Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Bring a gun to church: the kiss of peace or politics as usual?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Ok, but I was referring specifically to an instinctual fear.
    Yes, I know, which is why I said this: "regardless of whether this opposition is based on philosophical reflection, subconscious or instinctive fear. All are healthy motivations for opposition in my opinion, and I don't think conservatives lack any of these motivations compared with liberals.

    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    Also, conservatives have some self-serving reasons to not be as opposed to Hitler as progressives. Namely that conservatives have no effective weapon against progressives. To fight off the enemy of the progressives is the same as to capitulate completely in the long run. This is part of why I expect some form of fascism to make a spectacular comeback when there's another genuine economic collapse like the Great Depression. I've dubbed this upcoming even the coming of the Second Hitler.
    I thought your point was that progressives have no effective weapon against NAZIs. Did you mean to say that again or are you making a different point about conservatives also not having a weapon against NAZIs and capitulating because they adopt the useless racist tactics of progressives? Is your expectation of the Second Hitler related to the book of Revelation or just noneschatological political musing?

    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    I dunno. Commies are even closer in collective memory and some of them were just as bad, if not worse than Hitler.
    Of course, I agree, but the Russians were our allies in WW2, not particularly good bedfellows but nonetheless our allies against Hitler. As for the Chinese, we were largely ignorant of them until more recently and did not fight a world war against them.

    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
    The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact they go rather well together. Particularly since it's an obvious bait.
    Of course not, but the first seems much more likely to me since I do not agree that there is a special progressive fear of Hitler. I finally understand your view, but I do not agree with it. At least not yet.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      Yes, I know, which is why I said this: "regardless of whether this opposition is based on philosophical reflection, subconscious or instinctive fear. All are healthy motivations for opposition in my opinion, and I don't think conservatives lack any of these motivations compared with liberals.
      Why do you think conservatives don't lack instinctual motivation? There are relatively few conservative minorities and NAZIs don't have any particular burning hatred for anything specifically conservative. It's pretty clear that progressives have more and stronger objective reasons to fear NAZIs. So why wouldn't that transfer to a different instinct?

      Or maybe you think of NAZIs in their popular view as great oppressors of the general population, which they were not. Very few governments are, even tyrannical ones, in part because they sometimes gain power via populism, and in part because the population adapts to them. If possible, it benefits the dictator to be in symbiosis with the general population.

      I thought your point was that progressives have no effective weapon against NAZIs. Did you mean to say that again or are you making a different point about conservatives also not having a weapon against NAZIs and capitulating because they adopt the useless racist tactics of progressives? Is your expectation of the Second Hitler related to the book of Revelation or just noneschatological political musing?
      I'm making a different point about conservatives not having a weapon against PROGRESSIVES, not NAZIs. Conservatives are fairly well suited for fighting nazis since they're much more effective with and willing to use violence. My expectation of the Second Hitler is purely political. I generally avoid eschatology.

      Of course, I agree, but the Russians were our allies in WW2, not particularly good bedfellows but nonetheless our allies against Hitler. As for the Chinese, we were largely ignorant of them until more recently and did not fight a world war against them.
      I was thinking of post-ww2 stuff like Vietnam. Plus, the cold war and fear of nuclear war was pretty omnipresent.

      Of course not, but the first seems much more likely to me since I do not agree that there is a special progressive fear of Hitler. I finally understand your view, but I do not agree with it. At least not yet.
      Many say that only to subsequently come around to my point of view.
      Last edited by Darth Executor; 03-14-2014, 06:25 PM.
      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
        Why do you think conservatives don't lack instinctual motivation? There are relatively few conservative minorities and NAZIs don't have any particular burning hatred for anything specifically conservative. It's pretty clear that progressives have more and stronger objective reasons to fear NAZIs. So why wouldn't that transfer to a different instinct?
        I said the opposite, that conservatives are NOT lacking in instinctive motivation. I don't buy your argument about the racist tactic of progressives.

        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
        Or maybe you think of NAZIs in their popular view as great oppressors of the general population, which they were not. Very few governments are, even tyrannical ones, in part because they sometimes gain power via populism, and in part because the population adapts to them. If possible, it benefits the dictator to be in symbiosis with the general population.
        No, I do not think that. Hitler was very popular, at least for a while.

