simply accept a premise that is unfalsifiable or worse, contradicted by actual practice. In fact, far from looking at this at an individual level statistics are descriptive aggregate measures are they not? So why not use them?

Regarding individual choices they are not all ones you take into your own hands. What changed my mind was driving through a smaller town in east Texas where someone did an illegal u-turn and almost side swiped me before speeding off. It was 10pm and my family were all asleep in the car. Edit: the idea of living somewhere else or moving means you speak from privilege and wealth. This is not an option for many people who still need protection. A gun is relatively inexpensive to own in comparison with moving and requires much less cost (such as leaving family behind or a town you grow up in and love).

The chance of someone dying seems (to me) outsized in your mind relative to the actual number of deaths in the ways that you're explaining. Has something like this happened to someone that you know or care about?
Reply Quote
1 edit
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to [removed post] • 1:45p, 1/6/21
AG
AstroAg17 said:
The security that one feels from having a gun is also valuable. When I'm in the mountains hiking it's nice to know that I have at least a chance against a bear. If a young woman is out walking at night it's nice to know that she has a level-ish playing field against anyone in the world.

There are so many factors that are hard to quantify involved that I think the question of "should I own a gun" has no objective answer. Even if the average gun owner is slightly less safe due to owning a gun, choosing to take that risk is still worth considering in my opinion. Safety is not most people's overriding goal.


Yes. It is a personal question with each person quantifying their own risk.
Reply Quote
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:22p, 1/6/21
Quote:
The chance of someone dying seems (to me) outsized in your mind relative to the actual number of deaths in the ways that you're explaining. Has something like this happened to someone that you know or care about?

I think this is a cheap argument. You are basing your entire promotion of gun ownership on the same low chance of someone dying.

I have no issue with handguns. I grew up with them, ive had fun shooting them, and I know lots of good people who love the "gun culture". I don't sweat hanging out with anyone whos concealed carrying, and i probably never knew it anyway.

However, they are still intended to kill, and there's still unintended consequences with owning them. You can do everything right and still bury your child. You can do everything right and still get mauled by a bear. You can live in a home in a bad neighborhood due to lack of wealth, have a gun to protect yourself and still catch a stray bullet watching TV.

I get the argument of wanting to be in control and letting the chips fall where they may. I am also more than willing to admit that my current lifestyle does not put me in a higher risk pool for robbery and whatnot.

I just don't think the totality of risk associated with it coupled with the lack of guaranteed success makes total sense to someones whos not in a very specific set of circumstances.

lets also not lose track. This particular thread of the discussion came off the insurance plan analogy.
Reply Quote
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to diehard03 • 4:01p, 1/6/21
AG
diehard03 said:
Quote:
The chance of someone dying seems (to me) outsized in your mind relative to the actual number of deaths in the ways that you're explaining. Has something like this happened to someone that you know or care about?

I think this is a cheap argument. You are basing your entire promotion of gun ownership on the same low chance of someone dying.

I have no issue with handguns. I grew up with them, ive had fun shooting them, and I know lots of good people who love the "gun culture". I don't sweat hanging out with anyone whos concealed carrying, and i probably never knew it anyway.

However, they are still intended to kill, and there's still unintended consequences with owning them. You can do everything right and still bury your child. You can do everything right and still get mauled by a bear. You can live in a home in a bad neighborhood due to lack of wealth, have a gun to protect yourself and still catch a stray bullet watching TV.

I get the argument of wanting to be in control and letting the chips fall where they may. I am also more than willing to admit that my current lifestyle does not put me in a higher risk pool for robbery and whatnot.

I just don't think the totality of risk associated with it coupled with the lack of guaranteed success makes total sense to someones whos not in a very specific set of circumstances.

lets also not lose track. This particular thread of the discussion came off the insurance plan analogy.


I'm not going for a cheap argument or anything personal. I'm doing what an actuary working in an insurance company would do to evaluate cost. They would use probabilities factoring in actual events like crime rates in a given area. Your argument intentionally discounts those when putting a cost on ownership yet is still presented as a reasonable and realistic.

How do we engage in an argument about insurance when actual crimes and hard numbers are ignored for an idea like 'aggregate impact'? It's like an argument of standing. It sounds like someone doesn't have a case until they do. But why wait for the crime to occur?
Reply Quote
1 edit
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:14p, 1/6/21
Quote:
I'm not going for a cheap argument or anything personal. I'm doing what an actuary working in an insurance company would do to evaluate cost. They would use probabilities factoring in actual events like crime rates in a given area. Your argument intentionally discounts those when putting a cost on ownership yet is still presented as a reasonable and realistic.

How do we engage in an argument about insurance when actual crimes and hard numbers are ignored for an idea like 'aggregate impact'? It's like an argument of standing. It sounds like someone doesn't have a case until they do. But why wait for the crime to occur?

