Well, we usually have a very vocal board, wonder why no one has statred on...

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Jimbo: Question to the gun haters, why are you afraid of me owning a gun? Why does that bother you? I don't care and will tolerate your race, creed, relgion, and choice of pursuit of happenies (as long it doesn't violate someone else), and will protect you to make sure you have that right. But you fear me in my home with my weapon of choice. Mind you, I am the responsible one, with it locked up, and the ammo locked up in a diffrent spot, and statistically I am not the one nor are my guns, the one's who cause the crime in your country. And to gun nuts, why are you afraid of waiting periods, liscencing, and training? I think we need just as much work as we do with cars (for record keeping and use) to keep them in proper use. I do think we should be allowed any type of weapon up to a certain calibre (I want my M2 browning 50 cal machine gun! especially the old anti-air version with quad 50's!! whoot), and some people can't have that if they are not of sound mind or body. Btw Rikard, what is it with your beef with Bush? I think you really must have a broccli fetish and are still upset at his family not supporting it. That or he drank your beer and bogarted the J's at a party. You sound almost like my elderly Aunt, who thinks any one who isn't a democrate is the devil. I have reason's to dislike Bush, but calling him a murder is pretty far-fetched. It is on the line's of the statement that, "Queen Beatrix is a murder! She is bringing the world into a realm where we let the adult killers live, and the unborn, unfit, and elderly die." I don't believe that, but you see how you are coming across?

I wish I could speak as elliquitely has you my friend.

Paragraph 1 from above: My thoughts exactly! I'm not the one that has caused the crime. Why am I being should I be punished form what someone else does?

Paragraph 2 from above: I don't mind a background check or a short waiting period. I also think training is a good idea. I DO mind the fact that the Government wants to keep a record on me because I have a firearm. Why would
they want to do this? I know that the Hitler used records such as these to confiscate the firearms of law abiding Jews prior to WWII. The former Soviet Union also did this in Estonia and Latvia as recently as the late 80s and 90s, while trying to keep those two countries with in the old USSR.

Paragraph 3 from above: I wonder about this also, but it's just not Rikard. Others here don't seem to like him either. Give him a chance to be President for a while and see what he can do. He still doesn't have his cabinet in place yet. Is the killer statement because he allowed executions in Texas? So do most states in the Union. And a majority of our people favor them. He was and is following the will of the people in this country. Wasn't that what we elected him for? Bill Clinton is the same way BTW. Arkansas is a death penalty state and I believe they carried out executions under his watch as Governor there.

Just my opinion and I don't wishto step on anyones toes. Have a nice day!

------------------
Sir Taliesin



If they take my gun can I still use my Axe?

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Jimbo: Curious what version or edition of bible you are using Fljotsdale, as AAT(An American Translation) does not have a chapter 37 of Leviticus. It stops at 27, and 27 deals with, "Buying Back What IS the LORD's". Chapter 19 of Deuteronomy is a pretty good one about the Cities of Refuge, and a comment on the verses 11-14, you are saying because it says, verses 12 "then the elders of his town should send men to get him from there and hand him over to the avenging relative to die." You base that revenge is the motive, but the point is that justice must come and from the relatives, but it is stated it comes first from the Elders, then to the relatives, and if we look at a few other places it may be that there is no relatives or they don't state that relatives should do it. Personel vengence was spoken out against in Leviticus 19 verses 18, "Don't avenge yourself or hold a grude against your fellow Israelites, but love your neighbot liek yourself. I am the LORD." Personel vengence no, vengence for the one's killed and who should do it yes. I can get some more information but I need to get going for class. The duty of vengence or the act to carry out the justice, not the personal vengence is what they were talking about, not that if your family member is killed you should kill him with vengence in your heart. Ezekiel talked about how we are not to be glad for having to do this task sense all killing make the LORD sad, but it is commanded and to be carried out. Btw, I correct myself, it wasn't 7 cities, it was 3 by Moses, and then expanded to 6. Seeya and good weekened to all.

Aaaarrgggghhhhh! I don't know how I did that! I had the darn bible open in front of me! I should have written Numbers 35: 19-21, 31. Sorry! And, no, I did not intend to give the impression that this was condoning personal vengeance (though in fact I imagine the families of a murdered person WOULD feel pretty vengeful, lol! Which is why I cannot approve this particular way of execution!)

