Christians should not own and drive tanks
Should Christians own tanks? I say no, they shouldn't. There's no reason for them to own a tank, number one, and, number two, it might cause weaker people to stumble in faith.
A personal story: I started attended First Baptist Church of the Resignation from 2007 till about 2009, and I had a lot of fun there and learned a lot until the pastor drove his tank to Church one day. He drove it right over my little Dodge Neon and crushed it to pieces. I couldn't believe it! He was such a good pastor and there he is, driving a tank to crush my poor car. How was I going to get to work? Plus, he drove over a lot of other peoples cars with that tank. It caused a big schism in the Church and many people left the Church because of it.
So I think we can all agree that Christians should neither own nor drive tanks, but I realize we live in a democracy and other opinions are out there. If you think Christians should own a tank, I would like to know your reasons why. The burden of proof is on you, as I've given anecdotal evidence of why owning a tank is for a Christian is not a good idea.
The Con must prove the following:
1. That Christians are allowed to own tanks according to the Bible
2. That there are good reasons for Christians to own the tank
3. Even if they own it, that there are good reasons to drive it
1) Christians are allowed rights to own Tanks due to private property clauses rooted in the Bible.
Genesis 1:28 (KJV 1900) states:
And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 
Mankind (and Christians), therefore is allowed ownership over all things originating from the earth, and through God has been given the rights to own property, including tanks and armored vehicles.
Individual rights to property and the existence of private property is further reiterated in the VIII Commandment
Thou shall not steal. - The Ten Commandments (#8)
I have therefore proven to PRO that the Bible does indeed include a biblical basis for the rights of all mankind to own property, and therefore mechanized vehicles and tanks. PRO must now prove where the Bible does not allow the ownership of tanks.
2) Christians should be allowed to own Tanks for self-defense.
All Christians should be allowed to own tanks for self-defense. The best example of this is Pope Francis's Popemobile; a reinforced Mercedes-Benz M-Class SUV capable of withstanding small arms fire and some high grade explosives. Protection of the Holy Father by an armored vehicle was deemed necessary by the Vatican after the failed assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II who was shot four times while driving through the streets of Turkey. Another example of where Christians should be allowed to own tanks for defense purposes include ISIS genocidal campaign against Christians civilians living in Mosul -where ISIS themselves are said to be equipped with Soviet T-72 tanks - and in Nigeria where hundreds of Christians are said to have died by Islamic extremists armed with military grade equipment .
3) Christians should drive tanks because Tanks and armored vehicles are cool.
Pope Francis's Popemobile -which for all intent and purposes is an APC- is rumored on the internets to be the sexiest and most exclusive luxurious driving vehicle a person can possibly own - beating out online polling for the Hummer, Limo, Batmobile, Ice Cream Truck, Lamborghini, and the Golf Cart.
Tanks also happen to be virtually indestructible, and make for some awesome off road adventures.
Now, let me tear his heinous lines into paper shreds:
1. Old Testament people are allowed to own private property. Not Christians. True Christian economics is Anarcho-Fideism, in which all property is held in common by all believers. This is demonstrated conclusively by Acts 2:44 according to the regulative principle:
"And all who believed were together and had all things in common."
"All things in common" means owned in common. It does not mean they all liked experimental Jazz music and the comedy stylings of Louis Black.
Every last jot and tittle of the Torah was done away with by Jesus Christ. "Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the Torah through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God." (Romans 7:4)
2. Self-defense is done away with by the death of the Torah that occurred in Christ.
"But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)
"Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.'" (Matthew 26:52)
Nothing demonstrates a lack of faith in Christ Jesus more than owning weapons for self-defense. Who can separate us from the love of Christ, that we would need a tank?
As the Apostle Paul writes, "For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39)
What idiot believes he has Christ on his side, then gets in a tank to preserve his sinful flesh? Death has no sting for eternally alive in Christ Jesus:
"O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" (1 Corinthians 15:55)
Shall a tank preserve the lives of those who are already dead? What missiles can touch the soul that is in his hands?
"For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God." (Colossians 3:3)
No wonder the world is so full of unbelief when "Godly" Christian men get into tanks to keep them from going to the heaven they believe in! Can anyone seriously put any trust in such cowards? The Christians which won Rome were such that they gladly put their heads beneath the Roman swords, sang hymns of victory before the masses of dogs, wolves, lions, bears. They were no sissy-butts crawling into tanks to preserve their lily white air-conditioned flabbed bellies -- full of Marie Calendar frozen dinners, no doubt. Let anyone who would put his trust in a pile of metal be anathema.
