Christian Viewpoint On The Gun Debate

[Photon Guy]

I actually agree that this is what Jesus meant. But "it is enough" carries with it the point of, "enough of that", as in they were taking Him too literally. He wasn't telling them to literally carry swords around to use violence, but that they needed to be prepared for what was going to happen to them: The time was coming when they were going to face hardship. After His ascension, they were going to face violence, and they needed to be prepared for that.

But that doesn't mean that the Lord was saying, "Use violence too".



I guess I just don't consider it likely that the Church was storehousing a bunch of weapons. All evidence points to that not being the case.



So Jesus saying not to retaliate against an evil person only applies to slapping?

This comes across as simply wanting to ignore Jesus because Jesus' way is difficult and means having to deny ourselves.



Yes, that's probably it. The reason why the apostles weren't armed to the teeth was simply because they couldn't afford it. But boy howdy, if they had the money, they'd've been busting at the seams with weaponry.



It's a lot simpler. Jesus wasn't telling them to actually carry swords. He was telling them times were going to get rough.



So the martyrs are only martyrs because they didn't have the firepower to properly take on the Roman legions?



So is your position that if a mob attacks a person they shouldn't use self-defense? So if a single person attacks, then self-defense is okay; but if a mob of people attacks then one shouldn't fight back?

Clearly I'm missing your point here because that can't be what you're trying to say.



Why does Paul have to take on the entire Roman military in order to use violence for self defense. Surely he could have just taken his sword and fought off one or two people to get away safely. I mean if Paul was there with a few others, such Mark and Barnabas, the three of them could take on a couple people, or fight long enough to escape. They don't have to face off the entirety of the Roman legions just to fight back long enough to live another day.

But they don't fight back. At all. And they never tell anyone to fight back.

And the fact of the matter is, according to everyone in the early Church Christians simply weren't permitted to use violence.

In fact St. Hippolytus in his treatment about baptism says that a military officer who refuses to recant of his military oath and throw off his belt is to be denied receiving baptism--because it demonstrated a refusal to accept Christian discipline.

All the evidence points to Christianity being contrary to the sword. It is only the State that has permission to exercise the sword (Romans 13:4), not the Church.



He's Almighty God, He could have summoned all the hosts of heaven, or simply willed all His enemies out of existence. Of course He was capable of defending Himself against a group of soldiers.

But He still disarmed Peter, and showed us how to live, by going to Calvary out of His own volition, because of the love with which He loves us sinners.

-CryptoLutheran

You've made it obvious you're a pacifist and I didn't intend for this thread to become a debate over whether or not Christians should be pacifists as that would be opening a whole other can of worms although I might start another thread for that topic. The purpose of this thread though is to debate on what a Christian's position should be on guns and gun rights. Even if you are a pacifist the fact remains that guns are used for hunting which the Bible does justify. I once knew of a fellow who identified as a Christian pacifist who owned a hunting rifle as he would sometimes go hunting although he made the decision he would never use it to shoot a person. So you can be a pacifist and own guns for purposes such as hunting. It's because of hunting why Christians should be for gun rights, even if you don't believe guns should ever be used against people.

I've also noticed you identify as a Lutheran. To the best of my knowledge Lutherans are not pacifists as a general rule although that doesn't mean there aren't individual Lutherans that are. The Quakers I believe are pacifists as a general rule as are the Amish and the Hutterites.

 

[Photon Guy]

It looks like ViaCrucis has dropped out of the conversation, I am very disappointed.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You've made it obvious you're a pacifist and I didn't intend for this thread to become a debate over whether or not Christians should be pacifists as that would be opening a whole other can of worms although I might start another thread for that topic.

I don't know that I'd identify as a pacifist. I would have at a time probably, but my thoughts on the subject now are more ambiguous. I am an advocate of Christian non-violence, but am willing to acknowledge circumstances in which a limited amount of violence may be necessary in order to prevent greater evil.

