Forgive me for i have sinned

[jgrauman]

http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58942

[Guest canynracer]

that is the best thing I have ever seen.... need a kleenex

[molonlabetn]

Those stories are always good to hear.

[Guest flyfishtn]

Very nice read.

[NuTcAsE]

These stories are good to hear, since no one was hurt especially her child. Still though it makes me sad. I don't mean to be a bhole, but I can't help but wonder how could anybody be so stupid? I mean there is/was no rational thought process until this incident. Sadly, it took her and her child being in grave danger to bring her to reality.

I just don't get it...

[Guest canynracer]

thats how most anti-gunners are, they dont thnk about it cause they live in a bubble...

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

I love these stories. Just try and show me one where someone's life was saved with a gun and they went anti.

[Guest Steelharp]

Well, I sent the story to one of my total lib musician buddies of mine... his first response:

I'm kind of torn by this question Mike. On one hand, I don't want to

forbid people from having a gun. On the other, we have more guns in

this nation than anywhere on the planet, yet we are one of the most

violent nations on earth. There's a pretty good correlation between us

having guns and the violence that is prevalent. In addition, we find

nothing wrong with most people's assertions that you have to drive

defensively because of all the stupid, inept, and incompetent drivers

out there, but then we want to give those same people guns and that

would make us safer. We have to deal with road rage and one way is to

give those people guns and actually encourage them to do so.

I can't agree guns make our society safer. I disagree. It might make a

few people safer, if everyone had your temperament, morals, and sense

of responsibility, but I think you can agree that that's not the case.

The only real solution is to ban alll guns, but I really don't want

that either. I may not want one, but I'll fight to the death to protect

your right to own one!

Then there's the religious side of it. I have not found one passage in

the new testament, and none of my super devout friends have either,

where Jesus espouses any kind of violence. There's no mention of self

protection. No mention of protecting one's family or way of life. His

answer was to leave it up to God. If you believe in the message, guns

for protection are not needed. Sport maybe, but not to kill someone

before they kill you. That takes a lot of faith not too many people are

capable of. I guess maybe humans are not so special. It's still

survival of the strongest, kill or be killed. Guess we haven't come

that far after all.</pre>

[Rightwinger]

Find a new musician buddy??

[Guest Boomhower]

Well, I sent the story to one of my total lib musician buddies of mine... his first response:

I'm kind of torn by this question Mike. On one hand, I don't want to

forbid people from having a gun. On the other, we have more guns in

this nation than anywhere on the planet, yet we are one of the most

violent nations on earth. There's a pretty good correlation between us

having guns and the violence that is prevalent. In addition, we find

nothing wrong with most people's assertions that you have to drive

defensively because of all the stupid, inept, and incompetent drivers

out there, but then we want to give those same people guns and that

would make us safer. We have to deal with road rage and one way is to

give those people guns and actually encourage them to do so.

I can't agree guns make our society safer. I disagree. It might make a

few people safer, if everyone had your temperament, morals, and sense

of responsibility, but I think you can agree that that's not the case.

The only real solution is to ban alll guns, but I really don't want

that either. I may not want one, but I'll fight to the death to protect

your right to own one!

Then there's the religious side of it. I have not found one passage in

the new testament, and none of my super devout friends have either,

where Jesus espouses any kind of violence. There's no mention of self

protection. No mention of protecting one's family or way of life. His

answer was to leave it up to God. If you believe in the message, guns

for protection are not needed. Sport maybe, but not to kill someone

before they kill you. That takes a lot of faith not too many people are

capable of. I guess maybe humans are not so special. It's still

survival of the strongest, kill or be killed. Guess we haven't come

that far after all.

</PRE>

Maybe you should send him this informative and well prepared article that mousegunner put together......Maybe he should study his Bible a little more instead of thinking all the time......I guess we haven't came that far. In today's society, there are a number of people that would put a bullet in your head and not think twice about it. You can look at that as it's your time to meet the good man above, or you can prepare yourself and protect yourself from such malicious acts of violence.

[Guest Steelharp]

Here is his response to:

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2744

Should Christians Keep and Bear Arms

A Christian Viewpoint

Dr. Marshall C. St. John

</pre>--------------

I appreciate the effort. I have to say that this guy's interpretations are a big stretch in certain cases.

