Announcement - Special message from GB - prepare for civil unrest

robins

robins

Well-known member
BillyRay said:
I think that you were perhaps right to feel the way you did with the person who shot the bird - which might sound odd coming from a person who hunts.

The difference lies in the purpose. Shooting a creature just to shoot it is wrong in my opinion. When I hunt, I eat what I shoot - whether it be elk, deer, turkey, pheasant, etc… I’ve even had jackets and gloves made from the hides of the deer I’ve taken.

Some people have an issue with hunting. I understand that. Yet those same people stroll through the meat department at their local supermarket - never thinking of how that meat got there. Or, they’ll look down at their new shoes - never thinking about the leather they are made from - or the leather seats in some car models. I could go on.

The point is, that in this system, Jehovah gave us the ability to use animals for food and other purposes. So animals die for a variety of useful purposes. Whether you do the killing, or leave that up to someone else, the result is the same.
Click to expand...
Thank you for sharing your experience. But just because the meat is consumed after the hunt, does that in and of itself justify the action? If one had the opportunity to grow your own food or drive to a store that sold fresh produce, then the act of hunting becomes recreation, and the sport is an option - the eating is out of entertainment and pleasure, not necessity. Wouldn't there be a difference in Jehovah's eyes that privileged us to care for the earth and his creation lovingly? I became a vegetarian late in life, and have since struggled with the simple disconnect of brothers and sisters (and the culture of the organization in general) that paints a beautiful image of paradise living in harmony with animals in the future, while at the same time unnecessarily bbq-ing animals after the meeting.
 
Nomex

Nomex

Well-known member
Dane500 said:
"include personal protective equipment"

Christ also promoted having "personal protective equipment". And what was that equipment he ordered his followers to have? A sword. The best form of personal protection available at the time.

(Luke 22:36) let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one.

Why did Jesus give that command?

(John 17:12) When I was with them, I used to watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me; and I have protected them, and not one of them is destroyed except the son of destruction, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.

“But now" he was no longer going to be there to protect them, so they needed to be able to protect themselves. (Lu 22:36)

(Mark 14:48) But in response Jesus said to them: “Did you come out to arrest me with swords and clubs as against a robber?

Jesus did not condemn the mob for having swords and clubs, but for intending to use them inappropriately against an innocent person. And how are swords and clubs appropriately used? Jesus tells us: "against a robber."

Was Jesus serious about us having the means to protect ourselves? Yes. Look at what he said:

(Luke 22:36) let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one.

With Jesus' departure it was so crucial for everyone to have a sword that those who did not have one were even to sell their outer garment if they had to and buy one. The outer garment of a man on the road was so important that it could mean his death without it on a cold night. It was also used as his bedding, and provided padding and insulation against the cold ground when he slept outside. The Mosaic law even acknowledged its importance:

(Exodus 22:26, 27) “If you seize the garment of your fellow man as security for a loan, you are to return it to him by sunset. 27 For it is his only covering, his clothing to cover his body; in what will he lie down to sleep? When he cries out to me, I will certainly hear, for I am compassionate. (De 24:17)

Does that mean that our king has commanded us to buy protection for ourselves, even if we have to sell our proverbial "outer garment" to do so? The answer seems clear to me: Yes.

Do you ask: But doesn't using a gun to protect ourselves go against Bible principles?

Nowhere does the Bible condemn protecting oneself and ones loved ones. In fact, it requires it.

(Deuteronomy 22:8) “If you build a new house you must also make a parapet for your roof so that you may not bring bloodguilt on your house because of someone falling from it."

That verse refers to bloodguilt resulting from a failure to provide protection.

(1 Timothy 5:8) Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.

Safety, security, and protection are part of what the head of the house provides "for those who are his own." Otherwise he would be "worse than a person without faith."

If you choose NOT to provide protection for your household, and something happens to any of them, that is when you become bloodguilty, because you intentionally chose not to provide protection even though you are required to do so. (De 22:8; Lu 22:36) If we shirk this God-given duty we have "disowned the faith and [are] worse than a person without faith." (1 Tim 5:8) We will have earned that bloodguilt and may lose our place in paradise.

The GB often quote this scripture to back up their opinion on this topic:

(Ecclesiastes 9:18) Wisdom is better than weapons of war

But that is only a partial quote. The whole verse says this:

(Ecclesiastes 9:18) Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but just one sinner can destroy much good.