This is something akin to Lutheran pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer's response to dealing with the evil of Hitler. Bonhoeffer advocated for Christian non-violence, but reached a place where he concluded that a use of violence to end Hitler was necessary because of the greater evil being perpetrated. Bonhoeffer's position, however, was that such violence may be necessitated and justified, it was still something he believed would result in having to stand before God on the Day of Judgment over.

If, in the defense of the weak and powerless, I should have to become a shield or even a sword, I believe can be justified. But I believe it unconscionable to seek out violence.

The purpose of this thread though is to debate on what a Christian's position should be on guns and gun rights. Even if you are a pacifist the fact remains that guns are used for hunting which the Bible does justify. I once knew of a fellow who identified as a Christian pacifist who owned a hunting rifle as he would sometimes go hunting although he made the decision he would never use it to shoot a person. So you can be a pacifist and own guns for purposes such as hunting. It's because of hunting why Christians should be for gun rights, even if you don't believe guns should ever be used against people.

And then we are back again at the straw man. Gun regulation and reform is not forbidding anyone from owning a gun for the purpose of hunting. It's not even forbidding anyone from owning a gun for self defense.

As I'm almost certainly I've mentioned before, even in nations where people generally can't acquire a firearm, guns for hunting are still able to be acquired through proper licensing.

I've also noticed you identify as a Lutheran. To the best of my knowledge Lutherans are not pacifists as a general rule although that doesn't mean there aren't individual Lutherans that are. The Quakers I believe are pacifists as a general rule as are the Amish and the Hutterites.

Lutheranism is not a pacifistic tradition in the way the Mennonites or Quakers are. But neither is Lutheranism defined by modern American societal views; we are committed to holding to the catholic Christian faith, to God's word, as understood and confessed in our Confessions. A Lutheran is free in conscience on matters such as this.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BrotherBrother]

I come down firmly on the side of thou shall not kill. That's about it. Someone should be able to own a gun for whatever reason they want to but they shouldn't use it to kill anyone. But more on point:

Luk 22:35 And He said to them, “When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.”

Luk 22:36 Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.

The meaning of that is that at first they weren't sent out very far, only within Israel. But now they were being sent farther away so they would need to take provisions with them for the longer journey, including a sword. Flavius Josephus wrote of the Essenes:

For this reason they make trips without carrying any baggage at all—though armed on account of the bandits.

When they traveled they carried swords for self defense.

I was told that God said not to murder. He never said don't kill.

 

[BrotherBrother]

Jesus is not against guns or killing. He's against murder. Jesus said the Roman soldiers faith was greater than he saw in all of Israel, yet he bore arms as a soldier. If he can bear arms and have faith, why can't I? Is it God's will that my family be murdered? Not in my opinion.

 

[Juanquin]

In classic psychology the gun is just an elongation of the penis. Same as fast cars and motorbikes.

As a Christian and a Quaker I would not take up a weapon.

Most Quakers have a strong peace testimony.

 

[RDKirk]

In classic psychology the gun is just an elongation of the penis. Same as fast cars and motorbikes.

As a Christian and a Quaker I would not take up a weapon.

Most Quakers have a strong peace testimony.

Sometimes a gun is just a gun.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Jesus is not against guns or killing. He's against murder.

Same goes for those wanting more gun control. It is a question of due diligence and who has legal access to what kind of weapons.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Same goes for those wanting more gun control. It is a question of due diligence and who has legal access to what kind of weapons.

Many (not all) but many guns used to commit crimes are not legally held at least not by the person who commits the crime. Background checks can only go so far as in order for them to "work" the person have to have some type of report history. Red flag laws are, if you asks me too open to abuse. I feel the best way is to encourage people to speak up before something happens. I have noticed that commonly with shootings people who know the shooter will say they saw it coming and yet said nothing. That should not be punishable ( not saying anything, but it is a way to try to prevent shootings. Also, I feel that the news ( outside the local area should keep quiet about it). Sure report on it, but leave it at that do not talk about it for days, weeks and months on end.

