|
|
1910
Known Hero
|
posted April 28, 2011 10:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Not all killing is murder as is quite clear from the Bible saying a man who kills a thief who is breaking into his home is not guilty of any wrongdoing. Proper research does not seem to suit your agenda.
You tell that to a court room and they'd probably laugh at all. There's self defense and then there's killing. Whether or not he is stealing your things is irrelevant. In any case, you killed somebody and that would be regarded as murder whether you like it or not. It shocks me that you'd think it was alright to kill a thief who enters your home. I'd beat them up enough so that I can call the cops but I would not kill the man/woman. You're seriously deluded if you think that is an okay thing to do. I think YOU are the one that needs to research this thing called common sense and life.
I also agree with Angelito about the gun problem. If you didn't have guns then you wouldn't have a problem. I live in Australia and the Crime rate here is really not that bad. I look at other European countries and it isn't as bad. Then you go to America and you see that it's higher than most. What's the cause? Guns. Guns kill instantly and people don't want to mess around with that but if you tried to rob somebody here you could have a chance of getting away unscathed if you defend yourself. I just see Guns as the main problem. You wouldn't rob somebody in plain site as they could knock you on your arse. You never know.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 11:04 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 23:05, 28 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
@Angel:
Your response kind or did a 180 to what I was asking,..
I thought it would be obvious with this statement of mine:
Quote:
The main point for me is "principle of proportionality".
For your example: If someone breaks into my house, and we get into a fight and he has to visit a hospital afterwards, it is quite proportional I would say. This is called "act in self-defense" and is well determined by law (at least here in germany).
If he comes into my house without a weapon, and I kill him right away, you can be sure I get into jail.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 11:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Clearly I have stated in this thread and in a number of other places that all killing is not murder and I have proved that the Bible in fact says that. Yes, a Christian can kill. No, a Christian can't murder.
Quote:
13 However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate.
14 But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
Therefor when you "kill" someone in self-defense, you are insane Christian. The other option is sane "murderer". That's cool!  
Actually the "not intentionally" part means that the person accidentally killed the person. Like his horse was out of control and he ran over some little old lady.
@Baklava
Quote:
You believe that a Christian cannot commit a misdeed such as theft, so the moment you commit one, you are no longer a Christian until you repent.
No I don't. I've said a Christian can't murder or hate. They can commit other misdeeds on occasion as Christians are not perfect. However a person who lives his life in continual sin is not a Christian.
Quote:
So if you catch someone doing a misdeed, and kill him while he's doing it, he doesn't have a chance to repent, he is no Christian, and he definitely goes to Hell for all eternity. The intruder is, apparently, your enemy here, and you love him - would you send a person you love to an endless torment in Hell? And if you would, what's the meaning of that love? What is it worth?
Do you also have the right to kill someone who is stealing from someone you don't know?
I will protect my family. If he goes to hell that is his fault, not mine. I have a responsibility to my family and I'm not going to put his welfare above my family's welfare.
I will certainly come to the aid of anyone against a criminal. If I saw someone breaking into the house of my neighbor I would certainly not stand by and do nothing.
Quote:
You already know someone who comes into your house will rape your children and kill your wife?
If they are breaking in my house they are there to prey upon my family in one way or another. If they have a gun in there hand I'll shoot them dead no questions asked. If they have no gun and they follow instructions or go back out the window and I don't have reason to perceive them as a threat they will live. If they make a sudden move that makes me perceive them as a threat they die.
Quote:
By the way, I think you're aware of both interpretations. The former justifies righteous violence, the latter promotes nonviolence.
You are the only one I have ever heard with your interpretation. Your interpretation is not correct because the Bible specifically says what the correct interpretation is in the parallel passage I quoted.
@blizzardboy
Quote:
At what point would you consider a person in a legitimate position to defend themself, if them breaking into your house does not suffice? Would you have to wait for them to knife you or somebody else before you can combat them? If it turns out they are in your house strictly to steal some of your stuff, would you be allowed to try to stop them?
