40 Reasons to Ban Guns

Love the list! I’d have to say #8, #32, and #37 I wanted to include the one about the ACLU especially as they keep on suing our prison system to release more criminals because they are claiming the packed environment is inhumane, resulting in the news we heard this week about California judges agreeing that they should release hundreds of criminals.

Finally, I must say I am grateful for the way you prefaced this whole list, balanced with your Christ centered focus. It was something that I struggled with immensely before I bought a gun. Still I have no desire to use it…except for at the range and maybe hunting. I pray that is all the use they ever get.

Nathan

A second comment. Norman – you say, “In my honest opinion, Christians are not forbidden by Christ to practice basic self-defense.”

I’ll go you one better. Luke 22:36 says, “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”

This is shortly before Jesus is taken by the Romans. He knows that public sentiment against him will make it dangerous for his apostles. So, he orders them to arm themselves so that they will be able to defend themselves.

So, no only are you not forbidden but you are instructed to arm yourself.

Thanks for your comments, Scott, Nathan, and Darwyyn.

Scott: Great point on the devaluation of life. That is an excellent way of thinking about it. I haven’t done a detailed study of the “go buy a sword” verse, I’ll have to think about that for a while. One thing, this has to be said with the understanding that all but one of the apostles died in the ministry of the Gospel, killed by the State. Certainly we need to protect ourselves and not go forth with the intention of getting martyred, but if we are to live faith in the footsteps of Jesus then we need to be prepared to *not* fight back at some point. And that’s the challenge; grace be upon us if and when we ever face that decision.

Nathan: I can totally understand, I hope I *never* have to use a weapon against another human being!

Darwyyn: Yeah, #14 ran very close to #33 for me too. What’s Bart?

Is it too much of a cop out (no pun intended) to say I don’t like any of them?

Concerning your point about being a Christian and owning a gun for self-defense, Scripture says that any man who doesn’t take care of his family is no better than an infidel. It is a father or husbands duty to protect the person of his wife and/or children……….I would echo Nathan’s sentiments, as Christians first and foremost and Libertarians second, I believe that we should all desire and pray that we never have to be put in a place where it is necessary to take a life. But we should be prepared, none the less………..As the saying goes, the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must be vigilant even if we are uncomfortable.

Jon

Great list! My top 3 most despised are # 7,8, and 9. The denigration of women and their right to defend themselves goes against many great historical incidents in which women bravely defended themselves and their families from terrorists, Indians, etc. If violent men believed that any woman they tried to attack might be armed and trained how to use those arms, they would think twice. . . .

This list is funny and serious at the same time. Think if the Jews were allowed to have the right to own a gun in Germany back in the 30’s/40’s. It would have been a much tougher thing to round them up. Governments take away guns in order to push people around, that is we have the 2nd ammendment, to protect us from a tyranical state.

I’ve heard these arguments many times, Skinner. We each must make that determination for ourselves.

Could you stand by, speaking blessings and forgiveness, and merely watch while someone tortured and raped your little girl?

Somehow, I doubt it. But without the means and the will to defend her, you would have no choice – except for the blessings part, I suspect.

Banning guns:
Christians shouldn’t own guns because too much violence:

To expand: Do you give away all of your money that you work for and don’t take care of your family? What exactly is self defense? Where does it start and end?
Self defense is feeding your family and keeping a roof over their heads. Those are the basics. So where does the “violence” definition fit? Do you keep health care / medical coverage on your family? Why not give that money to someone else?
Paying money to protect your family is a form of self-defense. You could be feeding a starving child somewhere, right? Is that wrong? How is it different? The violence makes it different? Would you take your family out of line at the soup kitchen because they were running out and let the rest of the people go first, knowing that your family will starve?
Someone going to bed hungry is torture, so why don’t you give all of your money? Do you allow and invite homeless strangers to sleep in your house? Do you have a retirement fund? That is self preservation. What is the difference?
Someone steals your identity and takes all your money and ruins your credit. Do you just not prosecute them and they go on perpetuating the crime over and over?
So they go to prison, then what. Can you live with putting away some one in jail? What is the difference?
I will protect my family, what ever the circumstance.

Skinner,

First off let me say that I highly respect your position. I think principled pacifism is arguably the most difficult lifestyle to live of all.

However, it seems to me that the only principled response for a pacifist is to truly do NOTHING to protect their family in the event of a violent attack.

Calling the police is unprincipled: You aren’t willing to use physical force to protect your family, but you are willing to call someone else to use physical force on your behalf, under the justification that they are paid $40,000 a year to do violence for you? Was Jesus saying “Don’t resist evil people with violence. Call your (civil) servants with guns to do your violence for you.” ?