Note the use of the word "better". The original Hebrew word "towbah" is translated in most other locations as "good". Here the scripture could literally be translated: "Wisdom is (more good) than weapons of war", showing that both options are considered to be good since both can be used for the cause of good. One is just better, or more good.

The first half of that scripture is similar to this modern saying: "The pen is mightier than the sword." In both instances smarter is better, but regardless of how smart or wise you are, if you are being attacked by someone with a weapon, written words will not save you, and trying to talk your way out of the situation is useless if the attacker is intent on harming you. As the counter argument in the second half of that verse points out: "just one sinner can destroy much good." If we added a counter argument to the modern saying like that verse has it could go something like this:

The pen is mightier than the sword, but a well written letter won't protect you if you are being attacked.

So Ecclesiastes 9:18 is in reality a recommendation not to solely rely on wisdom, but to also keep yourself armed just in case. You should always be prepared for a non-peaceable encounter. (Ro 12:18)

Do you say: But what about Mt 26:52?

(Matthew 26:52) all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword.

Jesus does not lie to his followers. However, viewed in the manner of self-protection, as the GB applies this scripture, "All those who take up the sword will perish by the sword" is a false statement. All people who have a firearm (sword) for self-protection are not killed with firearms. (Even soldiers who use weapons in an offensive manner in war are not "all" killed.) On the contrary, statistics show that a huge number of crimes such as rapes and murders are prevented with firearms. The vast majority of those who have protected themselves and their families with firearms have lived long lives not ended with being shot, that is to say, they did not perish by the sword. And many who did not have a firearm for protection wound up dead as a result. So since Jesus was not lying he must not have meant that having a sword (firearm) for protection would get you killed because "all those who take up the sword [for self protection do NOT] perish by the sword."

Here is another scripture often quoted by the GB to promote their view.

(Micah 4:3) They will beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore.

That is talking about after Armageddon, when the nations will finally be at peace. And what will those who live through Armageddon do? They will take "their swords" that they have and make plowshares out of them. It doesn't say that they will pick up the swords of those who died at Armageddon. No, but they will make their own swords into plowshares and their own spears into pruning shears.

Here is a quote from Jesus on the topic:

(Luke 11:21) When a strong, well-armed man guards his palace, his belongings remain secure.

No negativity is referred to in being "well-armed". On the contrary, he will be rewarded with his belongings remaining secure. A positive outcome.

(Luke 11:22) But when someone stronger than he is comes against him and conquers him, that man takes away all his weapons in which he was trusting, and he divides up the things he took from him.

That describes a thief who attacks, so the victim would be justified in using violence to protect himself. Weapons in those days required strength to wield them. In this case the thief was stronger than his victim so he prevailed. Fortunately the weapons of today put everyone on equal footing, enabling even those who are not strong to defend themselves, which is why a firearm is referred to as "the great equalizer."

(Exodus 22:2, 3a) “If a thief is found in the act of breaking in and he gets struck and dies, there is no bloodguilt for him. 3 But if it happens after sunrise, there is bloodguilt for him.

This says a "thief", not a murderer or an attacker. Why? Because you are never bloodguilty if while protecting yourself or your loved ones you strike and kill an attacker. But that does not apply to just a thief. At night they could not tell the purpose of the intruder. During the day, however, they could see that a thief, who is just there to take something and run, is not a danger to them or their household. Killing him would have been murder. This, however, does not rule out killing an attacker during the day who's intent is to harm or kill you or your loved ones.

(Exodus 23:7) “Have nothing to do with a false accusation, and do not kill the innocent and the righteous, for I will not declare the wicked one righteous.

This shows that there is a difference between killing the innocent, and killing the wicked ones who are out to do you harm.

This is just a small sample of the scriptural proof that arming oneself for protection does not go against Bible principles. Much more can be found here: Firearms

:^)
Dane
Click to expand...
Excellent post! They like to use King David not being allowed to build the Temple becasue he was "bloodguilty" according to the GB because he was a soldier...so having Bathsheba's husband killed had nothing to do with it!!??
 
