Bible Belt & Covid restrictions

[ArtieChokePhin]

incorrect

Are you sure?    Because if I were you, I wouldn't be so sure.

https://www.nraila.org/what-is-the-second-amendment-and-how-is-it-defined/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment

[CF DolFan]

Well then what is correct?

It "feels" like its wrong. Society today values feelings over actual laws or constitutional rights.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Does God exist?

Don't know.  I don't need to believe in God to believe in the teaching of Jesus, MLK and Gandi.

[CF DolFan]

Don't know.  I don't need to believe in God to believe in the teaching of Jesus, MLK and Gandi.

Considering He taught that he was God and THE way to get to God then you'd have to believe in God to believe His teachings. I realize you want to pick and choose what teachings you want to use but it doesn't really work that way. Either you believe or you don't which you clearly don't.

[pondwater]

Don't know.  I don't need to believe in God to believe in the teaching of Jesus, MLK and Gandi.

You don't know if God exists? Or you don't know if you believe God exists? Also, those teachings aren't unique to God, Jesus, or the Bible. Given that fact, why are you framing this whole thread in a Christian and biblical context? Seems to me it's more to ridicule, judge, and bully people into your way of thinking.

[Spider-Dan]

I would put a bullet in the government official that said that to me first, then worry about them later.  The founding fathers of this country put the second amendment in the constitution for a reason... so that if the government ever became tyrannical like you just described, citizens could defend themselves and shut down said government and start a new one.

IMO, anyone who thinks it's ok for the government to do things like that should be shot as well.

But this is exactly how the Christian God works.

You are given "free will" to make a choice, but if you make the wrong choice, you are punished with millions upon millions of years of unimaginable torture in Hell.  So if you consider that a valid choice, then the government giving you the "choice" to pay slightly more in taxes*, be jailed for a couple of years, or stop living in this country is significantly more reasonable than the choice to "voluntarily" give charity or spend the next billion years in the lake of fire.

*In reality, you don't pay any "extra taxes" when the government gives money to the poor, for exactly the same reason that you and I didn't pay more taxes when Dubya invaded Iraq, nor did we pay less taxes when Biden withdrew from Afghanistan.  The amount of taxes we pay is completely independent from the expenditures the US government makes (because we can print our own money).

Are you sure?    Because if I were you, I wouldn't be so sure.

https://www.nraila.org/what-is-the-second-amendment-and-how-is-it-defined/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment

The NRA's opinion is, shall we say, slightly biased.

In your second link, there is no indication whatsoever that the 2nd Amendment is intended to facilitate armed overthrow of the government.  Which makes sense, because no system of law includes a provision for a violent insurrection, as that would be unsustainable.

Consider the ramifications of your claim.  If the Second Amendment were actually intended to allow citizens to protect themselves from the government, then if law enforcement came to arrest you and you shot & killed them to avoid being arrested, you would be able to claim the Second Amendment as your legal defense!

[ArtieChokePhin]

Consider the ramifications of your claim.  If the Second Amendment were actually intended to allow citizens to protect themselves from the government, then if law enforcement came to arrest you and you shot & killed them to avoid being arrested, you would be able to claim the Second Amendment as your legal defense!

If an LEO didn't have a valid reason to arrest me and I could prove it, I would have EVERY RIGHT to shoot him dead because at that point, he is attempting to take me against my will and that gives me the right to insurrection.

I heard a news story about a Home Depot security guard doing something like that.  He got shot, but he lived. 

[Dave Gray]

I realize you want to pick and choose what teachings you want to use but it doesn't really work that way. Either you believe or you don't which you clearly don't.

So does everyone, though.  Nobody follows the bible directly...and you kinda can't, because it contradicts itself.  There are tons of people in all religions that pick and choose the parts of the dogma that work for them and discard the parts that don't.

