What to say to an open carry visitor at church? - Page 20
Page 20 of 33 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 323

Thread: What to say to an open carry visitor at church?

  1. #191
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    59
    For a Catholic, belief in the rapture isn't required. Indeed, most Catholics find the argument for a rapture of the faithful to be somewhat thin Sadly, we often find among are children-of-the-60s-clergy that the Apocalypse is thought to be mere metaphor. The very old, retired priest and the new generation of the young have more sense IMO. ;) I'm convinced we pretty much have to be in the end times now. And if the Southern Baptists I grew up around are right, you can expect the rapture at any moment. Otherwise, we Christians are here for the tribulation. A bit off the topic, but I bring it up so that my frame of reference is clear. I see no need to argue the point with those who disagree. :)

    But if we Christians are here for the duration, we've got decisions to make. Obviously if you think Christians must always turn the other cheek, even to the point of torture and death of whomever bad guy(s) wish to do evil upon, you're kind of in the wrong forum. If you believe that a Christian may (or even must under certain circumstances) defend people, even to the point of lethal force, then a few guns are going to come in handy if the need arises. This too seems to be a given on this forum.

    But I've read the account of the tribulation, and more. Jesus warned us that we would be hated, even as he was hated. And we see that we are. As chaos reigns, order collapses, and the SHTF as it were, we can expect that Christians may have need of guns, even in houses of God. That ought to be enough to make a person of faith weep even to think, I suppose. But if the time comes, there won't be time for sadness and tears. Only time for a quick prayer that your aim be true and that the people you protect may escape their persecutors even if you do not.

    I'm a Christian, a prepper, and a patriot. And I've got an inkling that all three will be sorely tested in the near future.

    Now obviously, I carry concealed. It makes sense, for now, that I do so. But if quick access ever becomes more important than discretion, I would carry in the way that lends itself to the fastest draw. That means open carry. If I'm not welcome in one house of God when the time comes because people aren't comfortable with my readiness to protect them, then I'll find somewhere else to be.

    As always, I continue to pray I'm wrong about what's headed our way. But I have this voice in my head telling me sadly that this must be. God's voice or my own limited understanding, I cannot say for sure. But I'll do what I can and continue to pray that I do the right thing, at the right time, and for the right reasons.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Cypher View Post
    In what universe does Mohammedan = Protestant?
    Sorry CYPHER that went over my head.......... HUH?

  4. #193
    Received this information by e-mail from Buckeye Firearms Association and thought some may find it germane to this conversation.
    ~
    Book Review: "Evil Invades Sanctuary: The Case for Security in Faith-Based Organizations" | Buckeye Firearms Association
    ~
    Book Review: "Evil Invades Sanctuary: The Case for Security in Faith-Based Organizations"
    ~
    Long-time readers of this website will no-doubt recall the active killer attack at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, CO in 2007. After having killed two people and wounding two others at a YWAM training center, the 24 year-old killer set his sights on New Life Church. What he did not know was that the flock at New Life had protection from wolves such as him, in the form of sheepdogs who made up the church's safety team. Among those sheepdogs was Carl Chinn, author of "Evil Invades Sanctuary: The Case for Security in Faith-Based Organizations."
    ~
    While many will recall that the New Life Church attack ended when an safety team member Jeanne Assam engaged the killer with the 9mm pistol she had permission to carry in the church, very few may recall that there were other armed safety team members, including Chinn, on hand that day. And although initial news reports made mention of this fact, it's likely that no one who hasn't read the book know the real story about how this team worked together to prevent a greater loss of life.
    ~
    Chinn's book begins with a chapter called "The Wakeup Call." The chapter opens with a chilling account of an armed, shirtless man with notes scribbled on his body (including instructions on what to do with his body) walking into the lobby of Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family headquarters in 1996. Chinn worked there, and had been extensively involved in pre-incident emergency response planning, just as he was years later at New Life Church, when another armed predator came calling.
    I'd rather be a Conservative Nutjob. Than a Liberal with NO Nuts & NO Job

  5. #194
    The bible is the only book that you could get five people to read and get five different opinions about it. Then they want to kill each other arguing about it.
    Certified NRA Firearms Instructor
    Oklahoma SDA Instructor
    Utah CCW Instructor

  6. #195
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Real World
    Posts
    7,812
    Quote Originally Posted by 3gunshooter View Post
    The bible is the only book that you could get five people to read and get five different opinions about it.
    Wrong. Because these people don't read & study the Bible is why they have different opinions. The Bible when read and studied properly is of only one opinion.
    ~ GOD HATES RELIGION ~