Anyway, the scrip at Deut 19:11-13 says:
"But in case there should happen to be a man hating his fellowman, and he has lain in wait for him and has risen up against him and struck his soul fatally and he has died, and the man has fled to one of these cities, the older men of the city must then send and take him from there, and they must deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood and he must die. Your eye should not feel sorry for him, and you must clear away the guilt of innocent blood out of Israel, that you may have good."
Can't argue with that very much, can you?

Since you seemed to be implying that vengeance was wrong in the eyes of god, how about these snippets:
"Vengeance is mine, and retribution..." Deut 32:35
"The Lord has a day of vengeance..." Isaiah 34:8
"..to proclaim a day of vengeance..." Isaiah 61:2
"... the revelation of the lord Jesus Christ from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance..." 2 Thessalonians 1:7,8.

Cant argue much with those either. Which is one of the reasons why I do not approve of god. Any god.


------------------

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Ramon de Ramon y Ramon: Fljotsdale, ma'am, I beg your pardon, but Moiraine's and Moni's posts are about as antagonistic and opposing, with respects to both, the views on the issues and the general attitude towards society they express, as any two posts on any topic I have seen here so far !

Not really, Ramon. Basically they are both saying the same thing, even though disagreeing on the detail. Same as me, lol! Contradictory DETAILS don't matter too much in the big picture, if the overall view is largely harmonious!



------------------

[Cavern Sniffer]

Jabidas, the song you're referring to was - I don't like Mondays by the Boomtown Rats/Bob Geldoff. The girl went to school on a Monday morning and shot the shit out of her classmates. When asked why she did it she replied: "because I don't like Mondays."

Personally I think quoting the bible is a lost cause as it contains far too many contradictions; ie "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". As compared to; "Turn the other cheek".

My 2c is all.

------------------
It's bleedin dark down here, slippery too.
Man, that's a pisser.

[jabidas]

Its really beyond me how you cant understand the danger of letting any moron by a gun, when someone has a gun there is a willingness to use it and having all forms of media saying its ok and not really showing the negative consequences only showing how its ok you get people out of nowwhere using guns and big surprise their hardly all going to be rational balanced individual are they. When you give people that kind of power, to kill without effort or skill your putting the power into the hands of any idiot, any pissed off antisocial loser can take out his vengance and all their shown about that situation is some insane gunfreak with more ak47s than brain cells talking crap about right to protect themselves on tv and its ok because its on tv. Despise that guy with his knife in japan but know that it took skill, if those weirdo columbine kids had to pull their stunt with knifes it would have been gameover so fast it wouldnt have benn funny. Understand that if you think your okay with guns because your a good member of society and completley sane and would never hurt someone thats one thing another is selling guns to some physo for killing the hospital workers he thinks looked down on him by the way he has just as much right to them as you do. Selling guns to all and sundry is like voluntering to go skipping in a minefield.

The killings I mentioned were the first big media feeding frenzy ones

------------------

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cavern Sniffer: Jabidas, the song you're referring to was - I don't like Mondays by the Boomtown Rats/Bob Geldoff. The girl went to school on a Monday morning and shot the shit out of her classmates. When asked why she did it she replied: "because I don't like Mondays." Personally I think quoting the bible is a lost cause as it contains far too many contradictions; ie "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". As compared to; "Turn the other cheek". My 2c is all.

There's no contradiction there. "An eye for an eye" is old testament recommended justice, "turn the other cheek" is a new testament attitude. The new testament intentionally turns around old testament "law" because Christ was all about Grace - not law.





------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: There's no contradiction there. "An eye for an eye" is old testament recommended justice, "turn the other cheek" is a new testament attitude. The new testament intentionally turns around old testament "law" because Christ was all about Grace - not law.

Um, but Yorick, Jesus said 'if you have seen me you have seen the father', lol!
'Eye for an eye' was daddy's law, 'turn the other cheek' was the son's law. Now, if one was of the same mind as the other, as Jesus statement implies, how come the contradictory statements?!? The fact that one is OT and the other NT is NOT the issue, lol!



