40 Reasons to Ban Guns

My personal pet peeve:

#24 – Guns cause violence, aka – The abdication of personal responsibility. Someone decides that shooting you and taking $50 out of your wallet is less onerous to them than flipping burgers for an afternoon at McD’s or stocking shelves at Wal-Mart. Naturally, the problem is there was a gun present/available, not the base devaluation of human life required to believe your life is worth less than their time.

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

34. To claim that anyone would have any sort of Jedi mastery over anything without specific training from a Jedi Master is near blasphemous…

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.

Either #14 or #33… it’s a close call between the infringement of a document protecting our rights and making the ability to defend your right/yourself near impossible.

But since poor people can’t afford guns, police officers must have more. Even on Bart (which I have to take today and therefore on which I wish I could carry a gun).

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.

Let me first state that I am completely opposed to all forms of gun control. The State itself doesn’t even have a rightful existence, in my view, so it certainly doesn’t have the right to control weaponry of any kind.

However, from an ethical standpoint, I must take issue with the (very common) assertion that Christians have a God-sanctioned right to self-defense. Admittedly, we all have different exegetical approaches to Scripture, but my own view of the matter is that we must start with Christ’s explicit commands and then ensure that our understanding of the rest of Scripture is consistent with the message of Christ during his earthly ministry. Furthermore, we must also be careful to follow Christ’s own example, as he consistently commanded us to be like him. Given that, I cannot reconcile self-defense, or the violent defense of one’s property or family with the New Testament:

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I am certainly open to others’ thoughts on this subject, and with all theological matters I am working out my faith in “fear and trembling” with the humility to admit that I could be completely wrong. But I do feel that at least as the evidence has been presented to me so far, that the Christian is not right in acting violently in self-defense.

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.

I like to think I am a pretty good Chrisitan, but then again I know I am not perfect, and with that being said….
I will protect my family, I hope and pray that I never have to, but I plan to be ready. Skinner, everything you said sounds good, and I can not blame you for it at all. But as for the one comment “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.” the way I view that, if someone points a gun at me, they intend to use it. Anyone who uses a gun in a break in, at some point has the thought go through their head that they will have to use it. I know I am suppose to “turn the other cheek” but I also believe we have a responsibility to protect ourselves, if we did not, just the simple act of showing a cross would put a bullseye on us (if it doesn’t already). Ok I will get off my soap box now. I loved this list, I thought it was very funny, and am wanting to print it off to give to my family, they would love it too.

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

Rod,
Thank you for your remarks. I agree with you that calling the police is inconsistent with pacifism. It is also, incidentally, inconsistent with Libertarianism. The police are the armed agents of the State. They have been given special permission to commit acts of force and violence against others, and have been given the shield of the State to protect them from retribution. Certainly, this has improved in many respects over the years. Police brutality is at least now considered reprehensible in most places in the world. But it still goes on–and I would argue, it will always go on as long as the State continues to hire these armed agents to enforce its will.

So no, I couldn’t/shouldn’t/wouldn’t call the police if my house were being invaded.

As to your second issue, and your differentiation between moral and immoral physical violence: I am willing to accept the idea that restraining force might be acceptable, but I have yet to hear a compelling argument for it that contains a bright line distinguishing which side any particular instance might take. If I could knock a man unconscious from behind while he is viciously attacking somebody, perhaps that could be acceptable, but I’m not sure. I’m quite convinced that taking another life in so-called “self-defense” is never consistent with the teachings of Christ. That any physically restraining act is prohibited, however, is a matter I think is quite open to reasonable discussion.

Just this week, I happened to be put into an unfortunate situation where I had to come to terms with the practical implications of my own philosophy. I live in South America presently, and have just recently moved into a new house. My home office is on the first floor of the house and has lovely windows that open out, looking onto my front yard’s flower garden and fruit trees. In the night on Wednesday, I forgot to close one of the windows, and when I got up the next morning, my iMac had been stolen from my office. At first I was furious, and even began to dial the police (conditioning is hard to break), and then I realized that what I was doing was not only inconsistent with my beliefs, it was also a futile effort. And in spite of suggestions that I buy a gun or set up some other mechanism of violent self-defense, I have decided to just be more cautious about leaving my windows open.

As a Christian, the hardest part of that whole episode has been forgiving the person who stole the computer from me, and I cannot honestly say that I have completely done so. This, I think, is what makes the whole of Christ’s teachings so difficult to accept, and even more difficult to practice. The entirety of Christian teaching is predicated on accepting a sort of unfairness–that is, it is the opposite of the Old Testament’s teachings on “justice,” and calls for a new justice, one that is built on mercy, not retribution. It is a mercy that is not only required of man, but practiced by God.

Violence and mercy are mutually exclusive. If self-defense is to be rightly practice, it must be, in my mind, reconciled with mercy. If the defensive martial arts are used to disarm and subdue somebody with minimal harm, then I think that could probably be reconciled with mercy, and I think it would remedy the sort of situation you described with your cousin. It does not require one to watch a vicious act of violence and do nothing, but it also does not mean that one must cause unnecessary bodily injury to the offender, no matter how much we may “feel” he “deserves” it.

To your aside, I think your interpretation could be quite possibly correct for that particular phrase. But there are some broader issues, namely the example of Christ and the early Apostles that are more compelling. Christ, all of the disciples save St. John and Judas Iscariot, were martyred. When Christ was being crucified, he did not say “God, strike these men down,” he said “God forgive them.” When Stephen was being martyred, he did not call for help, he did not strike the men back. He followed in Christ’s own example.

