Quote of the Day: The Right to Self-Defense is Not God-Given Edition

1514548_10202963815120378_1807386662_n

“It’s idolatry that God Before Guns is fighting. We believe that guns have attained the status of idols in our country. We are not against gun ownership, and we are not anti-2nd Amendment. What we abhor is how the 2nd Amendment is worshipped in our country. Over and above the 1st commandment of Thou shalt have no other gods before me, and the 2nd Commandment of thou shalt not make any graven image, and the 6th Commandment of thou shalt not kill. Where is God in the 2nd Amendment? I hear all the time — owning a gun is my God-given right. It is not.” – Rev. Kristine Eggert in On any given day (a continuing series)… [at pastorkriscleve.wordpress.com]

comments

  1. avatar Fred says:

    Someone confused a commandment with a right?

    1. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunniess says:

      That lady is an idiot

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        And dangerous. Last 230+ years a lotta people died asserting just the opposite.

        MORE EVIL BLUE HOUSE OF LIBERAL (D) CR_P!

        Can we please just get to where we can just talk about guns???

    2. avatar WedelJ says:

      Luke 22:36, “…if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
      Sounds like God thinks we should all own guns.

      1. avatar Anonymoose says:

        Guns WITH BAYONETS!

        1. avatar Kevin says:

          And sharks with friggin’ laser beams!

      2. avatar Steven Clark says:

        Here’s a question: What was Jesus reason for that quote? Hint: It wasn’t self-defense.

        1. avatar KevinC says:

          Counter Hint: Yes, it was.

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          Counter-counter hint. Actions speak louder than words. The Christ was not shy about telling the disciples when they didn’t undetstand one of his lessons. There were two swords within arms reach at the last supper. When the disciples showed the Christ the two actual swords, not figurative or symbolic or allegorical but real swords, Christ said it was enough. He did not tell the disciples to beat those real swords into plow shares.

          When the centurions came to arrest Jesus, one of the disciples drew an actual sword and cut the ear off a centurion. Christ said to sheath the sword, not take it off.

          If the Christ was preaching today, it would be as if two disciples were carrying pistols

          The Christ was a peaceful man, not a pacifist. .

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          And Jesus would have had to collect up parts of the man if Peter shot him in the ear.

          Then he’d have to tell some people to go clean their loin cloths.

          Jesus was a carpenter that hung out with fishermen. They would have fished with dynamite. Jesus would have had his apostles burn their trash with thermite grenades, and they all would be skilled in Krav Maga.

        4. avatar int19h says:

          >> The Christ was a peaceful man, not a pacifist.

          I’m not aware of any coherent interpretation of “turn the other cheek” that wouldn’t be unambiguously pacifist. I certainly heard many attempts to handwave around this, but they all hinge on basically implying a lot of stuff that is not present in any obvious way in Jesus’ words.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          “Turn the other cheek” is an admonition regarding response to insult, not physical assault. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, being typically right-handed, you have received a *back-handed* strike: i.e. a mere insult.

          Thus, the admonition is to avoid responding to insult in kind. It has nothing to do with self-defense against physical assault.

    3. avatar Ben says:

      This is the same angle as those who use the term “ammosexual”. They attempt to ridicule the pro-2A crowd by simple ad hominem. In this case, they try to make us out to be worshipers of our firearms.

    4. avatar mark s. says:

      That all men ( women ) are endowed by their CREATOR ( God ) to have certain inalienable rights , LIFE , liberty , and property . What is so confusing about it .
      I have a right to bear arms and you shall not infringe upon it .
      Look up 1. Creator , 2. Inalienable , 3. Right , 4. Infringe
      Some persons do not have the cognitive skills to understand the obvious intent . Blinded by agendas and oblivious to consequences .

  2. avatar John L. says:

    I usually think of guns as talismans rather than idols. Except for the Ruger Redhawk … the one I named “Billy.”

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      nothing….

      Dang, tough crowd. I laughed.

