When is it gonna be enough?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Feb 20, 2016
1,154
266
83
I took that as you proclaiming I did not know the Gospel. Funny thing is, your OP is quite quarrelsome. Again I chalk that up to your passion, which is to an extent definitely righteous, but not as righteous as you believe it to be.

I never said you don’t know what you’re talking about and I apologize if I lead you to believe that. You’re a very bright woman with great passion, but you are also your own worst enemy by pointing fingers at others with such harshness.

You’ll always catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Stand firm in defending the Gospel as you do, for that you are to be praised, but remember, you’re not perfect. You never said you are perfect, but your OP is pretty much a self proclamation that believe yourself to be better than most others.
I see now that it is. I'm not going to give excuses for putting up what I did, only to say that I can't get away from the news no matter how much I try (thanks to a family that likes the news, which is nothing more than tabloids now) and such news often makes me feel powerless. I have a high empathy meter but I can only weep when others weep so much.
 

Smooth

Well-known member
Jul 22, 2019
460
627
93
I see now that it is. I'm not going to give excuses for putting up what I did, only to say that I can't get away from the news no matter how much I try (thanks to a family that likes the news, which is nothing more than tabloids now) and such news often makes me feel powerless. I have a high empathy meter but I can only weep when others weep so much.
I’m weeping with you. I recently decided not to read the news as much as I always have because I’m tired of being PO. I know what our enemies are doing and I am well prepared with God at the forefront of my life.

Stay prayerful, my sister. God has great plans for you and you are going to make a huge, positive impact upon many people throughout the years. Be blessed always. ❤️
 
Feb 20, 2016
1,154
266
83
I’m weeping with you. I recently decided not to read the news as much as I always have because I’m tired of being PO. I know what our enemies are doing and I am well prepared with God at the forefront of my life.

Stay prayerful, my sister. God has great plans for you and you are going to make a huge, positive impact upon many people throughout the years. Be blessed always. ❤️
I've told my family that if they want to watch the news, to watch it in another room different from me. Unfortunately you can't tell YouTube's breaking news feature the same thing.

Thank you.

For the record, no excuses on my part or anything, but I'm on the spectrum. I'm not antisocial but I don't always know how to act.
 

Robertt

Well-known member
May 22, 2019
899
320
63
Bahrain
I've told my family that if they want to watch the news, to watch it in another room different from me. Unfortunately you can't tell YouTube's breaking news feature the same thing.
What is You tube breaking news. never heard of it . so I guess I don't have to worry bout it
 

calibob

Sinner saved by grace
May 29, 2018
8,268
5,516
113
Anaheim, Cali.
It's more or less an open forum with posts and misc. garbage professing anything and everything that will draw attention. Some truths mixed with some propaganda.
What is a synonym or antonym for redeemed?
 

Ohm

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2018
160
35
28
Trust me, neophyte, you’re no cause for desperation. Heed your own advice and be ashamed of your personal shortfalls. You know, take the plank out of your own eye before attempting to remove the splinters out of others. Someone really awesome said that once.
You are not a very nice human being.
 

Ohm

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2018
160
35
28
Too much ignorance here to tackle all of this, but it is my understanding that there are certain cities or countries in EU that have, or are trying to ban knives. We've had poison attacks, cars and trucks killing scores of people at a time, rice cookers killing people, a couple of box cutters killing 3 THOUSAND in an hour, crop fertilizer killed 168 and injured 600, pilots killing their own passengers by crashing into mountains, or flying straight up and then to the sea, the list goes on and on.....

When are you going to realize the problem isn't the inanimate object, be it a gun or knife, car etc.. but the evil HEART of wicked men!
Just a couple recent examples.
4 Dead In Southern California Stabbing Spree
CHUCK ROSS
August 08, 201911:22 AM ET
A 33-year-old man was arrested Wednesday and charged with allegedly stabbing four people to death during a crime spree outside Los Angeles.
Mass Stabbing In Japan Leaves 17 Injured, 3 Dead, Including 11-Year-Old Girl
WHITNEY TIPTON
May 28, 201911:49 AM ET
Three people are confirmed dead, including an 11-year-old girl, from a mass stabbing that left 17 schoolchildren injured Tuesday in Kawasaki, Japan, a suburb southwest of Tokyo.


