Guns and Christianity: Respectful Conversation during my Absence of Last one

Guns and Christianity: Respectful Conversation during my Absence of Last one.

Firstly, this is to discuss this topic you all did so well on last week during my absence. I hold ten (10) theology courses while on my pursuit to law school.


@Erik10, allow me to answer some of those questions along with the others.

In multiple quick videos, I’ll give you the scientific grounds
Of my belief in Christianity. Yes, I’ve read the Bible Front to cover 5-6 times. But Bible aside please watch.

Does life have meaning?

The Fine-Tuning Argument:

The Logical Problem pt 1 (Why does God cause some much pain?)

Pt 2

Cosmos Argument:

Moral Argument:

1 Like

I don’t see a place to start a new topic, so I’ll join yours. With so much unrest and subversion in our country, we need concentrated prayer. I’m guessing that most of you believe in God and some of you are practicing Christians.
I implore you to do concentrated praying during this time. I fear there will be riots around the election and lots of false accusations. History shows us that human means fail and lots of prayer works! Please do more than a few seconds of prayer once a day or week. Take time and pray for each topic you can think of. Pray for the Soros family to repent. Pray for youth that are being duped into awful behavior. Pray against communism, fascism, violent religions, and even selfish companies who take advantage of slave labor. Pray we can keep the 2nd amendment as well as the others. If you can fast, do that too, often during this season. Things are going bad and we can’t just wring our hands!


Randall, I’m happy to hear you’re taking some classes in college and as I’ve made clear to everyone, I respect your belief and would protect it till my last breath. That said, all of your videos (i tried to watch them all but they were filled with logical fallacies and weak arguments) are sadly just weak. I get that to you, a believer, they make a great amount of sense because you aren’t being objective, your allowing yourself to be deluded into regurgitating the rhetoric and that’s fine. If you’d like to engage privately and I can explain in more detail as to why the arguments are shallow and weak, I’d be happy to. Keep in mind, while I have no issues with anyone’s belief, I don’t care for people trying to pass off weak arguments as factual or evidence. It’s ok to just believe…I will never argue with or smear your personal connection to your belief…just please don’t try and pass off your religious text as a good basis for moral values because it isn’t. Feel free to message me if you’d like a conversation.

One last thing

1 Like


Thank you for your courtesy as well as respect for my beliefs nonetheless convictions. Although it should be noted that these courses we’re just apart of my pursuit in law-school and not ministry.

However, I would assume you did not watch any of those clips…

Reason for my assumption, sir is all of those arguments have strong arguments. Devout atheists have pondered on these few theories until carnal death and some still today agree it’s not only undebatable not-to-mention probable for an outside observer a.k.a. ‘God.’

Moreover, I would insist you watch two and those being the fine-tuning argument and for answers on moral click video five, found under the title ‘Moral Argument.’ IF you insist not too, I understand. Although you should note if there is no supreme Good or better said, God…

What’s right and wrong?

Is Murder, Rape, and Stealing wrong because we grew up in our beloved country? Regardless of your view, culture did not tell humans the latter crimes or immoral acts were wrong…

When you were a kid, your guardians didn’t have to tell you taking from the candy store was immoral (e.g. crime, wrong). YOU KNEW BETTER! (I’m not yelling lol)

But lastly kind, sir I’m not here to force nothing on you rather due my diligence by following my Lord’s command better known as the great commission.

I’ll paraphrase this biblical text for time sake, but Jesus who was seen after his resurrection by over 500 until he departed on the 40th day (Fourty in Hebrew means fulfillment. Just like there are forty books in old testament…Jesus or the Lamb of God fulfilled the law and the prophets). But back to the text and enough with Bible…

(1)Go ye too outermost parts of the earth Preaching (2) baptize(symbol of new life) (3) make disciples and I(Jesus) will be with you until the end of your life Matt. 28:19.

To wrap this up, I’ll never force anything down your throat. But like one famous atheist said, again I’ll paraphrase "Although the Christian did not nor ever will convert me, I know he truly loves me because if he did not, his regard for my life after death would be of no concern.

Ill also inbox you this because Dawn might delete this but would ask her not too because this belief or not is the foundation of half of responsible gun owners. Maybe more.

