Pastor killed with his own gun at church
- Thread starter SuperMatt
- Start date
U
User.45
Guest
For clarification, are these on- of off-ambien comments? Just to save time.
Renzatic
Egg Nog King of the Eastern Seaboard
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2020
- Posts
- 4,136
That Commandment is one of the rare few mistranslations in the Bible. It's interesting reading about the history of it, since the Hebrew wording for that commandment had a more specific cultural meaning, but it was simplified to "kill" in the KJV. Even changing it to the more technically correct "thou shalt not murder" still doesn't quite cover it.
U
User.45
Guest
Great! So to break down what you labeled as a "narrow minded summary".
1. Forbidding homicide is one of the 10 basic commandments. There is no "justified homicide clause" there.
2. We are talking about a religion that uses an execution device to symbolize the ultimate sacrifice was made by their #1 prophet/God/son of God). Which symbolizes the teaching of personal sacrifice for the greater good.
3. High-powered guns are nowhere described as sacred items in the Holy Book, and maybe that's the reason most other churches don't have weaponized masses revolving around guns
4. On a level this is actually obscene (imagine replacing it with items or imitating acts associated with breaches of other commandments...)
So what I see instead is gunsumerism infiltrating spiritual life.
I also see you coming here to satisfy your trolling fix, because you never are willing to get into any discussion beyond, there's no proof and y'all are Monday quarterbacks. Like you aren't.
But the main differentiator of literally everyone else on this forum from you, is others have the decency to apologize if they fuck up without blaming Ambien.
1. So is it your understanding Christians must allow others to kill them? Furthermore, is it your understanding a Christian must stand aside and allow other people to be slaughtered? Just clarifying.
2. Um...random and irrelevant.
3. Um...can’t get here if you aren’t correct about number 1.
4. See number 3.
The good news for me is that Ambien metabolizes.
However unfortunately for others ignorance and prejudice does not. Oh well.
U
User.45
Guest
1: Lol. Irrelevant question. I'll leave it to your tough mind to figure it out.
Again your recipe:
1. Attempt to force the opponent in an artificial position/opinion that you control.
2. Ignore the actual position, but make sure you also conserve effort in doing so.
3. Bonus if you can derail topic to booze.
At the end of the day, this part of the discussion about the AR-15 mass boils down to whether you find bizarre things funny, or not.
I think bizarre things are funny. Are you suggesting I must not find bizarre things funny?
DT
I am so Smart! S-M-R-T!
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 6,445
- Solutions
- 1
- Main Camera
- iPhone
Gun rights, ownership, safe and appropriate usage models, are __easily__ part of this conversation though, right? i.e., in the context of the article, we had someone, with the right to own a firearm, do the following:
- Purchase/own a firearm
- Bring it with him to his place of work/his church
- Used it to attempt to apprehend/restrain someone/a fleeing felon
- Had a lack of focus while using a firearm that allowed him to be overpowered, his weapon taken from him
- Died as a result of these series of events
If we can't take a news article, and use it as a springboard for some meaningful discourse, then why the fuck be here at all?
I mean, is this better ... ?
"Here is an article, a preacher was killed with his own gun, by a fleeing felon."
"Yes, that did occur."
"I concur. Let us move on ..."
U
User.45
Guest
Gutsy is a self-proclaimed pro-gun-regulation atheist. So this impresses as just pure trolling. Like always.
But, the NPR article on the AR-15 mass is pretty hilarious:
AR-15s Are Biblical 'Rod Of Iron' At Pennsylvania Church
The church in Newfoundland, Pa., was founded by the son of the late Korean Rev. Sun Myung Moon, but is an offshoot of the worldwide Unification movement.
www.npr.org
U
User.45
Guest
The church shooting is a sad example if how adding positive feedback to a positive feedback loop will likely lead to positive and not a negative feedback loop.
A meta-analytic example of the issue:
"A landmark 1967 study showed that simply seeing a gun can increase aggression—called the “weapons effect.” Since 1967, many other studies have attempted to replicate and explain the weapons effect. This meta-analysis integrates the findings of weapons effect studies conducted from 1967 to 2017 and uses the General Aggression Model (GAM) to explain the weapons effect. It includes 151 effect-size estimates from 78 independent studies involving 7,668 participants. As predicted by the GAM, our naïve meta-analytic results indicate that the mere presence of weapons increased aggressive thoughts, hostile appraisals, and aggression, suggesting a cognitive route from weapons to aggression. Weapons did not significantly increase angry feelings. Yet, a comprehensive sensitivity analysis indicated that not all naïve mean estimates were robust to the presence of publication bias. In general, these results suggest that the published literature tends to overestimate the weapons effect for some outcomes and moderators."
Effects of Weapons on Aggressive Thoughts, Angry Feelings ...