------------------

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Since you seemed to be implying that vengeance was wrong in the eyes of god, how about these snippets: "Vengeance is mine, and retribution..." Deut 32:35 "The Lord has a day of vengeance..." Isaiah 34:8 "..to proclaim a day of vengeance..." Isaiah 61:2 "... the revelation of the lord Jesus Christ from heaven with his powerful angels in a flaming fire, as he brings vengeance..." 2 Thessalonians 1:7,8.

"Vengance is mine", is in the context of telling the Israelites not to get hung up about Vengance because he would take care of it. It's actually an anti-vengance statement.

Anyhow Gods "Vengance" aside from being more patient and slower to arouse response than Karmic consequence is overshadowed by forgiveness, patience and Grace. Time and time again God "held off vengance" because of the requests of one or two people (Lot, Jonah re. Nineveh etc etc..). Then there is the whole Christ cruicifixion stuff which hardly heralds a vengeful and destuctive God who doesn't care about creation, but rather indicates the opposite.

Jimbo, yes it is a human that pulls the trigger behind the gun, but come on! What else does a gun exist for other than to destroy another human? It is an object of pure death. It serves no other purpose than destruction. The bottom line is that with a gun, a child can kill ten or more adults. With a knife a child would merely injure one or two adults if at all.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Um, but Yorick, Jesus said 'if you have seen me you have seen the father', lol! 'Eye for an eye' was daddy's law, 'turn the other cheek' was the son's law. Now, if one was of the same mind as the other, as Jesus statement implies, how come the contradictory statements?!? The fact that one is OT and the other NT is NOT the issue, lol!

Well yes it is the issue. The New testament changes everything.
In the old testament the Jews are Gods children - the new includes the gentiles.
The old requires sacrifices - the new has Jesus as the final eternal sacrifice.
The old requires a priesthood to intercede for the people - the new allows personal relationship with God (the ripping of the temple curtain symbolised this for example).
The old speaks of rewards in thsi life and doesn't even speak of an afterlife except for the vague "Sheol" - The new speaks of eternal life/Heaven.

Both "laws" as you put it were both daddys and sonnys. As I said, "an eye for an eye" was recommended justice for the Jews. I am not a Jew under Jewish law. I am under Christ's Grace so I aim (though I often fail miserably) to adhere to the radical attitude proposal of "turning the other cheek".


I'm afraid it certainly IS the issue LOL


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 06-15-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: Well yes it is the issue. The New testament changes everything. In the old testament the Jews are Gods children - the new includes the gentiles. The old requires sacrifices - the new has Jesus as the final eternal sacrifice. The old requires a priesthood to intercede for the people - the new allows personal relationship with God (the ripping of the temple curtain symbolised this for example). The old speaks of rewards in thsi life and doesn't even speak of an afterlife except for the vague "Sheol" - The new speaks of eternal life/Heaven. Both "laws" as you put it were both daddys and sonnys. As I said, "an eye for an eye" was recommended justice for the Jews. I am not a Jew under Jewish law. I am under Christ's Grace so I aim (though I often fail miserably) to adhere to the radical attitude proposal of "turning the other cheek". I'm afraid it certainly IS the issue LOL

Nah! Don't agree at all!
Yes, your points are valid, in so far as they go. The OT was for the Jews, the NT was for all mankind who wanted it. Laws differ for different situations/people. Seems fine until you think about it.
But scripture says 'god does not change' and that there are 'two unchangeable things, his word and his law'. The two statements quoted above - eye for eye/turn the other cheek - are diametrically opposed, regardless of circumstances, and are totally at odds with god being 'unchanging'.
Take a look at the attitudes in the OT. Compare with attitudes in the Book of Revelation. You will see the same god.
Take a look at the 4 gospels and you will see a person who is SO unlike the OT/Revelation god it is no wonder the Jewish reliious heirachy hated him! Jesus was a nice bloke. God was not. Their attitudes opposing are clarified by the eye for eye/turn the other cheek statements. IMHO!

Oh, and actually the NT no more speaks of man's future in heaven than the OT does. SOME were to go to heaven, MOST were to 'inherit the earth and dwell forever upon it'

------------------