Murder in Michigan

    A news item about an apparent road rage shooting in Howell, MI, caught my eye today.

    A couple (the Flemmings) was driving to pick up their kids from school when they were allegedly cut off by a guy in a pickup truck (Martin Edward Zale.) When they all stopped at a stoplight, Flemming, age 43, approached the truck, presumably to yell at Zale, whereupon Zale, age 69, rolled down the window and shot Flemming dead.

    I was curious about this because an early news account indicated that the driver/shooter Zale was "waiting to find out if charges" would be laid. My goodnes, I thought, why wouldn't they be? So, I did a bit of looking around. There is a Martin E Zale who owns a jewelry business in Howell. It's fairly common for jewelers to apply for carry permits to protect themselves and their employees from armed robberies and possible carjackings. (Gangs of jewel thieves sometimes target salespeople to steal their line from their car, with violent results, and over in Plainfield Township, this happened. If it's the same Zale, this was possibly his reason for carrying the gun--to protect himself, his employees, and his goods if necessary.

    So what happened here? Was this a case of road rage? Or was Zale unable to tell the difference between a regular guy and a hardened criminal with bodily harm on his mind? Either way, I think it's a pretty good demonstration of the unintended consequences of allowing ordinary people to carry guns. Police killings show that it's hard enough for trained people to make good decisions when holding a firearm--it's that much less likely that an ordinary person is going to be able to do a good job of it.

    The "waiting to find out if" charges would be laid also opens a window into how much benefit of the doubt goes to permitted carry holders. (It makes me wonder if there was some effort to allow Zale to walk away entirely with the same kind of self-defense explanation provided by George Zimmerman. If so, it didn't work out--he has been charged with murder.)

    Sigh. I fear we can look forward to another iteration of the "I'm too stupid to distinguish between an ordinary person and a criminal, but that's okay because America" defense.


    I saw this too, and it has stuck in my mind all day. I didn't know about Zales being a jeweler...the headline I saw was something about "Road Rage."  The article said that the pick-up driver side-swiped the other car and cut him off, and the guy in the car, who was with his wife, going to pick up his kids on the first day of school went to ask the pick-up driver what the problem was when they stopped at a light. The pick-up guy (Zales) then shot him dead. 

    Jeweler or no, this is beyond sick. I guess more information will come to light, but there cannot be any justification for thus murder.  

    We have crazy neighbors, who believe that the apocalypse is coming, and they have guns and also terrible tempers, despite their professed adoration of Jesus. I live in a nice neighborhood, but these people are definitely three standard deviations from the norm. A couple of weeks ago there was yet another screaming, horn-blowing, and loud music adventure coming from their house at 3 am.  We called the police,and they came and quieted them down. I remembered that in my childhood, my father would have just gone over and talked to them. Guns have changed all that.  One night later a different variety of altercation made us call the cops again. 

    The thing is, if you have a gun in your hands you may just think shooting it is the best response at that moment. Never mind that afterwards you know better, because it is too late. 

    "If it's the same Zale, this was possibly his reason for carrying the gun--to protect himself, his employees, and his goods if necessary."

    I get it, sure.  But there's another, non-lethal way for business owners to protect their till and their wares.  It's called insurance.  Almost never goes off accidentally.

    You think maybe the victim could have gotten the license plate and had reported Zale's aggressive driving to the police so they could deal with this dangerous driving behavior; instead of getting out of the car, like some law enforcer  and approaching Zale, in an angry and aggressive manner? 

    Best insurance......... avoid confrontation 

    I think that if you dangerously cut some on off, you should be man enough to deal with being confronted over it, without resorting to using penis-substitute, instant death button in your glove box.

    Put another way... if you cut some one off, thus nearly killing them, and can't man up to take the dressing down you have coming to you without shooting the person who you endangered, then you shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

    Or, maybe fewer guns on the street would make for fewer chances of gun carriers panicking the first second somebody calls them out on their own mistakes. 


    you should be man enough to deal with being confronted over it,



    People have disagreements.  If you cut somebody off on the highway, nearly causing a collision, you know you're in the wrong.  If that person decides to give you a peace of their mind, why do you need a weapon?  Take it and apologize, say you won't do it again and, frankly, mean it.

    This "stand your ground" mentality, where the fear of the person with the penis substitute/death cannon, gets to decide who should live or die, is ludicrous.  If you're that terrified of other people, maybe you shouldn't be outside.

    Therein lies the problem with society;  never letting the wrong go by.

    "Stand your ground" "You dissed me" "You cut me off"  "You were in the wrong and I'm here to get in your face, to let you know it too"

    They forget the counsel "Turn the other cheek" "Forgive others their trespasses, as you would have others do unto you" 

    Instead some adopt the Spirit of the world ME FIRST. "How dare you... cut me off" 

    It may be, Zale was a jerk; but that didn't any give excuse for the victim, to act in the same manner, thinking  he was going to get or force Zale, to humble himself and give an apology. 

    Apologize or else?

    Had the victim just shaken off the insult or infraction, his peaceful spirit would have preserved his soul.

    A man who should be alive today was in a car with his wife, picking up their child after the first day of school.  A driver nearly killed them both.  The man who was nearly killed alongside his wife, went to have words with the person who had nearly killed them.  And was shot over it.

    The problem is the gun and the shooter, not the person who was twice a victim (nearly killed and then shot for daring to voice some outrage over it).

    While it makes moral sense to turn the other cheek whenever possible, it also makes moral sense to accept criticism when you deserve it and to not react to heated encounters with deadly force.

    When Jesus said to turn the other cheek the technology to kill somebody by pressing a button on a dildo did not exist.

    Back then they would have whipped out their BIG swords?

    I don't know enough about the immediate case, to know if Zale only cut into an opening, left by too many car lengths by the victim, or because the victim didn't allow other traffic to merge so the other driver had to speed up in order to not be run off the road himself ?  

    Not enough information;  also what was the speed limit in the area? Was it really life threatening speed?  

    or was it a case of  "I may be slow, but I'm ahead of you"? 

    The victim also might have become peeved and rode Zales A..  flipping the bird and when the opportunity availed itself when they stopped, the bird became a fist.

    Is Zale handicapped?  

    Maybe the victim should have stayed in the vehicle with his hands on his own 

    While it makes moral sense to turn the other cheek whenever possible, it also makes moral sense to accept criticism when you deserve it 

    NO it is dangerous to assume the other party will take your criticism. Especially if it is not done in a peaceful manner.  

    After the first FU, where do you think the conversation will lead? 

    I don't know how reliable this source is

    From your linked article

    “This man shot an unarmed man in broad daylight with multiple witnesses, including Ms. (Amy) Flemming. He needs to be removed from our community and locked behind bars.”

    If the shooter is that unsure of his manhood and requires a weapon to respond to a question posed in anger, said shooter is too dangerous to re main in an open society. There was no physical contact. There was no cheek that had to be turned because of a blow struck. There was only a man too scared to be allowed to carry a gun.


    According to the article both drivers were playing cat and mouse, jeopardizing all other drivers.

    Did Fleming mistakenly assume the other driver, was unarmed or would be reasonable?  

    Fleming had to have known any confrontation with this perceived maniac, wouldn't turn out good; but apparently, his rage, clouded his judgment. 

    Had Fleming stayed in the vehicle, instead of looking for a confrontation with another driver,  his family would have had their father and husband home. 

    According to witnesses Fleming appeared agitated and angry 

    We'll never know, if Flemings wife tried to cool her husbands temper?

    Nobody deserves to be shot for being agitated and angry, particularly if provoked.

    I agree with you, Resistance. For multiple reasons, Flemming should've reported it to the police:

    1. less risk to himself; and
    2. possibility of a meaningful consequence to Zale.

    That said, such an observation does not address the wrongness of Zale:

    1. Zale shouldn't have been driving like a maniac; and
    2. Zale shouldn't have shot Flemings.

    Also, of course, it's quite likely that the police would've done nothing had Flemming called them and reported Zale's aggressive driving. (Though, I still agree with you that it would've been the right thing to do.)

    [Edit to fix spelling of Flemming's name.]

    This didn't rise to the level that the police needed to be involved. If there was no video, the police would have said "drive carefully" and moved on.The homicide committed by Zale made it a case for the police.

    You are probably right. I still agree that Flemming should not have confronted Zale. Zale's response, however, is clearly the point at which the police had to get involved, and was also obviously the act that we absolutely must never tolerate.

    [Edit to fix spelling of Flemming's name.]

    We have let the sociopaths take over.. Zimmerman is a domestic abuser who got away with homicide. Fortunately the sociopaths who killed a teen for playing loud music and knocking on a door in the early morning hours, respectively, got sent to the pokey. Scared people with guns are the issue. Gunning down someone who on the spur of the moment verbally challenged someone who jeopardized the victim's family is not acceptable. Fearful people with guns need to stay home and get their goods delivered by Internet commerce, grow a pair, or take anxiolytic medication. 

    …or take anxiolytic medication.

    Thanks for teaching me a new word today!

    U R welcome

    911: What's your emergency 

    Caller: There is a driver acting erratically and it appears he is waving a gun.

    911:  Describe the vehicle sir. 

    The driver who exited his vehicle to voice a free speech opinion was within his legal right. The person who committed homicide should be convicted of murder. If we were living in the Caliphate, then we should accept gunfire as a response that can be explained away. In America, the shooter committed a homicide. Full stop.

    So Fleming, is dead right?

    I'd rather be wronged than than dead right. 

    Had the argument escalated between the two drivers, could Flemings "free speech" have become ... disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace ? 