  • Spain (2004) — Bombing: 192 deaths, 2,050 injuries;
  • Great Britain (2005) — Bombing: 52 deaths, 784 injuries;
  • Japan (2008) — Car ramming and stabbing: seven deaths, 10 injuries;
  • China (2010) — Shovel-loader: 11 deaths, 30 injuries;
  • China (2014) — Car ramming: six deaths, 13 injuries;
  • China (2014) — Mass stabbing: 31 deaths, 143 injuries;
  • Germany (2015) — Plane crash: 150 deaths;
  • Belgium (2016) — Bombing: 21 deaths, 180 injuries;
  • France (2016) — Car ramming: 86 deaths, 434 injuries;
  • Germany (2016) — Car ramming: 11 deaths, 56 injuries;
  • Japan (2016) — Mass stabbing: 19 deaths, 45 injuries; and
  • Great Britain (2017) — Bombing: 22 deaths, 250 injuries
  • The list goes on and on.

Oh. That you think you wouldn't STILL be part of the 3rd Reich if America joined the Allies is beyond laughable. But it explains your lack of gratitude. You also don't even understand that you REMAIN free today because of US.
And yet, there are still 6 times fewer murders per capita in the EU than there are in the USA.

In fact, using the latest statistics, if we scale up the US's population to that of the EU, there are roughly about three times as many firearm murders in the US, as there are total murders by any means in the EU.

That can't be explained away without the words "lack of gun control".
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
13,614
9,127
113
And yet, there are still 6 times fewer murders per capita in the EU than there are in the USA.

In fact, using the latest statistics, if we scale up the US's population to that of the EU, there are roughly about three times as many firearm murders in the US, as there are total murders by any means in the EU.

That can't be explained away without the words "lack of gun control".
Doesn't change a single thing I said.

You are willing to sacrifice your freedom for what you THINK is security. In the end, like when Hitler rolled through your country virtually unopposed, you will have neither.
 

Ohm

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2018
160
35
28
Doesn't change a single thing I said.

You are willing to sacrifice your freedom for what you THINK is security. In the end, like when Hitler rolled through your country virtually unopposed, you will have neither.
Virtually unopposed, except for all the opposition.

Look, for a start, it wasn't the second amendment that saved Europe, nor was it civilians with guns. Second, civilians with guns in the US are no match for the US military, should the conflict ever happen. Third, plenty of people in Europe in the 1940s had access to firearms. Most European countries didn't adopt strict laws against guns until the 60's and 70's, some later. Fourth, the Russians stormed into Europe and decimated the Germans. The Americans did little but send supplies to Europe (at exorbitant rates, might I add). In the First World War, about 500,000 US soldiers fought. Barely a drop in the ocean compared to the 70million + Europeans. In the Second World War, about 2 million Americans served in Europe, and less than half actually saw frontline action. Compared to the 2.5million Indians, 3.5 million Brits, the 27 million Russians who DIED alone, never-mind all the rest who actually served. Then you have the various African countries, the European civilian armed resistance movements, the German opposition etc.

The American role in both World Wars is VASTLY overstated by Americans.

At any rate, modern gun control and the Two World Wars are entirely separate and unrelated topics, which you are trying to relate together as a last gasp appeal to American hyper-patriotism. Because the facts are not in your favour.

6 times as many murders per capita in the US as the EU.
 

Ohm

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2018
160
35
28
And while I appreciate the efforts of those who served with morals to defeat the Nazi regime, minimising Europe's role and attempting to relate the horrors of that war to a justification for modern gun laws which directly contribute to the needless deaths of CHILDREN in schools, is both an insult to victims of the shootings, and an insult to those who died in both those wars.

You risk losing my respect in this debate with this line of thinking.

My paternal grandfather was an officer in the British Army, as was his father. My maternal great grandfather fought and won medals in the Somme, and his father in Normandy.