MickHewitt

MickHewitt

Well-known member
The God Pill said:
They need ramapo so they can make there Jesus tv show to keep the rank and file engaged and not leaving or in but "freeloading"for two or three years perhaps even turning jw broadcasting into a subscription service so they can get people out of the halls and sell the rest off then when they've harvested for a couple years sell there TV studio off to the highest bidder. They need more than zoom meetings to keep the flock from shrinking in the next five years if they decide to suspend public meetings again and sell all remaining halls assuming the UN isn't directing them to keep the halls in play as future ambush points. It doesn't at all escape me that they seem to want to emulate The Chosen because of how successful that programs been on crowdfunding. You see them flirting with netflixizing the truth with the creative liberties and overdramatization of the convention movies past couple years. They could even make money licensing bible based video content to corporations prior to selling the studio and rationalize it as a form of preaching.

Look at Netflix years ago they were in twenty billion dollars debt 😂 I can't comprehend how a company can keep going like that without government propping them up or using as a front but in any case they have kept going at those numbers all the while quadrupling down on the OG content which was the primary cause of that debt to begin with. But if you look at it from the perspective of executives never intending to perpetually sustain the company in the first place and merely strive to create the largest library of content possible that the big corps could purchase later it makes sense.
Click to expand...
Talking of special messages: Glad we are of the message here! Jehovah has informed us well in advance. He said He would not do a thing without first informing His servants! The 'truth' has set us free from the pharisaic W/T.
 
BagdadBill

BagdadBill

Well-known member
robins said:
Thank you for sharing your experience. But just because the meat is consumed after the hunt, does that in and of itself justify the action? If one had the opportunity to grow your own food or drive to a store that sold fresh produce,
Click to expand...
For now, we've been given permission to use animals for food. That may or may not continue into the new world. There are already people in this world trying to push us away from meat, to a lab grown synthetic substitute. I shouldn't need to point out that the funding for this comes from the same people funding the experimental injections everyone is so keen to have these days, but I just did.
There have been ongoing debates as to nutrition deficit in strictly vegetarian diets as well as health concerns of those who consume too much meat. In a very short time, we will be lucky to have a scrap of bread let alone manna.
We've got a bigger dog in this fight than food choice.
 
Nomex

Nomex

Well-known member
Dane500 said:
It begins with a point by point refutation of the Questions From Readers on the topic.
Click to expand...
A friend of mine was so brain washed by the GB propaganda that he was convinced that Peter grabbed the sword from one of the Roman soldiers who came to arrest Jesus that he argued with me that is was in fact Peter's sword, until I read it to him from the bible. The brain washing goes deep with (insert any number of JW's).
 
BagdadBill

BagdadBill

Well-known member
Nomex said:
Excellent post! They like to use King David not being allowed to build the Temple becasue he was "bloodguilty" according to the GB because he was a soldier...so having Bathsheba's husband killed had nothing to do with it!!??
Click to expand...
Sometimes a conversation or talk can move so fast that we think of something but then later it's gone. Regarding King David, if the battles he fought were what caused him to be blood guilty, then we have to ask, who was he fighting for and who sent him? If it were not for Jehovah, wouldn't the Israelites have just accepted pagan worship to begin with to get along with the neighbors?
To refer to any of those battles as unrighteous or the cause of blood guilt is to assail He who sent them.
 
robins

robins

Well-known member
BagdadBill said:
For now, we've been given permission to use animals for food. That may or may not continue into the new world. There are already people in this world trying to push us away from meat, to a lab grown synthetic substitute. I shouldn't need to point out that the funding for this comes from the same people funding the experimental injections everyone is so keen to have these days, but I just did.
There have been ongoing debates as to nutrition deficit in strictly vegetarian diets as well as health concerns of those who consume too much meat. In a very short time, we will be lucky to have a scrap of bread let alone manna.
We've got a bigger dog in this fight than food choice.
Click to expand...
I am very familiar with the lab grown option, and it is interesting technology. 100 years ago people were hesitant of synthetically grown ice (unnatural from things called freezers)! So it's all about perspective and baseline. Being given "permission" doesn't make something right or moral, just as Jah gave "permission" for multiple wives and concubines, and killing in wars. Meat for food provision was not technically granted until after the flood, likely due to lack of vegetation at the time. Murdering animals for sport, when not done out of necessity, does not honor life, nor does rationalizing there are worse things in this world so personal actions we have current control over don't matter. If Jehovah created us to live in harmony with animals, this should give us evidence human bodies were not designed to require flesh for nutrients. I do agree with you though there may be a time in the not to distant future where scarcity of food may lead to a lack of options and different decisions.
 