  7. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by iKarith View Post
    For a Catholic, belief in the rapture isn't required. Indeed, most Catholics find the argument for a rapture of the faithful to be somewhat thin Sadly, we often find among are children-of-the-60s-clergy that the Apocalypse is thought to be mere metaphor. The very old, retired priest and the new generation of the young have more sense IMO. ;) I'm convinced we pretty much have to be in the end times now. And if the Southern Baptists I grew up around are right, you can expect the rapture at any moment. Otherwise, we Christians are here for the tribulation. A bit off the topic, but I bring it up so that my frame of reference is clear. I see no need to argue the point with those who disagree. :)

    But if we Christians are here for the duration, we've got decisions to make. Obviously if you think Christians must always turn the other cheek, even to the point of torture and death of whomever bad guy(s) wish to do evil upon, you're kind of in the wrong forum. If you believe that a Christian may (or even must under certain circumstances) defend people, even to the point of lethal force, then a few guns are going to come in handy if the need arises. This too seems to be a given on this forum.

    But I've read the account of the tribulation, and more. Jesus warned us that we would be hated, even as he was hated. And we see that we are. As chaos reigns, order collapses, and the SHTF as it were, we can expect that Christians may have need of guns, even in houses of God. That ought to be enough to make a person of faith weep even to think, I suppose. But if the time comes, there won't be time for sadness and tears. Only time for a quick prayer that your aim be true and that the people you protect may escape their persecutors even if you do not.

    I'm a Christian, a prepper, and a patriot. And I've got an inkling that all three will be sorely tested in the near future.

    Now obviously, I carry concealed. It makes sense, for now, that I do so. But if quick access ever becomes more important than discretion, I would carry in the way that lends itself to the fastest draw. That means open carry. If I'm not welcome in one house of God when the time comes because people aren't comfortable with my readiness to protect them, then I'll find somewhere else to be.

    As always, I continue to pray I'm wrong about what's headed our way. But I have this voice in my head telling me sadly that this must be. God's voice or my own limited understanding, I cannot say for sure. But I'll do what I can and continue to pray that I do the right thing, at the right time, and for the right reasons.
    We of any Christian faith must pray. I do not throw rocks at you or any other faith.
    Faith! In today’s instant search via the internet the study of the Bible may be conducted with so many tools. Everything, every version and every commentary is instantly available. I have spent literally hours doing so. I love the Word of my G_d and in the past four years find I am never satisfied. One of my buddies was over the other day and asked if I had stock or interest in a paper company due to the stacks of printouts, I have in and around my book case, desk and floor. One may search a site for the direct Hebrew word, transliteration and Strong’s concordance. It is faith; I am able to discuss this with those who wish, not browbeating anyone that does not wish to hear. I also have these versions, commentary and such on a pdf. I have the Quran for rebuttal so I may site, Surah per line and page. This is what happens to an old man with too much time on his hands after the wife goes to bed, Fox News is off or NCIS reruns are too old for me. Faith. Just an old Independent Baptist Bible believer, whose church of record has as many licensed CCW folks as any other per capita I would think.
    "Undocumented Second Amendment Supporter, fighting against suppression of mandatory background checks."

  8. Quote Originally Posted by Ringo View Post
    Wrong. Because these people don't read & study the Bible is why they have different opinions. The Bible when read and studied properly is of only one opinion.
    And to study it "properly" one would have to learn Hebrew and Greek and know the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words at the time they were written. One Hebrew word written 1 to 2 thousand years before Christ could have the meaning of a whole paragraph in English - and a meaning that would only make sense to apply at the time it was written.

    Now I probably just started the King James Version only argument... :-)
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  9. #198
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Real World
    Posts
    7,812
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    And to study it "properly" one would have to learn Hebrew and Greek and know the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words at the time they were written. One Hebrew word written 1 to 2 thousand years before Christ could have the meaning of a whole paragraph in English - and a meaning that would only make sense to apply at the time it was written.
    No one has to learn Hebrew and Greek to study the Scriptures properly, but it would help. It's more the Greek words that could have the meaning of a whole paragraph in English than anything Hebrew. With Hebrew it's more of understanding tradition, feasts, customs and prayer. 1-2 thousand years before Christ to present day, the Hebrew language and it's meaning have been protected and preserved. Nothing has been lost in translation, the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that.
    ~ GOD HATES RELIGION ~

  10. #199
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by 3gunshooter View Post
    The bible is the only book that you could get five people to read and get five different opinions about it. Then they want to kill each other arguing about it.
    If they want to kill each other over their interpretations, they're doing it wrong. ;)

  11. #200
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    59
    Another massively off-topic post, sorry… ;)

    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    And to study it "properly" one would have to learn Hebrew and Greek and know the meanings of the Hebrew and Greek words at the time they were written. One Hebrew word written 1 to 2 thousand years before Christ could have the meaning of a whole paragraph in English - and a meaning that would only make sense to apply at the time it was written.

