Cumbria shootings cum creation debate thread. Happy?

[FedoraRefugee]

Ah, turn the other cheek! Yes.

Who was Christ speaking to and why? This is taken from the sermon on the mount where Christ is addressing a misconception on the part of the Jews that conduct proper for the civil government is also proper for an individual. Namely vengeance. The key to interpreting this passage is the use of the phrase, "you have heard it said..." This means that Christ is going to clear up a falsehood being taught by the Pharisees. The eye for an eye passage is from Exodus 21:24-25 and it explains how the government must deal with a crime. The punishment must fit the crime. The religious leaders of Christ's day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge.

The Bible distinguishes clearly between the duties of the government and the duties of an individual. The government is to deal with the administration of justice, individuals have the responsibility of protecting their lives from attackers. Christ was not teaching something different about self defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible. This would be contradicting Himself and the Bible!

Exodus 22:2-3 says, "If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the sun has risen on him, there shall be guilt for his bloodshed. He should make full restitution; if he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

Proverbs 25:26 "A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well."

Luke 22:36, "Then he said to them, "But now, the person who has a wallet and a traveling bag should take them along. The person who doesn't have a sword should sell his coat and buy one."

1 Timothy 5:8, "But if any provideth not for his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever."

This is just scratching the surface. Of course the Bible does not say anything about guns. But there can be no doubt that we ARE entitled to defend ourselves and our property. However...We must also leave vengeance to first the government but ultimately the Lord. I am to treat my enemy with compassion. If someone is intending to hurt or steal from me or mine than I have the DUTY to defend myself and my property. But when I see the same man who was trying to take from me earlier sitting on the street needing food or help then I am to help him. I have to love my enemy but he is still my enemy and I still have the right to take his life when necessary.

edit:

Many people would say that nobody who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior needs to carry a gun for protection.

When Satan was tempting Jesus in the wilderness he challenged Jesus to throw himself off the top of the temple. Satan claimed that God's angels would protect him. Jesus responded: "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God'" (Matthew 4:7).

We all MUST trust in God for protection, but it is tempting God if we do not take the measures that He has laid out for us in the Bible.

You can draw a parallel to those faiths who refuse to use modern medicine. But this is a dumb idea because God always intended for us to make use of what was available.

[MALsPa]

@FedoraRefugee: As I said, my friend, it depends on who you ask. Others interpret the same things quite differently. In some ways, that's religion in nutshell: No doubt your interpretations are the correct ones, and any others are WRONG!

Many people believe that if you've been saved, there is no need to carry a gun. That your faith is all you need. See what I mean? Same Bible, same God, same Jesus, very different ways of looking at the same thing.

Just observing the contradictions, but hopefully not being overly critical.

What's funny, in a way, is myself, atheist, never having owned a gun, or even fired one, never having felt the need for one, even though I've lived in some of the most gun-happy places in the nation! And, as a former taxi driver!

I can completely understand if anyone questions my sanity!

[FedoraRefugee]

MALsPa, it is like this; the Bible is fairly clear in what it says. The problem lies in what each person WANTS it to say. I think I have explained the bulls eye theology principle to you before, not sure and not about to dig through all my posts in all my forums...but anyhow, the bits of theology that actually affect salvation are crystal clear and easy enough for a child to understand. There is no argument here between Christians. If there is then I would go out on a limb and say the dissenting party is NOT a Christian. These things are NECESSARY for salvation. This is the bulls eye. But as you radiate out you do have wiggle room for your theology. It is unfair of you to state that if someone's theology differs from mine then I feel they are wrong. Not necessarily. I have good reason for what I believe, but there are many positions I would not adamantly argue, such as millennial views and predestination/freewill. Many good Christians, better, smarter men that me, believe things that differ from my own views. I accept that, I also accept that I do not know everything.