Perhpas he wold sit down the the intruder and have a nice cup of tea after the intruder was done raping his daughter and ask the intruder if he really intended to rape his daughter or if he was mistaken about who his daughter was.
@1910
Actually the courts would be on my side if I killed a home invader. In Texas you can kill anyone who breaks into your car or who is stealing your property if you don't think you'll get the property back. It is called the "Castle Doctrine."
In some of the liberal states a person is not allowed to shoot a home invader and has to run for their life. Too bad if you are an elderly woman you just have to get raped or murdered. Liberals show such love to people. Well, to criminals at least. 
Quote:
I'd beat them up enough so that I can call the cops but I would not kill the man/woman.
Macho man, you do know that in real life you can't catch bullets between your teeth, right? Plus if someone like me broke into a home (over 6 feet tall, 260 pounds) I imagine I'd be able to pound most people in the ground if we actually fought.
A home invader can kill you even if he has no gun.
____________
Revelation
|
|
1910
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 11:28 PM |
|
|
|
You do know that in a normal society, people don't have guns? Most people can roam the streets freely without having to worry about getting shot or anything. Also, just because you're tall and weigh a lot doesn't mean you can fight well. If I knew how to fight well then I would be able to take you down. Not saying that everybody has to learn to fight well but there's less risk of me dying or killing somebody else if there are no guns involved. Simple. There's ALWAYS a risk of killing somebody when you fight but the risk is so high when you have a gun. You get scared you can push the trigger, you get so angry and you push the trigger and the same for them. Would you not rather have your money stolen then kill somebody? I know I would. I probably wouldn't be able to handle the thought of having taken another persons life and if you say otherwise then you're seriously deluded and a bit strange.
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 11:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are the only one I have ever heard with your interpretation. Your interpretation is not correct because the Bible specifically says what the correct interpretation is in the parallel passage I quoted.
It's not only my interpretation, some denominations as well as theologians like Jacques Ellul and John Yoder share the same view. I'm sure you know different denominations have different interpretations of the Bible. It's your personal choice what you want to believe in.Quote:
In Texas you can kill anyone who breaks into your car
Haha oh lawd.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 11:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Your interpretation is not correct because the Bible specifically says what the correct interpretation is in the parallel passage I quoted.
LOGIC FAIL
If only one interpretation is correct, then there are no "interpretations". The definite article "the" is incongruous with the phrase "correct interpretation". Vlaad's interpretation is one interpretation. It is neither correct nor incorrect. Either there are interpretations or there are not. No source specifies a "correct" interpretation.
In other, related news:
Geez, haven't you guys learned yet?
The great Jonathan Swift once wrote: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
Consider it, people. Consider it well.
|
|
SkrentyzMienty
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2011 11:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Your interpretation is not correct because the Bible specifically says what the correct interpretation is in the parallel passage I quoted.
LOGIC FAIL
If only one interpretation is correct, then there are no "interpretations". The definite article "the" is incongruous with the phrase "correct interpretation". Vlaad's interpretation is one interpretation. It is neither correct nor incorrect. Either there are interpretations or there are not. No source specifies a "correct" interpretation.
In other, related news:
Geez, haven't you guys learned yet?
The great Jonathan Swift once wrote: "It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
Consider it, people. Consider it well.
Who cares for what the bible says to begin with? 
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 12:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Your interpretation is not correct because the Bible specifically says what the correct interpretation is in the parallel passage I quoted.
LOGIC FAIL
If only one interpretation is correct, then there are no "interpretations". The definite article "the" is incongruous with the phrase "correct interpretation". Vlaad's interpretation is one interpretation. It is neither correct nor incorrect. Either there are interpretations or there are not. No source specifies a "correct" interpretation.