I have a cousin who is a pacifist and a missionary. He told me about one day he was in a remote native village in Central America and a man viciously attacked a native woman and began beating her. My cousin ran over and yelled, begged, pleaded with him to stop. There were no cops, or soldiers or government. So my cousin threw himself on the lady as a shield, and the man just hauled him off and continued pounding this defenceless woman. It was then that he realized the immorality of his position – he was able to help another person, capable of helping her, the only one who COULD help her… and yet wasn’t WILLING to. Suddenly he saw the difference between moral and immoral physical violence.

(As an aside… How do you explain Jesus’ “strikes you on the RIGHT cheek” reference? Obviously he was referring to a backhand slap designed as an insult, not in the realm of self defense?)

Great topic!

Rod

Skinner,

I find your response refreshing, original and entirely hope inspiring. The story of your stolen Mac is very inspirational, and the fact that you didn’t call the police… I can see you are a person of principle.

I do understand your struggles with forgiveness for the thief, but have no doubt that you’ll quickly arrive at the point where your forgiveness is authentic and heart felt.

Your statement on violence and mercy being mutually exclusive is interesting. I’ll have to think about that.

Allow me to recount a recent story of my own, if you will.

As I was at my computer at 12:10am one night about a month ago, I heard my little entrance alarm thingy go off. (I have this little laser that shoots across my lawn and causes a chime to ring if someone or something crosses it).

I look out the window and there is a guy all in black on my driveway. Kinda freaked me out. Out here in the bush that is a bit odd – never happened before at that time of night. I live in a very remote and isolated area.

The next thing I know my doorbell is ringing. I went out on my deck on the 2nd floor, hit the guy in the eyes with one of my mega flashlights and said “What’s up buddy?”

He was really big and seemed wet, pale and jittery. He had some story about wiping out on his motorcycle in the snow and wanting to use my phone because his battery was dead. I told him I’d call any number he wanted me to, but he couldn’t remember any numbers. I asked him what sort of motorcycle he was riding, and he couldn’t quite remember. Nor could he explain where his motorcycle gloves might be located – I figured a helmet might be left by the bike, but gloves? No way.

He asked a couple of times if he could use the phone, but had no follow up when I asked him how that would help if he didn’t have any numbers to call.

At that point he squinted through the lights and noticed I was armed. He said “don’t worry – you can put that away”. I told him he was lucky the Doberman wasn’t out when he showed up. I apologized very neighborly-like for not being able to help him. He sauntered off down my driveway, but not before giving me the finger (I think. It was dark).

After a half an hour I got the dog and an even bigger flashlight and went for a little walk. I followed his footprints in the snow for a while, and it looked to me like he had come down off the dead end road I live on, and then gone back into the bush afterwards – away from the main road, which was odd.

I figured he probably was at some house party, got to acting up, and they kicked him out. Instead of telling me that, he thought a motorcycle accident would arouse more sympathy.

I forgot all about it, till my neighbor came over the following day and told me some guy had broke into his shed the previous night, stole his motorcycle and wiped it out just by my place.

Shortly after the visit with my neighber, there’s this emergency thing on the radio that my wife hears when she was driving around about some wanted violent offender who the cops were chasing around town with a helicopter. He’s violently assaulted a few people, stolen a number of vehicles, and the police are trying to catch him. He ultimately eluded the cops and a couple of hours later walked into a TV studio and demanded an interview. At that point, the TV folks recognized him, called the cops and there was a takedown.

That evening I went online and Googled the story… and saw the mug shot of the escaped felon. And it’s the very same guy I had at my door the evening earlier.

So, back to your statement. Violence and mercy. Mutually exclusive.

Had I not been visibly armed, I think the situation would have turned out quite differently. At the point I encountered him, he was on the run. His goal was probably to steal my vehicle, or to take a hostage, or?

The fact that I WAS visibly armed was an act of mercy in this instance. It led a disturbed man to walk away, UNHARMED, and left my family unharmed. Had I not been visibly armed… can you tell me what would have happened that evening?

I feel no animosity or hatred towards that man. How could I? Would I feel animosity towards a rabid dog? Of course not.

But nor would I EVER let him violate my little daughters in ANY WAY.

In fact, I think that the biblical admonition to provide for one’s family (or be worse than an infidel) most certainly applied to this instance. I don’t think one can argue that ‘provide’ doesn’t include ‘protect’. In all instances, it most certainly does.

Thank you for replying to my comment. I look forward to your response.

Rod

Guardian,

May I ask, do you have children?

You might not consider your life more precious than that of a murderer, and that is your absolute right.

