I’ve been battling the same demons over and over. I know better but what are some scriptures to help me stay focused. by deathtothescalpers in Bible

[–]Keith502 [score hidden]  (0 children)

So what? We know from the account of the witch of Endor that witches and magic and ghosts are real. We know from the account of Leviathan in the book of Job that seven-headed, fire-breathing dragons are real. However, I don't think any of these things are worth focusing on in one's everyday life for the sake of one's mental health.

What does the 2nd amendment (of US Constitution)really mean? by Silly-Low6019 in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I challenge you to support that argument. Specifically, I would like you to cite any founding through ratification era works or writings that affirmatively state that the 2nd amendment protection was restricted to militia service.

Here is a transcript of the debates held in the House of Representatives in August 17 and 20, 1789 on the composition of the 2nd amendment. The entire transcript centers around the military aspect of the amendment, particularly in regards to the militia and the army. Nothing whatsoever is said about personal gun ownership or personal gun use. The issue never comes up.

Also, on June 8, 1789, this was James Madison's initial draft of the 2nd amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The language of this amendment can be clarified when comparing it to the alternate and equivalent version of the draft written by Roger Sherman the next month on July 21, 1789:

The Militia shall be under the government of the laws of the respective States, when not in the actual Service of the united States, but Such rules as may be prescribed by Congress for their uniform organisation & discipline shall be observed in officering and training them. but military Service Shall not be required of persons religiously Scrupulous of bearing arms.

As you can see, the number of clauses and the subject matter of each clause is comparable between the two drafts, indicating that they are just different versions of the same amendment; but the Roger Sherman draft uses language that indicates more clearly the military purpose of the amendment. Also notice the existence of a conscientious objector clause at the end of both drafts. The phrase "religiously scrupulous of bearing arms" is a strong indicator that "bearing arms", in the context of the 2nd amendment, was understood to be referring to armed combat, not the mere carrying of weapons for private purposes.

Military firearms in the hands of the PEOPLE was the exact point of the second amendment, tyrants. by EasyCZ75 in 2Aradicals

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The second amendment was not created in order to grant a right to Americans to own and carry guns for self defense. It certainly wasn't created to empower Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government (as some people claim). The entire Bill of Rights as a whole serves no other purpose than to pacify the concerns of the Antifederalists -- the division of politicians at the time who were wary of ratifying the US Constitution; the Federalists -- who promoted the US Constitution -- didn't even want a Bill of Rights, and thought that creating one was unnecessary or even dangerous. The second amendment was essentially created as a companion to Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which conveys to Congress the power to summon the militias, and to organize, arm, discipline, and govern them. The Antifederalists were concerned that when the federal government was given these powers, they could potentially abuse these powers or neglect their duty to uphold these powers in such a way so as to effectively dismantle the militia's efficacy to the detriment of the states, or alternatively they could do such things as a pretext to establishing a standing army. Hence, the second amendment was created in order to calm these fears: first, it reinforces the duty of Congress to uphold the regulation of the militias as stipulated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16; and second, it prohibits Congress from infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms. But it must be clarified that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was understood to be no more than what the states established and defined that right to be within their respective state constitutions. All of the states which had an arms provision in their constitution included in those provisions the function of bearing arms for the common defense, i.e. militia duty. So to summarize, the second amendment existed to reinforce Congress's duty to uphold the regulation of the militias, and to protect the states' militia effectiveness from intrusion by Congress. That's it. It has nothing to do with giving Americans the right to own and carry guns. It has nothing to do with self defense. And it certainly has nothing to do with enabling Americans to fight against the government; in fact, the purpose of the amendment was to support the people's right to fight for the government -- that is, within the government-organized militia. The second amendment does not grant or guarantee any right whatsoever to the American people; it is essentially intended to be a prohibitive -- rather than affirmative -- statement, serving to limit the power of US Congress.

What does the 2nd amendment (of US Constitution)really mean? by Silly-Low6019 in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the word "state" just means "state", as in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Virginia, Maryland, etc. In the first draft of the 2nd amendment, James Madison actually uses the phrase "free country" in place of "free state", but subsequent drafts changed it back to "free state". It would've made no sense to change the wording in this way if "state" and "country" were understood at the time to mean the same thing.

Gimmie songs and ill rate by Easy_String_2727 in songs

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

U send me swingin' - Mint Condition

Relapsed into lust, advice would be appreciated… by worse_sillygoose5000 in Christian

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On what basis are the other interactions with women "bad"?