    The point is that the shooter was homicidal. The victim did nothing that a rational person would consider worthy of death. There is nothing that Fleming did that justified a shooting. Similar traffic discussions are daily occurrences on the roadways of the United States of America. They are part of the driving experience. People have seen these verbal exchanges. Sometimes parentage is questioned. Sometimes there is questioning of parental biological origin. Sometimes a single-finger salute is involved. It is part and parcel of free speech in America. What made this different is a homicidal person with a gun.

    Fearful gun-toters are going to have to gain some testicular fortitude or keep their metal penises at home.

    It just happens to be, this incident involved a man (Zale) who felt threatened.

    There are many woman who are also gun- toters;  does that mean these woman are full of testosterone and if they should want to defend themselves, they too should get some testicular fortitude? 

    Regarding testosterone. So far the majority of fearful shooters have been those with reproductive organs that produce primarily testosterone. Since most men seem to be able to function in society without needing weaponry and most men can tolerate verbal exchanges while driving with having hurt feelings or fear, it appears that most men have sufficient testosterone to survive. Those who need metal penises should be checked for testosterone deficiency. They may also require psychopharmacology to suppress their fear. Talk therapy may be helpful in addressing the root cause of their fear.

    "Free speech"  is that the same as not controlling your tongue?

    The claim of "Freedom of Speech" is no protection against unreasonable people. 

    Fleming got out of his vehicle, which was interpreted as a continuation of an aggressive behavior by Fleming towards Zale. 

    Did the frail and elderly Zale feel threatened enough? 

    Fleming could have exercised his Freedom of Speech without threatening others. He should have remained in his vehicle. 

    Yes, free speech means not having to control your tongue. 

    Zale was afraid. Fearful people are a danger when they carry guns. 

    Zale will have plenty of time to reconsider his action in prison.

    I think its important to differentiate between behavior that is ethically wrong or just plain stupid and behavior that is illegal. Based on the story as we now know it imo Flemming was incredibly stupid or a case could even be made he was ethically wrong, but nothing he did was illegal. If Zales had responded to Flemming by telling him to go fuck himself that would have been stupid as well.. But even that wouldn't have been illegal.

    Unless there is more to the story the only thing that was criminal was Zales shooting Flemming. Its hard for me to imagine a scenario that could make this justifiable homicide. Flemming was not armed. He was on his feet and Zales was in his car. Zales could have rolled up his windows and locked his door. He could have driven away, cars do travel faster than a human can run. Both seem to me to be guilty of extreme stupidity. But that's not a crime. Shooting someone is.

    This case and others like it illustrate the problem with the proliferation of guns. People get angry  and behave stupidly. Studies show that most so called defensive shootings occur at the end of escalating arguments that without the presence of a gun would have resulted in angry words exchanged or at most a few punches being thrown.

    Its not possible to make getting angry and behaving stupidly a crime. But it is possible to make it harder for stupid people to get guns and carry them in public. That's where the focus should be.

    I agree, It was stupid and wasn't worth his (Fleming's) life to correct Zales behavior.

    Little to gain;.... yet so much too lose/risk.

    I know you agree, the difference is you think its an important part of the story and I think its a trivial side issue. Here's the real issue,

    It was a crime. Zales is a murderer and should spend tens of years in jail. It wasn't worth those years in jail to correct Flemming's minor faux pas by murdering him.

    Murder, Little to gain..... yet so much to lose/risk.

    This is where you've gone awry, Resistance... no reasonable person should expect that their life is at risk if they tell an irresponsible driver to knock it off.

    Reply at bottom of page 

    Thank you Michael.

    Back in the late 70's. I was stationed in Europe. I was reading the Stars and Stripes and ran across an editorial from a judge in Chicago about gun-related cases that had come before his court.


    From what I remember, he said only 20 to 25% were legally justified weapon firings. The rest were either children playing with a gun their parents had failed to secure, an adult pulling the trigger thinking there wasn't a cartridge in the camber, anger or passion of a moment, resentment and so forth.


    He was pretty convincing there were quite a number of people with guns who weren't mature enough to own them.


    My opinion is a person holding a gun who is in a sate of fear is a danger to the public ... their fear is in control and no telling what it will take to make them discharge their weapon at you. You could be shot just raising your hands to show you don't have a weapon or if you freeze, they might think you have a weapon too and are trying to hide it so they can't see it ... either way you could get shot because fear is driving the individual with the weapon.


    What's more, all a person has to say is they felt you were threatening them and they only were defending themselves because you were acting aggressive to them.

    It's just so simple and clear that licensing is the answer to reducing firearm deaths.

    It's ironic that the two in the story were in an argument about rules of the road. Rules of the road weren't always there. Back in the day when the horseless carriage was young, you could do anything you wanted with them and anyone could drive one. When they grew in number, rules and licensing and insurance started to appear. And funny, it seems, the more rules there were, the more automobiles there were, not less. (Remember when driving home after a few drinks was no big deal?) And people treasure being able to keep their licenses even more than they treasure their vehicles. And they even get emotional about and into fights about following the rules.

    Licensing is the answer if its defined properly. The biggest part of that definition is how one loses their license. Obviously if someone is convicted of shooting someone they should lose their license as well as serve jail time. And the rules for self defense should be tightened. But more important every small offense should result in the loss of the right to own guns.

    Drop your gun in public and it goes off is not an accident, its negligence and you should lose your right to own guns. Even if no one is hit by the bullet.

    Cleaning your gun while forgetting to check the chamber and it goes off is not an accident, its negligence and you should lose your right to own guns. Even if your neighbor in the next apartment isn't hit.

    Take your gun out to take a shit and leave it in the restroom is not just forgetfulness, its negligence and you should lose your right to own guns. Even if no 10 year old kid picks it up and shoots himself.

    People need to understand that its not just a right to own guns but also a responsibility. Fail in that responsibility and lose the right to own guns. That's the only way to get stupid people to stop treating guns like toys.


    Brilliant, Double A.

    Thank you very much! Since you liked that so much, here's a bonus illustration for ya:

    and the article that goes with it:

    Gun Deaths Versus Car Deaths, by Dorothy J. Samuels,, July 16, 2014:

    Education is how you fix stupid

    Americans need to support the NRA's effort to teach responsible gun ownership or come up with an alternative education program.

    Education doesn't conflict with the Second amendment.   A win/win for the nation.  

    Licensing doesn't prevent gun crimes or accidents.

    Licensing doesn't prevent gun crimes or accidents

    Since unlicensed guns can be brought in from other states, what support do you have for this statement?

    Exactly the point to focus on, rmrd; see this John Hopkins School of Public Health Fact Sheet.

    You are living in a fantasy world Michael.  You better get street smart.

    The world is violent and getting worse.

    If drivers are being warned about making eye contact;  how much more so, is it important  to avoid having verbal contact?

    Unless you want to ignore the realities? 

    Search "Eye contact and Road Rage"   This is just one of many advisories

    What can you do about this? You can choose to drive and react courteously no matter what is happening around you. You’d be surprised at the power positive actions can have, because you’re an important link in any chain reaction of driving events which can occur around you. When you smile and let someone move into your lane, when you choose to ignore another discourteous driver’s actions instead of "teaching him a lesson," when you leave enough time to drive somewhere without aggressively speeding, you are making choices that have a positive effect on the driving environment. ..........

    No one drives courteously and without mistakes all the time. ..........

    Do not engage other drivers. Avoid engaging other drivers, even if they have done something to make you angry or vice versa. Put as much distance between you and the other driver as possible and avoid making eye contact. Never pull off the roadway to confront another driver.

    Steer Clear - Give angry drivers lots of room. Do not, under any circumstances, pull off to the side of the road and try to settle things.

    Avoid eye contact - If another driver is acting angry with you, don’t make eye contact. Looking or staring at another driver can turn an impersonal encounter between two vehicles into a personal duel.........

    Change your attitude and approaches to driving. Avoid creating a competitive situation with another driver, even if they are at fault. In the end, it is a lose/lose situation that can cost you your life. Try not to take another person’s bad driving personally. Their problems on and off the road have nothing to do with you.

    If this is how you see reality... where other people are so dangerous that you dare not make eye contact with them, then how can you possibly support the notion of people carrying guns?  Your whole worldview is justification for disarming all but a select few who have proven themselves beyond reproach.

    This is the reality 

    Godlessness in the Last Days

    3 But understand this, that y in the last days there will come times of difficulty. 2 For people will be z lovers of self, a lovers of money, b proud, b arrogant, abusive, b disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 c heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, d not loving good, 4 treacherous, reckless, e swollen with conceit, f lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having the appearance of godliness, but g denying its powerh Avoid such people.

    2 Timothy 3:1-5

    Edited to add 

    People who are like the brutal members of ISIL, will always have weapons and  the sheep like ones, (disarmed)  will always be their prey.

    We do not live in paradise, free from crime and violence 

    How exactly is one supposed to know if they are man or monster?  George Zimmerman, for one, remains confused on this point.


    You of all people have studied the difference between doing the smart, safe thing, and doing the right thing. 

    Remember the guy, that carpenter guy, who was told to shut up and fish? Mind his own business?

    Did he?

    No, he went and talked to people, forced human-to human discussions, changed a few lives, said some rash things, and got himself killed when the weaponized hotheads got mad and scared about being challenged. Yeah, that guy should have known that they had a hammer and some big nails with his name on them. But he did it anyway.

    And you worship him for it.

    I'm not saying that Flemming was some kind of Jesus figure. I think he was an ordinary guy who wanted to challenge what had just happened to him, and last I checked, the penalty for challenging events is NOT death, at least not here is the New Testament world.