I can say that they would be ashamed that what passes for military pride today is the kind of radical thought displayed in your arguments here. We are talking about the deaths of innocent children.
 

Smooth

Well-known member
Jul 22, 2019
460
627
93
You are not a very nice human being.
Beloved, I’m actually one of the nicest human beings you could ever meet, but I don’t do well with people who come out swinging. If you read my entire conversation with our little sister you will see that I only want the best for her. And the best for you as well.
 

Ohm

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2018
160
35
28
Beloved, I’m actually one of the nicest human beings you could ever meet, but I don’t do well with people who come out swinging. If you read my entire conversation with our little sister you will see that I only want the best for her. And the best for you as well.
Well, I only read one of your arguments. It seemed a bit vitriolic. I'm open to having my mind changed.

What is your position on gun control?
 

Smooth

Well-known member
Jul 22, 2019
460
627
93
Well, I only read one of your arguments. It seemed a bit vitriolic. I'm open to having my mind changed.

What is your position on gun control?
The Second Amendment gives “we the people” the control. If guns were banned then only criminals would have guns because criminals do not obey the law. And if guns were banned we would be at the perils of a tyrannical government. It’s that simple. Prove me wrong.
 

Ohm

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2018
160
35
28
The Second Amendment gives “we the people” the control.
The wording of the second amendment provides for the right to bear arms in order to form and maintain a well-regulated militia (for the purposes of the defence of the constitution and of the American people).

I'm not convinced that having more guns than people, nor that volatile individuals being able to buy a gun online and have it shipped to their door, is a "well-regulated militia".

At any rate, I don't think there are very many people who propose outright banning guns. It seems that most of the people who are for gun controls are for so-termed "common sense" gun controls, for example, regular firearms training, safe-storage conditions, minimum age restrictions, and mental health screening to weed out unstable, volatile firearms owners.

If guns were banned then only criminals would have guns because criminals do not obey the law.
If guns were banned, everyone who owned a gun would be a criminal.

In the EU, where guns are outright banned or heavily regulated, there are six times less murders per capita than the USA. This is not a coincidence.Firearm murders account for the majority of all murders in the USA. Because it is EASY to kill someone with a gun. It is much harder to do it with a knife or a pillow.

And if guns were banned we would be at the perils of a tyrannical government. It’s that simple. Prove me wrong.
The US populace would not withstand the US military and civil police force if a conflict ever arose. No amount of guns would change this. But do you really distrust your government so much that you feel the need to have them anyway?
 

Smooth

Well-known member
Jul 22, 2019
460
627
93
The wording of the second amendment provides for the right to bear arms in order to form and maintain a well-regulated militia (for the purposes of the defence of the constitution and of the American people).

I'm not convinced that having more guns than people, nor that volatile individuals being able to buy a gun online and have it shipped to their door, is a "well-regulated militia".

At any rate, I don't think there are very many people who propose outright banning guns. It seems that most of the people who are for gun controls are for so-termed "common sense" gun controls, for example, regular firearms training, safe-storage conditions, minimum age restrictions, and mental health screening to weed out unstable, volatile firearms owners.



If guns were banned, everyone who owned a gun would be a criminal.

In the EU, where guns are outright banned or heavily regulated, there are six times less murders per capita than the USA. This is not a coincidence.Firearm murders account for the majority of all murders in the USA. Because it is EASY to kill someone with a gun. It is much harder to do it with a knife or a pillow.



The US populace would not withstand the US military and civil police force if a conflict ever arose. No amount of guns would change this. But do you really distrust your government so much that you feel the need to have them anyway?
Guns being banned today thus making every gun owner a criminal is a straw man argument and I’m not even going to recognize that dumb statement going forward.

And yes, I most certainly distrust socialist democrats. The obama administration was aggressively hostile towards conservatives, especially conservative Christians. That is an undisputed fact. Gun owners kept his hostility limited as seen in Nevada.

One of the other checks and balances we have besides guns is the right to vote. Enough people grew tired of the hostility to vote in candidate Trump. What we have now in President Trump is a friend who embraces the US Constitution and common sense. Oh yeah, and he’s protected by lots of gun carriers.
 