        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
        I'm making a different point about conservatives not having a weapon against PROGRESSIVES, not NAZIs. Conservatives are fairly well suited for fighting nazis since they're much more effective with and willing to use violence.
        But you said: "...conservatives have no effective weapon against progressives. To fight off the enemy of the progressives is the same as to capitulate completely in the long run." That's where I got confused.

        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
        My expectation of the Second Hitler is purely political. I generally avoid eschatology.
        A second thing I like about you.

        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
        I was thinking of post-ww2 stuff like Vietnam. Plus, the cold war and fear of nuclear war was pretty omnipresent.
        Do you think Ho Chi Minh was as bad as Hitler? Ho Chi Minh initially wanted Harry Truman to be his ally and I think if we had agreed early on, things would have been much better. Our later involvement was stupid in my opinion. As for the cold war and fear of nuclear war, we were every bit as involved in that as the Russians, thus not a reason to see the Communists (and therefore ourselves) as worse than Hitler, although we potentially were.

        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
        Many say that only to subsequently come around to my point of view.
        I always try to have an open mind, but so far your criticisms of progressives appear to be merely conservative polemic.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #49
          Gotta go to a party.
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            I said the opposite, that conservatives are NOT lacking in instinctive motivation.
            Yes, and I'm asking why you think that. Explain why they'd have just as much instinctive motivation as progressives when their hide is not directly on the line.

            I don't buy your argument about the racist tactic of progressives.
            The tactics aren't racist, just slimy.

            But you said: "...conservatives have no effective weapon against progressives. To fight off the enemy of the progressives is the same as to capitulate completely in the long run." That's where I got confused.
            Yes, capitulate to the progressives. I thought that was obvious, since it makes no sense to say you capitulated to an enemy you fought off. Sorry.

            A second thing I like about you.
            What was the first again?

            Do you think Ho Chi Minh was as bad as Hitler? Ho Chi Minh initially wanted Harry Truman to be his ally and I think if we had agreed early on, things would have been much better. Our later involvement was stupid in my opinion.
            In magnitude no, but in character Ho Chi Minh was proably just as bad as Hitler. I didn't mention him for that though, I mentioned him because the Communists were The Enemy for the second half of the twentieth century, were themselves mass murderers, but still got nowhere near as bad a rap as Hitler. Evidently there's something setting Hitler apart from the rest.

            As for the cold war and fear of nuclear war, we were every bit as involved in that as the Russians, thus not a reason to see the Communists (and therefore ourselves) as worse than Hitler, although we potentially were.
            Well, I only agree with this because the West ended up progressive, but I don't see why you would. Or why anyone else without beliefs similar to mine would.

            I always try to have an open mind, but so far your criticisms of progressives appear to be merely conservative polemic.
            That would be quite a feat seeing how I'm not conservative. Quite the opposite, I'd imagine most conservatives would be quite butthurt by the suggestion that they don't have as much of a reason to fight off Hitler as progressives would because Hitler would slaughter their enemies and largely give them what they want if they cooperate (though it's still true).
            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Our "bring a gun to Church" discussions centered around news stories like this...

              Source: PBS News Hour

              The gunman, identified Thursday as Larry Gene Ashbrook of Fort Worth, shouted obscenities as he emptied three ammunition clips from a nine-millimeter, semi-automatic handgun at the gathered congregation.

              Ashbrook, who authorities described as chronically unemployed and “very troubled,” had six full magazines of ammunition left when he took his own life in a back pew at the church.

              According to police, Ashbrook also rolled a pipe bomb down one of the church’s aisles. They said the bomb exploded, but caused little damage.

              Nearly 150 teenagers were attending the service. Of the seven people killed, three teenagers and three adults died at the church, according to police. Another teen died later at a nearby hospital.