    Now I probably just started the King James Version only argument... :-)
    Ah, the -only'ist argument. :) I wonder if the KJV-onlyists know that the KJV has been updated numerous times since 1611 as more and older documents have come to light. Not talking NKJV. Many purists reject NKJV out of hand and IMO it does have some serious and genuine flaws. The Catholic equivalent is DRC-onlyism. The DRC dates to 1608 or 1609, but it too has seen numerous updates just like KJV and for the same reasons. Amongst those who know this, I find Revised Standard Version (RSV) the most useful edition for discussing the faith in English.

    Bible nerd explanation on translation follows (not that I'm really a Bible nerd, but you can skip it of you don't care):

    Bible translations come in really two forms… Literal, and dynamic equivalence. This is actually a great source of contention amongst the faithful. The problem is, as noted above, literal translations don't really make sense to us unless we grew up speaking ancient Hebrew or the particular Greek dialect of the New Testament. Since almost none of us do, a translation has to convey meaning to the reader and will thus stray from the original in word but hopefully not in meaning. This is called dynamic equivalence.

    The problem with dynamic equivalence is that it IS an interpretation, and it may not be quite the correct one. Consider how many explanations there are for some of the things in Shakespeare's plays and how sometimes the explanations of even noted scholars in the field are simply wrong. Yet though I'm sure the words of Shakespeare are of grave importance, nobody has ever gone to war over them (as far as I know…) And that's already in English, if a more archaic form full of idioms that don't directly relate to us today.

    Casual readers tend to prefer more dynamic equivalence translations of the Bible. Translations such as NIV, NAB, etc fall into this category. Translations such as KJV, DRC, and RSV tend to be much more literal and are more useful for study, parallel translations, etc. The various New whatever translations are kind of all over the map, even within the same Bible sometimes. ;)

    Now, I said I prefer the RSV for discussion with mixed-faith groups. It's a basically literal translation, which makes it somewhat more difficult to read casually, but there's a lot less room to mess with doctrine that way. RSV is an update to the American Standard Version (now public domain), which itself was built upon the English Revised Version of the KJV. The RV is basically the only "authorized" update to the KJV. But it's criticized as almost too literal and very flat. Some of the flowery language of the KJV was removed because It's Not Absolutely Literal. Yeah, I know—as I said, KJV has seen other updates that have fixed the same problems without removing the flavor, as previously noted. ;) The ASV is basically identical, except that it replaces the Tetragrammation, the Name of God, with Jehovah.

    The RSV undoes this change to the ASV, reverting to LORD and GOD for the Divine Name (which in Hebrew is written, but is always read aloud as either Adonai or Elohim out of respect…) Second, it dropped the second person pronouns and archaic verb forms when addressing people. It kept them for addressing God, and it used a better Greek source. There's some dispute over a few bits mostly of OT, such as in Isaiah 7. But by in large, these are minor and actually result in the text being better for my purposes. ;)


    Nutshell: Just about EVERYBODY recognizes the RSV as basically "good enough", if nobody really regards it as perfect. With I think TWO minor text edits, inclusion of the correct deuterocanonical books from the Septuagint, and putting them in the right order, you have the Catholic edition. Include more of those books and you have an Orthodox edition. Given its lineage from KJV, all but the angry KJV-onlyists recognize the RSV as acceptable. Jews consider the OT a doctrinally correct translation as well. I've never heard a Mormon object to it, though obviously the RSV is incomplete from their view as it's missing their additional teachings.

    In fact, the ONLY faith that is usually not willing to agree to use RSV for discussion's sake in my experience are Jehovah's Witnesses. They have too many fundamental disagreements regarding translation. They reject the notion of the trinity entirely, and I admit that my understanding of the differences is deficient enough that I cannot fairly describe them.

    Actually, being a prepper, that's the translation I keep in with my BOB. If I'm going to have exactly one Bible with me, then let it be the one I can read with just about every Christian I find… :)

    Editing to add for the sake of correctness… I said there are like two changes between RSV and RSV-CE. There are more than that. RSV-CE fixed many things particularly in the NT. These and more were corrected in a second edition of the RSV NT. Some versions called "RSV-CE" actually use this 2nd edition NT, which isn't what was approved by the Vatican, but the differences aren't anything that'd draw criticism. The Isaiah 7 issue remains, but again if you know it's there it's not a big deal because it really is the single criticism of the translation.
    Last edited by iKarith; 09-05-2013 at 05:02 AM. Reason: Adding a correction

Page 20 of 33 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast