Fire arm evidence is skewed

[ssullivan]

Originally Posted by GordMay

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain" (Exodus 20:7)

Those who are outwardly lawless and wicked often are heard saying,"for Christ's sake." It is done in an irreverent, blasphemous way. Those who are more cultured use substitutes: "for Goodness sake" "for Pete's sake" "for the love of Mike" "for crying out loud" etc. This too, is an abomination, for the third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's Name, titles, attributes, ordinances, words and works.

Other than that, I have no major objection to Maddog's language.

Shouldn't it be against the CF rules to "force thy religious beliefs uponst others?"

Seriously, religion does not belong here, as there are way too many people of differing backgrounds. It's insulting to promote one's own religion in this way.

[hellosailor]

Gord-
"This too, is an abomination, for the third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's Name,"
You must be confused, Gord. There are four very different names for the God of Abraham in the Bible, each used in one of the major redactions. But there's no "Christ" in the stories, not in the original text, or in the Greek translation. That "Christ" business comes from some Johnny-come-lately religions that have pretty much nothing to do with the Ten Commandments, except a fairly uniform and critical mistranslation of the one against murder. (Murdering and killing being totally separate and distinct concepts in both modern and ancient times.)
If Maddog has a special relationship with Christ, the two of them can deal with any name-calling between themselves.

[Maddog]

Originally Posted by GordMay

"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain" (Exodus 20:7)

Those who are outwardly lawless and wicked often are heard saying,"for Christ's sake." It is done in an irreverent, blasphemous way. Those who are more cultured use substitutes: "for Goodness sake" "for Pete's sake" "for the love of Mike" "for crying out loud" etc. This too, is an abomination, for the third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's Name, titles, attributes, ordinances, words and works.

Other than that, I have no major objection to Maddog's language.

Thanks Gord. Considering I am still in recovery and rehab from my earlier upbringing, I'll take this a a push. Where is my whiskey bottle I need to find those head odors.

Damn! I said i wouldn't post again!

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by ssullivan

Shouldn't it be against the CF rules to "force thy religious beliefs uponst others?"

Seriously, religion does not belong here, as there are way too many people of differing backgrounds. It's insulting to promote one's own religion in this way.

He may have been merely levering off my analogy between religious debates and firearm debates, rather than promoting the bible.

That's how I read it.

[Edit: Actually, I think every religious tome promotes similar deity respect, so the admonishment is pretty universal except among atheists--and, well, I'm not going there.]

[hellosailor]

Hiracer-
Dispassionate? No, folks who have had a fire lit under them generally aren't dispassionate. That doesn't mean their claims of facts won't be objective. Having both objective facts and passion generally makes for a pretty formidable opponent.
Of course, that's why the Democrats blame the NRA for their election losses...somehow they figure the NRA booted 'em out, rather than the members, who just happened to join the NRA to express a point of view that the Dems had been ignoring.
Ah, politics, religion, I guess we only need to talk about sex now in order to make sure everyone has been equally offended. Oh, wait a minute, we can just say "The Clintons" and we've got all three topics covered.<G>

[Maddog]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Gord-
"This too, is an abomination, for the third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's Name,"
You must be confused, Gord. There are four very different names for the God of Abraham in the Bible, each used in one of the major redactions. But there's no "Christ" in the stories, not in the original text, or in the Greek translation. That "Christ" business comes from some Johnny-come-lately religions that have pretty much nothing to do with the Ten Commandments, except a fairly uniform and critical mistranslation of the one against murder. (Murdering and killing being totally separate and distinct concepts in both modern and ancient times.)
If Maddog has a special relationship with Christ, the two of them can deal with any name-calling between themselves.

Christ and myself have discussed this issue over several rums and have come to an understanding. I'll let him share it with you if he chooses.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Maddog

Christ and myself have discussed this issue over several rums and have come to an understanding. I'll let him share it with you if he chooses.

What did he say about guns on board?

[Maddog]

Originally Posted by Hiracer

What did he say about guns on board?

Strangley, the subject never came up. We are getting together for Poker on Friday. I'll ask him then.

[Hiracer]

Originally Posted by Maddog

Strangley, the subject never came up. We are getting together for Poker on Friday. I'll ask him then.

Ok. Just be sure he has his facts straight. You know how I feel about that.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by ssullivan

Shouldn't it be against the CF rules to "force thy religious beliefs uponst others?"
Seriously, religion does not belong here, as there are way too many people of differing backgrounds. It's insulting to promote one's own religion in this way.

Sorry Sean, your implication is correct, and I should not have referenced religion.
For the record, I don't invoke Christ's name, not because I view it as blasphemouse, but because I believe it irrelevent. I have no religious beliefs to promote, nor to be offended. Others do, and I should take care not offend.
I'll remove my ill-considered joke, with apologies to all.

[Maddog]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Sorry Sean, your implication is correct, and I should not have referenced religion.
For the record, I don't invoke Christ's name, not because I view it as blasphemouse, but because I believe it irrelevent. I have no religious beliefs to promote, nor to be offended. Others do, and I should take care not offend.
I'll remove my ill-considered joke, with apologies to all.

Gentlemen, this is getting way too serious.

Offense is a matter of perciption, you are only offended if you percieve yourself to be so. If we can't have a discussion that is at least a little irrevrent at times, we shall cease being men, (uhh... human. No offense ladies!).

Gord - Your joke was not ill-considered. I'm not sure it was all that funny! But you owe no apologises to anyone here.

[Hiracer]

I accept full responsibility. In my third post I used 'religous' and 'firearm' in the same sentence. Aparently, a big no-no.

But the thread proved my point.

Thanks. I'm done now.

[Maddog]

All too strange. In the middle of this thread about guns and God, Jerry Falwell passes on.

Was it something I said?

[Alan Wheeler]

The bad guys are the ones with the black hats.........

Yeah and the inocent guy that gets shot (or vapourised)is the one wearing the red suit. ;-)