The OT is full of violence and verse about war. It also stones people

to death for a variety of offenses that would eliminate half of the

musicians in this town! Adultery comes to mind first! It's from

another time. Before knowledge and firearms, biological warfare and

test tube babies. In light of what we now know, much of the OT has to

be taken with a large salt shaker.

As far as the NT verse, I have to disagree with the message that this

guy has taken from scripture. Jesus tells the disciples to buy swords.

What to do with them has been interjected into the verse by this

pastor. I did find it interesting that he told them to buy swords.

That would be a justification to use them for defense if that was what

he was implying, but he never actually came out and said it, and this

passage is only in Luke, not in the other four. I checked it out.

You basically can find some passage in the bible to justify anything.

In contrast to the above check this out also from Luke 21:14. Any anti-gun nut could use this to refute the use of force and weapons for protection:

* 12.But before all these things , they will lay their hands on

you and will persecute you, delivering you to the synagogues and

prisons , bringing you before kings and governors for My name's sake .

13.It will lead to an opportunity for your testimony .

14.So make up your minds not to prepare beforehand to defend

yourselves;

15.for I will give you utterance and wisdom which none of your

opponents will be able to resist or refute .

16.But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives

and friends , and they will put some of you to death ,

17.and you will be hated by all because of My name.

See? I'm just not another pretty drummer! No protecting ones self.

Quite the opposite. If I were a preacher wanting to get a point

across, I would say this verse shows us that life here is not the

important thing. That violence will only prevent us from going to

heaven! I can twist literature with the best of them.

There is no smiting in the NT. There's no eye for an eye or kill for

protection. The one time a disciple did use a sword to cut off a man's

ear, Jesus stopped him and then healed the ear. The words

"self-defense" never leaves Jesus's mouth! The words "protect our

family and way of life" is not uttered in ANY form or grouping of

words or phrases. It's just not there. I checked!

Jesus said in another place, "He who lives by the sword shall

die by the sword." Jesus encourages his followers to defend

themselves, but He does not encourage us to be eager for battle and

bloodshed.

Here's a great example of twisting scripture to fit your own

needs. There's no mention of defending anything. That's put in there

2000+ years later. Later on he quotes from Paul about taking care of

your household, and adds bearing arms and killing into the mix!

Racists have used the bible for decades to justify their positions.

And then you have to take into account the various translations,

languages and different versions of the bible. Put that into the mix!

I'd rather relax and drink beer.

Then this guy quotes the Constitution about a "well regulated

militia". Now what does that mean today? I would assume it would be

the national guard. That's about as close as we get to the militia

that existed in their time. Militias don't exist anymore in large part

because weapons of war are so powerful. It's not just rifles and

pistols. In their day, the general populace had the same weapons as

the army. You can't let loose the military weapons of today on the

population that are designed to take out battalions of enemy. That's

what would have to happen to replicate what the founding fathers were

talking about when they said "militia", and the whole sentence very

clearly makes that link. In order to insure "the security of a free

state", we would need the same weaponry as the armed forces. Times

have changed my friend.

Thanks for the very thoughtful attempt to explain things Mike. Again,

this is just a mental exercise. I still want you to have your guns. If

for no other reason that I can call you to save my ass!!! I'm just

trying to eliminate some of the bulls--- reasons NRA and politicians

use to justify things. It's more honest.

If you run across anything else, send it on.

[Guest DrBoomBoom]

He's willing to let you have guns so you can save his ass! How nice of him. How kind. He wants to use the Bible as a reason not to have guns, then wants to say you can't use the Bible to refute him because it can be "twisted" to "fit your own needs." THAT'S WHAT HE DID. Watch out, Mikey. This guy will be knocking on your door if the SHTF, he'd eat your food faster than my son, then hide behind you while you're shooting.

"Hey, Mr. Drummer buddy, you mind reloading while I'm holding off the enemy hordes?"

"No sir, Mr. Steelharp, I don't dirty my hands on gun stuff, just keep shooting, would you?"

[Rightwinger]

again.....find a new musician buddy

[Guest Boomhower]

I bet he's just a HOOT to be around in his times of websternisiam. But he's absolutely right, even he can twist the meanings into whatever he so desires.

