B. McCausland wrote: You all base your points on sentimentality, ignoring that the issue is about the theory of state and government. You invalidate the later by pareding the first. In fact, verses and points made related to the real topic are systematically dismissed ie ignored remarkably
Thanks for your thoughts. Reading your evaluation I must say my only defense is that I must be an *average* American Christian who seems to show a veneer of superficiality or ignorance which leads to many misconstructions of meaning. Maybe one day I will reach your level of insight and understanding but it is doubtful.
BMac, the questions I asked are regarding safety. If common sense safety measures are being good stewards then that would also include the security team. The man who killed the perpetrator answered Johnâ€™s question in the interview about not wounding the guy. He mentioned he trains people to avoid the headshot unless itâ€™s the only clear shot you have. To avoid needlessly shooting a church member he took the only clear shot at the killer he had. 7 homicides within about a year within 5 miles of the site to which the church was moved prompted the need for the security team, as again, common sense. May I suggest you watch the interview linked in previous comment. Thanks
The reader finds out, for example, the security team was formed about 18-19 months ago, when the church moved to its present location in White Settlement. One of the reasons for the formation of the team was the high crime incidence in the immediate area. Jack says there were five homicides committed in 2018 within five miles of the church location. Details are given of the shooting. Jack tells us why he was suspicious of the individual who murdered Jacks two friends before Jack could stop him. The attacker was wearing a fake beard and a fake wig, with a â€śtobogganâ€ť (knit cap?) on top.Â He had on a long, 3/4 length coat. He was continually adjusting the fake beard The reason we have a good video of the attack and the armed congregants' response, is Jack Wilson talked to the Church Audio Video group and told them to keep a camera on the suspicious person before the attack started.Â Â We learn that Jack took a little extra time because he could not get a clear shot. Due to people the headshot was the only clear shot..
the video of the interview of Jack Wilson about the shooting in this story
Adriel wrote: The point I have been making is, "WHY take a gun into church?" If the decision is taken to take a gun with you into church - Then you are not, indeed cannot be trusting God to keep the membership and yourself safe.... "
Thanks for your response Adriel. Appreciate your emphasis to trust in God.
So, is the church having locks on the doors a lack of trust in God?
Does the fact they put their money in the bank, a lack of trust in God?
Does the fact they are protected by the Police and Fire department show a lack of trust in God?
If they call an ambulance due to a medical emergency is that a lack of trust in God?
Do the cars with locked doors in the parking lot show a lack of trust in God?
Are fire alarms and extinguishers a show of a lack of trust in God?
This more than likely will be my last post in this thread but I believe these are good questions to ponder in light of your thinking on the issue.
As previously pointed out John, the man who killed the killer (Genesis 9:6) will not be punished for his actions. Thus his actions are sanctioned by the government and he falls under Romans 13:4 making his actions also sanctioned by Scripture
Is there a reason you assume the worse about your brethren in Christ, John UK? Do you expect your brothers in Christ over there who you meet to have lie views of your Christianity without knowing you? Just wondering
Mike wrote: From ABC News: "Texas State Attorney General Ken Paxton said the alleged shooter had attended the church several times and has had multiple run-ins with law enforcement. Although two members of the congregation died, Paxton praised Wilson for saving lives, noting that more than 200 people were at the church when the shooting erupted." Romans 13:3 "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:" So the man Wilson did good, and received praise from high level authority. Seems straightforward enough.
Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
seem pretty straight forward.to me
Adriel, Nehemiah was an individual who trusted God and he supervised the building of a wall around Jerusalem. David mentioned it was God who delivered the bear and lion into his hand but he still took a slingshot and five stones into the battle with Goliath. Using and possessing the means provided by God is not equivalent to a lack of trust.
Sister BMac it is a well established fact that the French and American Revolutions are vastly different in both origins and outcome. I am pretty sure you would impugn any sources I used to establish this, so I will forgo the discussion. Thanks for your graciousness and your thoughts
Apparently for one living on the British Isles you have not heard of the Magna Carta, John Locke, or Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford. The American Revolution was the exact opposite of the French Revolution Your assessment in point 3 is strictly your personal biased opinion, please donâ€™t try and pass it off as factual information
John UK wrote: John 8:32, I have never called the police in my lifetime. However, they are there to do a job, in the will of God, and I don't have a problem with that. _____________
All along, my beef has been all about killing. How many bullets did it take to stop this man from his killing spree? One. Oh, only one? And where did that one bullet strike? In the head. So a former policeman takes aim and shoots at the attacker's head with one intention and one only, to kill him. .
John, that is how you stop a killer, that is exactly what the police would have done, The personâ€™s death was one of his own choosing.
You do understand that under the law (please pay close attention) the man in this article will not be persecuted, why, because his actions were sanctioned by the government. Which means they fall under Romans 13:1-4
You are the one who says where is the Scriptural mandate. Where are your verses that state that one cannot defend themselves or others from harm when it is not a matter of persecution for faith? Still waiting, I provided 2 that show one should. Thanks
The Bible teaches us that we are supposed to do good to all men, especially those of the household of faith. What this man did, did good to scores of his fellow believers. the Bible also states in the New Testament that if any provide not for their own they are worse than an infidel. The word translated provide means to consider in advance, that is, look out for beforehand. Again this is exactly what this man did.
Challenge to our brethren from across the pond is, other than verses that address the issue of being persecuted for your faith, give us the Bible teaching in the New Testament (or Old if you wish)that states it is wrong to defend oneself or save others from harm when it is your power to so do. If you cannot, then your thinking is just that your thinking.
B. McCausland wrote: Unfortunally, QC and Unprofitable, it appears... regretfully that some cannot leave a discussion without resorting to undercovered personal insult.
I am not sure what undercover personal insult I departed the discussion with. You (and please correct me if I am wrong)have more than once stated that quotes shared in this thread that don't match your thinking were unreliable basically just because you said it was. That, sister, is nothing more than your opinion, to which you are entitled. My comment was not intended as an "undercover insult" but a statement of summary of your posts. My apologies if it came across as an insult.
Thanks for your thoughts B Mac. It appears that anything that goes against your thinking is not a valid source. The internet is a pretty good resource last I knew and the link wasnâ€™t mine Still appreciate you and your posts. Have a good day
John UK wrote: On the other hand, it does involve breaking God's law if you kill someone.
The 6th commandment clearly involves the act of murder not the act of self-defense. Our Lord even told His disciples to have swords, they weren't used to roast marshmallows on an open fire. You have no indication at all in the story that the gunman was persecuting people for their faith. Your just wrong on this my brother, not going waste time on debating you.