3. Tanks are cool, huh?
Let's see what Jesus says about how cool tanks are:
"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal" (Matthew 6:19)
Your foolish, ignorant tank will one day be dust. However "cool" it may be today, it will be ashes tomorrow. Knowing this, how can you call it "cool"? The only "cool" is that Holy Ruach which stills the fire of hell that awaits us --- everything else is vanity (Ecclesiastes 1)
Let every Christian who trusts in weapons, in tanks, in drones, in Nuclear weapons and the protectorate of filthy secular governments be anathema. May the stain of Adam never leave these sons of disobedience and may they rot in hell with the prince of the power of the air, their worm ever gnawing and the fire ever burning before the presence of the Lamb. (Ephesians 2:2, Mark 9:44, Revelation 14:10)
Gnaw worm! Gnaw!
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways (tanks)." (1 Corinthians 13:11)
Old Testament people are allowed to own private property. Not Christians. True Christian economics is Anarcho-Fideism
Anarcho-Fideism is likely a completely made up term by PRO. A quick Google or Yahoo search for “Anarcho-Fideism” as spelled results in ZERO hits beyond this debate website. If the combination of Anarcho-Fideism does in fact exist beyond PRO’s own imagination, then I challenge PRO to source it either through academia or the Holy Bible.
In the mean time, “True Christians” are defined in the Bible as Catholics; where unfortunately for PRO, the Catholic Church rejects the ideas of Fideism ; therefore true Christians must also reject PRO’s interpretations of the Bible and economic theories.
The Biblical basis for the Catholic Church as being the one true Christian Church is as follows:
“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” - Matthew 16:18
Whereas Saint Peter is claimed to be the first Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope).
PRO may now cry foul and claim religious bigotry on CON’s part all he wants, but according to strict biblical interoperation and Jesus’ own words to Saint Peter, True Christianity begins with the first Pope; Protestants, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Evangelicals, etc, etc, are hence NOT True Christians.
"There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation." -The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.
…Saint Peter of course, according to Christian doctrine, was given the Keys to Heaven.
I have therefore proven that True Christians reject PROs ideas to True Christian economics.
"And all who believed were together and had all things in common."
“All things in common” actually means equal status before God among all true Christian believers (Catholics). Nowhere in this passage does it exclude the right to own private property. Even with a socialist interpretation like PRO’s, no where does it exclude ownership of property – the community (rather than the individual) simply owns the tank.
Self-defense is done away with by the death of the Torah that occurred in Christ.
Unfortunately, self-defense was not done away with by Christ.
“Jesus said to [the disciples], “But now the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag; and the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one." - Luke 22:36 ASV
Hence, Jesus therefore wills to his closest followers that they buy tanks. Pro’s dismissing of the Old Testament –and shifting of the goal posts from Biblical basis to only the New Testament- based on Christ’s testimony do not stand.
What idiot believes he has Christ on his side, then gets in a tank to preserve his sinful flesh?
That would be The Pope.
But I also remind PRO that the Pope also has the right to invoke papal infallibility, infallibility according to the Catholic Church meaning more than exemption from actual error, it means immunity from the possibility of error  .
By virtue of owning an armored vehicle himself, and his own infallibility, The Pope demonstrates that it is therefore impossible for it to be sinful for a Christian to own a tank or its derivates like the armored Popemobile. To say otherwise and call the Pope an idiot is according to true Christian belief, blasphemy.
Your foolish, ignorant tank will one day be dust. However "cool" it may be today, it will be ashes tomorrow.
Most newer tank designs now include composite armor; meaning within the metal skin of a tank there are likely several layers of highly advanced mixtures of ceramic materials and carbon nanotubes; several designs also include titanium alloys. The composite armor on a M1 Abrams of course, in capable withstanding 120mm HEAT rounds which are close to about 10kg of TNT. I’d say that’s pretty cool, and I don’t think PRO’s claims that a tank with these features will be reduced to rust or feed the moths anytime soon.
"When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways (tanks)."
It takes the brains of an adult to build and drive a tank. Children play with Hotwheels while Men serve and defend their countries. Owning tanks –like GI Joes- are also cool, and Christians should be allowed to own and operate tanks so long as radical jihadist groups threaten them with military grade equipment.
In my arguments I have proven that Christians may own tanks and armored vehicles through rights to property clauses within the Bible. PRO has yet to show a biblical verse where True Christians may not own tanks or posses property. Tanks are cool, fun to drive, and are virtually indestructible (plus the Pope endorses armored vehicles). Tanks are also necessary for Christian self-defense. And to conclude, had PRO perhaps owned a tank instead of a measly car that was totaled by his local pastor, perhaps PRO would still have the available means to drive to work today
1. Con writes, "A quick Google or Yahoo search for 'Anarcho-Fideism' as spelled results in ZERO hits beyond this debate website."