Ohm

Junior Member
Mar 4, 2018
160
35
28
Guns being banned today thus making every gun owner a criminal is a straw man argument
A straw man argument is when a debate opponent fabricates an argument that the opposition is not making, and then argues against it. That's not what I'm doing here.

and I’m not even going to recognize that dumb statement going forward.
It is true. If you make guns illegal, everyone who has a gun is a criminal. But nobody of any authority is talking about making guns illegal. They are talking about putting regulations in place that meet the constitutional 2nd amendment term "well-regulated militia".

No regulations is not "well regulated".

Are you saying that you oppose measures to ensure mentally unstable individuals do not get access to firearms? That you oppose measures to ensure firearm owners are adequately trained? That you oppose measures to ensure a child cannot purchase a firearm?
 

Smooth

Well-known member
Jul 22, 2019
460
627
93
A straw man argument is when a debate opponent fabricates an argument that the opposition is not making, and then argues against it. That's not what I'm doing here.



It is true. If you make guns illegal, everyone who has a gun is a criminal. But nobody of any authority is talking about making guns illegal. They are talking about putting regulations in place that meet the constitutional 2nd amendment term "well-regulated militia".

No regulations is not "well regulated".

Are you saying that you oppose measures to ensure mentally unstable individuals do not get access to firearms? That you oppose measures to ensure firearm owners are adequately trained? That you oppose measures to ensure a child cannot purchase a firearm?
I support the inability of mentally unstable individuals to own firearms. That includes every single idiot who votes for socialist democrats.
 

PennEd

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2013
13,614
9,127
113
Virtually unopposed, except for all the opposition.

Look, for a start, it wasn't the second amendment that saved Europe, nor was it civilians with guns. Second, civilians with guns in the US are no match for the US military, should the conflict ever happen. Third, plenty of people in Europe in the 1940s had access to firearms. Most European countries didn't adopt strict laws against guns until the 60's and 70's, some later. Fourth, the Russians stormed into Europe and decimated the Germans. The Americans did little but send supplies to Europe (at exorbitant rates, might I add). In the First World War, about 500,000 US soldiers fought. Barely a drop in the ocean compared to the 70million + Europeans. In the Second World War, about 2 million Americans served in Europe, and less than half actually saw frontline action. Compared to the 2.5million Indians, 3.5 million Brits, the 27 million Russians who DIED alone, never-mind all the rest who actually served. Then you have the various African countries, the European civilian armed resistance movements, the German opposition etc.

The American role in both World Wars is VASTLY overstated by Americans.

At any rate, modern gun control and the Two World Wars are entirely separate and unrelated topics, which you are trying to relate together as a last gasp appeal to American hyper-patriotism. Because the facts are not in your favour.

6 times as many murders per capita in the US as the EU.
This whole post is a complete, insulting joke!

You flat out LOSE WW2 and maybe even WW1 without America. The British lose in Africa without the US. There is NO Normandy invasion without the US. Britain eventually capitulates and is taken over by the Nazis without the US. Germany is able to devote massive resources to the eastern front, not to mention America kept the Brits and Russians afloat with supplies and munitions, Germany achieves the A-Bomb, the Americans wouldn't have even been working on it had they not entered the war. Germany has the capability to put A-bombs on V2 rockets, AND THAT'S BALLGAME!

What the hell revisionist history are they teaching you over there? Not to mention, where do you think you'd be TODAY without the US protecting your butt for the past 75yrs?

You owe your very existence as a nation to America. Start acting like it!
 
S

Susanna

Guest
None of you would be a natural choice for Secretary of State😁.

Keep in mind, we’re allies....I’ll spell it out A.L.L.I.E.S😁.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,161
30,310
113
It's more or less an open forum with posts and misc. garbage professing anything and everything that will draw attention. Some truths mixed with some propaganda.
What is a synonym or antonym for redeemed?
A synonym for redeemed would be "saved" and an antonym for saved is "abandoned." :)