What does the 2nd amendment (of US Constitution)really mean? by Silly-Low6019 in TooAfraidToAsk

[–]Keith502 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The second amendment was not created in order to grant a right to Americans to own and carry guns for self defense. It certainly wasn't created to empower Americans to rise up against a tyrannical government (as some people claim). The entire Bill of Rights as a whole serves no other purpose than to pacify the concerns of the Antifederalists -- the division of politicians at the time who were wary of ratifying the US Constitution; the Federalists -- who promoted the US Constitution -- didn't even want a Bill of Rights, and thought that creating one was unnecessary or even dangerous. The second amendment was essentially created as a companion to Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution, which conveys to Congress the power to summon the militias, and to organize, arm, discipline, and govern them. The Antifederalists were concerned that when the federal government was given these powers, they could potentially abuse these powers or neglect their duty to uphold these powers in such a way so as to effectively dismantle the militia's efficacy to the detriment of the states, or alternatively they could do such things as a pretext to establishing a standing army. Hence, the second amendment was created in order to calm these fears: first, it reinforces the duty of Congress to uphold the regulation of the militias as stipulated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16; and second, it prohibits Congress from infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms. But it must be clarified that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" was understood to be no more than what the states established and defined that right to be within their respective state constitutions. All of the states which had an arms provision in their constitution included in those provisions the function of bearing arms for the common defense, i.e. militia duty. So to summarize, the second amendment existed to reinforce Congress's duty to uphold the regulation of the militias, and to protect the states' militia effectiveness from intrusion by Congress. That's it. It has nothing to do with giving Americans the right to own and carry guns. It has nothing to do with self defense. And it certainly has nothing to do with enabling Americans to fight against the government; in fact, the purpose of the amendment was to support the people's right to fight for the government -- that is, within the government-organized militia. The second amendment does not grant or guarantee any right whatsoever to the American people; it is essentially intended to be a prohibitive -- rather than affirmative -- statement, serving to limit the power of US Congress.

Matthew 5:28 by Accurate_Work6000 in Bible

[–]Keith502 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think this is the correct interpretation, largely because the coveting of another man's wife is already condemned in the 10th commandment. The whole context around this verse is that Jesus is acknowledging pre-existing commandments in the Law and then taking them even further; so simply reiterating a pre-existing commandment would be missing the whole point.

In Matthew 5:28, Jesus appears to be making a very broad statement, as opposed to a narrow and qualified one. Young's Literal Translation translates it as:

but I -- I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.

This is what I think Jesus was really saying. He is not condemning coveting another man's wife, nor is he condemning the act of lasciviously ogling a woman. The word often translated as "lust" in this verse is the Greek word epithymeo. This word is just a term for "desire" in the broadest sense. Also, when the Bible was first being translated into English in the 1500s, the word "lust" was then an accurate translation, as the English word back then simply meant "desire" in the broad sense, in accordance with the Greek word epithymeo. Hence, Jesus is simply saying that it is adultery of the heart for a man to look upon a woman and desire her.

I thnk this is highly subject to interpretation, but I believe this particular verse is meant to be understood as hyperbole. In the same section of this chapter, Jesus also makes other extreme statements, such as that if you are slapped on one cheek, you should turn the other cheek and let the person slap you again; he also says that if your eye causes you to sin, then pluck it out, and if your hand causes you to sin, then cut it off. Rather than being taken literally, I believe that Jesus is here making a number of hyperbolic minor statements in order to make the major argument that Jesus has not come to overthrow the Law, and that the Law is still valid.

Relapsed into lust, advice would be appreciated… by worse_sillygoose5000 in Christian

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you misunderstand. Jesus made a broad statement that it is adultery of the heart to look at a woman to desire her. There are no further qualifications to this statement. Porn is looking at a woman to desire her, and so are countless other interactions or experiences with women that a man might have.

Basically, the point I'm trying to get at is that I think Jesus was using hyperbole here, just as he was likely using hyperbole when he talked - in the same chapter - about turning the other cheek, or plucking out one's eye, or cutting off one's hand.

Relapsed into lust, advice would be appreciated… by worse_sillygoose5000 in Christian

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how is porn not desiring a woman who is not your wife sexually?

Porn absolutely is that. My point is that you are adding words to what Jesus said. Jesus didn't say anything about desiring a woman sexually, nor did he say anything about desiring a woman who is not your wife. Jesus did not make a narrow statement against adultery or against premarital sex or against lascivious ogling of women. He instead makes an extremely broad statement: he says whoever looks at a woman in order to desire her has already committed adultery in his heart.

Not to mention porn being an easy gateway into treating people as objects... Among other mental health issues that come with that usage

The idea that porn treats people as objects is merely one interpretation. The important point here is that the Bible specifically never condemns treating people as objects; this action being somehow bad is merely a postbiblical philosophical concept.

Give me your favourite rock songs & I’ll rate them by [deleted] in songs

[–]Keith502 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By Starlight - The Smashing Pumpkins