Jesus said in another place, "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword." Jesus encourages his followers to defend

themselves, but He does not encourage us to be eager for battle and

bloodshed.

Oooooo k, and this doesn't contradict anything he said throughout that short novel....but anywhooooo, when did self defense become eagerness for battle and bloodshed again? I missed that part in my class . If I were a superhero, cleaning up the streets of all the bad guys, then I might consider his statement.

I can tell that by you sending him the information here, and then posting his response back up here for us to read and respond to, that you've already given up on him yourself....and I can't say that I blame you a bit. At least he's not completely biased towards guns.

[Guest Steelharp]

I'm not so sure I've "given up on him;" he's an old friend I've known for years, and we definitely disagree in a lot of areas, but he has an unusual ability that I haven't found in most of the libs I run into. He doesn't get over emotional when in a conversation. He retains his demeanor, and actually listens to other points of view, and thinks about it before he responds. He really is fun to get into discussions with.

I am pleased that while he doesn't necessarily want to own a gun, he would never deny my right to have mine. That's more than I can say for some of our current political options.

[Guest Boomhower]

I'm sure it isn't all bad.....and I can see his points on a few things, and I even agree with him a little on a few others, but........

[jgrauman]

I do love the OT vs. NT argument by most libs/antigunners, they use the NT as an example of how christians shouldn't own guns and then just refute the ENTIRE OT.

"See? I'm just not another pretty drummer! No protecting ones self."

This example he uses in Luke was just bad.

Jesus was talking about the persecution of christians and ones willingness to die for His name and their beliefs. I would still die for my beliefs, i would still kill someone who was trying to take my life or a loved ones life for no good reason. I'm not denying my Lord by letting someone shoot me in the head, nor am I denying Him by defending the life He gave me. If Jesus had been in that parking lot with that lady and her daughter while thieves tried to kidnap them would He have just sat there and watched them get raped and killed? Pretty sure He would have stopped it. And yes, even in the NT there were thieves and killers!! Jesus even lost His temper and destroyed property!! (mark 11:15-17) I guess instead of having to refute facts (yes i consider them facts, I believe the Bible, the entire Bible, not just the parts i like) we could just throw out the NT as well or take it with a grain of salt.

off topic, i really love the stone to death comment about the OT and adultery, live and let live lib mentality trying to use the NT to overturn the OT again. Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," (john 8:7) not, "let everybody do whatever they want, to hell with the consequences." Jesus's point was to not judge others, that is not our job, but his,"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Luke 6:41-42

Back on topic,

"The words "self-defense" never leaves Jesus's mouth! It's just not there. I checked!"

"...Jesus encourages his followers to defend themselves..."

i would touch on these two statements, but i'm pretty sure they are just to stupid to even respond to.

as for the militia statements, i think we all have beaten that argument to death on here before, but if he's going to say that times have changed, things don't mean the same thing now as they did then, then i will say right back at him, "maybe "militia" didn't mean the same thing back then as it does today." He can't say, "Now what does that mean today? I would assume it would be the national guard." How can one make such a statement? oh okay, if you ASSUME that then that's an excellent bases for an argument... my fault for thinking otherwise... i assume that ashley judd would marry me if only she was graced with my presence, but hell, what do i know...

[Guest jackdog]

That womens letter was worth reading. But as far as not carrying a gun based on the bible I'm not buying it. Hell the church's have killed and tortured for eon's and now the bible says no guns, sorry thats just BS. As far as violent crime goes, as long as we have prison system that nurtures criminals it will only get worse. Talk to criminals from eastern eroupe about our prisons and they laugh their asses off. It is not the guns, it's the system that fails to punish the criminals that is at fault.

[Guest Steelharp]

jgrauman, just for kicks I e-mailed your reply to him... I'll see what I get back. He loves discussions like this.

[towerclimber37]

These stories are good to hear, since no one was hurt especially her child. Still though it makes me sad. I don't mean to be a bhole, but I can't help but wonder how could anybody be so stupid? I mean there is/was no rational thought process until this incident. Sadly, it took her and her child being in grave danger to bring her to reality.

I just don't get it...

.

