While as so called "Religious inspired Scripture", it would indeed have no power as Doctrine, however as Philosophy and Literature, it would have no less motivational power, and still have validity as an inspiration to live a moral life.
Because no basis of reasoning was ever, or has ever, been used with regard to the above. The amount was chosen arbitrarily, completely at random, without any effort being made to explain why no private citizen has a legitimate use for eleven or more rounds of ammunition in a detachable magazine. Once again it is justification, not explanation. There is no explanation as to how it was determined that private citizens do not have a legitimate purpose for carrying more than ten rounds of ammunition in a single detachable magazine. There is no reason used in making such a determination, making it nothing more than the legally codified opinions of the authors of the legislation. They neither can, nor will, explain themselves, but they still demand that the public live by their opinions and abide by them, or face serious consequences for noncompliance.
OP, don't matter. Bible, (God) said to kill homos. How is that interpreted? Some religions make homos their bishop. So much for the bible.
You simply refuse to acknowledge the value of any councils a book like the Bible can offer even in a non Religious or Secular sense, or as a book of philosophy, and thereby reveal your true Agenda.
God was doing his best to get the human race up and running, so culling out the disruptive heathen tribes seems a good call to me.. As for "turning the other cheek", if we all did that America would be split in half down the Mississippi river line with the japs controlling one half and the nazis the other. When the mob came to arrest Jesus, his right-hand man Peter drew his sword and whacked the high priest's flunkey across the head with it, slicing off his ear. Jesus told him off for doing it but the fact remains he allowed him to carry the sword in the first place, possibly as a deterrent to muggers on their travels. My interpretation (rightly or wrongly) is that we should try to turn the other cheek whenever we can, and not go deliberately looking for trouble.
Coward Of The County Kenny Rogers Everyone considered him the coward of the county He'd never stood one single time to prove the county wrong His mama named him Tommy, but folks just called him yellow Something always told me they were reading Tommy wrong He was only ten years old when his daddy died in prison I looked after Tommy, 'cause he was my brother's son I still recall the final words my brother said to Tommy "Son, my life is over, but yours has just begun" "Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done Walk away from trouble if you can It won't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek, I hope you're old enough to understand Son, you don't have to fight to be a man" There's someone for everyone, and Tommy's love was Becky In her arms, he didn't have to prove he was a man One day while he was working, the Gatlin boys came calling They took turns at Becky, n'there was three of them Tommy opened up the door, and saw his Becky crying The torn dress, the shattered look was more than he could stand He reached above the fireplace, and took down his daddy's picture As the tears fell on his daddy's face, he heard these words again "Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done Walk away from trouble if you can Now, it won't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek I hope you're old enough to understand Son, you don't have to fight to be a man" The Gatlin boys just laughed at him when he walked into the barroom One of them got up and met him halfway 'cross the floor When Tommy turned around they said, "hey look, old yeller's leaving" But you could've heard a pin drop when Tommy stopped and locked the door Twenty years of crawling was bottled up inside him He wasn't holding nothin' back, he let 'em have it all When Tommy left the barroom, not a Gatlin boy was standing He said, "this one's for Becky, as he watched the last one fall "I promised you, Dad, not to do the things you've done I walk away from trouble when I can Now please don't think I'm weak, I didn't turn the other cheek And papa, I sure hope you understand Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man" Everyone considered him the coward of the county.."
I think it we it well beyond that... and certainly beyond anything remotely similar to self defense The thing is that i am not arguing for a naive turn the other cheek policy I am just identifying an apparent change in gods attitude between the old an new testament And also pointing out that the character of jesus message seems to me to be pacifist, as opposed to promoting a swaggering saber rattling attitude... and again i am not promoting any attitude myself, just saying what i believe to be true about jesus and the bible Speculations aside, we have no evidence that jesus promoted anything other than being kind, generous, forgiving, and non violent. And, as i understand it, jesus and his apostles had not much to steal Yes The thing about that is that there is a pretty large grey area in the question of sel defense For instance, Would jesus tell peter to stand his ground, or to retreat from confrontation unless conflict was unavoidable? Would jesus be in favor of people defending themselves with machine guns in city streets and movie theaters? Would jesus suggest peter carry a rocket launcher to forstall attack in downtown manhattan? It seems to me that many professed christians are fairly adamant that such admittedly rediculous ideas are good ideas... and such people often are also typically pretty vocal about their faith. And regardless of the contitutional questions involved---imo these are not the sort of attitudes jesus would havr promoted... at least to the extent that we can trust what the bible says about jesus
Self defense is not ridiculous, it is a concept as old as man, spell check is not ridiculous either yet it is something else you might well consider, whenever people with a Political leaning one way or another tend towards exaggeration and very few facts, Jesus never forbade self defense. You have a moral responsibility to protect your family and yourself from attack.
You can jump to any incorrect conclusions you want. The bible devoid of any supposed God influence would be treated as yet another lifestyle book, it's whole significance is based on its contents supposedly being divine. - - - Updated - - - I am discussing the topic ... it's right there where I say it doesn't matter what the bible says about anything.
Each of us has to interpret it for ourselves. For example Jehovah's Witnesses flatly refuse to fight in wars, so if everybody thought like them, Japan and Germany would be controlling the world by now. Rightly or wrongly my view is to fight only if we have to.. PS- My mother and her family were bombed by a Luftwaffe raid in 1940, they survived the war without a scratch, so that's an example of how we had to fight to defend ourselves, by trashing them in the Battle of Britain. And there are other ways to defend ourselves, notably by only voting for people who we trust the security of our country. Hillary keeps badmouthing Putin, thereby racking up the tension, but Trump has no beef with Russia, so I think he's the one that voters should entrust with the future of their families-
You just do whatever you feel is good for you, no one cares in any case. Bloody Snagnostic. If you feel the Bible is irrelevant, why continue to argue over it ? Bloody cheek that.
No one cares, and that is why you continue to respond . .even though no one cares. That is why you attempt and fail to answer . .even though no one cares. The bible is irrelevant IF you remove or ignore the supposed God influence, without that influence it would not be the 'guide' it is for so many people ergo it would be no different to any other lifestyle book .. however, if you include the supposed god influence then the foundation question is, show that god exists, if you can't then it is nothing more than opinion that the bible has gods influence or that we, as a people, should follow a single thing it says .. it's very basic logic. You might as well ask the question "Ware and Peace and self defence" it has as much relevance.
You should have been a better student or perhaps not attended Alimentary school rather than Elementary school, or did you attend Eliminating school ? Potty training ? Your grammar and spelling and vocabulary is quite atrocious.
If you don't respond to his irrelevancy he'll be forced to either go somewhere else or address the topic of the thread. That said, are there any takers on the subject of whether the NT allows self defense? ARDY took a swing at it but so far its mostly generic.
And as we have been explaining, the same could be applied to the value of legislation that society is obligated to abide by. For what reason? What makes legislation so important that it should be followed and obeyed? It is nothing more than the legally codified opinions of flawed individuals who have been elected into a position of authority, and have the power to harm others for not doing as they demand. However force does not make their opinions correct, one way or the other. So ultimately what is the real difference?
Lol so you resort to schoolyard quips because you can't reason logically, do you think they mean anything to me I've spent a lot of my life being ridiculed by ignorant people like you because of my dyslexia ... but never mind even though your grammar etc may be decent you still can't debate or think logically.
And nowhere have I said anything different. Though laws tend to have a reason, the bible's reason is because religion tells us it is the words of God.
You do know I'm sure that justification and reason are synonymous. It could be argued that reasoning for the limit is that it would reduce mass shootings ... the justification would be if that reasoning was found to be true.