    So I have to ask, what's driving this effort to excuse an obvious case of murder other than the need to cling to the idea that if it was done by a permitted gun carrier, it must, must be right?

     I haven't defended or convicted the killer.

    I have only pointed out; If the victim, had controlled his anger and had remained in the vehicle; he would still be alive 

    I think he was an ordinary guy who wanted to challenge

    Do you consider it wise, to challenge another, who shows a propensity to harm? 

    Witnesses report Fleming (victim) was not acting meekly but instead; aggressively. 

    A spirit of revenge, by both drivers was reported 

    The claim was Zale was reckless and was a threat, but evidently not too big of a threat to allow Fleming to teach Zale a lesson?  

    Zale almost kills him with his car; what made Fleming think Zale valued life? 

    Was it blind rage, that ignored a clear sign of danger?

    yDo not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, zbless, for ato this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. 1 Peter 3:9

    Zale will have to answer for the charge; but that still won't bring the victim back to life.

    This whole incident should be a warning for all. (See the admonition written earlier)

    If you are going to use Biblical Scripture snippets, you might include "Thou shalt not murder/kill"

    Zale broke a Commandment.

    To go a  little  "meta", and riff off of the "lust in the heart"=adultery, why is arming oneself not intending/preparing to kill, and thus "killing"?  Resistance has elsewhere proclaiimed that the true Christian does not kill--there doesn't really seem to be a "self defense " exception.

    One gets into those convoluted arguments when one relies on Biblical snippets rather than trying to understand the complete message being sent by the text. Snippets allow you to justify beating children, harming those who blaspheme, and objecting to taking action against slavery or Jim Crow. Such a religion is worthless. Don't hide Jews, remain silent while they are sent to slaughter. Snippet religion lets you justify any action. 

    Jesus also used snippets.

    I will remind you, in case you have become unfamiliar with God’s word

    Luke 4:16-21

    Jesus Rejected at Nazareth

    16 ……… He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

    18  y “The Spirit of the Lord  zis upon me,……… 21 And he began to say to them, “Today h this Scripture i has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

    (this Scripture = snippet) 

    Edited to add 

    Don't hide Jews, remain silent while they are sent to slaughter.

    Who didn't hide the Jews, who remained silent? I think you are falling for your own propaganda or worse. 

    You said Bonhoeffer was a CINO

    SO; It  was one thing for Bonhoeffer, to speak out against the treatment of the Jews, but he did not renounce, the very church, that was complicit, to the lead up to the anti -Semitism in the first place.

    His Church and it's teachings planted the seeds,because the Church  thought they had a good relationship with Nazi Germany and it's ruling class. 

    4 Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, w“Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues; 5  for xher sins are heaped high as heaven, and yGod has remembered her iniquities.………. 7  cAs she glorified herself and lived in luxury, so give her a like measure of torment and mourning, since in her heart she says, d‘I sit as a queen, I am no widow, and mourning I shall never see.’ ……….

    And hthe kings of the earth, who committed sexual immorality and lived in luxury with her, iwill weep and wail over her jwhen they see the smoke of her burning.

    Revelation 18:4-9

    2nd  Bonhoeffer was associated with assassins. 

    Show me where Jesus said that assassinating wicked men was acceptable, Christian behavior. 

    There are some who challenge the idea of Bonheffer's involvement in the assassination atttempt.

    ​Perhaps you should read their arguments

    Edit to add: While there may be evidence that Bonhoeffer remained a pacifist, I will state that I still consider him a hero if he was in on an assassination plot. Hitler was not placed in power by God, by by flawed people. There were the weak Christians who fell into line with Hitler's racial superiority message. Arianism  superseded Christianity. The true Christians fought against Hitler's mongrelization of their religion. I am proud of those Christians who responded to evil by not compromising their Christian values.

    If Bonhoeffer saw Hitler as evil and felt that the tyrant's death would hasten the end of the Nazi regime more power to Bonhoeffer.

    Who were the CINO, those went with Aryanism or those who rejected the bastardization of Christianity offered by the Nazi Party?


    You use snippets. Jesus went on to put the words into context by further explanation. Read the entire chapter, not just a CliffNotes version. When you take one of your snippets given in one place, it contradicts another snippet you give in another place. There is no rational context.

    You judge by labeling others as CINO. This is counter to "Judge not" theme found in the Scripture.

    The voice from the heavens  announces the judgment against the CINO's . I am  only the messenger 

    Revelation 18:4-9

    To knowledgeable ones, those with insight, it is clear who the people are told "to get out of" 

    Earth to Resistance

    You are not a prophet. You make guesses.

    What happened with Jordan Davis and Michael Brown? Let's hear more of your guesses.

    It should be noted that delusional people often believe that are the only ones receiving the true message. Such a person might label others CINO.

    Resistance has elsewhere proclaiimed that the true Christian does not kill--there doesn't really seem to be a "self defense " exception.

    On the contrary, Christians don’t have to become victims.

    Turning the cheek from a slap (Insult) is not the same as allowing a fist or club to inflict bodily harm.

    True Christians, don’t take offensive action against their fellowman, but Christians have the right, to take defensive action.  

     Flee if possible, but if you or your family is threatened by someone, determined to cause bodily harm or death, Christians are not denied the right of self-defense.

     If the assailant should be injured or accidentally killed, there is no blood guilt upon the individual who was only trying to repel /prevent the attacker from causing injury.

    Defensive action is not condemned, offensive action is.

    I've seen kind of defensive action before...


    This command is why Caesar hated the Christians so much;  for he knew if this teaching were to spread, it would diminish Caesars ability to raise an army for conquest.

    "Thou shalt not murder/kill"

    You want to disregard the command if it serves your agenda? 

    If Christians weren't to kill; who did you think God used, to fight the NAZI's to end the extermination of Jews and others? 

    Also; many other faithful servants were  killed in the arena, to satisfy the bloodthirsty Roman theater goers, and this spilled blood, will also be avenged.

    This is why you are ridiculed. You previously stated that Christians are not supposed to challenge the Supreme Authority. You said Bonhoeffer should not have involved himself with the plight of Jews. You said that Abolitionists should have bowed to the Supreme Authority ans not challenged slavery. You said the Martin Luther King Jr. Was a CINO for challenging Jim Crow. Now you say that Christians should murder?

    Which Supreme Authority should a Christian have chosen in the Civil War since murder is okay?  Was the Christian to fight for the North or the South. Was the German Christian to fight for the Supreme Authority of Hitler or work with the Supreme Authority of the Allied Forces as a spy?


    Is this the new form of questioning and trickery, similar to the old tactics of the scribes and Pharisee class  to entangle Jesus? 

    Paying Taxes to Caesar

    15 g Then the Pharisees went and plotted how h to entangle him in his words

    16 And they sent i their disciples to him, along with j the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, k we know that you are true and teachl the way of God truthfully, and you do not care about anyone's opinion, for m you are not swayed by appearances.1 17 Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay n taxes to o Caesar, or not?” 18 But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why p put me to the test, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius.2 20 And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” 21 They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them,q “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” 22 When they heard it, they marveled. And they r left him and went away.

    Matthew 22:15-22

    This is no trick. This is to point that you take a book with an important message and turn it into mambo-jumbo. First you tell that Christians should bow to the Superior Authority and that God wants the Bonhoeffer's and MLK's to remain silent while evil occurs. They are CINO by taking action, MLK died because he challenged the Superior Authority. Now you tell us that Christians fighting in wars brought peace. Are Christians to take action or are they to stay out of the "World"? Your words are at issue.

    At the end of the day, we are left with the fact that Zale broke one of the Commandments.

    Reply to address AAs selective and misleading facts 

    "Firearm Safety in America 2013_

    The “cars and guns” myth. In the 1990s, gun control supporters claimed that driver licensing and vehicle registration caused motor vehicle accident deaths to decline between 1968 and 1991, and that gun registration and gun owner licensing would reduce gun accidents. However, vehicle registration and driver licensing laws were not imposed to reduce accidents, and did not do so. Most were imposed between the world wars,

    but motor vehicle accident deaths increased sharply after 1930 and didn’t begin declining until 1970.

    Also, between 1968 and 1991 the motor vehicle accident death rate dropped only 37% with vehicle registration and driver licensing, while the firearm accident death rate dropped 50%   without  registration and licensing.

     Gun control supporters want registration and licensing only to acquire records necessary to make confiscation of privately owned firearms achievable in the future. Handgun Control, Inc. (since renamed Brady Campaign) once said that registration was the second step in the group’s three-step plan for the confiscation of all handguns.5

    Education is an essential part to responsible gun ownership   Become an informed citizen, Join the NRA

    "Are you surrounded by a world where doors stay locked and windows shuttered?"  

    Why are the CINO's at the NRA challenging the Superior Authority?

    Constitution ...... Second Amendment .... Superior Authority 

    The NRA has one of the finest education programs, so why reinvent the wheel.

    Education would help to reduce gun deaths.  Isn't that the goal or; is the goal to overturn the Second Amendment? 

    MLK was fighting for rights guaranteed by the Constitution as well, yet you call him names.


    The superior power gets to interpret whether a militia men's military of the general public. There is no Constitutional right to own a bazooka, grenade, tank, etc.

    MLK was a good man, I have never said he wasn't. 

    Not all CINO's are bad. 

    But if they are not obeying the Christ, then all they are, is a CINO  (Christian In Name Only).