The Bible says the correct meaning of "numbered with the transgressors" is that he was crucified between two thieves. Of course anyone is free to be wrong and say it means to that Jesus opened a pizzeria or that Jesus built a space ship.
Quote:
Mar 15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
Mar 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 12:11 AM |
|
|
|
You do have a genuine bible right? Not that I know much about it, but from what I remember from those few classes we had at school, there were no answer pages on what the different stuff meant.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 12:19 AM |
|
|
Totally missing the point, as usual. Here it is in plain English: if the Bible's meaning is absolute, as you contend, then it is no interpretation at all. Saying "my interpretation" or "an interpretation" implies that there is some possibility that the meaning is something other than what you think it is. Given that you have never once entertained the possibility that someone else might be right on anything at all, or that your knowledge on any topic has any limit whatsoever, your heavy use of the word "interpretation" in any context is ironic to say the least.
As to this little nugget:
Quote:
Who cares for what the bible says to begin with?
Don't be a ignoramus. Just because you think something is a work of fiction does not mean it's not worth studying.
EVERY book has value. Don't reject a work of writing out of hand out of mere prejudice against its author(s) or following.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 12:23 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 00:24, 29 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
I will certainly come to the aid of anyone against a criminal. If I saw someone breaking into the house of my neighbor I would certainly not stand by and do nothing.
American law allows you to kill people in other people's houses too, does it?
And if you, Elodin, get into the house of some random person, with the intention to kill a burglar inside it, is it the duty and right of the owner of that house to kill you both because he doesn't know which one of you is going to "hurt his family"?
Also, would you kill the man just for stealing? You're saying he's going to hurt your family "one way or another"; but let's say he broke in and is carrying your TV outside. Do you kill him now, or only if he returns for more? And if he returns and is heading toward your living room, not the rooms where your family sleeps? Is it enough for him to just cross over your doorstep - without even stealing anything - for you to send him into an eternity of torment? And does he even go to Hell if killed for trespassing? Or do YOU have run risk of going to Hell for killing unnecessarily? (no, sorry, that's not an option)
Man this American Christianity is killing me. And not just me but a lot of other things too.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 12:25 AM |
|
Edited by Shyranis at 00:26, 29 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
Of course anyone is free to be wrong and say it means to that Jesus opened a pizzeria or that Jesus built a space ship.
Or wrong like the time he went Christmas tree shopping with the Man in the yellow hat, accidentally messed up the tree and forgave everyone for their sins when they scolded him? (That I admit, is wrong, just a further example)
So then, the denominations that read that passage differently are simply mistaken? Or are they also no longer Christian? I'm sure you can be both mistaken and Christian as long as you accept Jesus as your master. Right?
Edit: (this is just a bit of morbid curiousity)
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 12:32 AM |
|
|
But shyranis, aren't you canadian religious yourself?
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 12:36 AM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 00:44, 29 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
The Bible says the correct meaning of "numbered with the transgressors" is that he was crucified between two thieves. Of course anyone is free to be wrong and say it means to that Jesus opened a pizzeria or that Jesus built a space ship.
Quote:
Mar 15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
Mar 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Isn't Mark 15:28 omitted in modern versions because it doesn't appear in some of the earliest manuscripts?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 12:48 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 00:49, 29 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
but let's say he broke in and is carrying your TV outside. Do you kill him now, or only if he returns for more?
don't be stupid. if you kill him now, he will drop your tv
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 02:04 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:10, 29 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The Bible says the correct meaning of "numbered with the transgressors" is that he was crucified between two thieves. Of course anyone is free to be wrong and say it means to that Jesus opened a pizzeria or that Jesus built a space ship.
Quote:
Mar 15:27 And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.
Mar 15:28 And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.
Isn't Mark 15:28 omitted in modern versions because it doesn't appear in some of the earliest manuscripts?
Lets say the verse does not belong in Mark. OK, lets look at the prophecy from Isaiah 53 that the verse in Luke says is being fulfilled.