You might not consider your life more precious than that of a dolphin, and that would be your right too. I have no problem with that.

But in light of 1Timothy 5:8 I’d like to know how you could consider the life of your children to be worth less than the life of a murderer? Surely the notion of ‘provide’ must include the notion of ‘protect’, for without ‘protect’ there cannot be a ‘provide.’

Or would you say you reserve the right to consider your child’s life to be on par with someone set out to rape and kill her?

Rod

Rod,
As I was cleaning the kitchen this morning I was thinking about some of the things you have said, and that “Guardian” has sad in response. There is an additional aspect of this discussion that had been lost on me until just this morning, and that the matter of Faith itself. This is an issue I approach with great humility, because it’s honestly one that I myself have not firm conclusion about.

But if we take the example of Abraham and Isaac, where God not only allowed Isaac to, in a sense, be put in harm’s way, but even commanded Abraham to take Isaac’s life for God’s sake (in the literal meaning of that phrase–after I typed it, I realized how meaningless it has become). Abraham faithfully obliged, but at the last minute, as we all know, God provided a ram to be sacrificed instead of Isaac.

Is this not what Christ meant when he said we are to hate mother, father, brother, sister, wife, husband, and child for his sake? Are we not to have Abraham’s level of faith?

The answer is clearly yes, but the practical application is where the sticking point is. Does it mean we are to trust God’s providence if one of our loved ones is in danger–or do we take matters into our own hands and commit an act of violence against another of God’s children, even potentially killing them?

As I said, I do not know the answer to these questions, but I do think they figure prominently into this discussion.

Let me first state that I agree with Skinner that the State running gun control is a bad idea.

However, from an ethical standpoint, I must take issue with all seven of Skinner’s pacifist rhetoric statements. Here

are my replies to all seven:

1. Luke 22 is not vague! Why else would he order them to buy a sword? He did tell Peter to put his sword away in the

Garden, but that’s because Peter went ON THE OFFENSIVE. He wanted them to defend themselves, but not to start “the

Great Revolution” that the Jews wished for at the time.

2. You don’t know a thing about market psychology. Do you want to buy a sacrificial bird that has an injured wing

due to its cage being knocked over? Nonsense! The bird would no longer be “without blemish or defect.” The product

would be USELESS! So don’t try to sell me on the cockamany theory that nobody and nothing was harmed in the

making of the ruckus. Jesus’ point was to “raise a racket,” so to speak, to accuse the temple priests of RACKETEERING!

(There is evidence of cheating scales in Jewish tradition, and the Old Testament prophets frequently condemned

priests and merchants alike for dishonesty and even extortion.)

3. He does not want us to seek immediate revenge for every single insult, but to make the insulter see how much of a

jerk he is and be embarrassed with himself. Yet, when a man is warned later on that “if you will not protect yourself

and your family, you’re worse than an unbeliever,” this seems to suggest that the mercy shown to the “Jerk” does not

apply to the “Complete Monster.” (Terms taken from TVTropes.org) It is godly to turn the other cheek to the “Jerk Jock”,

but that should not stop us from “Shooting the Dog” when the dog is rabid.

If it were the case, then there would have been no call given to the Israelites to destroy the Amalekites and to purge

from their kingdom “everything that breathes.”

Moreover, when someone raids a house with a gun, in 95% of all cases (watch Forensic Files some time!), it’s with

intent to use the gun to harm someone. In fact, one man snuck into a house not to rob it, but for the sole purpose of

committing murder so that he wouldn’t have to go to prison for child molestation! To say we should give armed

robbers who don’t drop the gun and surrender when we confront them the benefit of the doubt – that is being what

TVTropes.org declares “Stupid Good.” (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupidChaoticStupid?

from=Main.StupidGood)

Finally, you’re taking a horrible translation of a verse out of context to justify stupid-level pacifism. He says in the

NIV: “Whoever loves [them] MORE THAN HE LOVES ME is not worthy of me.” This is far from “hating” your loved ones, it

just means that you shouldn’t deny Christ for the sake of your loved ones.

In context, if your dad ran a sheep farm and wanted you to be the heir, but said you wouldn’t get it if you were a

Christian, then you’d have to tell him that you find Christ to be of more importance than the inheritance. This happens

with converts from Islam all the time in today’s world.

Senselessly Sacrificing your own kids to a burglar just to make some convoluted point makes you as much of a

sadistic **** -tard as Kaiser Sose in “The Usual Suspects.” (Don’t believe me? RENT IT!)