    I Never Knew You

    21 o “Not everyone who p says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will q enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who r does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 s On that day t many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not u prophesy in your name, and cast out demons v in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 t And then will I declare to them, ‘I w never knew you; x depart from me, y you workers of lawlessness.’ Matthew 7:21-23

    It appears it is you, who wants to declare MLK righteous  usurping Christ's role?

    You want to enslave all Christians to serve your political agenda?. 

    The early apostles warned about such men. 

    Even during Jesus' day, the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus to overthrow the Roman government, to right the wrongs afflicting the Jews, by establishing HIS Kingdom

    Jesus told them NO! it was not time. 

    Did MLK and his followers, take it upon themselves to right the wrongs, because they thought the Lord was delaying? 

    MLK was a political man with the appearance of a Christian. Nothing new and it was to be expected, that certain men would arise and would cause divisions within the Christian Congregation.

    So you feel that the Southern Baptists who separated from Northern Baptists were the true representatives of God's message? The Southern Baptists who supported Jim Crow were the true Christian's?

    Neither side.

    The whole church is built on the wrong foundation. What would you expect? More division?

    More division is the tool used by the Liar and opposer Satan, in order to confuse mankind. 

    You become active on guns but silent  on children suffering hunger and imminent threat of death. You would have stood mute on slavery and Jim Crow. Yet you provide excuses when a shooter kills an unarmed person and urge more guns placed in the hands of fearful people to shoot more unarmed people.

    It is a fools errand to believe the SCOTUS will serve the anti gun crowds agenda.

    So what is wrong, with supporting education programs designed  to help reduce gun deaths? 

    As for the rest of your  ad hominem attacks with  half truths, intended to entangle, I see no need to dispel all your claims/ false charges.

    You should  use a dictionary to define terms for you.

    What is your responsibility to the children at the border?

    Would you have hidden slaves in the Underground Railroad?

    Would you have marched with King against Jim Crow?

    But education is not the goal of the NRA, miseducation is. Why else would they work so hard to block efforts by the CDC to research gun violence? Or spread lies that

    Gun control supporters want registration and licensing only to acquire records necessary to make confiscation of privately owned firearms achievable in the future.

    I mean that is so clearly imaginary that it ranks up there with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in terms of unbelievability (and yet people still believe both of those.). Note the NRA's own footnote on that one (on their page laughingly called Firearm Safety in 2013), if you need any additional evidence about them reaching for straws in their efforts to misinform.

    CDC Data Refutes New Anti-Gun Study's Claims


     “Predictably, gun control advocates and their allies in the media have taken the researchers’ claims as the gospel. …. The CDC’s data show that the country is trending in the right direction and has been for some time. The fact that this trend is occurring alongside an increase in the number of privately owned firearms should help to divorce some from the notion that more guns inherently mean more gun deaths. Further, we hope that in the future, the media will be more critical when reporting research findings that conflict so profoundly with the other available data on the subject. But we won’t hold our breath.”


    That doesn't answer the question of why the NRA is fighting it so hard? For the record, I cannot find the numbers the NRA is referring to, but I could go to the CDC site and compare 1999-2000 vs. 2010-2011:

    Year Range


    Unintentional Number of Deaths

    Crude Rate

    Age-Adjusted Rate

    All Intents

    Crude Rate

    Age-Adjusted Rate

















    P.S. I sorely wish I could insert HTML table code here.

    Edit to add a summary: While the number of unintentional gun-related deaths went down from the 1999-2000 range to the 2010-2011 range, the number (and crude rate) of "all intents" (which includes "undetermined intention") went up. The "age-adjusted rate" went down in both cases. There are lots of other facts one can get from that database, including that the gun-related suicide rates went up, both crudely and age-adjusted. This is not to say which of those interpretations is right, but to highlight my original question, why was the NRA intent on preventing this information from being acquired?

    One of the methods used Toby the gun lobby is to make up facts. A recent oped in the WaPo illustrates the problem. The article dealt with the risks face by police due to guns. The oped was quietly changed to remove some blatant falsehoods in the article.

    I don't think you're that naive; but then again ..... Or do you think Second Amendment Rights supporters, are so easily fooled, by the use of chicanery and political appointments by supporters of gun control? 

    No, I'm not that naïve. I know exactly why the NRA wants to keep the CDC from researching gun-related injuries. I was just curious as to how naïve you are.

    Are you suggesting that Second Amendment Rights supporters are not being fooled by the NRA? If so, why does the NRA keep trying to fool them? And, why do you quote them in a manner that suggests you are being fooled by them? Do you really believe that bit about trying to take your guns away? (The guns that you suggested elsewhere that Christians don't need.) Really?

    Note that I gave numbers that mostly support the NRA's general assertion in that one case (in trend if not in exact numbers), using the CDC's database. But the NRA is trying to make the CDC out to be some bogeyman. Why? (As I said before, I already know the answer, but I'm curious as to your explanation.)

    Christians should take action when guns are concerned, slavery and Jim Crow, not so much. The Superior authority can usurp  freedom and civil rights of others, but boy if  we even imagine  a fantasy where they might take our guns, then confrontation with Superior Authority is required.

    Yeah REALLY 

    Do I have to connect all the dots for you ? 

    For a Christian to own a gun, is an individual conscience matter, 

    As long as I obey Christ  I have his protection, If I don't, then what protection would I have?

    Your assurance?  Smirk  

    S p e l l i n g  it out for you  One simple one   In many countries besides this one, a gun puts dinner on the table it also protects against wild beasts. 

    Every Citizen  should be on watch against those who would attack any Constitutional Rights. 

    The NRA warns about a government that can run amok and citizen Snowden exposes a government, that tramples the RIGHT TO PRIVACY, spying on it's own people.

    Then when the government  is confronted with the truth, the government agents lie and covers up the extent of the program.  

    Must the NRA and others connect more dots for you?  Comprende? 

    With every accidental gun death I ask about education, but  the proponents of gun control ask "how do we get the guns".  I have yet to see you take up the call for more education,  as you only provide more selective statistics, to bolster those, the NRA protects the Second Amendment from.

    but  the proponents of gun control ask "how do we get the guns".

    Straw man. My comment on this thread suggested licensing would not lessen gun ownership and might even make it grow. No one on this thread talked about taking guns away except you. Every time someone brings up licensing you do this, jump to " they want to take the guns away" as if there was someone who said that, when no one did. It makes you look ridiculous, this is why everyone starts challenging you instead of just leaving your opinion stand.

    IT DOES NOT FOLLOW that licensing means taking guns away. Just like licensing didn't mean taking automobiles away, nor did it mean taking barber shears away, nor medicine nor psychology nor dentistry, nor auto repair nor fishing nor hunting.....

    IT DOES NOT FOLLOW, period. You make no sense when you do this, that is why people pile on.

    Licensing is an important integral step, in the confiscation of guns.  Without licensing, the government doesn't really know who owns guns. Just as our forefathers intended.

    I do not understand why you cant see the sound reasoning of  the forefathers intent and how they gave us the tools to  preserve the  Freedoms and Rights of Americans.

    Peace and freedom  or war, that was the choice placed upon those wielding power.

    In the eyes of our forefathers, tyranny would be met by force and they sure weren't about to give any despot access to the peoples only protection.

    That is not a Christian viewpoint but not every patriot claims to be a Christian.   

    I imagine the peaceful Quakers probably hated the Second Amendment and it's implications, but the forefathers weren't building America into a Quaker settlement.  

    Every time someone brings up licensing you do this, jump to " they want to take the guns away" as if there was someone who said that, when no one did.

    Au contraire, someone said it once in 1976. So, there!

    Wrong again  It was in Chicago 1968

    Rumor has it the police reportedly said  "If we get the guns, it would be so much easier to quash any future dissent" 



    Another leader said it clearly enough 

    You do realize that you're only weakening your case don't you?

    Because I understand the fear others have or why or how they respond?

    You think it is enough to alleviate the fears of gun rights advocates by saying to those unfamiliar with faith in God; 

    "Trust God and everything will be just fine".  

    I am not going to be a part of overthrowing  Constitutional laws, ie. (Second amendment) they find comfort in.

    Just as I find it comforting that others will defend religious freedom.  Although I don't agree with all religious ideology.

    I  try to understand each others concerns and the reason to protect the Constitutional law.  

    You tell everyone else to stand on the sidelines and everything will follow God's plan. On the issue of guns, you take and advocate's role.

    No because you're conflating the view of a very small handful of people (we've so far come up with a grand total of 3) with the view of the majority of people in favor of reasonable gun control and licensing. The vast, vast majority of people interested in licensing guns are not interested in taking away the guns needed for hunting or self-defense. To suggest otherwise is to be dishonest.

    Right, extrapolating from what you've said before, a CINO can own a gun, but a true Christian will not, because he knows that Christ will protect him.

    I'm not sure what you're spelling out for me or what dots you think you're connecting. Although I'm a pescetarian, I have no problem with owning a hunting rifle or with owning firearms for defending yourself. What I do have a problem with is the myth that anything other than a very small fringe is interested in taking guns away from those with them (not you, of course, because surely you're not a CINO, so clearly you don't have any guns). Yes, the government abuses its powers, but no, it's not trying to take your guns. Gun registration does not equal theft of guns, anymore than car registration equals theft of cars. However, I assume you agree that those who demonstrate an inability to safely store their guns should not be allowed to have them, right?

    You accuse me of not taking up the call for more education, but I have, repeatedly, both in terms of educating the public and in educating gun owners on how to use their guns. Repeatedly. Perhaps you're lying, or perhaps your memory isn't very good. You accuse me of providing selective statistics, but in this very thread I provided statistics that bolstered the NRA's argument not "those, the NRA protects the Second Amendment from" (whoever "those" are). Perhaps you're lying, or perhaps you don't understand math.