BillyRay

BillyRay

Well-known member
robins said:
Thank you for sharing your experience. But just because the meat is consumed after the hunt, does that in and of itself justify the action? If one had the opportunity to grow your own food or drive to a store that sold fresh produce, then the act of hunting becomes recreation, and the sport is an option - the eating is out of entertainment and pleasure, not necessity. Wouldn't there be a difference in Jehovah's eyes that privileged us to care for the earth and his creation lovingly? I became a vegetarian late in life, and have since struggled with the simple disconnect of brothers and sisters (and the culture of the organization in general) that paints a beautiful image of paradise living in harmony with animals in the future, while at the same time unnecessarily bbq-ing animals after the meeting.
Click to expand...
LOL…. 😂 This has to be a Troll post. OK…. Which one of you did this???
 
Nomex

Nomex

Well-known member
So I read this entire thread, and now I'm going to make my comments on it. This has been touched on to some degree, but I think the true context when it comes to the use and ownership of guns and what the bible says and more importantly the refinement that Christianity brought to the understanding can be separated into two very distinctive and to some degree opposite categories, with a third subcategory. The first 2 being self defense and revenge. IMO, every scripture used by Jesus, "do not return evil for evil" etc, is indeed the Christian philosophy but I would argue none of the scriptures Jesus used had to do with self defense with the possible exception of his arrest, which I'll get too.

Not that long ago there was an experience "video" from JW.org where one of the GB was describing what they went through during WWII, and he made the comment that JW's are not pacifists! What is a pacifists, Ghandi is the best modern example, someone who would not defend himself.

The WT has written articles, one recently that stated something to the effect that if someone broke into your house you had a right to defend yourself and even if that person died in the act of self defense you would not be blood guilty, if however you used a firearm to defend yourself then you would because the firearm is meant to "kill". It is a clear and complete contradiction and a stretch indeed.

I was raised "in the truth" and fortunately my parents believed in self defense and allowed me to defend myself while growing up in school. When i was just 5 years old much larger a neighbor would bully me. As I got older I learned how to fight. Once when I was in Middle School, (12 or 13) a kid started making fun of me for being one of JW's. He rode my bus and lived in my neighborhood. I got dropped off first on the ride home, and I was "righteously indignant" and I was able to cut through neighbor yards, and meet him at his bus stop as he was dropped off and beat him up. I went home and bragged about it. It was the only time I ever got in trouble for fighting, that is from my parents.

I of course never forgot that and the point was never clearer since that experience. That was a line we as Christians never cross, and I'll never forget it.

2.5 million Floridians have CCL, and the argument that somehow this would turn into a wild west situation bears out the falsity of that claim. These are all "law abiding" firearm owners, responsible people that as the saying goes, "it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

So, as far as any self defense situation, as far as I am concerned I am going to defend myself and family. I did not buy or own any guns until I had children. But as I have gotten older the issue has become more and more clear to me. The bible in no way, implies bloodguilt for any self defense situation where an attacker is killed. The only exception to that is "taking up arms" against the government or in a case where instead of relying on Jehovah's Army to act against Satan's government we say join a Militia. I think what Jesus meant where some Bible translations render that "live by the sword" would clearly indicate he was refer to Military service. They brought soldiers to arrest him, and clearly as someone pointed out, the Apostles were no match for those professional military men. Not to mention it was going directly against God's purpose.

Now this issue is clearly a conscience matter, and should be allowed as such and not dictated by the "Masters of are Faith" the GB. But when it comes to gun ownership and use, as @BillyRay pointed out, it is a tool but a dangerous one, and anyone who owns and uses firearms MUST treat every gun as if it is loaded always, unless as he pointed out, it's disassembled.

So in summery, the Bible allows for self defense, not revenge and the only exception to self defense is if you are attempting to defend yourself from unjust arrest by the government, or join the military or militia.


There I have spoken! LOL!
 
The God Pill

The God Pill

Well-known member
Nomex said:
So I read this entire thread, and now I'm going to make my comments on it. This has been touched on to some degree, but I think the true context when it comes to the use and ownership of guns and what the bible says and more importantly the refinement that Christianity brought to the understanding can be separated into two very distinctive and to some degree opposite categories, with a third subcategory. The first 2 being self defense and revenge. IMO, every scripture used by Jesus, "do not return evil for evil" etc, is indeed the Christian philosophy but I would argue none of the scriptures Jesus used had to do with self defense with the possible exception of his arrest, which I'll get too.

