NotTwoShure
Well-known member
Interesting, radical Baptist (a.k.a. Christian) is a new idea/term/concept for me. Just a comment.
Certainly...and its man's definitions of what is right and wrong in relation to religious teachings. Ie: Radical Islam, radical Baptists, so on and so forth. It seems the more conservative the religious ideological views, the more extreme and radical the behaviors are of the followers...all in the name of their respective God. To destroy and/or kill in the name of God is a very powerful notion to so many in this world. As we see it, its been the Muslim world that has truely embraced it.
To answer the question of "why discuss God/religion in a gun forum"...
It feels silly that i actually have to say this. It is a fair guess that most on this forum view the second amendment to our Constitution as an unalienable right and are rather adamant about ensuring their freedom to bear arms. In order to understand what "unalienable right" means, you kind of have to understand that these rights are granted by God, not man. Even if you don't believe in God, but believe in "Natural rights" as John Locke referred to them - you still believe that by nature of our existence there are rights that we have as living beings (i.e. life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). If those don't exist, whether by God or Nature, then that means they exist by the grace of Man - which is a terrifying prospect to me. I pose this question - Those of you that are adamant about your second amendment rights (and other unalienables) and do not believe in God; what justification do you use to ultimately defend your right to bear arms? Not trying to pick a fight here - i just want to hear from those of you who are of this mindset to clarify for me. Besides, since most of my debate occurs with anti second amendment libs (who are more often than not in my experience, athiests), it gives me some good fodder to meet on their playing field. Thanks in advance.
unalienable=inalienable= not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
unalienable in this case has nothing to do with god, nor any religion. those unalienable rights are granted to us by that document you are reading, the Constitution. that document says those are our rights and cannot be taken away, period. that was the entire point of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. they granted us those things listed, so they could not be taken away or infringed.
I didn't get the game in NY but saw the hilights.Yup. Did you watch My Cardinals WIN theirs? 3-0 :dance3::victory:
Just curious. Does the education you have obtained over the years really lead you to believe that the constitution granted us certain rights? I believe you have misspoke here. Care to restate your opinion?
There is a big difference between "recognizing" rights and "granting" rights.
We have rights because of our nature as people. They are our birthrights that were endowed on us by our creator, and as such are inalienable. Some believe our creator is a god, others nature. Makes no difference in this argument. The constitution was a declaration of law, stating the government would not violate those certain rights that are ours by birth.
Let me help with this...
Link Removed
Just curious. Does the education you have obtained over the years really lead you to believe that the constitution granted us certain rights? I believe you have misspoke here. Care to restate your opinion?
There is a big difference between "recognizing" rights and "granting" rights.
We have rights because of our nature as people. They are our birthrights that were endowed on us by our creator, and as such are inalienable. Some believe our creator is a god, others nature. Makes no difference in this argument. The constitution was a declaration of law, stating the government would not violate those certain rights that are ours by birth.
You are right, recognition vs. granted. I still don't believe it to be granted by any mythical figure though.
unalienable=inalienable= not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
unalienable in this case has nothing to do with god, nor any religion. those unalienable rights are granted to us by that document you are reading, the Constitution. that document says those are our rights and cannot be taken away, period. that was the entire point of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. they granted us those things listed, so they could not be taken away or infringed.
The "MAIN THING" that differentiates Christianity from other religions is the BIBLE & PROPHECY. Prophecy, which reveals God's plan in advance, is the missing element in all sacred scriptures of the world's religions, because false gods cannot provide it. Prophecy is not to be found in the Koran, the Hindu Vedas, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Book of Mormon, the sayings of Buddha, the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. In contrast, prophecy comprises about 30 percent of the Bible. Bible prophecy is not a prediction of the future, rather a promise about the future. The Bible contains hundreds of specific prophecies that have been fulfilled in specific ways, all with 100% accuracy. There is no denying that truth. Prophecies of Jesus Christ, Israel and world empires are found throughout the Old and New Testaments.
Fulfilled prophecy is one of the most powerful proofs that the Bible is truly the Word of God. Since all of the prophecies that were to be fulfilled in the first coming of Christ were fulfilled to the finest detail, we can be sure that the Bible itself is God's revelation to man since no human writer could be 100% accurate. "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21 Significantly, the God of the Bible identifies Himself as the One who accurately foretells the future and makes certain that it happens as He said it would. In fact, God points to prophecy as the irrefutable evidence of His existence and the authenticity of His Word: "For I am God, and there is none else. ...Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, my counsel shall stand..." (Isa:46:9-10
Ancient Aliens is New Age "Imagination Inflation". I stand by my post.Just going on a limb here but have you ever seen "Ancient Aliens"
Ancient Aliens is New Age "Imagination Inflation". I stand by my post.
The God of Prophecy | thebereancall.org. However fact being that it's 2000 years old, and reinterpreted so many times it virtually has no validity.
Just going on a limb here but have you ever seen "Ancient Aliens" you can literally apply any adaptation on the bible and make the assumption that it is "true". However fact being that it's 2000 years old, and reinterpreted so many times it virtually has no validity. Any theologists will tell you that there is a common traits among all religions, and your argument that your posting right now, was in fact the same kind of arguments used against Christianity when the notion of one god was mentioned to polytheistic believers.This was the context for Rome's conflict with Christianity, which Romans variously regarded as a form of atheism and novel superstition.
I am speaking about the New Testament - Old Testament is different. The Torah (first 5 books of OT) is believed to have been dictated by God to Moses over the course of time. and as far as validity goes - the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that the integrity of translation over the course of millennia is sound.
Having studied many religions i can tell you that they are NOT all the same. one of the interesting things that sets Christianity apart (other than grace and love) is the fact that the Bible is the only religious text that is peer reviewed. Has anyone actually noticed that? most holy books are written by one person, and essentially copied down word for word whatever their ascribed deity told them to write. The Bible is written by many - and is peer reviewed from the inside out, as well as from the outside in. The gospels - 4 accounts of the same event in history. Peer reviewed, and from different points of view and different times (they even are called the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John). Matthew was a tax collector; Mark was a young lad who followed from an early age, and spent a good chunk interpreting for Peter; Luke, a doctor, never met Jesus - so his account was more of a research piece; John was a fisherman and also wrote Revelation. Then you have the councils and ultimately the canonization of the text. No other religious text has done this that i am aware of.
I am speaking about the New Testament - Old Testament is different. The Torah (first 5 books of OT) is believed to have been dictated by God to Moses over the course of time. and as far as validity goes - the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls showed that the integrity of translation over the course of millennia is sound.
The Wikipedia article on the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) gives a very precise and objective history and overview of what the DSS say. Also included is all the various and conflicting conclusions by scholars on the origin of the scrolls. It is anything but cut and dry, as the gloss-over answer below would suggest.
Regarding translation accuracy, from the scholars that studied the DSS, it would seem that some books of the Bible in the DSS match up very well with what is currently read, while others match up terribly, illustrating the Bible was anything but set in stone at that time. The books that match up well might have been copied to the DSS after they were canonized, thus explaining why they are very nearly the same as they are today.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?