    Every Citizen  should be on watch against those who would attack any Constitutional Rights. 



    Jim Crow was attacking the Constitutional  Rights of African Americans, but you said MLK Jr was acting too fast. It was not God's time for Blacks to have full citizenship. Why do you dare to attack the legal right of the Superior Authority to register guns?

    Jim Crow was attacking the Constitutional  Rights of African Americans and many people were right to speak out  just as we did with apartheid.  

    But when Christians were undergoing persecution they didn't  physically challenge the authorities, because they/we walk by spirit not by flesh.

    For r those who live according to the flesh set their minds on s the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on t the things of the Spirit. For to set u the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.   Romans 8:5-6

    It was not God's time for Blacks to have full citizenship.

    That is not what I said,

    From my perspective, MLK became a leader of a movement, leaving his position as a follower and slave of Christ.

    We have as an example of Christ himself who ran away, when the crowds were about to come and try and make him King. Who other than Jesus would have been a better leader? 

    The example of Moses is another, he didn't lead marches to Pharaohs' steps demanding  

    If you can show a biblical account showing Gods servants or Christ TRUE followers taking to the streets demanding rights.  I'd be interested.

    Apartheid ended because the Superior Authority of the Apartheid South African government knew they could not contain the unrest. 

    The Constitution of the Founding Fathers came about because they rebelled against the Superior Authority of the King of England. By your twisted logic, the Constitution is the result of acts by CINOs.

    King used his position to pressure the Superior Authority (Congress and LBJ) to change the laws. The actions were non-violent. If King's actions were non-Biblical, so is your call to join the NRA. Yours is an assertive action involving a challenge to the operations of the Superior Authority. You advocacy of the NRA is just as Un-Biblical as the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street. Your support of the NRA and calls to join its ranks makes you a CINO.

    Paul objected to his imprisonment and public humiliation. He demanded a public apology

    Acts 16:37

    Other public protests.

    Public protest against unrighteousness: 

    Elijah against the idolatry and religious apostasy of Israel (1 Kings 18:18-40); 
    Isaiah against the wickedness of Egypt and Cush (Isaiah 20); 
    Jeremiah against the social sins of drunkenness, adulteries and prostitution in Israel (Jeremiah 13); 
    Ezekiel against the immorality and violence of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 24); 
    Jesus against the corruption and desecration of the temple (Mark 11:15-17); 
    Paul against his unjust arrest, beating and imprisonment (Acts 16:37); 
    Other Biblical examples of public protest include Acts 13:50-51; 
    Matthew 10:14 and Proverbs 1:20-21. 

    From the book - Biblical Principles for Africa - by Dr Peter Hammond.

    Resistance, your religious positions are absolutely ridiculous. In the Black Church tradition, it we be called the "Good Old Boys" religion. What that means is none of your positions creates any personal discomfort for you. The discomfort falls on others. Blacks were to remain in slavery and Jim Crow until it was God's time. You fail to take into consideration that if people did not take action, nothing would have changed. God acts through people. Martin Luther King was one of the people who effected change.

    Martin Luther King Jr. reluctantly took the lead role in the Montgomery Bus Boycott. King used his position to appeal to the Superior Authority. His house was bombed. Your flawed prophetic vision blinds you to the fact that in the last years of his life, King was reviled by leaders be they Black, or be they White because of his opposition to the Vietnam War. King was persecuted, something you know nothing about. You demean people who sacrificed while doing Biblical snippets of religious quotes that give aid and comfort to slave-owners and racists.

    You go from stating that Christians should not really get involved in earthy matters, then yell that Hitler was defeated by the actions of people. It is interesting that your positions are in lockstep with voices you hear from the Heavens.Show where in the Bible it tells you that you should have access to an assault weapon as a private citizen.



    Here are some Biblical punishments, do you agree with all of these punishments or are you a CINO?

    First YOU want to declare MLK righteous, usurping the Lords position. 

    Then you keep coming up with litmus tests?  

    Here's a litmus test for you .

    Did MLK teach immortality of the soul;  a lie that led to the teaching of an unloving God, who torments sinners in Hellfire? Stumbling many. 

    If he did, do you really believe God found favor in a teacher or servant  that spreads a lie, that dishonors God? 

    Wow! You are really desperate and trying to divert attention away from your curious interpretation of Scripture. I' ll address your diversion at the end. I did not place King above God did because you are floundering.

    You are comfortable in your religion because it is easy for you to be comfortable. Abolitionists were CINO because it was not God's time. This prideful statement comes out of thin air. Martin Luther King Jr was CINO because it was not God's time for Jim Crow to end. You know this how exactly? Was it another"voice from the Heaven's"? One wonders about your skills as a prophet because we have seen you spout ridiculous possibilities when you discussed the cases of Jordan David and Michael Brown. You claimed that you were only offering possibilities. A prophet would not be guessing, a prophet would have facts. I question the veracity of your voices.

    Abolitionists heard God's voice. It was God's time to end slavery. The people of your religion were of no value in ending slavery. Harriet Beecher Stowe and Frederick Douglas, and others changed Lincoln's heart. It was God's will. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr touched both Kennedy and Lincoln. Even staunch segregationists realized the tide was turning. King and the meager resources at his disposal should have failed. King succeeded because it was God's will. People of your religion were not chosen to participate in this fight because they were not worthy.

    Regarding King's statements about immortality, on the night before his death, King noted that he would not reach the Promised Land of freedom with those gathered at the lecture. Martin Luther King knew about his mortality.

    A true prophet would not have to ask King's thoughts.


    Now you would try convince others the "Prince of Peace " wanted the Civil war?

    This after he tells Peter put away your sword and this command for Christians  

    "beat their swords into plowshares,and their spears into pruning hooks";

    Not all Abolitionist were CINO, only those who promoted war to end slavery were. 

    2nd  I didn't ask about MLK's thoughts 

     I asked you about what he taught in the church.

    Because the original point of the debate was whether he was a Christian or a CINO 

    Did he preach the Truth or Babylonish falsehoods. 

    23 But bthe hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father cin spirit and dtruth, for the Father eis seeking such people to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”  John 4:23-24

    Christians MUST  teach Bible Truths.

    More diversion, God sent The Jews into Canaan. Your dime store a Scripture collection is ineffective. We have sent your cut and paste Scripture . We have seen you post Scrpture snippets in one place that contradicts the argument and cut and paste that you made in another place.

    I am praying for you. Right now you are lost. You are contradicting yourself in a discussion on gun registration and you are contradicting yourself here. You yelled about Christian fighting in World War II and you doubt that a war would not be brought to eradicate slavery? Lincoln's heart shifted moved by Christians like Stowe and Douglas. Jim Crow was a sinful practice. You cannot see this. But you are not a seer.

    You first reaction to starving children at the border of the United States was to say that those children were not your problem. You are proud that you would do nothing for people. When guns are at issue, you weep over the metal weapons. They are your idol. When one of your idols is used to murder a kid in a van, you support the person handling your idol. When a police officer shoots an unarmed man, you support the officer carrying your idol.

    You overlook all the messages God sends you.

    You worship a metal device capable of firing high speed pellets.

    You are an idol worshipper, something much worse than the false label of CINO that you place on True Christians.

    You are exposed.

    Well you got me, I confess, I am imperfect. I have let the spirit of the world influence me  and if left unchecked, I too, could become a CINO 

    Christian fighting in World War ll

    You keep accusing TRUE Christians of fighting in the war, they did not,  CINOs did 

    True Christians obeyed the Prince of Peace ,they obeyed their King.  Just like ambassadors from another Kingdom, the one Jesus spoke of; they didn't fight for any Earthly government

    you doubt that a war would not be brought to eradicate slavery?


    That does not mean God didn't have a hand in the affairs of mankind, just as he used King Nebuchadnezzar, (a non jew) to bring justice to the land of Israel.

    He also used Cyrus (a non Jew) to release them from bondage.  

    I was sure from reading your previous comments, you had already erected an idol of MLK and were trying to get others to bow down to the image. as though he was the incarnate Moses or Jesus who  truly freed the slaves.

    No I was pointing out that God uses  men and women all the time. You exclude MLK as one of those people. 

    When Hitler was forging across Europe, what should Christians have done in response?

    No I do not include or exclude MLK's role in Gods plan. Only God knows 

    2) WWJD 

    That's why I mentioned Bonhoeffer. Many Black churches were not early King fans.

    The religion you detail, seems of little value, except to make an individual judgmental of others. It may have been wise for slaves to remain low key in Rome because their were lions readily available in the arena. God led the Jews to flee enslavement in Egypt. I hear a liberating message in the Bible that tells slave to take their chance for freedom.Christians are not to be slaves to other men. It appears to me that a Church built upon telling slaves to merely be happy serving a human"'Massa"is one that deliberately message the freeidom found in the Good Bbok.

    Abolitionists used the message of the Bible to help change a nation. Slave rebellions used the passion of the Jews fighting in Canaan to fight. Your religion only works for those on tiop. You can fill your belly, pay your tithes, and keep your boot on the throat of the less fortunate. In fact, the religion you describe would blame the poor for being poor saying it was God's plan. Such a callous attitude is not the message of Christianity. I see the religion you propose as producing many more atheists, Catholics, and agnostics, because the outward manifestation of what you propose shows no human kindness. It is barren except for the so-called religious person who mocks the poor as having done something to anger God.

    Such a callous attitude is not the message of Christianity.