Not that long ago there was an experience "video" from JW.org where one of the GB was describing what they went through during WWII, and he made the comment that JW's are not pacifists! What is a pacifists, Ghandi is the best modern example, someone who would not defend himself.

The WT has written articles, one recently that stated something to the effect that if someone broke into your house you had a right to defend yourself and even if that person died in the act of self defense you would not be blood guilty, if however you used a firearm to defend yourself then you would because the firearm is meant to "kill". It is a clear and complete contradiction and a stretch indeed.

I was raised "in the truth" and fortunately my parents believed in self defense and allowed me to defend myself while growing up in school. When i was just 5 years old much larger a neighbor would bully me. As I got older I learned how to fight. Once when I was in Middle School, (12 or 13) a kid started making fun of me for being one of JW's. He rode my bus and lived in my neighborhood. I got dropped off first on the ride home, and I was "righteously indignant" and I was able to cut through neighbor yards, and meet him at his bus stop as he was dropped off and beat him up. I went home and bragged about it. It was the only time I ever got in trouble for fighting, that is from my parents.

I of course never forgot that and the point was never clearer since that experience. That was a line we as Christians never cross, and I'll never forget it.

2.5 million Floridians have CCL, and the argument that somehow this would turn into a wild west situation bears out the falsity of that claim. These are all "law abiding" firearm owners, responsible people that as the saying goes, "it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

So, as far as any self defense situation, as far as I am concerned I am going to defend myself and family. I did not buy or own any guns until I had children. But as I have gotten older the issue has become more and more clear to me. The bible in no way, implies bloodguilt for any self defense situation where an attacker is killed. The only exception to that is "taking up arms" against the government or in a case where instead of relying on Jehovah's Army to act against Satan's government we say join a Militia. I think what Jesus meant where some Bible translations render that "live by the sword" would clearly indicate he was refer to Military service. They brought soldiers to arrest him, and clearly as someone pointed out, the Apostles were no match for those professional military men. Not to mention it was going directly against God's purpose.

Now this issue is clearly a conscience matter, and should be allowed as such and not dictated by the "Masters of are Faith" the GB. But when it comes to gun ownership and use, as @BillyRay pointed out, it is a tool but a dangerous one, and anyone who owns and uses firearms MUST treat every gun as if it is loaded always, unless as he pointed out, it's disassembled.

So in summery, the Bible allows for self defense, not revenge and the only exception to self defense is if you are attempting to defend yourself from unjust arrest by the government, or join the military or militia.


There I have spoken! LOL!
Click to expand...
I've always been family oriented had a strong desire to be a father as far back as I remember I bought my pistol a few years ago at the time it was simply because as someone who was molested as a child and my sister was for far longer it was important to protect my future children from any pedos, kidnappers or anyone that would otherwise severely harm, take or end them and I knew that the longer I waited the harder it would be to acquire one given every growing restrictions and regulations etc. I'm 27 now and haven't so much as had a first date with a girl yet but I feel the same. Ive mentioned the event several times but when the elders interrogated me a couple years ago because they had been snooping at my car and saw target paper from the range (a while before I even got my ccw permit or weapon) one thing that irritated me was the younger of the elders had two young daughters and he indicated he would not protect them if the need arose and had no sympathy as a father for how I felt/my position. Some father he was... all they cared about was unsuccessfully attempting to get me to acknowledge verbally the notion that watchtower articles + every word out of the GB's mouth is channeled verbatim from Jesus himself I'm not exaggerating in the slightest.

As for David he wrote in Psalms

144 Blessed be Jehovah my Rock, Who is teaching my hands for fighting, My fingers for warfare; 2 My loving-kindness and my stronghold, My secure height and my Provider of escape for me, My shield and the One in whom I have taken refuge, The One subduing peoples under me.


I don't think this topic is one that should dominate this forum so while I'm hardly one to dictate anything and wouldn't mind some more discussion I think in a day or two we should give the thread a break for a bit.
 
Last edited:
Nomex

Nomex

Well-known member
The God Pill said:
I don't think this topic is one that should dominate this forum so while I'm hardly one to dictate anything and wouldn't mind some more discussion I think in a day or two we should give the thread a break for a bit.
Click to expand...
It is indeed a touchy subject even in the World. Bottom line for me, is we should not try to push our conscience on others and vice versa. All in all I think everyone does a good job doing that here!
The God Pill said:
(a while before I even got my ccw permit or weapon) one thing that irritated me was the younger of the elders had two young daughters and he indicated he would not protect them if the need arose and had no sympathy as a father for how I felt/my position.
Click to expand...
My sentiments exactly. At my CCW class the instructor pointed out that although his daughter is grown now, that while she was a child, that he made the decision to defend against someone trying to take her, even if it meant accidentally killing his own daughter in the process of defending her because what a pedo does to those kidnapped children....that was something he made up his mind he was willing to live with.

Controversial I know...but nothing is more Satanic IMO than a Pedo.
 
BagdadBill

BagdadBill

Well-known member
robins said:
I am very familiar with the lab grown option, and it is interesting technology. 100 years ago people were hesitant of synthetically grown ice (unnatural from things called freezers)! So it's all about perspective and baseline. Being given "permission" doesn't make something right or moral, just as Jah gave "permission" for multiple wives and concubines, and killing in wars. Meat for food provision was not technically granted until after the flood, likely due to lack of vegetation at the time. Murdering animals for sport, when not done out of necessity, does not honor life, nor does rationalizing there are worse things in this world so personal actions we have current control over don't matter. If Jehovah created us to live in harmony with animals, this should give us evidence human bodies were not designed to require flesh for nutrients. I do agree with you though there may be a time in the not to distant future where scarcity of food may lead to a lack of options and different decisions.
Click to expand...
Ice is not synthetically grown. You take care now ya hear!
 
SusanB

SusanB

Well-known member
Dane500 said:
…Tell me, please, one scripture that you think i took out of context and we can discuss it calmly and logically. Scriptural accuracy is very important to me, even if it proves me wrong.

:^)
Dane
Click to expand...
I thought I did that already but here is probably the most obvious to me,

You said: “‘Ecclesiastes 9:18) Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but just one sinner can destroy much good.’….

So Ecclesiastes 9:18 is in reality a recommendation not to solely rely on wisdom, but to also keep yourself armed just in case. You should always be prepared for a non-peaceable encounter. (Ro 12:18)”

My point is that your “interpretation” of Ecclesiastes is about as twisty as it gets. That scripture is not in any way a recommenation to keep yourself armed just in case and to always be prepared for a non-peaceable encounter. So rather than ask me to reply once again to your comment, you let me know what in my replying comment is incorrect and why.
 
SusanB

SusanB

Well-known member
The God Pill said:
It's okay It's just that I read slowly and reread those chapters six months ago and there was one or two that seemed to suggest a few skirmishes preceding Micah 4:3 mainly Chapter 12 as it seemed to differentiate the house of Judah and David suggesting two classes. And that Jehovah would grant some initial victories (Zechariah 12:7) to the former. It's entirely possible I'm wrong on it. That and the zadokites end times war scroll had very organized predictions and plans of campaigns involving both/simultaneous human and spirits on both sides though it probably has issues as a Text given they didn't anticipate the inclusion of gentiles from Christianity and the time span of the conflicts they anticipated is ridiculously long.
Click to expand...
You are just awesome and even though a lot of what you write goes “whoosh!” right over my head, I really enjoy reading your posts even if it is to remind myself that there are people who have a deep love for the intricacies and history related to worship.
 
SusanB

SusanB

Well-known member
BARNABY THE DOG. said:
… ‘Fear not those that kill the body but cannot destroy the soul.’ …
Click to expand...
Great point BTD. If we follow this admonition that is CLEARLY stated in the bible, would we then build an arsenal, put a lot of money, time and training into planning for a life and death struggle that may not happen, just in case?
 
SusanB

SusanB

Well-known member
Jgremillion83 said:
BTD
I live in the states and in the south too. But years ago a friend of my older son (when they were young boys) shot a bird with a BB gun right outside our house! I never really liked that boy after that. I felt so bad. Never even would buy toy guns for my kids…huh, oh well, call me old fashioned or whatever.
Click to expand...
Another great new avatar! I really appreciate your comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top