You didn't arrive at your decision based on actuary data though. You got sideswiped with your family in the car. That's why I called it a cheap argument. I don't get the "don't fearmonger my fearmongering!"

You act like you want to talk about this with some court room rigor. I've already admitted that we can't wholly quantify this, but you are attacking the process as if that magically swings the argument in your favor.

I'll make this easy - if you live in an area where it makes sense to carry a gun knowing full well that you are responsible for what happens with that gun AND it might not even save your life, then that's fine. As others have mentioned - it's also ok to want control and accept the increased risk (if it actually turns out that way). We should just be honest with ourselves though.
Reply Quote
Patriot101
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Pro Sandy • 6:12p, 1/6/21
Pro Sandy said:
And something about live by the sword, die by the sword


Yep...But here Jesus tells them to purchase a sword.

"And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough (Luke 22:35-38; ESV)."
Reply Quote
5
Patriot101
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:16p, 1/6/21
When Paul teaches to submit to civil government, he mentions a literal sword (Romans 13:4).

So the role of government is different.


Also,

"It is true that our Lord rebuked Peter for cutting off Malchus' ear (Matt 26:5152; John 18:19) but it is also true that Peter owned a sword and that Jesus did not tell him to get rid of it. He told him to return it to its scabbard. A sword is returned to its scabbard for future use. This passage is the paradigm for sorting out the distinction between self-defense and martyrdom."

Peter was possibly supposed to comply with civil authorities. This wasn't self defense.

https://heidelblog.net/2016/08/on-self-defense/
Reply Quote
1 edit
Patriot101
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:19p, 1/6/21
And turning the other cheek wasn't discussing a fist fight. In ancient Jewish culture the elder may strike a man with the back of his hand. And if he does so, Jesus is saying to offer him your other cheek.
Reply Quote
5
2 edits
anaag75
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:46p, 1/6/21
AG
I am a pastor that carries every Sunday, and in fact, every time I'm in our building or on our campus. We have another pastor on staff that does the same.

The simple reason is that I believe part of my job as a shepherd is to defend, and if necessary, lay down my life for the sheep.

We serve in an area that is rife with drug use. We have people break into our buildings, vandalize, steal, etc. multiple times per year. In particular, there were two occasions where I thought I might have to use my firearm.

The first was during a staff meeting on a Tuesday morning where a man who was high as a kite was beating on the doors trying to break in. We called the police as he continued to try to find a way into the building. An hour later the police came. Luckily, he wasn't able to bust out a window or kick down a door. He was long gone by the time the police arrived.

The second time was on a Wednesday night. Our church is just down the road from a government subsided housing project where we do a lot of ministry work. Unfortunately, it's also the major source of drugs in our area. A naked man ran from the apartments down the highway, onto our campus and forced his way into a building where our children's ministry was having classes. He was screaming that there was a car full of men coming to kill him. A car full of men did show up and were asking about the man. We didn't know if they were trying to help or harm him. Eventually, he ran away into a neighborhood behind the church. We called the police on this occasion as well. Again, it took over an hour to show up.

These are just two examples of dozens where we have people showing up with nefarious intent. Thankfully, I didn't have to use my firearm on either occasion, but I would have to protect our staff, our members, or the kids who attend our church. I understand that's not everyone's decision, but it's mine, and I know that if I ever do have to use it, it will haunt me. But I will not let harm come to our people unnecessarily. If I do have to shoot someone, I will expend every effort to save their life after the fact.

It's unfortunate and I don't like it, but I feel it's part of my job to protect our people and guests from imminent danger or bodily harm.
Reply Quote
12
TxAgPreacher
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Dumpster Fire • 12:59a, 1/7/21
S
Dumpster Fire said:
Something something turn the other cheek.

Something something give your tunic also

He says if someone slaps you(an insult more than an attack) you allow him to insult you again. The bible is pro self defense. I'm a properly licensed LTC holder. Licensed by the state to legally dispense justice by stopping an active shooter.

"for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."

Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Pro Sandy
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Patriot101 • 6:21a, 1/7/21
AG
Patriot101 said:
Pro Sandy said:
And something about live by the sword, die by the sword


Yep...But here Jesus tells them to purchase a sword.

"And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough (Luke 22:35-38; ESV)."
But the only time we see a disciple use a sword, Jesus rebukes him. All the apostles willingly laid their life on the line and didn't use a sword to defend themselves when a vast majority of them were martyred by either the state or religious leaders.
Reply Quote
3
Patriot101
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Pro Sandy • 6:36a, 1/7/21
Pro Sandy said:
Patriot101 said:
Pro Sandy said:
And something about live by the sword, die by the sword


Yep...But here Jesus tells them to purchase a sword.