    Correct. But you err in not pointing out that a lot of of this is the message of the Old Testament.

    I don't know, maybe it's just a strange quirk of mine, but I like to remind people that the Old Testament, it's not Christian! Ya know?! It's just not. Before Christ = no Christianity. After Christ = Christianity. That's why they did that B.C., A.D. thingie with dates and everything, right?

    So I'd also like to quibble a bit with something in your comment, take it as meant to be constructive crtiicism. This:

    Slave rebellions used the passion of the Jews fighting in Canaan to fight.

    Is not Christian to me. This is the kind of religion Resistance practices. Heavily dependent on the Old Testament mentality. All about fighting and righteousness and vengeance and retribution and God's punishment and justice, and tribes, and striking out and preferring one people over another and being a good slave, an eye for an eye and a overwhelming fear of God ,etc.  Nothing about love and turning the other cheek and treating all others as yourself and the least among us being the best among us and treating prostitutes like any other acolyte and be like the children, and forgiveness, forgiveness, forgiveness, etc.

    Granted, slavery might not have ever been beaten without more than a little of that barely Christian "Old Tyme Religion" heavily influenced by the O.T.. The Koran has that same zeitgeist in a lot of places, too. It's an interesting theme to think about.

    But I just don't like it when people label it as Christian, because it confuses as to what Christianity is, it's about following the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles. That "rebellion," if you could call it that (it's really a metaphor in this case) was turning the other cheek, laying down for the lions, etc. etc. etc. With Ghandi and MLK to follow many centuries later.

    Many slave rebellions including those led by Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey were based on messages received from the Bible.

    There was no obligation for the slave not to rebel.

    Blacks see/ saw the Bible in a much different light than many Whites there is an overriding message of personal freedom. There is also great joy. One cannot be bound to another human. Blacks turn the other cheek and when the other cheek gets hit, it's on. 

    The music that grew out of the Black church is joyous. One can understand the chorale music in many White church, but one feels the melodies of the Black church. 

    Many White religious scholars interpreted Philemon as Paul sendin a slave back to his master. Black religious scholars read the message as Paul sending a slave back to be feet free. There is a story told that many early Black congregations ignored Philemon because the slave story was considered "a White man's trick". The book thought to be a creation of wicked slaveholder's.

    Blacks religious scholars tend to come from a very different place than many a White scholars. Many Black scholars grew up in the church. Many White scholars are agnostics or historians with little true connection to the religion.

    Resistance can be comfortable with his religious interpretation because he would never have suffered under slavery or Jim Crow. He has no connection with the trials and tribulations. He is able to sit back, do nothing, and take comfort in the false belief that it was not God's time for slavery or Jim Crow to end. Both  are flawed prophecies.

    You sound like someone with a chip on their shoulders, always angry and bitter

    Like Cain. 

    I  pray that the spirit of mildness will be restored,  

    You believe you're the only one that can understand persecution? 

    Stop weeping, you are not alone 

    True Christians know the fear of being set upon by mobs,  because the world really does despise/hate True Christians, as foretold

    CINO\s are comfortable, because they are friends with the world. 

    eThey are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, andfthe world listens to them. We are from God. gWhoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know hthe Spirit of truth and ithe spirit of error. 1 John 4:5-6

    aYou adulterous people!1 Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? bTherefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. ……..

    ……. Therefore it says, e“God opposes the proud, but dgives grace to the humble.” Submit yourselves therefore to God. fResist the devil, and he will flee from you. gDraw near to God, and he will draw near to you. h......... kBe wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 lHumble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you. James 4:4-10

    Many have recovered from feeling down by reflecting upon others  trials and tribulations, and not their own.

    You totally miss the point it is your selfish portrayal of religion that is at issue. Your initial response to children in need was that it wasn't your problem. Those were your words based on your interpretation of your religion. Freedom and Civil a Rights taken away, Christian should not challenge the Superior Authority. Your religion allows you to sit on the sidelines..........except GUNS.


    Find my words, This accusation is stumbling you.

    You are so intent in making me an instrument for your use, as though I should slave for your causes. 
    I give charitably to many, but evidently it isn't good enough for you?  

    Cut the crap. I am repeating your words. You opined that you knew it wasn't Gods time for slavery or Jim Crow to end. You openly stated that YOU knew God's will. That was followed by YOUR statement that MLK Jr died because he went against God's will.

    See blow

    Explain Luke 22:36-38:

    He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

    The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

    Why did Jesus ask them to buy a sword?

    Because, he was going to teach the disciples a lesson.

     52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For h all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Matthew 26:52

    Having a weapon at hand, Peter acted impetuously. Especially considering the group was outnumbered by the mob seeking Jesus

     Jesus was not going to be killed resisting arrest, he had more to fulfill that night.   

    With owning a firearm or your sword  comes great responsibility. Not to be taken lightly; especially if a death occurs.

    It also may not fare well, if a person decides to remove "Your sword" from it's place.

    I'd prefer Gods help and not depend upon a weapon.  

    Also I read where one observer was pointing out, that Jesus' Kingdom was not going to be established with swords and spears.  As Jesus stated  "do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?" 

    As I have stated before, Christians can also pray for help.  

    But if you are not a Christian, who will you call upon? 

    Edited to add

     Many folks have talked down a robber or one threatening, by the use of kind words. The presence of a weapon might anger or create fear in the perpetrators mind. 

    I have to say, I really like your answer to this one, and I mean it quite sincerely.

    I really pondered this question, Too many people do not go beyond the elementary things concerning Jesus.

    You did ask a very good question, that required an in depth recall and search of the deeper things.

    A good mental exercise.

    Resistance, you added this gem in Dr Cleveland's discussion on the Michael Brown case

    Had Martin Luther confined himself to doing the will of God, he still may have been alive today; carrying on the work, he was assigned to do.  His work was to bring in disciples and find the lost sheep, not for Christians to forge ahead and trying to overturn the injustices they find.  


    If you had any idea of the purpose of Jesus coming to Earth you would realize  

    "His work was to bring in disciples and find the lost sheep"

    and this is the command he gave his disciples 

    18 And Jesus came and said to them, h “All authority i in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 j Go therefore and k make disciples of l all nations, j baptizing them m in1 n the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them o to observe all that p I have commanded you. And behold, q I am with you always, to r the end of the age.” Matthew 28:18-20

    Isaiah's Commission from the Lord

    And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for cus?” Then I said, “Here I am! Send me.” And he said, “Go, and say to this people:

    Isaiah 6:8-9

    It appears you want to continue usurping the Lords command to his disciples by adding another work?  As you continue trying to enslave the disciples of Christ for your desires. 

    Jesus doesn't need you as a task master,

    Get t out there and do the work the master asked.

    The Lord needed lips to preach about the Kingdom (the only real solution to man kinds  problems), not to lead protests 

    "Lord,Lord did we not do powerful works" Get away from me I don't know you 

    The Lord knows who does the work he commanded,

    What good is it, when the master arrives and the slave says "look what I did" and the master asks " did you do what I told you to do"  and the slave say's "Well No, I listened to RMRD he said this is the more important work " 

    Once again. I remind you that you are not a prophet. You are merely a guy with a religious opinion and access to the Internet. You can be placed in the same category as Joel Osteen, the Westboro Baptist Church and other lost people. 

    Enjoy your conflicting Biblical snippets they serve only to be taken out of context and used to support whatever nonsense you are proposing at the time. 

    The weekend is coming. On to other discussions and activities.

    You can put your insults to rest. I didn't realize my error when I used the term prophet instead of messenger, but it hasn't stopped you from using it as a whip on another fellow slave. 

    But then you probably find it offensive to be called a slave of the Lord, 

    No I find it offensive that you interpret the Scripture as saying that my ancestors were chosen by God to be slaves of man.You interpret Corinthians as telling them to remain slaves and not take their freedom. They were instructed not to be slaves of men. Paul sent a slave back with a message that the slave should be freed. I have no problem being a servant of God. I will not agree with your warped interpretation of Scripture

    It is interesting that you live in comfort with a religion that would allow men and women to the in bondage. God sent message that it was time for change to occur. Because you were blind to these messages, you ignore the role of the chosen in moving people out of bondage. The antebellum Superior Authority offered payment to have the slaves brought out of bondage. The slaveholder's rejected the offer. The Superior Authority created legislation to block the creation of more slave territories. God supplied a punishment when the slave holders defied his wishes. You missed the message.

    Slaves faced the treat of the lions in the Roman arena. Rome fell. Men were lynched for being Black. Men and women were denied their Constitution a Rights. The Superior Authority moved to change Jim Crow after innocent people were met with firehoses and police dogs. God said it was time for things to change. Jim Crow supporters defied the Superior Authorrty.

    You missed God's message that it was time for change. You try to cover your ignorance of his desire by arrogantly quoting Biblical snippets as supporting your flawed interpretation. You admit that you are not a prophet. You now say you are a mere messenger. You are a mere human with no ability to lay claim that your interpretation is a representation of God's desire.

    For every Biblical snippet you present, I can present another or another interpretation of a book like Philemon. Since you are a mere messenger, I view you like other people who call themselves messengers. Your word is not the Gospel. I do not take your words to be direct reflections of God's desire. I have seen you state things in error, thus I am instructed that on the issues I discussed above, you are in error. 

    To be succinct. I have seen you make factual errors as would any mortal. I do not believe that your interpretation of the Scripture is correct.

    I am instructed that on the issues I discussed above, you are in error. 

    Who is instructing you? The Alpha - male of the pack ? 

    rm, You make wild claims and accusations intended to incite others to hate my religion.  You have shown you are no better, than other intolerant people and organizations

    But I have learned from this exchange.