              © Copyright Original Source



              I have two men, both commissioned law officers, who regularly bring their guns to Church at my request. One of them works the soundboard, giving him a commanding view of the entrances to the auditorium, and the congregation.
              You don't think that's a little extreme? There are thousands upon thousands of churches in America. The news obviously highlights the 1 in a thousand thousand churches that have experienced violence. What are the chances that someone is going to shoot up your particular church? What are the chances that your gunmen will out gun the shooter if they decide to shoot up your church? How big is your church, and how controversial its views that you feel the need to have armed guards defending it? Churches are historically places of sanctuary. Armed guards sound unnecessarily hostile and counter-intuitive to the message being preached.
              Last edited by OingoBoingo; 03-14-2014, 09:17 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                You don't think that's a little extreme? There are thousands upon thousands of churches in America. The news obviously highlights the 1 in a thousand thousand churches that have experienced violence. What are the chances that someone is going to shoot up your particular church? What are the chances that your gunmen will out gun the shooter if they decide to shoot up your church? How big is your church, and how controversial its views that you feel the need to have armed guards defending it? Churches are historically places of sanctuary. Armed guards sound unnecessarily hostile and counter-intuitive to the message being preached.
                I hope CP brings an AK to his next service and shakes it around while preaching just for you.
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  I hope CP brings an AK to his next service and shakes it around while preaching just for you.
                  Why's that?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                    Why's that?
                    Because your comment was pretty dumb.
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      Yes, and I'm asking why you think that. Explain why they'd have just as much instinctive motivation as progressives when their hide is not directly on the line.
                      I think conservatives would find NAZIs as instinctively repulsive and fear inducing as progressives. If I recall correctly, Hitler targeted several groups of people, not all were particularly progressive.

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      The tactics aren't racist, just slimy.
                      So do you not think that progressives are more likely to play the race card and that this tactic is in itself inherently racist. Good. Sorry I misunderstood. I thought maybe that was what you were getting at when you portrayed progressives as accusing both conservatives and NAZIs of racism. When you did not correct that suggestion, I mistook that as a potential confirmation. Anyway, from what I've seen of the world, slimy progressives are no more slimy than slimy conservatives and conservatives, as a group or individually, are not less likely, or more likely, to be slimy.

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      Yes, capitulate to the progressives. I thought that was obvious, since it makes no sense to say you capitulated to an enemy you fought off. Sorry.
                      Why do you think that "conservatives have no effective weapon against progressives"? And what does it mean to say that "to fight off the enemy of the progressives is the same as to capitulate completely in the long run."

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      What was the first again?
                      "I admire some very insightful points you make sometimes."

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      In magnitude no, but in character Ho Chi Minh was proably just as bad as Hitler.
                      But magnitude is the issue here.

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      I didn't mention him for that though, I mentioned him because the Communists were The Enemy for the second half of the twentieth century, were themselves mass murderers, but still got nowhere near as bad a rap as Hitler. Evidently there's something setting Hitler apart from the rest.
                      Again, I think what set Hitler apart in popular opinion is the fact that we fought and died in a world war against him. The victors write the history books.

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      Well, I only agree with this because the West ended up progressive, but I don't see why you would. Or why anyone else without beliefs similar to mine would.
                      Maybe you do not understand my beliefs as well as you think you do.

                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      That would be quite a feat seeing how I'm not conservative. Quite the opposite, I'd imagine most conservatives would be quite butthurt by the suggestion that they don't have as much of a reason to fight off Hitler as progressives would because Hitler would slaughter their enemies and largely give them what they want if they cooperate (though it's still true).
                      So I'll call it anti-progressive polemic instead of conservative polemic. What do you call yourself if your not progressive, not conservative, not a NAZI? Are you a liberal? In the traditional European sense? Some other descriptive label or just completely sui generis?

                      By the way, the reason I thought you were a true conservative is that you were critical of [other] even staunch conservatives for being nonetheless heavily infected with progressivism. Thus I thought you might be laying claim to some form of true conservatism that was not infected with even a cubic nanometer of progressivism.
                      Last edited by robrecht; 03-15-2014, 11:00 AM.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by OingoBoingo View Post
                        You don't think that's a little extreme?
                        Not in the slightest. As the shepherd of my flock, I am responsible for their safety.

                        There are thousands upon thousands of churches in America. The news obviously highlights the 1 in a thousand thousand churches that have experienced violence.
                        I'm aware of 18 shootings in Churches in the past 11 years --


                        February 14, 2010 - Richmond, California - Three hooded men
                        walk into Gethsemane Church of God in Christ and opened
                        fire and then fled the scene, as the singing of the choir
                        was replaced by frightened screams. The two victims, a 14-
                        year-old boy and a 19-year-old man, were hospitalized.

                        March 8, 2009 - Maryville, Illinois - Suspect Terry Joe
                        Sedlacek, 27, of Troy, walks into the First Baptist Church,
                        and shoots pastor Fred Winters dead, point blank. Several
                        church members are injured by a knife in the struggle to
                        capture after the attack, The suspect also had stabbed
                        himself, but survived, when his gun jams.