Nut, sometimes it takes a hammer for some folks to see the light. there are others that look around and assess...this lady needed a hammer.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

Well, I sent the story to one of my total lib musician buddies of mine... his first response:

I'm kind of torn by this question Mike. On one hand, I don't want to

forbid people from having a gun. On the other, we have more guns in

this nation than anywhere on the planet, yet we are one of the most

violent nations on earth. There's a pretty good correlation between us

having guns and the violence that is prevalent.

</PRE>

</P>

I have a problem with this argument and I have been faced with it many times before. We as a nation most likely have the highest number of people named Smith too, but nobody seems to be saying that it correlates to us being 'one of the most violent nations on earth'. His comparison to the number of guns and the amount of violence we have is just simply jaded. And speaking of us being 'one of the most violent places on the planet' - has your musician buddy been to other countries? I recently read a UN report that showed the Scotland was 3 times more violent than the U.S. Wonder what the gun ownership rates and laws are in Scotland?

[towerclimber37]

I have a problem with this argument and I have been faced with it many times before. We as a nation most likely have the highest number of people named Smith too, but nobody seems to be saying that it correlates to us being 'one of the most violent nations on earth'. His comparison to the number of guns and the amount of violence we have is just simply jaded. And speaking of us being 'one of the most violent places on the planet' - has your musician buddy been to other countries? I recently read a UN report that showed the Scotland was 3 times more violent than the U.S. Wonder what the gun ownership rates and laws are in Scotland?

I don't think he's been to liberia lately either.

his facts are wrong.

[Guest Steelharp]

Ok, this is gonna be fun... if ya can read it all. He thinks a lot, I gotta give him that... his responses are the text that is NOT in bold. The bold is what he is responding to from the thread.

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

I do love the OT vs. NT argument by most libs/antigunners, they use

the NT as an example of how Christians shouldn't own guns and then

just refute the ENTIRE OT.

Well first off, this isn't about whether Christians should

own guns. This would be more about using the bible for confirmation.

I've talked with a couple of different rabbis about why Christians can

use their words and teachings, because the OT is theirs after all, and

they both told me (not together...they were several years apart) that

the OT of the Christian bible is not an exact translation. Aside from

that, Jesus may have fulfilled prophecy, but his teachings are in

direct conflict with parts of the OT. DIRECT!!! And I love people who

believe that the bible is a literal, factual, and historical teaching.

To do this one has to ignore a lot of things. First, all of the

scientific evidence dating the earth. Second, Darwin and evolution.

Third, you would have to agree with and believe in the following.

Slavery (98 references in both the OT and NT) putting adulterers to

death (totally refuted in the NT by "he who has not sinned"), that

people lived for hundreds of years at one time despite all the

evidence to the contrary regarding average lifespan, that people who

divorce and then marry are the same as adulterers, that gays should be

ostracized or killed, that those who believe in anything else are the

enemy, that women should not wear any kind of pants or slacks and

should be ostracized if they do, and many more, that not feeding and

clothing the poor is an abomination and should be punished, and on

and on. A Christian who believes in everything in the bible is the

same as the Muslim who uses the Koran to justify whatever his cause

is. Atrocities have been committed repeatedly by men in the name of

whatever God they need at the time and then produce scripture and

verse to back them up. Not only that, but if one uses the bible as a

literal teaching, and Christianity is inherently exclusive, because

there is only one way to heaven and all others are doomed to eternal

hell, and all our laws are to be based on Christian belief, then what

we would have is a theocracy in which there is no room for any other

beliefs which is exactly what the founding fathers did NOT want. I

won't even start into our incredibly UNChristian history in this

country. Suffice it to say,

"DON'T USE THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY YOUR SECULAR BELIEFS!!" It's not a

good fit.

"See? I'm just not another pretty drummer! No protecting ones self."

This example he uses in Luke was just bad.

Jesus was talking about the persecution of Christians and ones

willingness to die for His name and their beliefs.

That is entirely correct. What DIDN'T happen is all of the

following sentences. Jesus did not teach that. Something for

spiritually weak men to deal with, and I would include myself into

that group. He did NOT justify killing someone to protect loved ones.

