40 Reasons to Ban Guns

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.

Rod,

I’ll restrain myself to answering your response to mine as I don’t want to confuse you as I’m sure as the conversation continues, it becomes more meticulous as to who said what.

“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.”

You are correct sir, I do not have children. I’m sterile and probably will never have children of my own. So the closest thing to a connection I will experience between a parent and child will be my connection with any children I might adopt in the future.

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

To show them love would be to offer to take care of them, to accompany them when they get high to make sure nothing wrong happens, to be involved in their life while constantly being a voice of change in their life, showing them they can get help.

“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?”

It is love to admonish him if he has the affair. To make it clear you will tell his wife if he does. To confront the person he is going to have an affair with and ask them not to get involved. It is love to still treat him with respect and still be his friend all the while, even if he carries through with the affair. To go out of the way to help him not have the affair and remind him of his vow.

“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.”

I 100% agree. I just don’t think that love can ever be shown with a bullet, or any other weapon for that matter. Unless they are swords having been beaten into ploughs for the benefit of someone’s fields. Love to me, is defined by 1 Corinthians 13, I don’t know how you can show that kind of love to anyone with a gun.

or in light of following verse:

Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing (1 Peter 3:9).

or,

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse (Romans 12:14).

or,

We work hard with our own hands. When we are cursed, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure it (1 Corinthians 4:12).

A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another (John 13:34).

Right there, love one another as Jesus loved us. We are to love every person as Jesus loved us.

or

Do not repay anyone’s evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17-21)

“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.”

You’re becoming tangled up with what the word “enemy” means. Jesus equates enemy on par with neighbor. As you can see in Luke 10:25-37 when he gives the parable of the Good Samaritan in response to “who is my neighbor” He says love your neighbor. He also says love your enemy. Maybe the stoned home invader is not your enemy, then is he your neighbor?

And you still haven’t answered these two questions:

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?

And I’ve appropriately changed my last question:

How can you reconcile the possibility of killing a person(s), with Jesus’ commandment for us to love, to LOVE that/those very person(s)?

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?

Rod,

After reading your response I came to the conclusion that, even if I were to prove your understanding of your scripture flawed I would not convince you that I am right. Even if I gave a defense of what I believe, you would not be convinced. In light of this, I think I will not respond.

It seems that we are talking past each other, as I have already, long became convinced of my position (and answered all the qualms you have raised: assault of children, Old Testament, Peter, Jesus saying bringing of swords etc. though you never did bring up Hitler and the Holocaust…usually thats the first one in addition to Rwanda).

Also you still haven’t answered my question. That is, how can you show love to a person to with a bullet. You think you answered it, but what you really said is that you can show love to “other” people with a bullet. However, if a man named Jack comes up to a crowd and pulls out a gun, one cannot show love to Jack with a bullet. Even if Jack is looking to murder, one can not show love to him by taking his life. If one was to kill Jack right there, one would not be following Jesus and his commandment to love Jack.

At any rate,
Thank you for your reasoned and respectful dialogue.

In Peace,
~Guardian

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.

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.

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?

Although I thought most everything that had been said on this topic had been said, and I was going to refrain from continuing the discussion as I do not like to beat dead horses, Bulldozer’s comment has rather stirred me to remark on something that I see as wholly antithetical to Christ and his teachings, that is, the notion that:

“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…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.”

There is not a word of this that is consistent with Christ’s message. The Parables of the Lost Coin and the Lost Sheep, for example, speak to the insurmountable persistency of God’s love for every one of his creatures. We must rejoice that God’s love for us is not based on any sort of merit, for he would find none in any of us. Mercy is unmerited forgiveness; grace is unmerited favor. If God is love, and if his love is unconditional, and he is described as merciful, and we are commanded to be full of grace and mercy, then how can we ever describe even the most despicable of people as beyond redemption? We are commanded to love our enemies. That command does include any exceptions. We are to forgive unconditionally–even if the offender is unrepentant.

If this were not so, then Christianity would be no different than utilitarian humanism or any other religion. The uniqueness of Christ is that “while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” His favor of us is unmerited, his forgiveness of is unmerited. We do not deserve either. No matter how supposedly righteous we live, we could never deserve it. Yet God loves us and forgives us anyway, and that is why we are perpetually commanded to be like Christ. If Christ smote his enemies, his persecutors, and his executors, he would be no different than any other man who has ever lived. On the Cross, he forgave even those who were torturing him to death. What do you think it means to take up one’s cross daily and follow Christ?

St. Peter admonishes us “It is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.”

Or should we ignore the remarkable example of St. Stephen?

“When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”
At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.”

The new command, given to us by Christ on Maundy Thursday was “love one another as I also have loved you.” Christ’s love was unmerited. He loved those who betrayed him, he loved those who killed him, he loved the prostitute and the tax collector, and he forgave every offense against him. If we are to follow his example, then we must learn to love and forgive even the likes of Hitler. Striving for anything short of that is a disgrace to the Gospel.

====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.

Indianapolis’s high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

We seem to prefer using swords in Indy nowadays…

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

Excellently-said, Troy. Couldn’t have said it better. It is frustrating, but things in those scenarios are, as you say, not always black and white.

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.

Just an afterthought- there were times when the disciples avoided regions to avoid persecution (because it would limit the advance of the gospel if, say, they got killed). Also Jesus did sometimes slip away from crowds before they tried to kill him. Obviously wisdom/promptings of the spirit need to be taken into account as well. There are times where you should avoid persecution.

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.

I didn’t read them all but #8 is starkly evil. You can tell this list wasn’t written by someone who actually wants the state to war w/its citizenry in a vain attempt to disarm us. Liberals are wrong in every idea they have. Because they can not argue in reference to reality their strategy is to redefine the language used to talk about things (ex: “a woman’s right to choose” instead of “abortion”) to force those arguing with them to accept loaded definitions. #8 is too clear a recognition of the reality of the situation, comparing alternatives and declaring one better, for the liberal mind. That’s how an objectivist thinks. It’s how conservatives used to think.

Regarding reason #1, I think the author is mistaken lumping Detroit in with D.C. and Chicago. I live in Detroit and have been carrying problem-free for the past 5 years.

@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.

My favorite is #14:
These phrases: “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people” all refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the state.

Biblical support for justifiable homicide, Exodus 22:2
If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

I’m going to presume your comment was a joke, considering that entire post
is facetious in nature. If not… please READ the post next time, ok?

Hey. Be nice.

Lolwut?