    2. avatar FedUp says:

      Ted Knight reference?

  3. avatar Missouri Mule says:

    Read “God and the Patriot” Paul Markel , Student of the Gun, then we can talk.

    “Blessed be the Lord my strength
    which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:
    My goodness, and my fortress; my high tower, and my deliverer; my shield, and he in whom I trust; who subdueth my people under me.” – Psalm 144:1-2

    1. avatar wyoranchhand says:

      I can’t find any reference to anything written by Paul Markel named “God and the Patriot.” Do you have a link? I did find an article from the mid-fifties written by Killian McDonnell.

      1. avatar Tim says:

        Try “Faith and the Patriot”. It can be found on Amazon.

  4. avatar Matt Richardson says:

    The ability of any given person of faith to contort the teachings of that faith to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean is breathtaking.

    You occasionally have to give delusional people like this a golf-clap.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      Why give a golf clap? She deserves a face Palm.

      1. avatar Kevin says:

        Better yet, a Gibb’s slap.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      I’m not addressing this to you in particular, Matt, or thinking of anything you’ve said, but everyone of faith should carefully watch out for that tendency in themselves.

      I’ve found it curious how, to hear believers tell it individually, God seems to share their prejudices/opinions, almost without fail.

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        No worries, Steve.

        I have the harder job of being an agnostic. Frankly, I’m more than a bit jealous of people who can rationalize their moral platform with faith. Not at all intended to be a slight btw, my nearly complete lack of faith bothers me.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Check out Ayn Rand’s theory of rights. No divine commandment needed there.

          https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights/

          (It spends a lot of time critiquing the other theories of rights, but you can scroll down to “Ayn Rand’s Observation-Based Morality” a bit more than a quarter of the way down, it’s in a huge font at least on a desktop browser, so you can’t miss it.)

        2. avatar brentondadams says:

          I feel that same way. Like what is wrong with me almost. Is it ego? The idea of actually praying is hard for me to grasp.

          There must be a law greater than mans law, but what does it mean? They say ‘he see’s the sparrow fall’ but if there is a god, I imagine he is busy elsewhere and not concerned with our brief lives and petty squabbles like I am not concerned with the lives of ants crawling around in my backyard.

          Until they make anthills, then its smiting time. I get that. Which is why I love the old testament so much.

        3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Brentonadams,

          I reply to you with the kindest and gentlest of intentions. Yes, it is ego. We all want to be our own little gods, our own little kings if you will. We want to be in control, to understand and define everything. We want to be able to do anything we want with no consequences. That is our broken (sinful) nature.

          And yet, taken to the logical end, we cannot possibly be gods or kings. No human can summon something from nothing. We cannot explain the existence of anything, much less the basically unfathomable order of the laws of physics, chemistry, electricity, biology, etc.

          We end up with two equally vexing questions: did everything come from nothing? Or is there a God who transcends everything and created everything from nothing? In a vacuum, either answer is equally plausible. Fortunately, we are not in a vacuum. We have vast evidence (natural, archaeological, and written historical records) that support the portrayal of the God of Judaism and Christianity.

          The greatest comfort of all? The written historical record of God’s interaction among us (the Bible) portrays a God who loves and cherishes each and every one of us and is deeply concerned with our present status as well as our eternal condition. And when you read the accounts in the Bible, God went to extreme lengths to repeatedly comfort us and sometimes even save us from the consequences of our actions.

          I think where most people get bogged down is in human suffering. They frequently ask, “How can a loving almighty God allow suffering?” Suffice to say that love cannot exist without free will, and free will includes consequences for our choices. Thus free will and consequences means that people will sometimes make poor choices that involve suffering.

          I appreciate your struggle. Keep seeking!

        4. avatar HotandEmpty says:

          @uncommon-Well said brother
          “I think where most people get bogged down is in human suffering. They frequently ask, “How can a loving almighty God allow suffering?”