But I do take the Bible at face value, literally, unless I have a reason not to. Revelation is an accurate book that describes the end time as shown to John by Christ. These things have obviously not happened yet but they will. It is not allegory or symbolism. However, many of the figures IN the vision ARE symbolic! Likewise, Genesis is a historic account of the true creation of the universe. There really was an Adam and an Eve and a Cain and Able and a worldwide flood. There is no scientific reason to not think this is true, even though it goes against many of the secular scientific THEORIES.

So my reading of the Bible emphasizes that it is the inspired Word of God. I am not saying the KJV is inspired, all translations contain mistakes, only the original manuscripts were inspired. But we now know that the translations we have line up almost perfectly with any of the earliest manuscripts that have been unearthed. So now the trick is to take every verse in context with the rest of the Bible. You cannot just cherrypick verses that you believe supports your view, such as turn the other cheek. You must compare that thought with everything else the Bible says. If there is a contradiction then the fault is YOURS! You need to figure it out.

So with all due respect MALsPa, I do not much care how some chuckleheads interpret the Bible. I have a Masters degree in Theology and am working towards a Masters of Divinity. This does not make me an expert or better than anyone else, but i do know what the Bible says! I know where the arguments are and all the supporting verses for any of the sides. The Bible says what it says and the fact that it gives us the right to defend self and property is not in question for any serious Bible scholar. Those who wish to use the Bible to support gun control are the same as those who wish to use it to support socialism or gay marriage. I am not going to question their salvation, I know a LOT of good Christians who have not studied the Word of God with any seriousness. But I do know what the Bible says and anyone who wants to take one of these positions does not fully understand Scripture.

edit: Let me add that anyone who does NOT want to carry or own a gun should be comfortable with their position. The Bible by no means tells us that we need to go armed. It merely gives us the right to defend ourselves. If someone is not comfortable with owning a gun then PLEASE do not do it! They are a dangerous object. Many children shoot themselves, guns can be stolen and used for bad purposes, owners can shoot themselves, and it does happen that an owners gun can be turned against them. There is no denying these facts. The chances are very good you may never need to use one. The choice is yours. Just do not try to make a Biblical argument for being a pacifist.

[monkeyboy]

Another gun debate. OK the US is an armed culture and not all its citizens are responsible in the use of their tools. That being said I don't care because as a member of that culture, my odds of eating a round are very low. If you live in this culture and vote your opinion matters if not, I don't give a rodent copulation what you think.

Seeing as this case is in the UK -- largely an unarmed culture -- not the USA... "If you live in this culture and vote your opinion matters if not, I don't give a rodent copulation what you think."

Well seeing that that I did not mention any other country but my own and seeing that you have chosen to reinterpreted it as something else I suggest you reread the post. To tell the truth I don't care what other countries do about their gun laws its not my country my business.

[Old Marcus]

We're not going to turn this event into an excuse for an evolution/creation argument are we? If you want one, take it to another thread.

I have opinions on the above debate, but won't argue them here.

[FedoraRefugee]

We're not going to turn this event into an excuse for an evolution/creation argument are we? If you want one, take it to another thread.

I have opinions on the above debate, but won't argue them here.

Then why bring it up again?

Usually it is only when people start complaining about a topic that the topic continues to be discussed. I used it as a mere example, the same as i used Revelation. No more. You could argue upwards of 20 points from my single post, YOU just happened to choose THAT one!

But point taken. As a matter of fact, it does not need to turn into a religious thread either. Jesus Christ or God did not have anything to do with a nutjob taxi driver going postal to use an americanism. I did not bring the religious aspect up but I will ALWAYS go where the conversation takes me. No offense intended to you or your thread.

[Old Marcus]

TBH, I didn't read through your post, but regardless of the subject, if you want a debate, make a new thread.

[FedoraRefugee]

TBH, I didn't read through your post, but regardless of the subject, if you want a debate, make a new thread.

Did I not just make it clear that I did not want a debate? Is there something you did not understand in my last post? I wrote:

But point taken. As a matter of fact, it does not need to turn into a religious thread either. Jesus Christ or God did not have anything to do with a nutjob taxi driver going postal to use an americanism. I did not bring the religious aspect up but I will ALWAYS go where the conversation takes me. No offense intended to you or your thread.