It would be most meaningful to discuss the weapons effect and some of the publication bias to overreport it (I know not everybody can live in ambiguity). It would be interesting to study the Weapons effect in a Church context...I suspect where the results would go...
An interesting glimpse:
The weapons effect on wheels: Motorists drive more aggressively when there is a gun in the vehicle
The present experiment used a driving simulator to provide a novel test of the weapons effect. One of the most dangerous activities people engage in is driving a vehicle, and survey studies indicate that driving might be more dangerous if there is a gun in the vehicle. In this experiment, participants (N = 60) were randomly assigned to drive a frustrating driving scenario with a gun or a tennis racket in the vehicle's passenger seat. Participants drove more aggressively when there was a gun in the vehicle than when there was a tennis racket in the vehicle. These findings suggest that the mere presence of a gun can make drivers more aggressive.
The weapons effect on wheels: Motorists drive more aggressively when there is a gun in the vehicle
In discussions about guns, one factor rarely considered is the fact that merely seeing a gun can increase aggression. This effect—called the “weapons …
www.sciencedirect.com
1. Not my requirement. It was your defenseless statement.
1 - 3: You’re the one telling Christians how they should be. Ill remind you of your position....Christians must allow people to be slaughtered including themselves. Good sound position P_X.
Blaming the victim is an epidemic.
No reason to hold people responsible for their actions when it’s so much easier to blame the victim.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Posts
- 7,862
- Solutions
- 1
Both people are responsible for their choices. The pastor who carries a loaded gun into his church and the person who grabbed his gun and murdered him. The pastor is dead and the murderer is most likely looking at decades in prison. It is truly a tragedy.
Many people believe that carrying a gun makes them safer. I don’t believe that.
I don’t know that Jesus preached pacifism in all cases: “turn the other cheek” was a theme in his teachings, but some other things in the gospels seem to indicate that self-defense is ok. My personal opinion is that a Christian pastor should not be carrying a loaded gun in a church.
As for church security, a pastor with a gun seems like the least effective way to protect the church. Most churches, the pastor is the farthest person from the entrance of the church, and is generally very busy on Sundays preaching, officiating the service, etc. Some wear robes that make it difficult to access a weapon hidden underneath. A gunman in back of the church firing back and forth with a pastor would most likely result in parishioners caught in the crossfire. As @lizkat mentioned, a security guard at the door would be a much more effective deterrent.
What’s being overlooked is the pastor wasn’t breaking any law. The pastor was looking out for the best interests of his church no differently than a convenience store owner looking out for their business by being armed. Yet the op and P_X have challenged him on the basis he is spiritual. It’s an absurd and asinine position.
Fair enough. Not my point.
Because it’s a church? See my first comment.
U
User.45
Guest
I see. Did you actually check what I've been commenting on, or just projected your prejudice on me?
Feels "soft" like the floor after Ambien and Jack.You seem to be talking about the Texas shooting, I'm talking about the Newfoundland
The Texas shooting is a tragedy on every level, the Newfoundland mass on the other hand is an unintended parody of both Christianity and gunsumerism.
The latter took place in 2018 after the Parkland shooting, to add to its absurdity. It would be interesting to discuss if that made anybody safer, but sadly that's a discussion way beyond your tough-minded skillset.
Do I need to quote you again?I see. Did you actually check what I've been commenting on, or just projected your prejudice on me?
You seem to be talking about the Texas shooting, I'm talking about the NewfoundlandAR15Iron of Rod(R) mass. I apologize that you have difficulty seeing quotes.
The Texas shooting is a tragedy on every level, the Newfoundland mass on the other hand is an unintended parody of both Christianity and gunsumerism.
The latter took place in 2018 after the Parkland shooting, to add to its absurdity. It would be interesting to discuss if that made anybody safer, but sadly that's a discussion way beyond your tough-minded skillset.
You picked your words, not me.
If you want to amend them, be my guest. Choose your words less recklessly in the future.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Posts
- 7,862
- Solutions
- 1
I didn’t say he broke a law, but although it seems he thought carrying a gun was in the best interests of himself and the church, I laid out some good reasons why that absolutely is not the case. A gunfight between somebody in the front of the church vs somebody in the back of the church is not a good idea.
SuperMatt
Site Master
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2020
- Posts
- 7,862
- Solutions
- 1
Also, yes, because it’s a church. It should be a place free of violence ideally. And if security is considered to be needed, the LAST person it should be coming from is the pastor.
U
User.45
Guest
Sadly this is shooting is an example how the random good guy gunman hypothesis can work out in real life. I agree though. There's plenty of opportunity to delegate security. The ultimate goal would be to eliminate the driving force that necessitates such.
U
User.45
Guest
I can't fix your alexia, my wise friend.
Or are you trying to tell me how to live?!!*!*!!!