Don’t take my word for it, its in revelations.

Religion is quite another matter. It’s outmoded by definition, and we’ve proven that no one is willing to adopt any new religions–at least, not in any significant numbers. Like the Constitution, religious texts are based on old and long-dead models.

So we’re left with chanting and singing in a group as a surefire way to create and instill beliefs. Hey, I’m all for a Periodic Table singalong, or a devotional weekend featuring the programming of computers.

When you start talking about programming people, I’m outta there. I’ve tried it from both ends, and in every case, it got out of control.

Be aware of when your brainstem is being engaged. The limbic system is very useful in the case of an actual threat, but it can be easily tricked–repeatedly–to respond to dogma and other non-threats with the same mind-numbing adrenaline rush. Likewise, it can be trained to be attracted to certain people and then to a given belief system.

People buy from people they like. I don’t like the guns-in-church dude, but I still like Dvorak after all these years: Low, low cost, plus a generally valuable product.

I am not against guns. I am against guns being used by complete idiots who have no training and/or use chemicals as recreation.

I say you get licensed federally, you get a photoID just like a car and you can carry open or concealed with no question.

But if you have a gun, you need what amounts to a driver’s license and test before using. PROVE you are competent enough and lawful enough to use it, just like a car.

And like a car, if you carry and get under the influence, you lose the license and the right to carry.

I see no difference between the car being considered a deadly weapon and a gun being one.

Cursor_

I sat in while my kids were taught the parts of a BB gun and safety rules like how to never point at people, and how if they ever found an unsecured gun to not touch and find an adult.

A group of little girls and their leader (I won’t ID the organization) showed up early for the camping seminar which followed, and when the leader discovered that gun safety was being taught, she immediately gathered the girls and left. She told the instructor that they were not allowed to learn about guns.

So, the best way to address gun safety is to remain completely ignorant and pretend that they do not exist.

It seems teaching children about sex and drugs is fine, but don’t say a word to the kids about guns. I suppose its alright to remain ignorant about firearms when your agenda is to remove them from society. The obvious conclusion is that premarital sex and drugs are just things society has to accept since they are allowed topics of discussion for kids.

Sometimes, those people really take to heart the words of one of their songs…

Onward Christian soldiers,
Marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus
Going on before.

If you’re serious about fighting a war for Jesus, you really should have guns — guns so big they show Jesus just how much you love him. But these people in the article are pussies for not carrying bullets, because if Jesus loves guns, you can bet he wants his followers to carry bullets. Unloaded guns are for lukewarm Christians, whom Jesus will spew out of his mouth.

Don’t be lukewarm in the eyes of the Lord. Load your weapon first, and only then load the kids in the SUV and drive to church. It’ll fill you with the spirit of the Lord, and set a darn good example for the children, too.

Your examples show what happens when only a select, special, few are allowed to have firearms.

ALL mass murders have happened because those being murdered were NOT ALLOWED to have firearms and could not defend themselves.

The sole exception being antics conducted by Janet Reno, but that’s a horse of a different color.

- After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh’s heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished “there was not a house where there was not one dead.” 12:29

- Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14

- Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would “profane” it. 21:16-23

- Don’t do any work on the day of atonement or God will destroy you. 23:29-30

- “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.” 26:29

- For impaling the interracial couple, God rewards Phinehas and his sons with the everlasting priesthood. 25:10-13

- If someone makes an image of anything (like a bird or flower) then God will destroy the entire nation. 4:25-26

- God will kill those who hate him. 7:10 (If god wasn’t imaginary, I’d be in trouble)

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. (Luk 16:16 KJV)

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Mat 5:17 KJV)

The right of self defense, an inalienable right given to EVERY creature by their creator…indeed, He instilled it in them to survive, is not a question of Mosaic Law…it transcends it.

So “dispensationalism” is irrelevant, immaterial to the question of self defense, therefore your conclusion is utterly incompetent.

In other words, nothing fell into place save your incompetence…having once again opened your mouth, only to change feet.

Dispensationalism? Now things suddenly fall into place.

Luke 5:39 Applies to you and these other bibers who lack faith to make them cling to their own will and power instead of God.

The whole issue of self-defense at the Garden is hurled onto the rocks when he tells them that IF he really would like to put up a struggle (In other words if they TRULY must fight) he would have employed 12 legions of angels instead of two swords carried by untrained men. God’s defense was far better than anything a mere human could muster.

But you see that puts you and them in their place. AT the throne, not ON it. And that just doesn’t sit with theirs and your levitical nature.

Cursor_

Even when the soldiers came against Christ, one must put all the accounts together to see the right to self defense actually caused this wording:

49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
(Luk 22:49-51 KJV)

This is not a question of self defense…it was Prophecy, God’s Will, He die for the nation, therefore, as that is the case “suffer ye thus far.”

Not further…if it wasn’t in fulfillment of prophecy, then it would have been right to defend Christ:

10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.
11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
(Joh 18:10-11 KJV)