1 Like

My two cents worth.
I am a Believer, Know in my heart and soul that GOD exists.
But over time I have realized that we all have the right to decide what we believe. I have found that my sharing my beliefs have mostly been led by GOD, who has placed individuals paths across mine, where one or the other of us has had an experience in life due to some hardship or blessing, that was beneficial to share, sometimes encouragement, sometimes actual information that will aid , sometimes just giving them time to share their grief, frustration, … and actually listening. Each of us must walk our own path , and those of us who do believe know that personal one on one relationship we have with our Creator.

1 Like

Much better resources

Answers in Genesis,
Is Genesis History.
Bruce Gore,
Creation Training Initiative -CTI
Cross Examined
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries

So, what your are saying is that if you are a Christian you are not “objective” but if you are an atheist or other unbeliever then you are “objective”?? If you are a Christian you are “not open minded” but if you are an atheist or other unbeliever you “are open minded” I am a Christian, and objectivity is what lead me to Jesus, being open minded as a young adult, lead me to Jesus. Your comments, with all due respect, are, in themselves, fallacies.

The Christian God is a God of Faith, not a blind faith, but a reasonable faith. God has given sufficient evidence of His existence, and yet enough questions, that you have to study and come to him by faith-- a reasonable faith.


Objective and religious are by definition opposites…sorry.

The definition of Objective is:
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Faith (which is what you have in your religion) is defined as:
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

So, you don’t base your belief in facts, you base it in feelings, emotions, and ultimately things that you delude yourself into believing are facts which are not. Truthfully, I have no issue with your belief, but be honest and call it what it is, faith. You have faith that there is a god and you have faith that YOUR religion is the right religion. Why? because you were born or raised into that myth. Had you been born in Tel Aviv, you’d be jewish and think the same thing about judaism. Were you born into Kandahar you’d be muslim and believe your religion is the right religion. Heck, if you were born in Salt Lake City utah, you’d be a mormon and think that was the right religion. That’s the point, religion is more regional than spiritual depending on where you’re born and raised and what your parents believe dictates your religion. Had you been born a few centuries ago, you might have believed in Thor, or RA, or Zeus, etc. You don’t use logic and reason to have faith because it conflicts with the faith in nearly every case. Most of the smartest people i know who are scientists and religious all believe in a higher power and believe in god, but recognize the religions all are a bad representation of who or what that god is. So, You are suffering blind faith because I’d bet you have NEVER sought out any other religions and learned about them have you? I’d also bet that you wouldnt consider reading books that might cause you to question your faith even though they’re written by some of the most popular biblical scholars we have today. You blindly follow your faith and any reading you do is all within the same spectrum of faith you believe in. It’s basically like all the democrats only wanting to hear people around them speaking about things they all agree on and thinking they’re knowledgeable.

I am objective because I’m UNWILLING to believe something without more details to support that decision. If you walk up with a glass of clear liquid in it and tell me to drink it, I will certainly demand more information before I happily chug it down. Problem is, what if that glass was offered by your parents? What if your pastor/priest/minister told you it was safe? You would happily chug whereas I still wouldn’t because I am unwilling to trust your or anyone’s “take” on religion based on a pathetic religious text wrought with countless examples of atrocities and examples of a being who I wouldn’t worship even if he/she was real. You don’t use logic or reason…you have deluded yourself into creating your own version of facts that you think are facts which are barely conjecture and mostly nonsense.

Either way…be honest both to me and to yourself. You have faith…great. Just don’t try and pass off that you’re objective and have faith and believe in the bible because that’s the opposite of being objective. I know this will rub you raw but I’m not trying to be an ass, just being direct and getting over a horrible fever so I’m overly blunt right now.

I appreciate the open dialogue here. Just from the title of one of the videos, I don’t feel like God causes pain or suffering. I’ve always known Him to make good come from the bad.

That is absolutely not true. You may believe it to be true. If so, label it as such. Thanks.

Please cite the source(s) of your definitions. My dictionaries do not include your definitions.


Sorry you are so wrong on all counts… I won’t debate on social forum.

I would no debate @Erik10 or anybody else on social forums… the scope is too broad… now in person… bring it on…

Listen, as someone else here stated, truth is truth. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it any less truth.

I literally pulled the definitions from the dictionary site so if you disagree, maybe it’s because you don’t have the understanding of the English language you thought you did.