 

[Hank77]

Red flag laws are, if you asks me too open to abuse. I feel the best way is to encourage people to speak up before something happens. I have noticed that commonly with shootings people who know the shooter will say they saw it coming and yet said nothing. That should not be punishable ( not saying anything, but it is a way to try to prevent shootings.

If someone reports to the police that their uncle is acting unstable. He's depressed and hating on himself and then he's up and talking about hurting someone else.
What can the police legally do?

 

[Arcangl86]

If someone reports to the police that their uncle is acting unstable. He's depressed and hating on himself and then he's up and talking about hurting someone else.
What can the police legally do?

Depends on the state, but in many cases they can force him into mental health observation for a specified time period.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If someone reports to the police that their uncle is acting unstable. He's depressed and hating on himself and then he's up and talking about hurting someone else.
What can the police legally do?

depends on the state, but just like everything involving the law they had better do it by the book.

 

[Hank77]

Depends on the state, but in many cases they can force him into mental health observation for a specified time period.

Who forces them into mental health care?
Who has to hear any threats they make against themselves or others? Can the police commit someone on the word of a third party or do they have to see or hear them?

 

[Hank77]

depends on the state, but just like everything involving the law they had better do it by the book.

From what I have read and seen in the media this country has a very, very poor method of getting help for mentally disturbed people in any state in the Union.

 

[dogs4thewin]

From what I have read and seen in the media this country has a very, very poor method of getting help for mentally disturbed people in any state in the Union.

Does not matter in general law enforcement have to be perfect or lose cases. So whatever the law is is what they better do ( even if it is VERY hard to get someone committed by the book or you lose your case.

 

[Danthemailman]

Active shooter situation in Maine, hospital says 'mass casualty, mass shooter' event

Lewiston, Maine mass shooting: At least 22 dead as manhunt intensifies for person of interest Robert Card

At least 22 people are dead and 30 more are wounded following a mass shooting event at two locations in Lewiston, Maine, on Wednesday night.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Aussie Pete]

Active shooter situation in Maine, hospital says 'mass casualty, mass shooter' event

Lewiston, Maine mass shooting: At least 22 dead as manhunt intensifies for person of interest Robert Card

At least 22 people are dead and 30 more are wounded following a mass shooting event at two locations in Lewiston, Maine, on Wednesday night.

www.foxnews.com

A heavy price to pay for the right to bear arms. Have Americans become numb to such incidents? If so many civilians have guns, how come the shooter got away with killing and wounding so many? Isn't that the justification for arming the citizenry?

 

[Aussie Pete]

Gun Control is deadly, Governments have killed more people than all mass/serial killers combined.

Not in Australia. Well at least America is not going to suffer with an overpopulation problem.

 

[trophy33]

Rules from the 18th century are not too effective today.

If somebody is for owning guns (nothing wrong with that), the Swiss model is the way to go, not the American one (obviously).

 

[dogs4thewin]

A heavy price to pay for the right to bear arms. Have Americans become numb to such incidents? If so many civilians have guns, how come the shooter got away with killing and wounding so many? Isn't that the justification for arming the citizenry?

Two things one gun free zones ( different states have different rules as to A what a gun free zone must be and two whether or not signs are enforceable. In other words, in some states like GA if a business has a sign that says no firearms that is not enforceable in and of itself UNLESS the business tells that person to leave then they must do so or face a trespassing charge, but the sign in and of itself carries no legal weight. I am unsure about ME'S laws on this matter Second you asks if so many civilians have guns how does this happen. Here too there are two points just because civilians CAN carry does not mean they do. For example and most states now DO NOT require permits to carry, however they are suggested for several reasons and back when most states did only between usually 1 and maybe 15% of people had a permit. The other point with that is that OK you said a lot of civilians have guns, yet true mass shootings like this are actually very rare ( in fact most gun deaths are by the person's own hand with them taking no one else with them, if it were truly a gun problem there would be a LOT more shootings trust me.