Quote:
(New International Version)
1 Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.
3 He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.
4 Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11 He shall see the labor of His soul,and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.
I draw your attention first to this prophecy being in the form of a poem, with parallel verses. The Suffering Servant was to be innocent of all sin, was to be unjustly condemned by man, and his soul was to be made an offering for sin. He would die and be resurrected (verse 10: his days prolonged.)
The specific thing quoted by Luke was from verse 12.
Quote:
12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.
Take your pick. "Numbered with the transgressors" can mean that men wrongly considered him a lawbreaker (see with verse 8) or that God technically counted him a breaker of the Law when he "laid on Him the iniquity of us all" (see verse 6.)
Now, looking back at the passage in Luke:
Quote:
14 When the hour had come, He sat down, and the twelve[a] apostles with Him. 15 Then He said to them, “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”
17 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, “Take this and divide it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”
19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. 21 But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
23 Then they began to question among themselves, which of them it was who would do this thing.
We see here Jesus warning them of Judas' soon betrayal of him. He says his death will begin a New Covenant and that his death was according to God's plan.
Quote:
31 And the Lord said,[c] “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”
33 But he said to Him, “Lord, I am ready to go with You, both to prison and to death.”
34 Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster shall not crow this day before you will deny three times that you know Me.”
He warns Peter Satan wants to destroy him and the Peter will falter.
Quote:
35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?”
So they said, “Nothing.”
36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’[d] For the things concerning Me have an end.”
Here Jesus says that although people used to provide for them as they traveled around the situation is about to change. The new reality is that they will need to take money with them and buy provisions and a sword.
Why Jesus? (Verse 37) FOR (because) "that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ [d] For the things concerning Me have an end [fulfillment].”
Soon Jesus would be numbered with the transgressors. He would wrongly executed as a criminal by the Roman government. Things would get pretty unpleasant for them. Of course many thousands of Christians, including all of the apostles except John were executed by Rome.
Jesus instructing the disciples to buy a sword was not instructing them to become "armed brigands."
Look back at the prophecy in Isaiah 53:8 where "numbered with the transgressors" appears. That rules out the "armed brigands" "interpretation."
____________
Revelation
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 02:28 AM |
|
Edited by Vlaad at 03:34, 29 Apr 2011.
|
I didn't mean that he said they should become "armed brigands" but that he would unjustly be considered a criminal if they had swords (thus fulfilling the prophecy).
I'm not saying you're wrong, just pointing out that there are different interpretations. "While the 11 (12-Judas) were all together with a couple of swords being visible would be enough" is an interpretation because Jesus didn't explain what he meant by "two are enough". Some translations even read that line as "enough of that", as if he didn't want to talk of swords any further.
Similarly, you've discussed the nature of Hell earlier. I'm somewhat familar with the Eastern Orthodox Church (third largest denomination, I think), which also teaches Hell is not a real place but an unbearable state. So Shyranis raises a good question: aren't they Christian too?
So do people get to choose their truth?
If yes, what do people's choices tell about them?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 04:09 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 04:13, 29 Apr 2011.
|
@Vlaad
Quote:
You've discussed the nature of Hell earlier. I'm somewhat familar with the Eastern Orthodox Church (third largest denomination, I think), which also teaches Hell is not a real place but an unbearable state. So Shyranis raises a good question: aren't they Christian too?
That is not exactly what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches from my understanding. They do not reject a real hell and they say that those who reject Christ will suffer there forever. The below is from their creed.
The Eastern Greek Orthodox Church Creed
Quote:
HELL, unpopular as it is to modern people, is real. The Orthodox Church understands hell as a place of eternal torment for those who willfully reject the grace of God. Our Lord once said, "If your hand makes you sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched -- where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:44-45). He challenged the religious hypocrites with the question: "How can you escape the condemnation of hell?" (Matthew 23:33). His answer is, "God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved" (John 3:17). There is a day of judgement coming, and there is a place of punishment for those who have hardened their hearts against God. It does make a difference how we will live this life. Those who of their own free will reject the grace and mercy of God must forever bear the consequences of that choice.