"And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" They said, "Nothing." He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors.' For what is written about me has its fulfillment." And they said, "Look, Lord, here are two swords." And he said to them, "It is enough (Luke 22:35-38; ESV)."
But the only time we see a disciple use a sword, Jesus rebukes him. All the apostles willingly laid their life on the line and didn't use a sword to defend themselves when a vast majority of them were martyred by either the state or religious leaders.


I guess that your eyes were blinded to the screen because we already covered that. See here.

Religious leaders were apart of the state of Israel.
This article discusses on how to respond to civil government and how to respond to non-government entitles by self defense. There is a distinction. Martyrdom is when faced with persecution from the state. Self defense is when dealing with individuals whom have no right or authority to take a life.

https://heidelblog.net/2016/08/on-self-defense/
Reply Quote
2 edits
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:11a, 1/7/21
AG
"Licensed by the state to legally dispense justice by stopping an active shooter."

...That's not what a CHL means at all.
Reply Quote
10
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TxAgPreacher • 7:24a, 1/7/21
AG
You are not the ruler St Paul speaks of having authority in Romans 13. And, instead of drawing a conclusion about what he is writing in a historical way - because going back to the prophets, specifically Daniel, rulers have been agents of God's justice in the world - you want to bring some kind of conclusion that because you have a CHL now you're divinely deputized to kill others made in the image of God?

Why not read his direct instructions on such things just a few pages earlier?

Bless those who persecute you. Bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but enjoy the company of the lowly. Do not be conceited.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Carefully consider what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible on your part, live at peace with everyone.

Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but leave room for God's wrath. For it is written: "Vengeance is Mine; I will repay, says the Lord."

On the contrary,

"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him a drink.
For in so doing,
you will heap burning coals on his head."

Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.


Now this does not invalidate killing in self defense. It may be necessary for someone to do so. But this cavalier attitude you have is troubling, along with the cheap use of scripture to justify it.

And at any rate we need to read Romans 13 in context with the preceding verses about gifts and the body, and also with everything before the "therefore" which begins chapter 11. Everything in the second portion of the epistle, from chapter 11 on, is a "therefore" from the theological themes and discussions St Paul lays out in chapters 1-11. This isn't some random musing about authority and some philosophical point he's making about authority in a vacuum, on principle, out of left field. If nothing else this is a very real call against zealotry and insurrection against Rome. This was a real problem at the time and it brought down horrible, horrible consequences on Jews both in Judaea and all over the world. We should mind the lesson here.
Reply Quote
5
3 edits
Patriot101
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:44a, 1/7/21
Be nice, Zobel.
Reply Quote
2
PacifistAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Patriot101 • 8:55a, 1/7/21
AG

Nevermind. No use.
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Star Wars Memes Only
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 9:40a, 1/7/21
Zobel said:
"Licensed by the state to legally dispense justice by stopping an active shooter."

...That's not what a CHL means at all.

Yea, that statement is concerning.
Reply Quote
6
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Star Wars Memes Only • 12:30p, 1/7/21
AG
dargscisyhp said:
Zobel said:
"Licensed by the state to legally dispense justice by stopping an active shooter."

...That's not what a CHL means at all.

Yea, that statement is concerning.
Whether accurate or not, you wonder if this person is hoping for this opportunity.
Reply Quote
7
diehard03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:47p, 1/7/21
Yep. marked difference between his response and anaag75s.
Reply Quote
4
TxAgPreacher
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 3:45p, 1/11/21
S
kurt vonnegut said:
dargscisyhp said:
Zobel said:
"Licensed by the state to legally dispense justice by stopping an active shooter."

...That's not what a CHL means at all.

Yea, that statement is concerning.
Whether accurate or not, you wonder if this person is hoping for this opportunity.


The fact that you would automatically assume this says more about you than me. I pray I never have to use it, but in today's world unfortunately it's necessary. It would be wrong for me to not protect the innocent.

God was fine with Abraham rounding up a militia to rescue Lot, the women, and children. When did Christian's become so weak?
Reply Quote
3
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TxAgPreacher • 3:49p, 1/11/21
AG
When did Christian preachers start suggesting that violence is strength?
Reply Quote
3
TxAgPreacher
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 3:51p, 1/11/21
S
Zobel said:
When did Christian preachers start suggesting that violence is strength?


Straw man
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TxAgPreacher • 3:51p, 1/11/21
AG
I'm not sure you understand what that phrase means.
Reply Quote
2
TxAgPreacher
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 3:52p, 1/11/21
S
Zobel said:
I'm not sure you understand what that phrase means.


You're starting to get nasty. To win you have to attack my intelligence?
Reply Quote
4
Star Wars Memes Only
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:54p, 1/11/21
I frankly think someone like Pacifist, if she can truly stick to her conviction and avoid violence at all costs, is perhaps strongest of all.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.