I think that was fairly clear? However, I may now decide to start that debate here just to irritate you!

[Old Marcus]

I am lazy, I haveth committed one of the seven deadly sins and will go to hell. Thank you for your time.

[MALsPa]

Likewise, Genesis is a historic account of the true creation of the universe. There really was an Adam and an Eve and a Cain and Able and a worldwide flood.

I could have picked a lot of things from your post to comment on, but I decided to quote the two sentences above, simply because, more than anything else, they show me how far apart we are in terms of how we see things.

I don't want to insult you or offend you with further comment.

A little ribbing, though:

I have a Masters degree in Theology and am working towards a Masters of Divinity.

Then, maybe you can answer this: Isn't it "Abel," not "Able?"

[FedoraRefugee]

Likewise, Genesis is a historic account of the true creation of the universe. There really was an Adam and an Eve and a Cain and Able and a worldwide flood.

I could have picked a lot of things from your post to comment on, but I decided to quote the two sentences above, simply because, more than anything else, they show me how far apart we are in terms of how we see things.

I don't want to insult you or offend you with further comment.

A little ribbing, though:

I have a Masters degree in Theology and am working towards a Masters of Divinity.

Then, maybe you can answer this: Isn't it "Abel," not "Able?"

ROFL, yeah!

[markfiend]

Well seeing that that I did not mention any other country but my own and seeing that you have chosen to reinterpreted it as something else I suggest you reread the post. To tell the truth I don't care what other countries do about their gun laws its not my country my business.

OK, please accept my apology.

FedoraRefugee: is the way you've put THEORIES in upper-case like that supposed to be a "gotcha" in an "only a theory" type manner?

[FedoraRefugee]

Well seeing that that I did not mention any other country but my own and seeing that you have chosen to reinterpreted it as something else I suggest you reread the post. To tell the truth I don't care what other countries do about their gun laws its not my country my business.

OK, please accept my apology.

FedoraRefugee: is the way you've put THEORIES in upper-case like that supposed to be a "gotcha" in an "only a theory" type manner?

You betcha! Hey, there is nothing wrong with theories, Creation Science has a ton of them also. It is the most plausible explanation considering the facts available. But I will say this; Creation Science accounts for all the available facts using the biblical creation account as a base and it is actually MORE plausible than secular theories.

But enough on that. I do not want to give old marcus constipation, so I will not discuss any more in this thread. I would be happy to discuss things in a new thread, but it is probably pointless. I am not going to convince you and you will certainly not change my mind. 10 years ago I was a staunch, die-hard evolutionist.

[Old Marcus]

Hey, I've given up on defending the thread, so carry on. I'll go and introduce hypocrisy into the whole thing now:

The two accounts go like this (very simplified):

Creation: An all powerful being created the world as it is in 6 days, and we are descendants of two people.

Evolution: The big bang created the universe, and our Earth didn't form until billions, if not trillions of years later. It started out as an inhospitable planet and by pure chance, became a hospitable planet and could support life. After a few more billion years, we evolved.

I believe the latter, as there are theories that provide evidence to support this. whereas Creationism is based on faith, no matter how much pseudo science you pump in to it. Of course, neither are provable without a time machine, so it's a choice of what you want to believe in. I go for the latter though.

[MALsPa]

Don't forget, there have been many, many other creation stories besides the one in the Bible. Peoples from all over the world have come up with them. Take your pick.

[FedoraRefugee]

Hey, I've given up on defending the thread, so carry on. I'll go and introduce hypocrisy into the whole thing now:

The two accounts go like this (very simplified):

Creation: An all powerful being created the world as it is in 6 days, and we are descendants of two people.

Evolution: The big bang created the universe, and our Earth didn't form until billions, if not trillions of years later. It started out as an inhospitable planet and by pure chance, became a hospitable planet and could support life. After a few more billion years, we evolved.