                        July 27, 2008 - Knoxville, Tennessee - A gunman opens fire
                        in a church during a youth performance, killing two people
                        and injuring seven.

                        Dec. 9, 2007 - Colorado - Three people are killed and five
                        wounded in two shooting rampages, one at a missionary
                        school in suburban Denver and one at a church in Colorado
                        Springs. The gunman in the second incident is killed by a
                        guard.

                        May 20, 2007 - Moscow, Idaho - A standoff between police
                        and a suspect in the shootings of three people in a
                        Presbyterian Church ended with three dead, including one
                        police officer.

                        Aug. 12, 2007 - Neosho, Missouri - First Congregational
                        Church - 3 killed - Eiken Elam Saimon shot and killed the
                        pastor and two deacons and wounded five others.

                        May 21, 2006 - Baton Rouge, Louisiana - The Ministry of
                        Jesus Christ Church - 4 killed - The four at the church who
                        were shot were members of Erica Bell's family; she was
                        abducted and murdered elsewhere; Bell's mother, church
                        pastor Claudia Brown, was seriously wounded - Anthony Bell,
                        25, was the shooter.

                        Feb. 26, 2006 - Detroit, Michigan - Zion Hope Missionary
                        Baptist Church - 2 killed + shooter - Kevin L. Collins, who
                        reportedly went to the church looking for his girlfriend,
                        later killed himself.

                        April 9, 2005 - College Park, Georgia - A 27-year-old
                        airman died after being shot at a church, where he had once
                        worked as a security guard.

                        March 12, 2005 - Brookfield, Wisconsin - Living Church of
                        God - 7 killed + shooter - Terry Ratzmann opened fire on
                        the congregation, killing seven and wounding four before
                        taking his own life.

                        July 30, 2005 - College Park, Georgia - World Changers
                        Church International - shooter killed - Air Force Staff
                        Sgt. John Givens was shot five times by a police officer
                        after charging the officer, following violent behavior.

                        Dec. 17, 2004, Garden Grove, Calif.: A veteran musician at
                        the Crystal Cathedral shoots himself to death after a nine
                        -hour standoff.

                        Oct. 5, 2003 - Atlanta, Georgia - Turner Monumental AME
                        Church - 2 killed + shooter - Shelia Wilson walked into the
                        church while preparations are being made for service and
                        shot the pastor, her mother and then herself.

                        June 10, 2002 - Conception, Missouri - Benedictine
                        monastery - 2 killed + shooter - Lloyd Robert Jeffress shot
                        four monks in the monastery killing two and wounding two,
                        before killing himself.

                        March 12, 2002 - Lynbrook, New York - Our Lady of Peace
                        Catholic Church - 2 killed - Peter Troy, a former mental
                        patient, opens fire during Mass, killing the priest and a
                        parishioner. He later receives a life sentence.

                        May 18, 2001 - Hopkinsville, Kentucky - Greater Oak
                        Missionary Baptist Church - 2 killed - Frederick Radford
                        stood up in the middle of a revival service and began
                        shooting at his estranged wife, Nicole Radford, killing her
                        and a woman trying to help her.

                        Sept. 15, 1999 - Fort Worth, Texas - Wedgewood Baptist
                        Church - 7 killed + shooter - Larry Gene Ashbrook shot dead
                        seven people and injured a further seven at a concert by
                        Christian rock group Forty Days in Fort Worth, Texas before
                        killing himself.

                        April 15, 1999 - Salt Lake City, Utah - LDS Church Family
                        History Library - 2 killed + shooter - Sergei Babarin, 70,
                        with a history of mental illness, entered the library,
                        killed two people and wounded four others before he was
                        gunned down by police.

                        What are the chances that someone is going to shoot up your particular church?
                        Less than if we were not prepared.

                        What are the chances that your gunmen will out gun the shooter if they decide to shoot up your church?
                        My guys are not "gunmen" - one is a highly trained police officer, certified in SWAT and hostage negotiation. The other is a retired Police Officer.

                        How big is your church,
                        17 to 20 members a year ago when I came onboard - just over 80 today.

                        and how controversial its views
                        We believe in eating flesh, drinking blood and dead people coming back to life.

                        that you feel the need to have armed guards defending it?
                        "Armed guards" is a little deceptive -- these are men with concealed weapons, and you'd never know which ones they were if I didn't tell you.