[Spider-Dan]

If an LEO didn't have a valid reason to arrest me and I could prove it, I would have EVERY RIGHT to shoot him dead because at that point, he is attempting to take me against my will and that gives me the right to insurrection.

This is absolutely untrue.  You don't get to decide on the fly when law enforcement has a "valid" reason to arrest you, and there is no "right to insurrection" in our system of law.

This system you describe would make law enforcement effectively impossible.  Consider: a police officer attempts to arrest me as a suspect for a robbery, which I know I didn't commit.  So I shoot her dead.  Then, in my later trial for the cop's murder (unclear as to who is arresting me for that, but whatever), I prove that I didn't commit the robbery she was trying to arrest me for, so I was justified in "invoking my right to insurrection" and killing her for an unlawful arrest.  Tough break for her and her family!

The ACTUAL system of legal redress for when law enforcement arrests you without cause is for you to take them to court and win damages, not for you to shoot them dead in the street.

[pondwater]

*In reality, you don't pay any "extra taxes" when the government gives money to the poor, for exactly the same reason that you and I didn't pay more taxes when Dubya invaded Iraq, nor did we pay less taxes when Biden withdrew from Afghanistan.  The amount of taxes we pay is completely independent from the expenditures the US government makes (because we can print our own money).

Every extra dollar the government prints makes each dollar in circulation worth less. Thereby debasing and eroding the buying power of the money held by the public. So while it may not technically be called "extra taxes", it has the same effect. Either way the government is getting the money and we are losing it.

[CF DolFan]

So does everyone, though.  Nobody follows the bible directly...and you kinda can't, because it contradicts itself.  There are tons of people in all religions that pick and choose the parts of the dogma that work for them and discard the parts that don't.

The Bible doesn't contradict itself. If you take a quote out of context and place it against another quote out of context then you aren't making a point. Examples from 2000 - 3000 years ago don't always mean the same as today. Old Testament and New Testament documents are different in what story is being told. Old is meant to reveal sin in man through the Laws of Moses, the need for a savior, and the prediction of that savior. The New Testament  is meant to reveal the freedom in Christ and how to live as someone who has accepted Christ. 66 books/letters by 40 different authors that reveal one story.

[Spider-Dan]

Every extra dollar the government prints makes each dollar in circulation worth less. Thereby debasing and eroding the buying power of the money held by the public. So while it may not technically be called "extra taxes", it has the same effect.

No, "government fiscal policy reduces the buying power of my money" is not the same effect as "the government is taxing me more."

For example, when the government lowers taxes, that puts more money into the economy.  That increases inflation, which reduces your buying power... which according to you, is "the same effect" as raising your taxes.  The idea that lowering taxes and raising taxes are the same effect doesn't make sense.

[Spider-Dan]

The Bible doesn't contradict itself. If you take a quote out of context and place it against another quote out of context then you aren't making a point. Examples from 2000 - 3000 years ago don't always mean the same as today. Old Testament and New Testament documents are different in what story is being told. Old is meant to reveal sin in man through the Laws of Moses, the need for a savior, and the prediction of that savior. The New Testament  is meant to reveal the freedom in Christ and how to live as someone who has accepted Christ. 66 books/letters by 40 different authors that reveal one story.

Seems like some people want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally.

But maybe I'm wrong.  In which verse(s) does the Bible explain how the Old Testament is "meant" to be taken?

[CF DolFan]

Seems like some people want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to take literally.

But maybe I'm wrong.  In which verse(s) does the Bible explain how the Old Testament is "meant" to be taken?

LOL ... it's the story line. Try reading it.

Simplest way to explain it off the top of my head.
Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. ... We now live under the law of Christ, not beneath the law of Moses. We follow because we believe and NOT because it's Law.

[Spider-Dan]

We now live under the law of Christ, not beneath the law of Moses.

And where does the Bible say that?  The verse you cited specifically states that Jesus did NOT come to abolish the law.

Again, seems like you pick and choose what you want to obey.