Meriam webster



Save Word

To save this word, you’ll need to log in.

Log In

\ ˈfāth \

plural faiths\ ˈfāths , sometimes ˈfāt͟hz \

Definition of faith

(Entry 1 of 2)

1a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTYlost faith in the company’s president

b(1) : fidelity to one’s promises

(2) : sincerity of intentionsacted in good faith

2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God

(2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Faith is an absence of fact. TO believe in something without proof is having “faith”. Sorry I used words you don’t like but truth is truth no matter how you feel.

You couldn’t handle me in person bud. Nice story though. I guess that’s how you hold onto your Faith? walk away from anyone who might pop your bubble.

Please don’t respond to my posts. You are vicious and insulting.

Your opinion doesn’t matter, but it does prove what I thought that you don’t have a strong understanding of our language. If you had a better grasp, you’d recognize that you can’t be objective and have faith. You however do falsely think this which is why you clearly have no clue what the real definitions are of the words you use. It’s ok…I’ll be objective for both of us and you can keep having faith.

Gentlemen!!! Remember this is a gun forum. Please stop the personal attacks on all fronts. Not conducive and has no place.


Thank you, you did my work for me.

@Erik10 - you are consistently avoiding the conversation. You miss the entire point. Your chosen definition (2b1) is not the applicable definition. See 2a1.

If you want to discuss faith and religion, I’m all for it. Since you want to argue about faith and religion, I’m done here.

When a person takes a science course, they necessarily take a great number of things on faith, both in what they are told was discovered, and in what it means, what it’s implications and extensions are, this because these are not all things the student can have experienced, directly, for themselves. Then, because so many things can be reproduced, and prove to be true, all other claims are assumed to be equally true and supplied conclusions are accepted.

The best lies, and worst mistakes however, are the ones that are 90% truth, with a critical 10% or less, that is false, but that 10% can change the entire meaning and impact of a thing. Therefore when someone supplies their own definition as selected out of a range of accepted definitions, and then supplies the meaning of that selected definition, and further, does the “logical math” for you as well, to then go on and argue that “fact” has now been supplied. - well, frankly, I become a bit dismissive, because they are simply exchanging their belief system for mine, ( however well articulated and constructed their argument may seem ) . Science is a realm where one answer tends to lead to a hundred more questions, and at the end of the day, you are left where you started, like, with all the knowledge leading to the conclusion of the “big bang” theory - you still have the question, where did THAT came from ?

My belief in God is based on all that I have been able to see, leading me to the conclusion that God is, and further examinations of faith’s as a whole, ( again so far as I have been able to see ) lead me to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is the one answer that would work, realistically, in that world and cosmos that I saw.

We could argue if any person is actually capable of 100% true “objectivity”, or if it’s even possible for a person to factually know their own level of objectivity.

For many of us our God is not science, but God himself is God. A conclusion many of us came too not because of what we were told, but because of what we saw of things, and this only after critical examination such as we were able, sometimes even from a view point of hostility toward any “God”, if one existed.

With respect @Eric10, Your pronouncements are just that, pronouncements ,based on your chosen evidence and it’s meaning as you interpret it. When someone challenges that, you become hostile and insulting, attacking someone’s command of language as your basis to dismiss them. The very statement " that you can’t be objective and have faith" is it self an opinion, and one we do not share with you. - seemingly clever arguments over the “language” used to describe a thing, does not actually change the thing being described.
I would suggest to you that a blind refusal to accept even the possibility of God, ( as your argument clearly implies that no objective arrival for the existence of God is possible, therefore God is not possible ) is it self evidence of a lack of objectivity because science clearly does not “prove” that God does not exist.

I have faith that atoms and electrons exist, but, I can not prove from my own experience that they exist as I have never seen them for my self. God however, I DO have my own experience of, and his words have proven true despite them sometimes seeming unlikely or even impossible. But that seeming impossibility was only a limited vantage point on my part. Rather than God requiring all this “blind faith” you imply, I find that God provides explanation of things, and then one sees how those explanations are supported and fit within what we see and experiences.

Scientists don’t know everything about our natural environment , and Christians don’t know everything about God, but neither ceases to exist simply because we don’t know everything about it.

Guns and Christianity do not always seem a comfortable fit, but they are clearly not mutually exclusive. That part of the question has yet to be undertaken here.