It is utterly twisted and insane to claim that you’re denying Jesus simply because you rescued your kids from a pervert

with an AK-47! To quote Ann Coulter: “A mollusk couldn’t be so perverse…”

4. Once AGAIN, Skinner: Peter was INSTIGATING the fight! He was trying to escalate violence in the absence of a good

reason. Jesus also informed him that “I’d've called 72,000 angels to my defense if I didn’t want to be captured.”

72,000 ANGELS versus a handful of morons with torches would have been an OVERKILL!

The point Jesus was making to Peter is the same as the premise of most Power Rangers seasons: “Never escalate a

battle, unless [Big-Bad-of-the-Season] forces you to.”

5. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He ONLY made HIMSELF endure that so that WE WOULDN’T HAVE TO! He was NOT encouraging us to be the world’s b*!

He allowed himself up there so that he could prove a point to Satan, and therefore keep a promise he made to Adam.

It was his PERSONAL BUSINESS that involved setting right what went wrong in the Garden of Eden that put him there,

with the intent that we would all reap the windfall benefits.

6. Oh, let me see….how about the couple that tried to lie to the church and to the Holy Spirit…and the apostles killed

them…BY TALKING TO THEM! Or how about Jesus wilting a tree TO DEATH with only his SPOKEN WORD, simply because

it DIDN’T YIELD SUFFICIENT FRUIT TO HIS LIKING?

MOREOVER…just because they weren’t CALLED “Christian,” doesn’t mean that the principles of noble employment of

justice practiced by Old Testament heroes were somehow irrelevant to New Testament and modern believers. YOU

CANNOT DIVORCE THE TESTAMENTS!

7. When you’re hungry and broke, you MOOCH. When you’re in it to rape the teenage daughter and burn the dog and

take the wife’s jewelry and eat the husband’s eyeballs cooked to perfection in a stew made with his brains, THEN you

raid with gun-in-tow. Security being the way it is these days, only a TOTAL IMBECILE would go through the trouble of

breaking into a home just to beg for food!

Rod,

I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I share much of the sentiment you express. I certainly do not consider myself among the people who believe if they just sit there and pray that God will do everything for them. Quite the contrary, I find that those people rarely amount to anything in life, and I have found that the few people that become truly great do so with iron will, determination, and a work ethic to match. All of that being said, I do think it is a misapplication of that principle in this particular instance, and here is why:

Let’s take one of your counter-examples (though my observation applies to all of them).

“Do we trust God’s providence if we lose our job, or do we take matters into our own hands and do business to create our own wealth, or pound the pavement looking for work? Or do we just trust that God will provide and passively wait?”

We certainly should not worry, in the sense that Christ taught us that we are of more worth than the sparrows, who God provides for; and in that same sense, we should indeed trust God’s providence. This is not mutually exclusive of pounding the pavement looking for work, and I would side with you that the people who just sit around waiting for magical manna from heaven to appear are either lazy or foolish, or both.

The difference, however, lies in the alternative to trusting God. In this instance, looking for an honest job is not contrary at all to the commandments of Christ. In my original hypothetical, the act of committing violence is indeed contrary to the commandments of Christ. The question, consequently, is, when there is a discrepancy between “helping ourselves” and what Jesus himself commanded us to do, is not that precisely the circumstance under which we should put our trust in God and not in ourselves?

Similarly, seeking medical treatment for physical illness does not violate the command “Love thy neighbor as thyself” or “Do not resist an evil person.” But shooting somebody certainly does. Fire extinguishers are not evidence of a lack of faith, but using them does not harm another human life.

So this seems to clearly summarize my view on the subject, which has only emerged through the process of this dialog, and I am appreciative for that. It does give rise to another question, however…

Do you consider yourself Pro-Life? If so, do you believe there should be an exception if the life of the mother is threatened?

Looking forward to your response.

Hi Skinner & Guardian,

I hope you don’t mind if I respond to you both in one post. I’ve been trying to think through a response to the many issues that have been raised.

Skinner, I think your response to my hypotheticals is a good one, and raises a point I overlooked. You are right – the issue of using force in the prevention of a violent assault really is quantitatively different than being passive in regards to employment or my other example. I’ll have to reconsider my perspective on that one.

Guardian doesn’t think that love can ever be demonstrated using a bullet. And when he puts it that way, its hard to see how that could ever be the case. I would guess that statement would sum up both of your perspectives, considering Christ’s admonitions to love one’s neighbor.

I’ll refrain from dueling verses with you, simply because I could whip out a whole book full from the Old Testament, as well as many from the New where Christ instructs his followers to aquire swords, flips tables and whips people, or tells Peter to put his sword in it’s place – back on his hip. Paul himself seems to indicate that he fought bandits and wild animals on his journeys, and its a fair guess that he didn’t use only his fists. And if Jesus’s central message was one of pacifism, then why on earth didn’t he ever bring it up with all the soldiers he interacted with?