     I have come to appreciate, what the Lord and the 12 disciples had to endure, at the hands of the religious leaders and their followers, who at every opportunity tried to discredit the teachings of Christ

    Similarities I have noticed  

    1) The Jewish leaders hated being subservient to the Romans.  So when they heard reports that the Messiah had arrived, they were sure that Jesus had come to restore the throne and reestablish the Kingdom, Of course with a view; that the High priest and his supporters would be in charge.

    So they asked Jesus are you here to restore the kingdom and when he told them NO, they rejected the cornerstone of the kingdom Jesus preached about. Rejecting True Christianity, because it didn’t serve their purpose .

    2) How is application made today?

    Today the cornerstone Jesus, is still being rejected because to some, it doesn’t match up to what they expected or wanted

    The cornerstone of Christian faith is God’s WORD  

    Your constant attack on snippets, is no different than what the religious leaders did; going so far as to claim, any who made reference to Jesus words or of the disciples who learned from him , were blasphemous.  

    In this way the Religious class in Jesus day could cast doubt or ridicule him and his disciples, to keep people away, from the message of the Kingdom Christ taught and not the government they wanted.

    If Jesus didn’t establish his kingdom to right the wrongs the religious leaders desired back then but yet you are so sure he used MLK in our generation?

    I don’t believe so.

    Maybe God told you? Did he come to you in a dream?  

    Throughout this discussion I have seen through my mind’s eye what a “wolf in sheep clothing” might look like” and the danger they would impose upon the new or the weak unfamiliar with the word.    

    They would probably bare their teeth and tongues wagging, falsehoods, trying to sneak in unscriptural ideas; ridiculing others, spreading intolerance or; causing dissension casting doubt on the teachers (shepherds) in order to separate the flock of True Christian groups. For they had already misled and separated the CINO’s

    But then again maybe; my earlier thoughts may be true

    You never claimed you were a Christian and could it be; your sole purpose is to infiltrate the Christian groups, for the sole purpose of gathering Jesus’ flock for yourself, for the creation of a political bloc to serve your agenda? Just as the rest of the major CINO leaders have, who gather a pen full of unsuspecting sheep to be used to nourish the pack

    Edited to add 

    It appears you toned down your original comment but there are others I have read and this comment is a response to them as well.

    You response says you don't believe that MLK Jr was sent by God. You don't know it for a fact fact. You received no message from God. You bias influences your view. You choose to ignore the log in your eye.

    This is a great illustration of paranoid fantasy conspiracy theorizing. And of sheer projection as well, i.e., I would think and act this way, so others must too.

    Though no doubt maddening if one is the target, it's kind of entertaining for outsiders, as crazed rantings often are.

    smileyThe same crazed rankings occur when secular bodies like SCOTUS have 5-4 decisions ruling that corporations have the ability to pay to influence elections and also have religious rights

    AA  It is the identifying mark of True Christians to know what is going to occur. 

    You and others are always quick to remind Christians of 

    40 And bthe King will answer them, c‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these dmy brothers,1 you did it to me.’ Matthew 25:40

    Because it doesn't cause you personal discomfort 

    Christians would be foolish to listen to your ridicule, "of paranoid fantasy conspiracy theorizing."

    Persecution Will Come

    16 o“Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be pwise as serpents and qinnocent as doves. 17 Beware of men, forrthey will deliver you over to courts and flog you sin their synagogues, 18 rand you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, tto bear witness before them and the Gentiles. 19 rWhenuthey deliver you over, vdo not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for wwhat you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 xFor it is not you who speak, but ythe Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 zBrother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 aand you will be hated by all for my name's sake. bBut the one who endures to the end will be saved.23 When they cpersecute you in one town, dflee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israelebefore the Son of Man comes.

    24 f“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant1 above his master. 25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. gIf they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign2 those of his household. Matthew 10:16-25

    Does that sound like something we should be prepared for? 

    If you are truly a  Christian you wouldn't be calling Jesus words a lie or a "paranoid fantasy conspiracy theorizing.

    You would be strengthening your faith to endure 

    “Then jthey will deliver you up kto tribulation and lput you to death, and myou will be hated by all nations for my name's sake.10 And then many will fall away1 and nbetray one another and hate one another. 11 And many ofalse prophets will arise pand lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, qthe love of many will grow cold. 

    13 rBut the one who endures to the end will be saved. Matthew 24:9-13

     It is the identifying mark of True Christians to know what is going to occur. 

    Does that include stuff like what bingo numbers are going to be called and when one is going to die?

    I already learned from you that it does include knowing what another person intends to do in an altercation on the street. Is it the Holy Spirit that does this, tell you this?

    Is the power withdrawn if you sinned that day or didn't pray?

    What it really seems like to me is that you look at scripture and find rationalizations for anything you believe at a particular moment. And that you don't even take much time to do that, you just do it like others might do with a Ouija Board or a roulette wheel. I.E., do a keyword search of scripture, grab the first thing that comes up, and the proceed to rationalize it as a message from above. Purposefully not thought out, purposefully not done thoughtfully, meant to be like stream of consciousness. Which is why rmrd often complains of "word salad."

    More seriously, I have been reading your commenting for several years now and  I see as one of your main overriding tendencies is to express paranoid fantasies. Examples that come to mind immediately: your constant refrains several years back about pitchfork uprisings about mortgage relief along the lines of anarchy coming soon, almost as if you couldn't wait for it to happen; your interest in and comments on stories of birds falling from the sky; your obsession with trying to make some kind of apocalyptic scenario out of China's involvement with Gwadar port in Balochistan. There have been others, those are the ones that just come to mind right away.

    You do the paranoid fantasy thing so often that if I was forced to judge you as a person by what you write on this site, I would cast a vote that you should not be given a license not just for a firearm but maybe not for an automobile. Since it's not the real world here, though, and people can't be judged in total by their writing passions, it's just entertainment to interact with you and your apocalyptic flights of fancy.  If you want to be taken seriously by rational people, though, you are not going about it the right way. Hence the reactions you get that some regard as "piling on."

    More seriously than calling the words of Jesus a lie or that the events he foretold won't be as bad as he said ?

    Never mind what I may have said.

    It was a snippet of what Jesus said;  was it difficult to understand, was it word salad  so as to confuse the meaning of what he meant?  Did you or  Rm have another interpretation or understanding? 

    rm has on occasion stated my interpretation is wrong, well then lets hear rm's interpretation. 

    Wouldn't you expect when someone says you've erred they would give the right interpretation? 

    BTW I read your comment in reply to rm about your quirk (similar to mine), there is much more to a life of a Christian, than the message of Love, Their is considerable pain associated with dedicating a life to being a Christian and many won't take that road or pick up the torture stake. 

    Was it a message of love, when Jesus told the man sell all his belongings.... or a requirement.

    Would you support parents who stoned a disobedient child?

    Deuteronomy 21:18-21King James Version (KJV)

    18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

    19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

    20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

    21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

    Regarding your error, your cut and paste religion misses the overall message of the Bible. We are not to be bound to men. You also err in that you foolishly equate what the conditions wee in Rome to the race-based slavery in the United States. Since you are not a prophet you missed the repeated messages sent by God to end slavery and Jim Crow. 

    You argue that King was flawed. Moses broke the Commandment not to commit murder. King was used by God.

    Timothy 1:10. Lists slave traders as among the worst of sinners. Hebrews renders punishments kidnappers.

    Regarding your error,,,,,,,,,,,misses the overall message of the Bible.

    Every person of God, knows the overall theme of the Bible is contained in the first prophecy.

    Enmity  .... .......End of Enmity   

    Genesis  .......... Revelations   

    Enmity, eventually leading to the vindication of Gods good name, reputation  and his sovereignly (right to rule)

    Culminating in a calamitous war, between the two sides. A conclusion to the age old struggle, that finally brings forth the restoration of Paradise, as recorded in Revelations.

    The end of enmity 

    The New Heaven and the New Earth

    21 Then I saw ya new heaven and a new earth, for zthe first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw athe holy city, bnew Jerusalem, ccoming down out of heaven from God, dprepared eas a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,

    “Behold,fthe dwelling place1 of God is with man. He will gdwell with them, and they will be his people,2 and God himself will be with them as their God.3 hHe will wipe away every tear from their eyes, andideath shall be no more, jneither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore,

    for the former things have passed away.”  Revelation 21:1-4

    Most churches only want to tell the people about the blessings, never telling the people there is a requirement, in order to receive the blessing. 

    Slave traders ARE  among the worst of sinners.

    I don't disagree.

    Not all slaves are kidnapped.

    When we were discussing Philemon, You were suggesting Christians should interfere with the Bond servant arrangement, because you were so adamant, they were called slaves.

    So I had to put up with your insults, because you lacked understanding; despite Aaron and my attempts to correct you.  Even as I highlighted the ftn about said bond servants, when we were discussing Philemon, but you were dead set in insulting both of us, suggesting we were abhorrent and I un-Christian.  

     You had the problem trying to understand the difference between a bond servant and a slave

    Hebrews could sell themselves into servitude, to pay off debt, but you would call that an ungodly arrangement? 

    People coming to America, who couldn't afford passage, could become servants to the one paying the bill, but you would overturn the contract because you don't like the term slave. .

    YOU made no distinction; because to you; all of them were slaves.

    Christians did not take up arms or incite riots against the Government  like Spartacus did in his attempt to free the slaves.

    Christians didn't fight for Caesar in his wars leading to the capture of slaves.  

     King was used by God.