How much evil in this world is stirred up by people overreacting to perceived threats to themselves? It is a question I think well worth contemplating, at least.

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

I agree wholeheartedly with Skinner.

I must confess, having read the New Testament, I’ve had to reluctantly call myself a pacifist. Why reluctantly you might ask? Because I like guns. I also like the idea of protecting myself. I like the idea of protecting the people I love.

Yet, despite all of this, I love Jesus. I want to really follow him, to the letter of His Law. To follow his example.

I’m going to push what Skinner is saying a bit further, we are not just called to mercy, but to Love.

What people I think fail to understand, is that Jesus calls us to love. To love one another, to love our neighbor. To love strangers. To love murderers. Yes, to love those who would hurt you. This goes beyond just not protecting yourself, this means serving and actively showing compassion and care for someone who would hurt you.

He asks the impossible of us. I don’t think Jesus would object to use protecting our loves ones with our lives, but I think he would be deeply saddened, pained and hurt if we were to injure and kill someone.

Why?

Because we are all equal in his eyes. My life is not more precious, than a murderer. My brother’s life is not more precious to him, than my father’s life. God loves all of us the same, so why should we judge ourselves, or our loved ones to be more worthy in his eyes to live, than a murderers? He calls us to be peacemakers, to sacrifice ourselves as he sacrificed himself for us. If we a thief demands our coat, we are to give him our shirt. If we are told to work without wage for an hour, we are to work two hours.
Matthew 5:38-48

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

You insist on providing hypothetical situations where its either the life of your child, or the life of the person bent on hurting your child.

What it boils down to is this:

Does God value one life over another. Did God value his own son’s life over yours and mine?
If God loves all greatly, and equally. Are we not called to do the same?

How many versus are there of Jesus, himself, telling us to love one another?

How can you reconcile killing someone, with Jesus telling us to love, to LOVE our enemies. An an enemy surely falls into the category of someone who wants to harm our loved ones.

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.

Guardian,

The situations I refer to are not hypothetical to me. They have, at times, entered the realm of imminent possibility in my life.

I’m assuming (maybe wrongly?) that you don’t have children, and if that is the case, then even your own child is a hypothetical for you, and I can understand why this whole discussion is in the realm of the imaginary.

I will throw out a few hypotheticals for you though:

You have a drug addicted friend. They come over and beg you for money. Is it love to give some to them?

You have a friend who is infatuated with a woman who is not his wife. He’s convinced having an affair would be harmless. Is it love to support him in his decision, to drive him to her house if he asks?

You enter a temple, and there are people there taking advantage of the poor through usurious lending. Is it love to grab a bat and smash their tables and drive them out of the building?

I reconcile my commitment to protect my family with the love of Christ by clearly defining ‘love’.

Love isn’t passive acceptance of evil behavior as equal to innocence. Love is selflessly giving other people what would be best for them.

The problem, of course, is that I’m human. And as a libertarian I try not to presume to know what would be best for other people.

I’ve lived long enough, and walked with Christ for long enough, that I DO know what is best for me, as His follower. And I DO know what is best for my small daughters at this point in their lives. For me to not act on what I know would be best for them would be immoral and contrary to the love of Christ, in my opinion.

I suspect (maybe wrongly, and if so, I apologize) that I’m a bit older than you… I have traveled to most countries in the world, and have seen violence, death and evil first hand. I have never killed another human being. I never ever want to. As a follower of Christ, I would do anything in my power to avoid doing that.

I have also never had another person die in my presence when it was in my power to save their lives. And I never ever want that to happen. As a follower of Christ, I would do anything in my power to prevent that from happening.

Enemies, in the Bible, are people who intentionally persecute you. I seriously don’t know if you can classify a stoned home invader who doesn’t even know you as an ‘enemy’. To me that seems like considering a rabid rottweiler your enemy – both of them have about the same brain activity. To feel anger or animosity towards either would be irrational.

I have been in situations where people have threatened to sue me, or who have personally threatened me with violence because they had some vendetta against me. To feel anger or animosity towards those people was very tempting. And in those cases I have always followed Jesus’ advice to not intentionally harm them, not fight with them, not argue with them, and to treat them with respect and unusual kindness.

Those people were my enemies, and in those cases I couldn’t agree with you more.

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!

Skinner,

You wrote “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?”

I agree with you about the faith issue. Yes, we require that kind of faith.

And yes, the practical application is where the sticking point is.

One way that helps us understand practical biblical application is to find the biblical principle behind the application. If you can uncover the principle, then it should apply to all circumstances, correct?

So, for example, if your premise on faith is correct, and if it is actually a principle, we should be able to apply it to any number of situations.

Like…

Your example: Do we 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?

Or: 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?

Or: Do we trust God’s providence if we contract a disease, by relying on faith alone to heal us, or do we set out to find the best doctor with the best treatment we can afford?

Or: Well, you get the idea.

And these are by no means hypotheticals in the Christian community. I have had numerous conversations with Christian people who would rely on faith alone to heal them of cancer, or rely on God feeding the sparrow to provide for them instead of looking for work, or rely on God to angelically shield them from crime and violence.

And, in my experience, every one of them has been young, single and idealistically inexperienced.

Every one of the situations above looks a lot different if you have one or two small, totally dependent, weak, innocent, fragile babies to protect.

My perspective is simply that God has given me a mind. And muscles. And intellect. And tools. And resources. And RESPONSIBILITY in this world.

I don’t plan on my house burning down. But I do have numerous fire extinguishers in my home.

Fire extinguishers and faith = better than just faith … but I digress.

Best wishes,

Rod

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.