I will also refrain from nit picking on word definitions, which is the other method that Christians usually use to convince one another of biblical things. Suffice to say that it is crystal clear to me that Jesus was talking about INSULT not ASSAULT when referring to turning the left cheek after being struck on the right.

My basic viewpoint that seems contrary to you both is this:

I DO believe that it is a LOVING act to stop the INITIATION of force.

I DO believe that a bullet can stop violence that would needlessly take more and more life.

Current events are replete with examples of people armed with knives stabbing others randomly on the street. Sometimes half a dozen people are killed before the initiator of force is stopped. Surely, if I had the opportunity to stop him after one kill, or three kills, then the bullet I fire would be the most loving thing the remaining survivors had ever experienced. That bullet gave the innocent their lives.

If you click on my name, you’ll see a blog post I wrote recently about Suzanna Hupp. Her experience is exactly what I’m talking about. Sitting in a restaurant with her elderly parents when a gunman entered and calmly and methodically began executing everyone. Had she been armed, her parents would be alive, as would an unknown number of other innocent people.

The use of force – yes, even using bullets – to stop that madman would have been a sacrificial act of love and mercy to every single one of his targeted victims.

Guardian, you asked me “Does God value one life over another?” I would respond this way. The Old Testament certainly seems to indicate he does. The New Testament also CLEARLY draws a line of responsibility, where those with capability are to be responsible for those in their FAMILY who are dependent on them. In light of current realities, I would be curious to hear your answer to this: Does God value three lives OVER the life of one who is in the very act of murder? Or two lives? Or six?

And I think your final question is answered above. I exercise the commandment to love people when I take action against the initiation of violence and give them their lives back. Stopping a home invader with a bullet ensures the innocents under my care are given their lives.

Guardian, you said that maybe the stoned home invader is not my enemy, and as such he is my neighbor. I submit to you that is an incomplete dichotomy – he is neither. He’s like a rabid pit bull, which, is also neither.

I have one simple (very hypothetical, I hope, but this DOES unfortunately happen in our fallen world) question for you both:

Suppose you were to peer out your window this very moment to witness a deranged man methodically stabbing/shooting defenseless children in a schoolyard.

I know exactly how I would respond. I would show the ultimate love to those children and gladly lay down my life in their place (John 15:13) if need be in order to preserve theirs.

And certainly, running out there hollering and waving my arms isn’t a wise option, as it would only give the killer one more easy target, and would add nothing of value to the threatened lives of the innocent.

I would responsibly do everything in my power to stop the initiation of force and ensure they remained alive, and calmly (hopefully) completely incapacitate the aggressor. I would also have no problem calling on police or any other person to assist me in my efforts.

And yes, Guardian, my bullets would mercifully bring life to those children, whether you see that or not.

How would both of you respond?

Thanks for the dialogue, my brothers

Best wishes,

Rod

***

PS – I’m not trying to dodge your Pro-Life question, Skinner. Suffice to say I wouldn’t initiate force, wrestle down and lock up a scared teenage girl who was considering an abortion. Would you?

Guardian: He who loves truth, loves as many as possible. We shouldn’t desire that we should have to shoot anyone. In the case of a monster, however, there is little love that can be shown. It is up to God to decide that, assuming he lives and is incarcerated.

To protect and show love to others though, a monster has to be contained or destroyed. There is a point of “violating the Holy Spirit” at which a man goes even beyond God’s love. When a felon reaches that point, even God calls for us to not have sympathy on him anymore.

So how to love? Simple: Don’t desire or look forward to your chance to fire the gun. But simply be prepared to. That’s the best you can do. If you disarm and confront them logically, realize they might not have the same inclination to love that you do.

Also, realize it will require tremendous frontal lobe effort to do this. In panic situations that these monsters like to create, the hypothalamus usually takes control, and it’s not programmed to behave rationally or with civility. That’s why even most cops will trash talk a fallen foe rather than be friendly. Panic is powerful.

Guardian,

Thanks for your email. I agree with your assessment that we are now at the point of talking past one another on this. I too am glad that we’ve been able to dialogue on a very respectful level… I don’t always do that, although I’m trying hard to change.

I hope you know that I do really appreciate your and Skinner’s points. I have certainly been challenged to re-evaluate some of my assumptions and arguments which have not stood up to your reasoned points.

