Posted on 02/27/2019 4:42:17 AM PST by marktwain
“Turn cheek or lives by sword?”
(Baptist pastor, BJU grad, started memorizing Scripture in 1968)
I can answer that if you really wanna know. Message me and I will reply.
“Turn cheek or lives by sword?”
(Baptist pastor, BJU grad, started memorizing Scripture in 1968)
I can answer that if you really wanna know. Message me and I will reply.
I would LOVE to know
i know it can’t be as simple as it sounds.
thank you
.
“Keep and bear” being the operative terms!
Keeping is in the home, and bearing is everywhere else.
.
Quick answer, hope it is enough to get you thinking:
“Who lives by the sword... “ Jesus does not say that it is a sin to live by the sword, else none could be soldiers. He is just saying what can be expected as the result of that as a lifelong tactic. Furthermore Peter might think of wielding a mighty claymore and vanquishing all evil, but as a disciple of Jesus, he chose to take up his cross and die for them. How can I kill you, if I want to die for you?!?
“Turn the other cheek...” Jesus says that you can expect from God the Father exactly what you dish out. So if I have wronged you and deserve a slap, my genuine repentance guides me to go beyond mere eye-for-eye restitution. Since God has forgiven me of so much, so much indeed, if you make me go a mile, I’ll go with you for two.
You are so right about contradictions between proverbs, and you earn my respect to be smart to see it. For example, people will say, “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” Then another day they might say, “ A bird in hand is worth two in the bush “ Do they not see the contradiction? And if the Bible were such a book, with similar truisms some for Sunday, others for Monday, no man could take it seriously. Patient investigation of scripture paradoxes, always reveals deeper truth.
So when Jesus cleanses the Temple is He contradicting Himself? No He is correcting the perversion of God’s truth. The money lenders made His Temple odious, the Pharisees, hypocrites, made His law odious. With His sermon on the mount He does with words to the Pharisees what He does to the money lenders with a whip. Far from a contradiction, it is perfectly consistent. In the Temple He overturns tables, on the mount He overturns teachings.
Took me a little time to get back here, sorry. Your idea that bearing arms outside the home might not be “part of the right” to keep and bear arms is, quite frankly, absurd. The wording of the Second Amendment does not place nor imply any such restrictions, or indeed any restrictions at all, on that right.
That’s ok, it happens.
Your idea that bearing arms outside the home might not be “part of the right” to keep and bear arms is, quite frankly, absurd.
That’s not my idea. That idea is from the article, which I quoted as follows: “The primary issue is whether there is *any* right to bear arms outside of the home."
The wording of the Second Amendment does not place nor imply any such restrictions, or indeed any restrictions at all, on that right.
The wording of the Second Amendment does not explain that right at all, except to state that, whatever the right means, it shall not be infringed.
My idea is that we need to concentrate more on the meaning, extent, scope and so forth of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and stop knee jerk responding with “shall not be infringed”.
If they try to pass a law prohibiting five-year olds from publicly carrying NAA revolvers, fully loaded, cocked , with their fingers on the trigger, saying “shall not be infringed” will not serve as an argument against the law in the minds of many people. You’ll have to explain why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” extends to five-year olds.
If they try to pass a law prohibiting someone from publicly wearing a suicide vest with a dead man’s switch in their hand, saying “shall not be infringed” will not serve as an argument against the law in the minds of many people. You’ll have to explain why “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” extends to such action.
Such explanations require more concentration on the meaning, extant, scope, and so forth of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. If we don’t do it, our opponents or those in the middle between us and our opponents will, and we won’t like the outcome.
Sorry, the wording of the Second Amendment does not have to explain the right. It says what it says. I will continue to have a “knee jerk” attitude toward denial of that, regardless of whatever reductio ad absurdum arguments may be presented in opposition.
So you agree the Second Amendment protects the right of five-year olds to publicly carry NAA revolvers, fully loaded, cocked , with their fingers on the trigger and the right of someone to publicly wear a suicide vest with a dead man’s switch in their hand.
If I agreed to that, I would have said so. I didn’t. Go away.
Then you don’t agree with it and you think “Shall not be infringed” doesn’t always apply.
Or maybe you want it both ways.
Look, goober, the so-called arguments that you are coming up with do not apply to my position. A five-year-old does not have the same rights as an adult. As for the suicide bomber, I wouldn’t care if he went off somewhere that nobody else was endangered, and there blew himself to bits. The Second Amendment does not protect a person’s right to do unjustified harm to another person, because there is no such right. I hope that you aren’t stupid enough to argue that it does. So far, I’m not sure of that.
Take your little technique of proposing absurd and irrelevant situations, then claiming that someone agrees with them because he didn’t specifically show why they don’t apply, and try it on somebody else.
I have wasted enough time on you.
Consider the problems the Founders had with all this. And they couldn’t just say “Go Away”, not and make it stick.
They probably belittled each other though, as you have done, but just as with you, I doubt it advanced the cause.
I only belittle the deserving, and don’t expect to advance any cause thereby.
Interesting that both Patton and Mac shared such common viewpoints on conserving resources by awaiting and encircling enemy strongpoints, cutting them off from receiving further supplies until they're no longer strong. And that too is something we're not-yet- doing.
Another detail or two to add into your analysis: the current admin assistant to NRA sellout Executive Vice President and Quisling-in-chief Wayne LaPierre is a former senior staffer of the NJ Rifle & Pistol Clubs, who hopes to ride LaPierre the Poodle's coattails so that he too can loot the membership for some 5 million worth of salary, benefits, and P.R. firm kickbacks per year [if not out right payoffs from the opposition] as the next NRA Idi Amin.
It would also be nice to see Judge Thomas Michael Hardiman replace Ruth Bader-Meinhoff on the Supremes before the NJ, or any other important piece of 2nd Amendment legislation is reviewed there. I am not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, nor for him to be President Trump's next choice. But we can hope.
Of course, when Patton's Third Army DID encounter a German town or village that was a strongpoint and had to be taken due to road or rail bridges or junctions or other considerations, they had a few novel methods of doing business, including the opening of new doors to avoid existing ones that might be booby-trapped or covered by fire from inside. The use of direct fire from 155mm self-propelled artillery at one and two city block ranges at Aachen comes to mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.