Gun Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bob_Sevigny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sir_Knight said:
You’re back peddling. I don’t have all of the time in the world to get involved in multiple threads. If my four challenges to you are true, then we don’t have to go any further because that proves you wrong right then and there. Why bring up multiple counter arguments? Isn’t that what you have been saying all along?
Click to expand...
No you don’t need to get involved. Trust me. The whole point is for ME and YOU to NOT get involved.

Lets see what other intelligent people on this Forum have to say because I am not intelligent enough. We can see if you actually have “Challenges” or if they are theological misgivings like Luther had.

Now, shall we?

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
Family is an institution. So the meaning is the same. A Husband is NOT responsible for common good of Family as an institution. In other words, this passage does not apply to EVERYONE.
Click to expand...
Nowhere does it say the family institution. It says the family. You are again trying to misrepresent what was said and mislead others.
ddarko said:
I repeat, do you want to open this up on the Theology Forum or not? Are you afraid?

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
Why don’t you answer my four challenges? Or are you unable to and afraid to admit that you were wrong?
 
ddarko said:
No you don’t need to get involved. Trust me. The whole point is for ME and YOU to NOT get involved.

Lets see what other intelligent people on this Forum have to say because I am not intelligent enough. We can see if you actually have “Challenges” or if they are theological misgivings like Luther had.

Now, shall we?

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
You are using the common ploy distraction – often used by those who are afraid to admit that they are wrong by switching from one point to another WITHOUT addressing challenges to their position.

You said that Jesus was not referring to actual swords. I presented four challenges to your position. If you can’t address those four challenges, there is no need for further discussion because Jesus was indeed telling the Apostles to purchase weapons for themselves.

As a matter of fact, the quote that I presented to you from the Vatican website ends the discussion. Those responsible for the common ood of the family – NOT families or the family institution but the FAMILY – have a GRAVE duty to protection WITH arms.

That settles it. You are WRONG. Period. If you want to argue for the sake of argument, then do it with somebody else but at least have the courage to admit that you were mistaken with regards to this matter.
 
Sir_Knight said:
You are using the common ploy distraction – often used by those who are afraid to admit that they are wrong by switching from one point to another WITHOUT addressing challenges to their position.

You said that Jesus was not referring to actual swords. I presented four challenges to your position. If you can’t address those four challenges, there is no need for further discussion because Jesus was indeed telling the Apostles to purchase weapons for themselves.

As a matter of fact, the quote that I presented to you from the Vatican website ends the discussion. Those responsible for the common ood of the family – NOT families or the family institution but the FAMILY – have a GRAVE duty to protection WITH arms.

That settles it. You are WRONG. Period. If you want to argue for the sake of argument, then do it with somebody else but at least have the courage to admit that you were mistaken with regards to this matter.
Click to expand...
Sir Knight, lets not kid around here.

To one of the greatest passages (Turn the other cheek) that I believe show your challenge at most is INCOMPLETE, you presented an amusing (in my opinion) exegesis.

Now all I am asking is, lets take that exegesis AND the Vatican statement you want to interpret as addressing the family to the THEOLOGY forum. Open a new thread for those specific things. We can even open a new thread to see if what you say on ‘Jesus always explained things to Apostles’ and ‘Does Jesus contradict the OT if he says indeed turn the other cheek and stands against using a sword’ etc.

Your fear suggests that you might yourself be in doubt whether it is right. If not, just give me permission, JUST SAY YES, and I will open the new threads and we can both sit back and see what other people have to say.

Are you ok with that?

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
Sir Knight, lets not kid around here.

To one of the greatest passages (Turn the other cheek) that I believe show your challenge at most is INCOMPLETE, you presented an amusing (in my opinion) exegesis.

Now all I am asking is, lets take that exegesis AND the Vatican statement you want to interpret as addressing the family to the THEOLOGY forum. Open a new thread for those specific things. We can even open a new thread to see if what you say on ‘Jesus always explained things to Apostles’ and ‘Does Jesus contradict the OT if he says indeed turn the other cheek and stands against using a sword’ etc.

Your fear suggests that you might yourself be in doubt whether it is right. If not, just give me permission, JUST SAY YES, and I will open the new threads and we can both sit back and see what other people have to say.

Are you ok with that?

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
You are again using distraction in an attempt to avoid addressing the challenges presented to your position. If you wish to invite others to help you address those challenges, you are free to do so but I am not going to be jumping into other threads. Just don’t have the time for it. You want to bring them HERE to discuss THIS topic, feel free.

You have TWO major challenges to your position HERE: (1) My four questions; and (2) the Vatican’s statement on the matter.
 
Sir_Knight said:
You are again using distraction in an attempt to avoid addressing the challenges presented to your position. If you wish to invite others to help you address those challenges, you are free to do so but I am not going to be jumping into other threads. Just don’t have the time for it. You want to bring them HERE to discuss THIS topic, feel free.

