Should I buy a sword?

[Wrangler]

Sorry, entirely my mistake. You "invented" a verse in Romans., Romans 6:24, when there are only 23 verses in Romans 6. I apologise for the error.

You apologize for the smaller error while holding fast to the bigger error; the lack of evidence is not evidence. Supposing so is an error in reasoning of a type that is so well known since ancient times, it has a name, Appeal to Ignorance. Why do you hold on to this error in reasoning?

 

[David Lamb]

You apologize for the smaller error while holding fast to the bigger error; the lack of evidence is not evidence. Supposing so is an error in reasoning of a type that is so well known since ancient times, it has a name, Appeal to Ignorance. Why do you hold on to this error in reasoning?

My apology was nonetheless sincere. Sorry that you have taken it as me holding fast to a greater error. I don't understand what that greater error is supposed to be. I haven't appealed to ignorance. What greater error do you mean, and where have I appealed to ignorance?

 

[Wrangler]

My apology was nonetheless sincere. Sorry that you have taken it as me holding fast to a greater error. I don't understand what that greater error is supposed to be. I haven't appealed to ignorance. What greater error do you mean, and where have I appealed to ignorance?

You apologized over a mere matter of fact while holding onto an error in reasoning. If you don’t realize that you’re doing that, I feel sorry for you.

I suggest you re-read what was already written on the matter.

 

[David Lamb]

You apologized over a mere matter of fact while holding onto an error in reasoning. If you don’t realize that you’re doing that, I feel sorry for you.

I suggest you re-read what was already written on the matter.

I apologised over what I saw was a blatant error of fact on my part. I had said that you "invented" a verse in Acts, whereas in fact it was Romans. When I apologised, I wasn't intending to get into a discussion about what other things, in your view, I ought to apologise for. I must say I find your reaction to an apology unusual. I will leave the matter there. It is of course entirely up to you whether or not you accept my apology.

 

[Justified]

You apologized over a mere matter of fact while holding onto an error in reasoning. If you don’t realize that you’re doing that, I feel sorry for you.

I suggest you re-read what was already written on the matter.

The error in reasoning is all on your part. Based on the number of times I have seen you incorrectly refer to claims of fallacious arguments, I suspect it’s the Dunning-Kruger effect. Even here you don’t accept correction for claiming that someone is fallaciously making an appeal to ignorance when it is an argument from silence, and not a fallacious one at that. Please, in all seriousness, for your sake, take a formal class on logic and critical thinking or read some good books on the subject.

 

[NayborBear]

You apologized over a mere matter of fact while holding onto an error in reasoning. If you don’t realize that you’re doing that, I feel sorry for you.

I suggest you re-read what was already written on the matter.

There's an old saying that goes: "You can LEAD a horse to water?" "But, ya can't make him DRINK it!"

I can say with a little more than "relative certainty" that there's going to be whole LOT of "small people emanating a whole lotta shades of gray (when we are all changed)" that have been lulled into believing they'll be teaching others in their "reign with Christ"! When it is THEY who will be the ones being taught!
When Messiah tells 'em: "That BAD 'ol DEVIL and his cronies are GONE!" "Y'all can come out of hiding now!"

 

[Gray_Joy]

Who God is, is a warrior.Ex 15:3

NLT The LORD is a warrior; Yahweh is his name!​

REV Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.​

Amazing how that is overlooked by advocates of docility and pacifism.

I think the formation of the Canon and the early church fathers role in this is worthy of consideration as well.

Thinking Christians should never resort to violence under any circumstance because God says so does not comport with God's teachings and behavior in the Old Testament.

Jesus was establishing a spiritual kingdom on Earth with his gospel and the great commission given to his Apostles. Who were formerly commanded to buy swords.

They were going to face challenges as they set out on their mission.
If all new converts were killed by pagans opposed to the gospel,how successful would they have been?

And we know pagans were opposed because many of the Apostles were martyred.

It was illegal to profess Christ in Rome until Constantine lifted the ban.

And also,I think what is often overlooked is that Jesus is the Messiah of the prophecies in the Tanakh.
That Messiah,which is Jesus,is not passive.

The early church fathers influence on the canon is worth considering too.

And let's not forget the bloody horror of the Christian crusades.

This OP issue will drag on and on if we let it. No one will budge an inch from their respective point of view.

But there is one thing to note. Consistency,sincerity, and genuine faith character.
If someone insists pacifism is absolute. And then resorts to attack language, ad hominems,to further their point.