WWJK: Who would Jesus Kill - Military supplier adds bible references to rifle sights

[lookout123]

fucking manc tart. better untwist your panties. You're probably just upset cuz Arsenal kicked the piss out of Bolton twice in four days.

[DanaC]

How d'ye know I'm wearing any to twist?

[lookout123]

You had them on in your picture... but I like the way you think.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Hardly reaching. It seems fucking obvious to me.

But the company has been doing this forever, they couldn't/can't predict who the sights would be used against.

[DanaC]

I wasn't saying that's why the company put them on. Just that it is obvious why it might be seen as offensive/dodgy.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But unless it's intentional, then making any offensive connection is tenuous, ie reaching.

He wore new suit, and immediately got run over by a bus carrying an ad for a rival suitmaker. Should the widow be offended by the rival suitmaker?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

'all having to do with light'. The implication clearly being that the Christian God brings the light

Bullshit - simple assumption.


Oh and . . . .

[DanaC]

John:8:12 “When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, ‘I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.’”

2COR4:6, a reference to part of the second letter of Paul to the Corinthians: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,"


Of course it is referring to the Christian God bringing light. Whoever follows Jesus will never walk in darkness: the flipside to that is that those who don't follow him, may well walk in darkness.

[xoxoxoBruce]

People who have a flashlight will never walk in darkness does not mean, people without a flashlight will walk in darkness.

[DanaC]

Now I think you're reaching :P

[xoxoxoBruce]

au contraire, I'm the one not reaching. I accept 2 + 2, without trying to make 4.

[classicman]

Bruce gets it.

Because "A" is true, doesn't necessarily mean that the inverse of "A" is false.

Originally Posted by classicman

Bruce gets it.

Because "A" is true, doesn't necessarily mean that the inverse of "A" is false.

Damn...how are specific references to New Testament passages - Second Corinthians 4:6 and John 8:12 - not references to Christianity?

Originally Posted by classicman

Bullshit - simple assumption.:bs

I dont think it is all that big of deal...but WTF? Assumption?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Redux

Damn...how are specific references to New Testament passages - Second Corinthians 4:6 and John 8:12 - not references to Christianity?

It's not a question of where they come from, but what the passages say, and more importantly to Dana, what they imply.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

It's not a question of where they come from, but what the passages say, and more importantly to Dana, what they imply.

They imply light is provided through Jesus Christ.

But we've reached that point of agreeing to disagree.

And to Dana:

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=628830&postcount=55