I reply, lol. I'm surprised you didn't check Bing, too.
2. Con writes, "'True Christians' are defined in the Bible as Catholics.'"
I reply, lol. You mean the same Church that spirited away Bernard F. Law back to Rome and made him Archpriest of Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore? lol lol lol
3. Con writes, "Saint Peter is claimed to be the first bishop of Rome."
I reply, this sentence reads like what a dog might say after getting neutered at the vet.
4. Con writes --- in crayola no doubt --- "Saint Peter of course, according to Christian doctrine, was given the Keys to Heaven."
I reply, Peter no doubt had a high office in the early Church, but he was no more infallible than a gargoyle's bepimpled bottom. Listen to the words of Saint Paul, about Saint Peter, "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Galatians 2:11) And Saint Athanasius of blessed memory was, of course, condemned by Pope Liberius. The doctrine of Papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until the First Vatican council of 1869-1870, and the history of the Eastern Church especially bears this out. The Councils of Bishops, true, were always looked upon as an authority by ancient Churches, but the authority to bind and loose was never held to be the unique possession of the Roman Bishop alone. Were it so, the entire business of having councils seems rather superfluous, don't you think, you smelly lobster you?
But I counter: the Councils often error against the very books they claim as their basis: the New Testament. If we, as Christians, can accuse the Islamiacs of being disingenuous in using our Gospels to herald their Prophet Moe Sizlac, we can accuse the Grand ol' Churches of the same dishonesty whenever they frame anything in a council that goes beyond the clear meaning of Scripture to which they pay fealty. And since the Church has abandoned radical Pacificsm and Anarcho-Fideism (found on Bing only!), let them all be anathema.
5. Con writes, "Nowhere in this passage does it exclude the right to own private property."
I reply, owning things in common is the definition of the abolishment of private property. This isn't rocket science, Jethro. Quit tormenting the squirrels and get back in the truck!
6. Con writes, "the community (rather than the individual) simply owns the tank."
I reply, noted.
7. Con writes, "Jesus therefore wills to his closest followers that they buy tanks."
I reply, every verse of Scripture must be interpreted by every other verse of Scripture. Jesus, in this circumstance --- and this circumstance alone --- told his disciples to own swords (not tanks). However, as the text clearly shows, when they used such a sword in violence, he condemned them. To the violence of the sword, Jesus says, "Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52) for "the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" (John 18:11)
Jesus never said that his disciples, on the whole, were to carry swords. Consider, he said that his children shall "shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." (Mark 16:17) And "Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you." Luke 10:19) What are they in need of tanks for, I ask?
I ask, what avails thee of tanks and armored Pope mobiles, O ye of little faith? Art thou afraid that thy precious, preparation H'd, GMO-fattened body might see corruption? And what if it does? "To live is Christ, and to die is gain." (Philippians 1:21) If these words are not etched in your soul, you are no better than those "raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever." (Jude 1:13)
8. The Con writes, "highly advanced mixtures of ceramic materials and carbon nanotubes"
I reply, lol. I can picture the Con perusing these facts wearing an camo bathrobe, sipping hot cocoa out of a Desert Storm thermos he bought off ebay.
9. The Con writes, "Children play with Hotwheels while Men serve and defend their countries"
There are no nations to defend in Christ --- there is no flag worthy of our salutation but his shining witness in the stars. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) Let all nations, ethnicities, genders, classes, hierarchies, bosses and serfs dissolve into the sweet, silver light of Christ Jesus, where "there is no remembrance of former things" (Ecclesiastes 1:11) and where, in perfect mystery, "there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain" (Revelations 21:4)
In conclusion, the Con is clearly less intelligent than an envelope full of guppy poop. How he manages to turn on a computer, much less operate one, is beyond me. I leave the voting public to figure this out --- although, I am sure the voting booths will now be swarmed with flag-waiving, hound-dog-owning, blubber butt G.O.P.tard good ol' boys who insist on an all-American injun-killin' Jihad Jesus.
Don't worry, folks: all your precious sand castles will dissolve beneath the awesome weight of red hot eternity in due time's sweet circuit, and you'll have plenty of hours to clean your guns with Satan's pointy tail. . . and I'll be there, above thee, laughing my head off with all the other Saints, as the worms of Hades gnaw your never dying soul, like a rotund pug gnawing upon a peanut-butter smeared shoe.
Alif lam mim indeed.
^^PRO can laugh all he wants at CON's arguements, but PRO still lacks transportation to work. Tanks can be a great idea for Christians facing the constant threat of having their car destoyed by renegade priests.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|