                        Churches are historically places of sanctuary. Armed guards sound unnecessarily hostile and counter-intuitive to the message being preached.
                        Yeah, well, I prefer that my people go home alive each Sunday with the message -- I personally know several of the people who were killed, and two of the injured, in the shooting at First Baptist Church of Dangerfield in 1980.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          We believe in eating flesh, drinking blood and dead people coming back to life.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Not in the slightest. As the shepherd of my flock, I am responsible for their safety.

                            I'm aware of 18 shootings in Churches in the past 11 years ... I personally know several of the people who were killed, and two of the injured, in the shooting at First Baptist Church of Dangerfield in 1980.
                            Wow. First, I am really sorry for your loss. I'm also surprised at the number of cases you cite. I would assume, all or most of these cases involved some kind of deranged gunman acting out delusional views of reality. Thus I would assume none of them involved disputes between generally accepted liberal and conservative views or differing mainline interpretations of doctrine or scripture. Is that a correct assumption, as far as you know?

                            Although not my intent, the first part of the title of my thread does indeed evoke these kinds of actual shootings, but I certainly don't think the head of this conservative Catholic group ever intended to be taken literally. Perhaps his use of language appears more inappropriate in light of these kinds of actual Church shootings.

                            Moving forward, I would like to focus on more rational discussions of the opposing progressive and conservative approaches to Christian doctrine and specifically Christian approaches to such opposition among brothers and sisters in Christ. For example, I assume that Dark Exeggutor's use of Hitler imagery and NAZI examples has a rational intent, even if it seems extremist and is admittedly intended as a kind of provocative trolling and some of his posts are intended as humorous. But I appreciate both meaningful thread drift as well as humor. In other words, I don't want to be a thread Nazi, but I suggest that those who want to engage in such bad puns do so in this thread.
                            Last edited by robrecht; 03-15-2014, 10:10 AM.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              Wow. First, I am really sorry for your loss. I'm also surprised at the number of cases you cite.
                              I actually found about a dozen more, but they appeared to be more related to civil disputes - custody battles and the like - where the Church just happened to be "the venue".

                              I would assume, all or most of these cases involved some kind of deranged gunman acting out delusional views of reality. Thus I would assume none of them involved disputes between generally accepted liberal and conservative views or differing mainline interpretations of doctrine or scripture. Is that a correct assumption, as far as you know?
                              Yes, good point.

                              Although not my intent, the first part of the title of my thread does indeed evoke these kinds of actual shootings, but I certainly don't think the head of this conservative Catholic group ever intended to be taken literally. Perhaps his use of language appears more inappropriate in light of these kinds of actual Church shootings.
                              I would concur. I don't think I'd ever use that "language" because it quite obviously takes away from the message, and... what you said.

                              Moving forward, I would like to focus on more rational discussions of the opposing progressive and conservative approaches to Christian doctrine and specifically Christian approaches to such opposition among brothers and sisters in Christ. For example, I assume that Dark Exeggutor's use of Hitler imagery and NAZI examples has a rational intent, even if it seems extremist and is admittedly intended as a kind of provocative trolling and some of his posts are intended as humorous. But I appreciate both meaningful thread drift as well as humor. I don't want to be a thread Nazi.
                              I came from a very conservative (independent baptist) background, where our Pastor FREQUENTLY attacked "liberals" from the pulpit, and Southern Baptists in particular. In my teenage rebellion, when I decided to abandon the Church, I decided these "liberal Southern Baptists" were more in line with what I wanted to be, so I visited a "First Baptist Church" in a nearby town to begin my "liberal Church association". I was surprised that the Pastor of that Church focused on preaching Jesus, Him crucified, buried and risen again, and never EVER attacked other denominations from the pulpit. He was, indeed, a "conservative" preacher theologically, but with a genuine love for the lost.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                97.4%* of all young men who have done heinous things in the past 15 years have played with Pokemon stuff.




                                *this statistic may be slightly exaggerated, but was cited by Benjamin Franklin.
                                I'm happy to report back that neither of my kids have any recollection of this obscure Dark Exeggutor Pokémon character. Hopefully that indicates a nontoxic level of exposure.
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Physiocrat, 10-16-2017, 08:55 AM
                                59 responses
                                28,605 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Rushing Jaws  
                                Working...
                                X