neo-x wrote: And aren't you assuming this is never the case?
No, that is exactly why I said that you are assuming the two "are always," in conflict. Your only adding one erroneous assumption to another. Two wrongs do not equal a right.
I dont' think the people who stoned stephen were murderers in the state's eyes either. Nor were the criminals in front of the Jewish authorities.
Surely you understand this statement adds nothing to your own argument nor detracts from mine.
Now you are conflating it. I was not talking about releasing prisoners, I was talking about forgiveness and how one defines it.
If you are going to accuse a fallacy, then break it down. I am addressing a specific point you made. You implied that all sin was the same. I pointed out that in one sense that is true, but not in all cases.
How is that conflating?
I would agree with Dietrich Bonhoeffer on all grounds except that assassinating Hitler has some form of Christian teaching elements to it. And if you are not arguing for that then there would be nothing to disagree with here.
This is where you keep making the same category error. You assume that if a Christian defends their family (with a firearm) that they are arguing for a specific teaching of Christ. This is where the self righteous part comes out. Bart has claimed that the reason he WOULDN'T defend his family (or own a firearm) is because he is simply following Christ. So, I addressed several of Bart's prooftexts and showed the error. Specifically martyerdom. Any conscession? No. Just arrogance that he is following Christ and those who support the lawful ownership of firearms are in contradiction with a specific teaching of Christ. Saying one is acting in accordance with a teaching is different than saying an action is not in cotradiction to a teaching.
You still haven't answered the question. I asked you, would Jesus kill in any circumstance?
I did answer. Please stop saying I didn't. You asked a very broad question, "Any circumstance" and I gave biblical examples. The flood, and you could add so many more. Ananias and Saphira. And then I said, in Christ's human incarnation I wouldn't say there were any circumstances. However, you could also say, Christ wouldn't open a 401k, run for political office, and a myriad of other things. Of course your response is to call them trivial. The grace of Christ is not an excuse to do anything we want. But, I'd also say it isn't a blanket condemnation of all things He likely would not have done either. As I said early, there are probably a lot of social issues that Christ wouldn't offer a specific do or don't.
Whats more amazing is that you are actually defending something you are strictly not a part of. Is that anyway different than what Gman does, not being a Jew and aggressively defending the law and Jewish tradition?
No, and I'm honestly shocked that you would make such a ludicrous statement.
Ties back into what I asked you earlier and your statements a couple of pages back.
I said that persecution was not the same as defending your family against non-persecution crimes. As far as I recall, you agreed. How does it tie in?
Rick, I was not talking on gun politics or anti-gun or progun choices, either way. I only remarked on two things first that most americans I see are very protectoive of gun freedom and second that killing is not supported from Christ's teachings.
Your assuming that killing, not being supported, is a condemnation of protecting one's family should it result in the killing of the assailant. Speaking very broadly here. We already know that the Bible supports killing. Now, of course that doesn't mean we are to apply that today. I'm not saying OT death penalty is a justification for killing in self-defense today. Only showing that your "any circumstance" example doesn't hold water.
I would defend my family too, but as Jlay said about killing hitler, even if you see the snese of it, can not be supported from what Christ preached. There is no way aorund that.
I didn't say killing HItler is supported by what Christ preached. I said perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to paint with a broad brush. You see, your implication in this is that Bonhoffer went AGAINST the teachings of Christ. IMO, that is a much different argument, and one you seem either unwilling, or incapable of distinquishing.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious