DefenderAO

I'm familiar with this and these types of conversations. To spare a point by point, three thoughts: 1. If we take Jesus as legitimate and not a liar or lunatic (and you have heard this I'm sure) - He lived without sin, took our sin on him as a sacrifice, died, imputed His perfection on us through faith in Him, and then conquered death by rising from it. Jesus' life, death, resurrection became the fulfillment of old laws that did not have salvific sustainment in and of themselves. This, of course, if you believe His legitimacy. He claimed to be one with God. That's a huge assertion. 2. The old law was to show a dichotomy of our shortcomings and a Holy God. Moving through the Old Testament you see many egregious failures and wrongs from people whose standing was considered "faithful." The tenets above didn't save, they showed incapability. For today, I'm chief of incapable... 3. The Bible is long, but a way I've seen it broken up is both instruction and information. For the latter, the Bible, and other manuscripts or literature, tell of what was happening as informational but not necessarily instructional. Much of the above seems instructional, but from points 1 and 2, we see our inability and Jesus' fulfilling offer. As to the gun control tie in, this is a. being transparent in what I've studied and b. a hopefully better/kinder way to say I believe we fall short and have a need. All life is valuable, free agency and our will act messily (sometimes egregiously) against this intrinsic value. More causal core issues that too often lead some to using a tool for hurting others.

True, it seems to be a universal principle agnostic of religion. I struggle with it most with people I'm at odds with. A true sign of growth and maturity seems to be acting in accordance with the rule when external factors (people, stress etc) push against our ability or desire to do so.

For shootings specifically - I'm not speaking to cultural issues as the sole problem, but the plurality (I do not believe there is any categorically a majority) of shootings are with a handgun. And shooting statistics give national, state, and city data on where this is happening. It's widespread, yes, but happening once somewhere is different than happening 25 times a day somewhere else. - Where do they happen - How often - What is being used This could help with the why.

I'm curious to your thought here, both of us baselined as one shooting and one death is too much. Because every one of them is a tragedy. Generally - there are 150 million adults age 20-54 in the US right now. We're closing in on day 90 of CY '23. That's about 13.5 trillion people-days opportunities for shootings to occur year to date. By the end of next week that's another 900 million more opportunities, roughly. This tells me the vast (understatement) majority have no means, will, or intent of doing so. Then the data says that the plurality of shootings involve handguns. All of it is too much. Frankly, I'm surprised (and grateful) it's not more.

State laws give guardrails for use of force in a slew of situations. They do not address the mental and emotional fitness of the "defender." And to bring back up, there is an extreme cultural issue we have in this country that pervades multiple inner cities. This is not a race thing. It's a culture thing.

For your first point, you never know when you'll need protection from a perp. You never need to defend anything...until you do. Better to have the means to avoid being a victim, never need it, than to need it one time and be without. The police are 5-10 minutes away when you have seconds to act. State laws help define what is justified force for particular issues. Our judicial system is far from perfect, but it can be a starting point. I'm guessing you weren't carrying when robbed. Your gut wisely gave you the cue. Do you believe that could've helped you? I don't know your firearms experience or where you live, but some states might prosecute you in a scenario like that. Not necessarily a guilty verdict, but the civil court follow up, emotional challenges to what happened etc etc are relevant.

Similar to Lorewarn, who mentions a Cosmic Christ (not certain its full meaning), I've looked heavily in to Christ's teachings in the Bible. Statements like the Way, Truth, and Life and the following declarative of how to know God remind me of a CS Lewis quote (paraphrased) - Christ is either a liar, lunatic, or legitimate. Which one?

Wrong DU

Please take these questions as genuine as I’m in soak-in mode. I can relate to your thought on Christ though am unfamiliar with the term “Cosmic Christ.” What is that meaning or concept? When Christ is likened to the Way or Truth in the Bible, where do you see this as it relates to what we’re able to know and how individual perceptions shape how we see reality? Where do you see a book like the Bible fit in to what you’ve come to see? Edit: these are sit with a cigar and a nice whisky on the porch with close friends type questions so feel free to dismiss. I do find perspective very interesting, however.

I like it. Do you feel you do this well in practice? What is your key, if yes, or hang up, if no? Where do you find it the most challenging to live by this principle?

You may perceive truth has changed. I believe we covered this earlier. You mentioned things happening in the past as relevant or pervasive meaning they were also representative of truth. I replied that, though they happened or were accepted then, that did not mean it represented what was true. Curious to what your baseline for truth is as well?

If you were do give one position statement of the Christian faith, what would it be?

I’m curious. Where do you derive your moral code from? What is your comfort level where others derive their code from alternative places? Lastly, where do you find safety and solace where these codes imminently collide?

Find it interesting the DU found the Huskers, and this site, as the team of choice.

20 single digit defenders!

Fair, and even more pragmatically. If I would spent as much time working on my own mess as I did in discussion here, truth is I might be a little better off with all the mess I the I am. Not a throw dirt on my head comment. But true nonetheless.

Good thoughts and agree. There’s strong passion and a wealth of experience and contexts we don’t all live out. I appreciate the sharpening.

Uncovering more doesn’t mean it changes. We’ll spend a lifetime learning. One example, for consensus, see clearly would be murder is wrong. Stepping back just because something is widely accepted doesn’t make it good or right.

Agree. Poorly worded. Very. Would better stare when o read ot it makes sense. When others do I can see confusion.

Sure, I think they can very well find happiness. Let me make an even more bold statement. No fluff. No falsity. No BS or hand waviness. Guy - I cannot imagine what you're going through in your family. This is no pity or feeling sorry for you. I don't. This is a statement, as a parent, I'm not sure I could handle it as well as you seem to be. Your openness to bring it up here, your thoughtful posts (that rarely align with mine)...it's sincerely set apart as I see it. We don't need to be friends or agree. I don't need you to shun a fake olive branch this post may show as. But I've been wanting to say this to you and haven't. It's impressive and maybe beyond my capacity. I do wish you well. In all earnest. I'm also going to slow responding here as I don't want to cause a further rift.

We'll agree to continually differ here. Morality doesn't change nor does truth. It's a flag-in-the-wind concept. If you have moving truth and morality targets, what is the definition of right or wrong? It can all sway, move, change. And the expectancy there's never conflict or overlapping infringement, when one person is moving the truth target, is not realistic. I appreciate the aside on defending murderous sociopaths, but I never stated there were any doing so. More pressingly, I asked what one would do with the ticking time bomb sociopaths I posted in earlier links. This is rubber-meet-road. We all want reform and to save lives. The quote you have difficulty with is not complex from my perspective but seems confusing and foreign to you. I will contend, someone created as one gender, then deciding to transition to the opposite, does not find the sustaining joy they seek. Possibly a reprieve from something, or some happiness, but not lasting joy. Joy and happiness are different. The former is not dependent on any external circumstance and roots in despite externals. The Merriam dictionary is a mess on its definition - "good fortune on possessing what one desires (in part)" yet wealthy people are often some of the most empty, lonely people you'll meet. I suspect our home base here won't get us any closer to you understanding my point. It's fine. I won't rescind or walk back my assertions on the human condition and how that shows in today's America. One place we will agree is we hope it improves.

You believe your gun control measures will solve the problem mid-term? What about short term for the psychopaths posting about murdering people? Wait until ammo is taxed "out the wazoo?" They seem to be actively ticking... Your leap would be wrong. I've worked with three in the near term. One of the three I knew before and after. All were amicable and hard working. I appreciated their acumen and high give-a-crap to get things done with integrity. In a working context, that's more than many of us get from other employees. Those three, for a couple reasons (time spent, as one) do not impact my assertions or reflect anything beyond driving work outcomes. Additionally, data is extremely helpful, hundreds of good conversations with a variety of demographic and socioeconomic people, reading, introspection. I enjoy hearing others' perspectives and sharpening my understanding based upon these conversations. Also, I can empathize deeply with a relativistic world view. I used to believe that way vehemently.

Yes, because it's relevant. Looking forward to understand where people's truths evolve. Not quite entertaining as much as fascinating (in some respects) and familiar (in other).

Your emboldened snippets are your takes at lazy labels? I stand by the assertions.