Firearms Refresher Course

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Notice how I explained this to Praxeas in another post (http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=287 ), but Praxeas really isn't concerned with having a discussion and getting to the truth. Praxeas, do you know any Muslims?

No what you did was CHANGE the argument. When I pointed out that you had said Peter didn't pray and have faith you denied it. When I quoted you then you said I quoted you out of context and that you explained it. When I quoted the context and shows how you did not explain it but sought to justify it by quoting a verse that did not support your assertion you then said you explained it in ANOTHER post above....sheeeesh EB, give us a break. It's no big deal to just admit you were wrong originally or that you meant to word it differently. You don't have to keep making up stuff as you go along

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Lost and Found

Really? Did you see the thread I started this morning on this subject? Look for "NEW WORD?" thread.

Praxeas, you just getting farther and farther from the subject of this thread….

You started a NEW thread?

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Brother Eastman, Jesus shows us what He thought about Peter attacking his attackers. Your point answered.

Nice try evangalist, still that does not answer the question as to why Peter had the sword to begin with. There wasn't anything wrong with Peter having the sword, if there was Jesus would've addressed it before a guard got his ear cut off.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Nobody here, NOBODY, has ever argued retaliation was ok. Nobody argued vengeance was ok. Nobody argued retribution was ok. Nobody argued rendering evil for evil was ok. None of those are self defense. You are fighting with a strawman EB, a dishonest false caricature of what the others here are arguing

Praxeas, Praxeas, some talk before they think, you, my friend, seem to be typing this way.

Let's let Noah Webster help you a bit:

Retaliation: the act of retaliating; return of like for like; reprisal.

Vengeance: infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge:

Retribution: something given or inflicted in such requital.

Now that you can see what these terms actually mean, are you still sure that NOBODY is arguing for any of these?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Nice try evangalist, still that does not answer the question as to why Peter had the sword to begin with. There wasn't anything wrong with Peter having the sword, if there was Jesus would've addressed it before a guard got his ear cut off.

Jesus does address it. If not, wouldn't Peter's sword be in opposition to the later writings of the NT? Jesus is not the author of confusion. Think about what you are saying in context with all written in the NT.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Lost and Found

Now that you can see what these terms actually mean, are you still sure that NOBODY is arguing for any of these?

Yes, because not a single one of those are self defense. Self defense is PREVENTATIVE. Retaliation, retribution and vengeance are things you do AFTER the fact. Neighbor and your wife has an affair, you go blow his brains out as a result. That is NOT self defense. That is retribution. That is vengeance.

Neighbor kills your kid brother, you go kill his kid brother. That is retaliation.

Self defense is NOT vengeance, retribution nor retaliation.

Additionally I asked about the death penalty and sending people to prison for committing crimes. How do you feel about those forms of retribution?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You started a NEW thread?

Yes, and I addressed the New Word doctrine as well....

Bless you Brother!

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Lost and Found

Jesus does address it. If not, wouldn't Peter's sword be in opposition to the later writings of the NT? Jesus is not the author of confusion. Think about what you are saying in context with all written in the NT.

Excuse me? Wasn't Peter a part of the Old Testament when this occured? Maybe there is another theological difference between you and me, the NT didn't actually begin untill the day of Pentecost, or do you not agree?

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes, because not a single one of those are self defense. Self defense is PREVENTATIVE. Retaliation, retribution and vengeance are things you do AFTER the fact. Neighbor and your wife has an affair, you go blow his brains out as a result. That is NOT self defense. That is retribution. That is vengeance.

Neighbor kills your kid brother, you go kill his kid brother. That is retaliation.

Self defense is NOT vengeance, retribution nor retaliation.

Additionally I asked about the death penalty and sending people to prison for committing crimes. How do you feel about those forms of retribution?

Oh, okay.... so how is shooting an attacker "PREVENTATIVE"?? Seems it did not do a very good job keeping him away BEFORE he attacked!!

But listen, just because you keep your eyes closed, that does not make it go away. Praxeas, it says what it says, regardless if you ignore it or not.

[retsambeW]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Excuse me? Wasn't Peter a part of the Old Testament when this occured? Maybe there is another theological difference between you and me, the NT didn't actually begin untill the day of Pentecost, or do you not agree?

You are indeed correct.


Of course, I will say, if someone broke into my house, and I had a firearm, I would harm the individual before he got a chance to harm my wife and children. I do not currently own a firearm.