I believe the latter, as there are theories that provide evidence to support this. whereas Creationism is based on faith, no matter how much pseudo science you pump in to it. Of course, neither are provable without a time machine, so it's a choice of what you want to believe in. I go for the latter though.

Sums it all up fairly nicely, I would say. I agree with every bit except what is in red. There are actually more scientific facts to support creation than the other way around. Take a world wide flood for instance. Evolutionists do not want to recognize this but the evidence is irrefutable. So instead they talk about local floods in all areas of the world. It is so much easier to explain the facts if we but recognize the world wide flood. Big bang simply does not work as a theory, there are quite a few secular scientists that will agree. We have not witnessed a single species evolve into another, in fact, the more we learn about DNA the more impossible this becomes. It has now come down to mutations being the only possibility yet it is impossible that things could mutate to this extent and keep the changes. No matter how many billions of years you throw at it. We understand that animals become specialized through a loss of genetic material. Two wolves might eventually yield a poodle, but two poodles will never make anything other than two poodles. I could go on...It does not matter. Your mind is made up and I am an idiot for my beliefs. The nice way for you to say it is that I have strong faith...So be it. In the end you are correct, no one was there and you will never prove it one way or the other. But when you get facts like red blood cells and viable DNA in dinosaur bones, and you know that organic matter could not possibly last more than ~40,000 years, little warning bells should be going off.

[FedoraRefugee]

Don't forget, there have been many, many other creation stories besides the one in the Bible. Peoples from all over the world have come up with them. Take your pick.

True! There are also stories of a world wide flood in most every culture. Also, look at other similarities such as stories of dragons. Every culture has stories and myths of dragons. Pyramids are also a very common ancient structure, from Egypt to China to South America. The ancients did things and had knowledge that today perplexes us. Some chuckleheads even attribute it to an alien race, they claim that is the only plausible explanation.

The thing is secularists always look at this as proof that Judaism and then Christianity evolved from earlier, ancient religions. But what they forget is the Bible places the order the other way around!!! I suggest you go back to Genesis and read about the Tower of Babel. After the flood men all lived in the same place. They did not want to spread around the world. They built ziggurats trying to reach God. But God spread them out, confounded them and their language. Man spread around the globe. But...He still kept the vestiges of his religion. God is self evident and every culture until the enlightenment period knew this. So yeah, there are many creation accounts, every culture had one. There are a great many similarities between most of them too. Because we all go back to the same place.

[MALsPa]

I suggest you go back to Genesis and read about the Tower of Babel.

I'll pass, since I don't believe any of it anyway.

[FedoraRefugee]

I suggest you go back to Genesis and read about the Tower of Babel.

I'll pass, since I don't believe any of it anyway.

That is too bad, but that is the choice you were put here to make. Many Christians do not understand that and would either drive you up the wall evangelizing to you or else by ostracizing you and not having anything to do with you. That is where we go wrong. Only the Holy Spirit can unblind you, no matter what I say it is meaningless to you. You understand the words but what I am saying is just so stupid and outlandish it is not even worthy of serious thought. I understand, believe me, I do. I once thought the same about those silly young earth creationists. After all, how can you refute science?

I used to do a lot of posting on this subject in various forums but after years of it I am growing weary. I do not mind talking about my beliefs, but I know full well I am not going to convince anyone. I am good with that. All I ask is that you respect me the same as anyone else. I have good reason for my beliefs and I am not stupid or superstitious. I respect your beliefs and understand why you feel you are right. As I say, I once stood where you are now.

[MALsPa]

I understand, FR. I have had lots of things that I've wanted to say, things that I typed up, but then deleted, mainly because I really don't want to end up saying things that will insult you and what you believe in.

And, mostly I am kicking myself. You already know how I feel about having this type of discussion in a Linux forum, and yet I find myself posting comments on this topic, even to the point of hijacking this thread.

My intention from this point forward is to refrain from any discussion of religion, faith, etc., at these or any other Linux forums. PM or email, that's different, but otherwise I think that I should adhere to what I've said before: There are other (and better) places to discuss those things.