Communism Survivor Destroys "Gun Control" Law Makers

[David Kent]

So certain are you how to interpret the above?

It doesn't need interpreting, it is perfectly clear.

Okay, after reading a little bit of exegeis of the Daniel passage, I believe it is saying that it demonstrates God's power to us if He is able to strike down a powerful monarch like Nebuchadnezzar.

This is not really the same thing as saying it was God's will for Nebuchadnezzar to oppress people. In the sense that Nebuchadnezzar was not being obedient to God's Higher Laws.

The subjects of Nebuchadnezzar would therefore still be expected by God to put God's Higher Law above anything from Nebuchadnezzar that would make them serve him at the expense of serving God.

And when it was all over, their faith in God would be all the more renewed, after being tested the way it was.

In short, God gave the big bully his comeupance.

Not so. Nebuchadnezzar was God's servant,

• Jeremiah 43:10 And say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them.

 

[I Love An Atheist]

It doesn't need interpreting, it is perfectly clear.


Not so. Nebuchadnezzar was God's servant,

• Jeremiah 43:10 And say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them.

But God made his servant eat grass, too.

 

[I Love An Atheist]

It doesn't need interpreting, it is perfectly clear.


Not so. Nebuchadnezzar was God's servant,

• Jeremiah 43:10 And say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will send and take Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will set his throne upon these stones that I have hid; and he shall spread his royal pavilion over them.

I'm going to come back to this and just acknowledge that you have a point and that I misunderstood Nebuchadnezzar and God's use of him. I will accept your whole premise now for the sake of argument, although in truth I have become confused, and I need to think about it a lot more.

But you are using it to form a premise to reason from, about contemporary governments. So let me get this straight what you are implying.

Are you implying that every time a Hitler or a Stalin comes onto the scene, it is only happening to signify God's judgement? And therefore we should just submit to this person and never resist?

This is confusing, because it de facto collapses God's Higher Law into Might Makes Right.

What then of Pope John Paul II in Poland? Should he have just submitted to God's judgement in the form of the communist tanks without his gentle civil disobedience and charisma to the Polish people, inciting them to shout in a mob, "We want God!" while meanwhile all the tanks and troops stood ready to slaughter them but never did?

I think really only God can know who He is using and how, and when, and why. If He has not revealed it to us, then I don't think we can just assume it.

If I have gotten your premise and its implications wrong, then please clarify.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I posted this on another thread dealing with the same topic:

Much is made of Peter's use of a sword in the Garden (as found in Matthew and Mark). However, a question is to the best of my knowledge never asked. Why did he have a sword in the first place? The answer I believe is found in Luke 22:36, 38. However, the question as to why Our Lord had no need of Peter's sword is found in John 18:5-6. Simply put, Our Lord protected Himself by revealing a bare glimmer of His Divinity. Peter was a bit hasty and premature in his actions.

 

[Adonia]

Other than fear of death, why do people have assault rifles?

We aren't allowed to own true "assault rifles". Such a weapon has selective fire which means either a single shot with each pull of the trigger, or flick the lever for a 3 burst automatic, or fully automatic. What we are allowed to own are rifles that look like "assault" rifles but really aren't. The ones we do have are reliable and easy to shoot.

 

[Adonia]

Why do you call him a SOB? If you are supposed to love your enemies?

Sorry, but I do not, nor could I ever love a man who could rape a child, that's Jesus's bailiwick. Now answer the question!

 

[Adonia]

My wife and I believe it is better to die a violent death (better than sickness) upholding Christ than to go against his word as set forth in the Sermon on the mount. And since people assume you fear death, they use it to manipulate you. But if those buttons do not work when pushed, they have lost all control over you.

But there are also many non violent ways to deal with these situations. If we love our enemies, things will find a better remedy than if we hate them.

Again, would you allow a grown man to rape your 6 year old granddaughter?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Again, would you allow a grown man to rape your 6 year old granddaughter?

His Christian love would put up a Christian force field of love and the rapist would bow at the beauty of the love of the Christian love.

 

[church mouse guy]

Blood bought my freedom.

 

[David Kent]

I'm going to come back to this and just acknowledge that you have a point and that I misunderstood Nebuchadnezzar and God's use of him. I will accept your whole premise now for the sake of argument, although in truth I have become confused, and I need to think about it a lot more.

But you are using it to form a premise to reason from, about contemporary governments. So let me get this straight what you are implying.

Are you implying that every time a Hitler or a Stalin comes onto the scene, it is only happening to signify God's judgement? And therefore we should just submit to this person and never resist?

This is confusing, because it de facto collapses God's Higher Law into Might Makes Right.

What then of Pope John Paul II in Poland? Should he have just submitted to God's judgement in the form of the communist tanks without his gentle civil disobedience and charisma to the Polish people, inciting them to shout in a mob, "We want God!" while meanwhile all the tanks and troops stood ready to slaughter them but never did?

I think really only God can know who He is using and how, and when, and why. If He has not revealed it to us, then I don't think we can just assume it.

If I have gotten your premise and its implications wrong, then please clarify.

I will not speculate, just believe what the Word of God says.

 

[Matt Black]

Peter was not acting in self-defense.

He was defending Jesus. "Self-defence" legally extends to cover family and friends

 

[church mouse guy]

He was defending Jesus. "Self-defence" legally extends to cover family and friends

There was no attack, although the arrest might have been illegal. Those who want people disarmed fail to notice that one then becomes oppressed by the police. In Latin America gun ownership is usually illegal except for the rich and yet Latin America has some of the highest crime rates in the world and the governments are often corrupt.

 

[Matt Black]

That is a problem with the governments not gun control per se.

 

[church mouse guy]

That is a problem with the governments not gun control per se.

Matt, they are related. The police grow more powerful when the public is defenseless. In Mexico, one party has ruled for 100 years. In the state of Michoacan, the cartels were murdering at will. Dr Jose Mireles started a vigilante group to protect the innocent. Eventually the federals sent in the military. The doctor was arrested for having a gun and spent three years in prison. When the federals left, they deputized indescrimately and many members of cartels became law enforcement. Mexico is awash in murder and Michoacan is still dangerous.

In Colombia, the communist FARC still controls vast areas in the countryside. The people have no guns and the military is too weak to help. Murder rates are up.

In Venezuela, the murder rate is one of the highest in the world. No one has a gun. The government is now putting children in prison. The police will steal both your food and your property.

 

[Matt Black]

That reflects the peculiarities of the Latin American set up. We do not have those issues here.

 

[church mouse guy]

That reflects the peculiarities of the Latin American set up. We do not have those issues here.

Matt, you have some of the same things as Latin America. For example, only the rich have guns. You have a crime wave in London. And you have many areas where the police are frightened of Muslims and cannot enforce the law.

 

[Matt Black]

Don't believe all the Breitbart propaganda...

 

[church mouse guy]

Don't believe all the Breitbart propaganda...

I am starting to like May so you tell me what to believe.

 

[Matt Black]

Well, your friend Mrs May was responsible as Home Secretary from 2010 to 2016 for cutting police funding and numbers drastically which is part of the reason parts of our cities are enjoying the crime wave

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, your friend Mrs May was responsible as Home Secretary from 2010 to 2016 for cutting police funding and numbers drastically which is part of the reason parts of our cities are enjoying the crime wave[/QUOTE

With money so hard, that will be difficult to undo.

We have shortages of police in American cities because police are under attack from the left and big cities are bad places to be. Americans do not want to talk about how to end the crime wave in American cities. We are modernists and modernists don't care for people in the ditch