Until this little dialogue I had always assumed that pacifism was ridiculously impossible to defend, since every pacifist I’d ever discussed this with always fell back on the “I’d get a big dog” or “I’d call the police” force options. While you were waiting for my Hitler example, I was waiting for you to dial 911!

I was certainly wrong. You have done a fine job of defending your perspective and have challenged my beliefs. I’m not going to stop thinking about this…

One thing I never want to do is to come to a point in my life where I’m not willing to challenge my own assumptions and beliefs.

Most of the things I believe are things I have arrived at from an emotional position, as much as I’d like to believe they are completely reasoned positions.

I have no doubt that your personal experience, your life story, has contributed greatly to your perspective on pacifism. Mine has contributed greatly to my perspective as well. We have arrived at different places because we traveled different paths.

But its also good to know that in the spirit of freedom and liberty, and in the grace of Christ our different perspectives can honor each other.

For now, I choose to love my neighbor and my family sacrificially, selflessly and with kindness and grace, freely giving and sharing my property with whoever needs it. And yet … to know that not far away there’s a 12 gauge in a closet.

Kind regards,
Rod

One last thing… I’ve been (am) curious about your moniker… “Guardian”. Would you be willing to let me in on what that means for you?

====QUOTE=======
“You’re right bulldozer. Some people don’t deserve to be loved. We should only love if they have the inclination to love. We should only love if they are “rational” or “civil”. People like Hitler, Saddam, Osama these are men who don’t deserve love, because Jesus did not die for them. There are some people who, are just so evil, that it is up to God’s judges to decide their fate. Those judges are us.”
==============

You’re twisting my words. You can love the humanity of someone, love creation, but that should not stop you from acting on duty. If a monster is loose, you have to act in accordance. Is it love to be stupid when confronting a monster, and in so doing endanger others who are not monsters? You can pray for a man’s future and still shoot him if he becomes a threat.

To love a man like that is to not look forward in your heart to a confrontation with him for fear of what you may be required to do; but to not act when the confrontation is already upon you is to try to take a higher moral high ground than God himself.

Moreover, Skinner:

The parable of the lost coin and lost sheep refers to going out of one’s way to find someone who is turned around on issues of faith or who doesn’t know Christ and show them the way, even being so fixed on this that you temporarily leave behind the 99 that you know are already safe.

The shepherd does search for the one missing lamb, but it’d be foolish to think that he would not leave lesser shepherds under his command to protect the flock. Moreover, you can love the wolves by not wishing to have to hurt them, but we are not told to leave the 99 sheep behind to invite the wolf to prey on them.

It is irresponsible and illogical to equate lost sheep and wolves, but you can love both by not being eager to fight either. Still, when the wolf forces the situation, you must act dutifully.

Don’t make the mistake of King Saul, who let the Amalekite king live and in so doing, lost God’s favor forever.

Good discussion.

Let’s throw one more scenario out there. Suppose you are the bad guy. Further suppose that you were victimized and abused in the the worst possible ways as a child. You are now a sociopath with no regard to right or wrong or pain/death to your victim. If we could look at the deepest, truest core of your heart, wouldn’t you want somebody to stop you from this life of destruction and violence on other people?

In this case, it is quite possible that the most loving act one could perform, as the homeowner defending the family against YOU, the monster, is to kill you with a bullet.

This would be a literal case of the golden rule. You would want somebody to stop you, so you should stop the guy, with a gun if needed.

Or let’s suppose a less extreme example. Maybe you just grew up with no good role models. No examples of people with a moral compass in your life. People who do the right thing, even when it’s inconvenient and expensive. You end up with no backbone, no moral code, no conscience.

Getting shot might be the only thing that wakes you up and causes you to re-examine your life.

See? It’s not always so black and white. What does it mean to love your neighbor when he’s breaking into your house?

Finest regards,

troy

To Skinner: I think your arguments are sincere and well thought out but think that it is a misinterpretation. Statists have always used religion and theology to make the people into slaves. They alter teachings in order to make them serve their purposes like paying taxes and being obedient to worldly authority.

As to whether or not you should defend your self, your family, and your property is and individual choice in that moment. The holy spirit may indeed prompt you from within not to resist and show love and disattachement. On the other hand, the proper response may be to kill. It is your motive which makes the difference and that is between you and God. Your or your family’s life is not less valuable then anyone else’s and it serves no purpose to throw it away if it will serve no purpose. Christ had a purpose. The Christian martyrs in ancient Rome had a purpose. If a is gang raping your daughter and you stand by when you can do something serves no purpose. You kill because you love and value your daughters life. You really did not kill the attackers, they killed themselves by their own ill intention. Now if you enjoyed the killing, you have an issue, but if you were loving your daughter and took no pleasure in the killing, your are clear.