You have TWO major challenges to your position HERE: (1) My four questions; and (2) the Vatican’s statement on the matter.
Click to expand...
I am not asking you to discuss it with other people. I am asking you to watch if you have the time. Or let me enlighten my self if you are right or wrong.

We can present all these challenges to them. I obviously am dumb according to you.

For the last time, are you ok with opening a thread on each? If you are not, I am afraid anyone can see that you are afraid. Why would someone be concerned about presenting their argument to a group of experts if he/she doesn’t even have to do anything but watch? 🤷

God Bless 🙂
 
A baby survived when pregnant mother shot and killed this past week. Whether the gun shot came from an act of self defense or an act of murder, the suffering of that child and her family will last for the rest of their lives. How does this suffering figure into our reflection on the use of guns?
 
Sir_Knight said:
Just so that we’re clear, I’m only going to address them in correlation to THIS topic.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to address them at all. Just sit back and see if what you have presented here is good theology.

If you wish to participate, it is of course up to you but by no means required.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
Second, the problem with owning a gun is in the intention. It is based on, as many here have highlighted, a possible need for using it.

Third, lets go a step further just for fun and look at the possible permutations it might be used in.
  1. The attacker owns a gun: Well, if the attacker wanted you dead, he would have shot you anyway before you thought of even pulling out the gun.
Click to expand...
Since you have steadfastly refused to answer for yourself concerning this patently nonsensical comment, the only conclusion that logically can be drawn is that you actually did just make it up.

Not only are you completely wrong, it is thus far, and by far, one of the most ignorant comments I have yet read on this forum. You should be ashamed to have made it.
 
MaxTH said:
I’m still waiting for an explanation as to in what way my post was “judgmental”.
Click to expand...
how sad…you obviously like insulting Priests by lumping them together as “effeminate” persons.
 
Ender said:
Since Lizzie Borden used an axe, does that mean the use of axes is a moral issue? It is not nature of the instrument that matters, it is the intent of the person using it.

Ender
Click to expand...
Last time I checked this thread is about guns? am I correct Ender or am i missing something? Guns have one purpose and it is to kill…pretty obvious why thy they were created…they were meant to immobilize/kill a person/animal as quick as possible. I’m pretty sure ddarko answered this topic multiple times…“one who has a gun is assuming the worst in their brother/sister in Christ”.

As Catholics we are meant to imitate Christ…what gives you the impression that Christ would’ve been a gun owner in today’s times? God Bless!
 
MaxTH said:
Since you have steadfastly refused to answer for yourself concerning this patently nonsensical comment, the only conclusion that logically can be drawn is that you actually did just make it up.

Not only are you completely wrong, it is thus far, and by far, one of the most ignorant comments I have yet read on this forum. You should be ashamed to have made it.
Click to expand...
I’m just curious MaxTH, but I’ve been interested in your profile a little bit lately. It seems that 75% of your posts are all on this thread AND you are a fairly recent member of CAF. In my opinion your posts sound eerily familiar to Sir Knight i’m not sure why, but It’s quite peculiar to say the least. 🤷 God Bless!
 
hxcCatholic413 said:
Last time I checked this thread is about guns? am I correct Ender or am i missing something? Guns have one purpose and it is to kill…pretty obvious why thy they were created…they were meant to immobilize/kill a person/animal as quick as possible. I’m pretty sure ddarko answered this topic multiple times…“one who has a gun is assuming the worst in their brother/sister in Christ”.

As Catholics we are meant to imitate Christ…what gives you the impression that Christ would’ve been a gun owner in today’s times? God Bless!
Click to expand...
Because He commanded His followers to buy a sword – which is mainly used as a WEAPON – just as a gun.
 
hxcCatholic413 said:
how sad…you obviously like insulting Priests by lumping them together as “effeminate” persons.
Click to expand...
I said some, even many, are effeminate, and this is the view of about the 40 or so priests I personally am friends with. Nowhere did I lump them all together and you full well know this, so please, spare the drama. So for the record, are you saying that there are not many effeminate and homosexual priests in the Church?
 
MaxTH said:
I said some, even many, are effeminate, and this is the view of about the 40 or so priests I personally am friends with. Nowhere did I lump them all together and you full well know this, so please, spare the drama. So for the record, are you saying that there are not many effeminate and homosexual priests in the Church?
Click to expand...
Yes precisely! in the current Church I have met zero effeminate priests
 
Sir_Knight said:
Because He commanded His followers to buy a sword – which is mainly used as a WEAPON – just as a gun.
Click to expand...
Sir Knight we’ve gone over this several times now…it’s quite clear that we both have concrete views on this topic and won’t change regardless of the other person’s examples. God Bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top