I would still die for my beliefs, i would still kill someone

who was trying to take my life or a loved ones life for no good

reason. I'm not denying my Lord by letting someone shoot me in the

head, nor am I denying Him by defending the life He gave me. If Jesus

had been in that parking lot with that lady and her daughter while

thieves tried to kidnap them would He have just sat there and watched

them get raped and killed? Pretty sure He would have stopped it. And

yes, even in the NT there were thieves and killers!! Jesus even lost

His temper and destroyed property!! (mark 11:15-17)

Yes he did lose his temper and threw them out by overturning

their tables and driving them out. He did NOT beat the s--- out of

them! Nothing in there about that.

I guess instead of having to refute facts (yes i consider

them facts, I believe the Bible, the entire Bible, not just the parts

i like) we could just throw out the NT as well or take it with a grain

of salt.

2 things. I'm not espousing throwing out the NT, or the OT

for that matter. Both books show how to lead a good life, but only if

you don't believe them as literal, for there are so many

contradictions and things we now consider unlawful that you could not

live by the word literally. And I'm not picking the parts I like. I'm

acknowledging that there are parts that don't work in todays world. To

agree that Jesus told the disciples to be prepared to die for their

belief in Him, but not when it comes to family...when it's not written

that way... is a form of cherry picking.

off topic, i really love the stone to death comment about the OT and

adultery, live and let live lib mentality trying to use the NT to

overturn the OT again. Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the

first stone," (john 8:7) not, "let everybody do whatever they want, to

hell with the consequences." Jesus's point was to not judge others,

that is not our job, but his,"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust

in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own

eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck

out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own

eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you

will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Luke

6:41-42

Again correct. We are not to pass judgment. That's God's

job. To kill someone (thou shall not kill) is passing our own

judgment. The OT has numerous examples of people killing people.

Another contradiction which is not to be found in the NT. I totally

understand the need for revenge and justice. Whether that's Christian

is another matter.

Back on topic,

"The words "self-defense" never leaves Jesus's mouth! It's just not

there. I checked!"

"...Jesus encourages his followers to defend themselves..."

i would touch on these two statements, but I'm pretty sure they are

just too stupid to even respond to.

as for the militia statements, i think we all have beaten that

argument to death on here before, but if he's going to say that times

have changed, things don't mean the same thing now as they did then,

then i will say right back at him, "maybe "militia" didn't mean the

same thing back then as it does today." He can't say, "Now what does

that mean today? I would assume it would be the national guard." How

can one make such a statement? oh okay, if you ASSUME that then that's

an excellent bases for an argument... my fault for thinking

otherwise... i assume that ashley judd would marry me if only she was

graced with my presence, but hell, what do i know...

Totally avoiding my point about weapons. IF a populace could

be armed with the same weapons as the armed forces today, namely

automatic weapons, mortars, grenades, artillery, smart bombs, etc...

a militia would be feasible. That is not the case. There were rifles,

cannon, swords, and pistols! No planes, cruise missiles, rockets,

etc... Is he saying that our founding fathers would be in favor of

the general populace having incredibly destructive weapons such as

these in our homes?

And what bulls--- is this?

"militia" didn't mean the same thing back then as it does today."

He offers no other explanation! A militia is a militia. This wasn't an ancient Greek

translation. There are no militia in our country today. Not legal ones

anyway! The national guard is as close as we come to a real militia

today, and that still comes under the command of the president!

But again, I'm not arguing about abolishing all weapons. What really

pisses me off is A. Using the bible to justify this stuff. and B. Not

acknowledging the danger and harm weapons bring to our society but

instead trying to argue that if guns were allowed with no

restrictions, we would be much safer.

Again, I go back to the FACT that if gunny's thinking is sound, since

we can now own guns individually, we should be the safest nation on

earth. That's not the case. We are the most violent of the

industrialized nations. Guns aren't only a solution, they are also a

problem.</pre>

[jgrauman]

honestly after reading his responses this is just a revolving door that i'm not going to be stuck in.

And what bulls--- is this?

"militia" didn't mean the same thing back then as it does today."

He offers no other explanation! A militia is a militia.

i CANNOT STAND when people pull quotes out of context and offer no evidence as to the original quote. it's called an Ellipsis, use it if you are going to quote someone, especially when you are doing so to change the entire meaning of the quote so that others who have not read the original quote know that you are pulling it out of context.

[Guest bkelm18]

And this is why I am not religious or ever enter into religious arguments. Too much blind faith, loopholes, and loose interpretations.