To Skinner

Great stuff man! It is rare that I get the pleasure of reading someone so committed to living out practically the teachings of Christ on love.

I think you are right in everything you’ve said. I have some stuff to add:

(1) We are tasked with seeking (bringing) God’s Kingdom on earth. Such a Kingdom would not entail violence or retribution or force of any kind. While we live in a fallen world people will still do this to us but we have the option of being the change (the kingdom) we want to see.

(2) There is a place for being smart in preventing temptation. If someone else is in a place of sin that they steal/murder- we help that person by not affording them the opportunity to steal. It is an act of love.

(3) We mustn’t turn Christianity into a purely theoretical philosophy. God is real and very alive. He is faithful and Good. This puts things into perspective.

It is awful when you have something important stolen from you. But God knows and sees what’s up. You have no more ownership to that laptop than the farmer has to his next crop of wheat. Everything we have is God’s- he provides everything we have.
All I’m saying is pray for the thief, thank God that it didn’t take him by surprise and look at the situation through God’s eyes- get a kingdom perspective on the issue.

Father I bless Skinner and ask that you provide more than what has been stolen from him.

I just found this site. Excellent points all. I would like to make a few.

Way back on Feb 13 Scott wrote: “I’ll go you one better. Luke 22:36 says, “He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.””

I’ll go YOU one better. Notice the words “and if you DON’T have a sword..”, meaning some of the apostles had been wearing swords at the time Jesus said this, a common practice during that time for protection against hi-way robbers. Now, we can assume that some of the apostles had swords the entire time under Jesus’ wing. Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus ever tell them, or anyone, to rid themselves of swords in the same manner that gun control advocates tell us we must rid ourselves of guns.

Secondly, we must remember that when Peter cut off the centurion’s ear, Jesus had to intervene to ensure his legacy as savior. Had he not, the soldiers would have likely drew their swords, and the resulting skirmish could have left all, even potentially Jesus, dead.

For those Christians that live a total passive life, I ask this question: would God want you to stand by and allow evil to happen even if you have the means to prevent it? Some may answer that killing in self defense would be meeting evil with evil, but that is a philosophical stance, not necessarily a truth.

Someone one said something to me that clicked. He said “Jesus died a martyr so we wouldn’t have to.”

I agree with the person who stated that you cannot unhook the testaments. You could say the NT is an evolution from the OT, and while it presents a new way of looking at the world, it doesn’t negate truths from the OT. Man was made by God, and like every creature made by God, self preservation is one of the strongest instincts. A man in a raging river will fight to survive. If attacked by a wild hungry animal, any animal including man will fight no matter the odds. I don’t think anyone would lay down and allow a lion, for instance, to eat them. Fighting to survive includes fighting when threatened by another human.

You did realize that this was written tongue-in-cheek, right?

[...] 2010, 17:29 Filed under: English, Humor, Politics, Swiss Gun Blog | Tags: English, Humor, Politics Awesome list, a must-spread. Leave a Comment No Comments Yet so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments [...]

@Skinner:

Let me respond to your points –

You said: “1. In spite of the vague reference to the purchase of a sword in Luke 22, there is absolutely no command by Jesus ever to commit an act of violence, under any circumstance.”

True, but there is much scriptural support for the right to defend oneself against harm. We are not to be pacifists. Read “why I’m not a pacifist” by C.S. Lewis for more information.

You said “2. Jesus himself never commits an act of violence. (Turning over the tables of the money changers did not cause any physical harm to anybody, and it did not result in the loss of property, so it cannot be properly termed violence.)”

There are no scriptures that tell us Jesus brushed his teeth or owned property either. Does that mean we shouldn’t brush our teeth or own property? Certainly not. You are making an argument from silence here, and that NEVER works.

You said “3. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ explicitly commands: “You have heard it said ‘an Eye for an Eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you for your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go with him one mile, go with him two miles.” The entire construction of these commands is meant to sound, and be, a radical departure from the hearers’ understanding of these ethical situations. If somebody breaks into your home and points a gun at you, Christ himself said “Do not resist him.” That would seem to include shooting him dead.

Furthermore, if somebody breaks into your house with a gun, how do you know they intend to shoot you? They might be using it only for intimidation. Then, if you shot him, your response would be incommensurate with the crime. Given that you cannot discern the intentions of the invader, “better safe than sorry” in this circumstance would seem to push us to err on the side of being consistent with Jesus’s teaching, rather than on the side of killing another person.