    You know this how? Did an angel appear and tell you? Is their a new book after Revelations you've decided to pen under inspiration? Maybe Joseph Smith told you? 

    I believe King was unwittingly used by the god of this corrupt world.  Thinking he was rendering a sacred service to God. 

    Why not; Jim Crow was bad.

    The seeds of Racial tension may have been planted centuries before by the opposer Satan to stir up contentiousness at a time of his choosing.

    Like a puppet master, it would serve his purpose to pit White and Black against one another. People against each other.  Why does he care if mankind finds reasons to kill each other.  If you don't have one, he'll invent one. He's a manslayer.  

    12 Therefore, crejoice, O heavens and you who dwell in them! Butdwoe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because ehe knows that his time is short!” Revelation 12:12

    Until the Gentile times are over, God does not interfere with the affairs of government, of men 

    If people treat people unjustly it will be the basis for judgment. 

    If children suffer from hunger and disease in Africa, it is by Mans hands.

    It was selfish mankind, who said they didn't need God or his advice.

    It was people who said we don't want to hear, we don't even want snippets. 

    They saying "Leave us to decide our own paths" 

    So God said alright you have this much time and no more. But he did make a WAY possible for HIS people  to survive, until the restoration of Gods ruler ship.

    Don't blame God for Earths misfortune, the blame belongs to man. 


    Do you believe that a disobedient, drunkard child should be stoned to death?

    Have you give up all your worldly goods? Are you typing on your parents computer? Is your internet access paid for by other?

    Will you evade these question by diversion.

    Jesus openly protested the actions of the money hangers, he did not turn the other cheek.

    Do you think a drunk driver, who kills another, should serve a life sentence or be put to death ? 

    Drug related offenses 

    Once again you use diversion. In the Scripture, there is not mention of homicide or any crime other than being disobedient, a glutton, and a drunkard. Do you agree that the child should be stoned to death?

    BTW, I provided you examples of public protests by Christians including Paul.

    I read the account of Paul that you provided. Christians did not lead a rebellion or protest to free Paul 

    In short

     Paul used the occasion to shame the magistrates into apologizing, and by doing so, Paul established the lawfulness, of preaching the Good News  He and other Christians were not  criminals, because of their teachings.

    Again, no rebellion or street protests by a multitude of Christians, demanding his release


    As for the drunken child 

    If God thought the law necessary who am I to question his wisdom.

    Now ponder my question. What are we to do with drunks or others that use mind altering drugs and others get hurt ?

    God had the ones you spoke of, removed  from society so they would no longer be a possible threat to others in the society or norms of behavior conducive to peace.

    I guess if I lived back then, I wouldn't want to be a belligerent, disobedient, drunkard child 

    I wouldn't need a drink that badly.  Personal responsibility? 

    If the stoning is a Gods will. Why are you altering it to fit modern society? Are you bowing to the wishes of the World?


    Do accept the Curse of Ham?

    I'll answer the second and reflect upon the first 

    No I don't believe in the Curse of Ham 

    Unless you're thinking about Trichinosis

    Are you questioning God? What does my opinion count for. If you want to go before the Great Judge and question him, see where it gets you.

    rm " God. you were wrong and I am going to protest"

    Do you not even fear him, so that you think it allows you to sit in counsel with him?  

    I am not questioning God. I am questioning you and your interpretations of Scripture.

    Many have a hard time understanding the Power of God, with the help of Holy Spirit, to speak for himself, through his inspired word.  GOD really can speak for himself if people listen.

    It is my reading and studying the Scriptures, that gives me HIS interpretation 

    2 Timothy 3:16-17

    16 d All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that e the man of God 1 may be complete, f equipped g for every good work.

    Even as we imperfect humans write and further explain misunderstandings by others, so did God through the ages, speak to certain men to write, to clear up confusion or falsehoods or tell of future events, proving his power. 

    So your answer to stoning the child is "Yes".

    Speaking as one who narrowly (by a few millenia, anyway) avoided this fate, I am moved to wonder about the absence of any remedies for rebellious daughters.  Or did they just sell them off and let them be some other man's problem?

    I always thought that you were "stoned" back in the day, fitting in line with Deuteronomy.smiley

    There are times I want to reflect  and other times  I just don't care to answer. So please don't assume, because I didn't reply, you know the answer 

    Besides; I answered it above, 

    Your internet must be slow because your a question or answer behindsmiley

    I thought Jolly's reply was an excellent response,  I hope you understood the word picture/meaning (some other man's problem? )

    You don't care to answer followed by

    Don't assume assume I know that answer because you answered it above.

    This word salad is consistent other statements that you have made.

    Christians under no obligation to comply with a law that is immoral and never given as a law to Christians. Christians have no problem stating that the stoning penalty is not a Christian law. Should the child be stoned? Clear and simply "No".

    Public protest does not condemn a Christian to Hell. False prophets may be another matter.

    What does this mean, explain so I can see my error.

    I already learned from you that it does include knowing what another person intends to do in an altercation on the street.

    By your own words, ALTERCATION 


    argumentquarrelsquabblefightshouting matchdisagreement,contretempsfalling-outdisputedisputationclash,fracaswrangleblowupskirmishrun-in, war of words, donnybrook

    I don't associate peaceful actions with the term altercation.

    What we do know; Fleming got out of his vehicle (in the middle of the street?)  Zale didn't

    The rest of the telling of the events is up to a court of law to figure out  

    Common sense: If you go looking for trouble you will probably find it.

    If it is the mark of the "True Christian"  to know what is going to occur why did you babble incoherently in the cases of Jordan Davis and Michael Brown? You babbled because you were confused and did not know the outcome. You don't "believe" that Martin Luther King Jr, was sent by God. Earlier you said only God knows if King was sent to lead the people. You are arrogant and prideful. You do not know the future. You don't have a grasp on what happened in the past. You show confusion when confronted with current events. By your own statements, you are not a "True Christian" you should take of judging others, for judgment will surely come your way.

    You are not the interpreter of God's word here on Earth if you were, your message would not be confused and contradictory. Christians stay out of worldly affairs, but you shout praise to the NRA to the rooftops. You are not facing the persecution faced by Christians, you are facing ridicule because your message is worth as much as eating sand.

    Pride. Arrogance, Confusion, and Fear is all that you transmit. Continue with your out of context Biblical snippets, no one cares. You has to be stopped from pronouncing doom aon people who disagreed with you in the past. It was well known that your visions of curses that would effect those opposition your views was all in your head. You had no message from God. You had a message of hate the judgment that included Billy Graham, the Westboro Baptist Church, Bonhoeffer, and virtually every Christian who ever walked the Earth.. Take the redwood tree out of your eyes before you deal with the speck of dust in others.

    Resistance, God appointed Kings. King were to be removed when they displeased God. Where in the Bible does it say that the President and Congress are equivalent to a King? Kings gave edicts. The President and Congress can be overruled by a Supreme Court. Kings ruled over their subjects and could rule for life. The President and Congress have to appeal to voters at election time. Where is the American King who can appoint magistrates? There is no American King.

    Your question as a whole didn’t make sense, 

     If the stoning is a Gods will. Why are you altering it to fit modern society? Are you bowing to the wishes of the World?

    If the stoning is a Gods will ?????

    Really, you want to question Gods will or sovereignty? 

    Your inquiry, reminds me of Satan’s question to Eve

    Genesis 3:1-4

    The Fall

    3 Now uthe serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.

    He said to the woman,

    Did God actually say,

    ‘You1 shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, v‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 

    wBut the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die.

    You cry about the injustices of mankind and how blacks can’t get justice; but your question and casting doubt upon Gods rules or laws is similar to the opposer of Gods right to rule,  that led to injustices for thousands of years .

    Did God really say a child should be stoned” Do you agree

    A question or deception?

      “Why are you altering it to fit modern society”

    How so?  

    From the scripture you provided, it is apparent God approves of Capital punishment

    It is modern society who rejects the prescribed penalties, for violating the Laws of God.

    I am more interested in principles. So we don’t have pharasic/ rabbinic decrees, with a list covering 1000’s of laws   

    Christians under no obligation to comply with a law that is immoral and never given as a law to Christians

    What is your supporting authority for such an assumption?   Just because you say so? 

    Here is a possible a modern day application of the principles laid out in that law.

    If you use a firearm purposely, to murder or injure another; with the exception of self-defense or accident, the law will stone you to death.  God won’t disagree.

    To finish up

    You have misrepresented my viewpoint on certain individuals’ deaths.

    I am consistent on my insistence, on a fair trial for all; no matter what color or race.

    If the punishment for the use of a firearm;could bring the death penalty. I am not going to be “bowing to the wishes of the World” Or to those who would incite racial tensions. 

    I want a lawful Court and fair trial. to determine any individual’s guilt, before the death sentence is meted out.  

     Let me repeat, A fair trial for all, no matter what color or race.

    So don’t give me anymore debating, on the subject about injustices by man; because I agree with you, about the sad affairs of injustice. Jesus was unjustly condemned to death.

    Are we supposed to wait till perfection and the establishment of the Kingdom, to punish wrong doers?  No need to answer, it’s just a question to ponder.

    In conclusion 

    You offer no authority, other than your own opinions. And when you give a scriptural reference as authority, you make improper application.

    I am through debating with you. When you question Gods laws to the Nation of Israel, you question Gods sovereignty. No respect for God or his laws, has led to all the injustices everyone deplores, ever since the Garden of Eden up through today.

    I gave you the Scripture and asked a question. I gave my answer. You have to dodge the question because your warped interpretation of Scripture would make you appear foolish. 

    Latest Comments