Inso far as the writings of some of the theologians I understand some say that both Heaven and Hell are in the presence of God and the the wicked dead experience pain and suffering in the that presence. I've said before in the OSM (including in this thread) that God is present in hell (he is omnipresent) but that the only manifestation of God in hell is divine wrath because their chance of salvation has ended. The book of Revelation says hell is "the wrath of God poured out without mixture." I don't see their teaching about hell as contradicting what Jesus taught.
Quote:
Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
Quote:
So do you get to choose your truth?
If yes, what do people's choices tell about them?
I'm not sure what you are asking. What is true is true regardless of who believes it or if anyone believes it. There are not conflicting truths about hell for instance. It is not true that Hell is real and also true that Hell is not real. Hell is either real or not real. Hell is real according to the plain teaching of the Bible.
We can each chose what to believe but the truth remains true even if we believe it not.
@Shyranis
Quote:
So then, the denominations that read that passage differently are simply mistaken? Or are they also no longer Christian?
One's belief about the legitimacy of self defense would not determine one's Christianity.
@Baklava
Quote:
And if you, Elodin, get into the house of some random person, with the intention to kill a burglar inside it, is it the duty and right of the owner of that house to kill you both because he doesn't know which one of you is going to "hurt his family"?
I would go to assist my neighbor and assess the situation. Yes, in Texas you can kill someone who is trying to steal your neighbor's stuff. It happened recently where a man had asked his neighbor to watch his property and the thieves approached the neighbor in an aggressive manner after he told them to stop carrying TVs and stuff out of the house.
Quote:
Also, would you kill the man just for stealing?
No, but I have the legal right to kill a thief who is in my home or on my property or who is in my car. Texas does not pamper criminals and punish innocent citizens. It allows you to defend yourself, others, and your property. That is the "Castle Doctrine" in Texas. There are other states with the same sorts of laws. Home invasions are not common in those states. A lot more home invasions happen up north in liberal land.
If I believe the thief is a threat to me or to my family, yes, I will kill him. I don't know how many times I'm supposed to keep repeating that.
____________
Revelation
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 04:54 AM |
|
|
About until you realize that Jesus wasn't a Texan and, much like the Europeans, Canadians and the rest of the civilized world today, didn't really believe in universally solving problems that way. I mean, what would his point be then? What would his message look like? "Up until now, you killed people whenever you thought that was the right thing to do, now you need to keep doing that but say you love everyone every now and then"? "Now look, they're gonna get me, and I'm not going to defend myself, I'm going to get brutally tortured and killed, but if that ever happens to any of you guys, I want you to shoot the crap out of the basterds and take as many as you can with you"?
Not to mention your dogmatic and mildly chauvinistic stances on the USA's political and war policy and how that goes with Christ's teachings. Lumske raised a few good points which you, as per usual, ignored, because you didn't have time for them (though you did have plenty time to call him a liar).
No, Texan laws still didn't convince me that your usage of holy scripture as justification for such an aggressive way of life is right, and I still strongly believe your views are bordering on offensive to any sane Christian.
I've got no problems with defending one's family from someone trying to rape them and Texas is badass and all but you just seem too... trigger happy. It's like shooting people is still a form of expressing disagreement over there. Never been there but you're kind of leaving that impression all around you. I'm aware, of course, that imagining all Texans to be like you is as wrong as imagining all Christians to be like... well, you. But still.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted April 29, 2011 05:01 AM |
|
|
|
It takes balls to hold a weapon, and shoot someone you don't know in the dark when pissing in your pants. All this theory is nice, but I doubt many people here, specially Elodin, would have the guts for. yada- yada. I find it more provocative than factual.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