One might argue that protecting one’s family is different than protecting oneself. “You may shoot me, but if you hurt my wife I will kill you.” This would seem to be inconsistent with Christ’s difficult saying: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters, yes, even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” When asked to choose between our family or Jesus, we must pick Jesus.”

You are taking the “hate his father . . .” verse completely out of context. Jesus is merely saying that our first affection should be for Him, and that affection should be so great that all other loves in our life look like hate. It is because we love God that we should love our wives, children, parents, etc, not because we want too. It is also because we Love God that we should protect those whom He has given us charge and duty.

In fact Scripture elsewhere commands us to obey and honor our parents, and to lay down our lives for our wives as Christ laid down His for the church. Men are called to be providers, protectors, and priests/pastors to their families.

You said “4. In St. Matthew’s account of Christ’s arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, when Peter actually drew his sword and cut off the ear of one of the servants of the High Priest, Christ responded, saying “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword die by the sword.” St. Luke’s account has Christ saying “None of this!” in response to Peter’s act of violence.”

So, because Peter didn’t at that time understand that Jesus intended to do His Father’s will and die on the cross, we should let a rapist rape our wives and daughters? This is just plain poor hermeneutics. You are taking a situation and applying it as a whole.

You said “5. Christ’s arrest, brutal torture, and crucifixion, are to be our ultimate example of how to behave in the face of persecution, petty violence, or any other act against ourself or that which we cherish. We are to forgive those who are perpetrating the violence against us, even as they are doing so. Could Christ have called legions of Angels to save him? Yes, of course. But he didn’t. And we shouldn’t either. Nor should we call on a 9mm slug, either.”

First of all, I take offense to violence in defense of my family or country being characterized as petty, but I’ll ignore it for now.

Look, this is again poor hermeneutics. You can’t take Christ’s passivity against his persecutors, because He was obedient to His Father’s will, as a call to be passive against all violence. It would be like if Jesus happened to mention He liked to eat oranges and you saying we should only ever eat oranges. It just doesn’t work like that.

Jesus, in that particular situation, to accomplish His redeeming work here on earth, decided not to defend Himself. Yet, the Holy Spirit says that if we don’t defend our families, we are worse than non-believers. The two are not a contradiction. Jesus acted a certain way in a certain situation to be, as He always is and was, perfectly obedient to the Father’s will.

If you can take this passage to mean that we should all be non-violent, can I take the prophecies in Revelation about Jesus returning riding a white horse in the form of the supreme commander of His army to fight the war of Armageddon against Satan as a call to be violent towards evil people? Don’t laugh, because all I’m doing there is using the same poor hermeneutics you are using, just on a different verse. You are eisigeting scripture; taking a portion of it describing a situation and building a whole theology on it.

You said “6. There is no support, either in the writings of the Apostles, or in their actions, for a “violent Christian,” even one acting in self-defense. Virtually all of the Apostles were imprisoned at some point in their lives. Most were killed. I do not think that people killing you for your faith are to be treated any differently than people killing you for your money, or even for no reason at all. The complete lack of a record of self-defense in the New Testament means that we have no reason to question the radically non-violent interpretation of Christ’s teachings.”

Let me insert another word or two into that last sentence to illustrate how ridiculous it is. Notice my new sentence is also completely factual and true to the same principle you just exhibited. Here goes: ‘The complete lack of a record of SUICIDE in the New Testament means that we have no reason to question the radically SUICIDAL interpretation of Christ’s teachings.’

Again, arguments from silence DO. NOT. WORK.

You said “7. If we are to follow the golden rule, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, then if we should examine the situation of self-defense thusly. If the person is robbing us because he is hungry, we would not want somebody to shoot us if we were in the same position. If we were committing some senseless act of violence, would we not want somebody to tell us, in advance, that we were forgiven? Might that not melt the heart of the perpetrator and thus deliver him from his evil? Would we not want to be treated in the same manner?”

My former pastor used to be in a street gang. He always said that when he was robbing a house he fully expected to die every time, because a person was well within their rights to shoot him as an intruder.

What we should expect is that we uphold the Biblical principle of JUSTICE. If someone is stealing from you, you have a right to defend that property. Sure, you may choose not too, but if you exercise the right to defend your property, you are without sin. If someone is raping your wife, you are under obligation to do all that is in your power to stop them. If you do not, you have not loved your wife as Christ loves the church.

Skinner, if I may make a suggestion to you. . . You need a good lesson on hermeneutics. You are mis-applying scripture left and right and seem to have no understanding of exegesis vs. eisegesis. A good place to start would be here: http://www.wretchedradio.com/store/product_details.cfm?id=297

I don’t mean to be hard on you sir, but you must learn to read and apply God’s word properly. May the Lord Bless you.