          I think most people also do not know that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is based on that same question of God allowing suffering. Darwin was a yuppie progressive Statist like today’s current breed, only his emotional thought was easily believed by the ignorant masses. A wasp’s larvae internally devouring a beatle is the cruel act of God that made Darwin believe his theory.

        5. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @Steve – I am quite familiar with it. I, strangely enough, came to similar conclusions long before I read anything Ayn Rand had written. I was only introduced to her by a friend and employer some years later. Coincidentally, said friend/employer was a Jew who had some substantial disagreements with Ayn Rand but saw that I had developed a lot of core fundamental beliefs and thought I’d appreciate what she had to say. He’s also the man who introduced me to the idea of libertarianism.

          There are a handful of teachers I wish I could go back and thank for helping provide me the tools I now use to live my life. Mr. Solar is one of them; he not only provided me with tremendous opportunity but he taught me way more than he knows.

        6. avatar ThomasR says:

          I won’t disagree Matt that people of faith, as I am, can rationalize most any action and find something within their faith to justify their actions.

          But I find that with those without faith as well. Whether of the agnostic or athiest flavors.

          Stalin, Mao, Pol-pot etc with no belief in a higher power, rationalized the murder of hundreds of millions of people with thier faith in communism.

          Not only, but primarily those with no belief in a higher power rationalize the murder of tens of millions of the most helpless among us as some type of “right”.

          But if you are looking at those in majority power with the highest numbers of the innocent murdered in the name of some amorphous “collective good”; then those professing an agnostic/athiest way of looking at the universe are some of the most savage and blood thirsty people in the last hundred years.

        7. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @brentonadams

          Yes it IS ego. The question you need to answer for yourself is whether to not that ego is unhealthy. The bible taught me to question my faith in order to reaffirm it.

          Somewhere along the way I lost the conviction that an omnipotent was watching over me with the best interest of me and my family. No specific event caused it, it just happened over a period of years. I don’t have answers to a a lot of life’s questions. If anything, the fact that I have so few answers is humbling and I appreciate it. We’re all an overwhelmingly small part of the world we live in, I find that comforting. That makes every small thing I do tremendously large in my tiny corner of life. If my world is only the people I come in contact with, if I can help one person. I’ve changed the world!

          This thought process is ultimately not dissimilar to that of any given faith, I just get to do it for my own personal and brief benefit, as opposed to paying a toll on the road to redemption.

        8. avatar tdiinva (Now in Wisconsin) says:

          Rand’s theory of rights amounts to what ever I say. The fact that she felt xshe had a right to use another woman’s husband as a sex toy says it all. See “The Passion of Ayn Rand.” if anything, it underplays her depravity. Ayn Rand was a sociopath.

        9. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @ThomasR

          I appreciate both your candor and your openness to take what I said at face value, rather than an attack.

          That said I ask that you try to understand the MASSIVE fundamental difference between atheism and agnosticism. I am NOT an atheist, the point I’ve been been trying to make over my last few posts is that I have very little to no faith at all. Atheism requires as much faith as theism.

          The primary difference between myself and the handful of names you mentioned is that I am not only open to the idea that their is a power greater than my own, but I welcome the possibility. Stalin, Mao, Pol-Pot all believed that man WAS the highest power. Somewhere, somehow, many atheists connect that to the corporation of government being the ultimate power. Being a rabid individualist, I can’t make that leap. I suspect MOST agnostics by nature have a tendency to lean toward individualism and therein lies their spiritual problem. Not only are we on our own but we don’t WANT to dictate the day-to-day activities of others.

          Some years back I read I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist by Geisler, Turek, and Limbaugh. It was a great read, though unfortunately even they had a difficult time making the distinction between atheist and agnostic. I recommend EVERYONE read it, no matter which side of the argument they fall on. It makes for a fantastic exercise in philosophy and self-examination.

        10. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @tdiinva

          Discounting Ayn Rand as a sociopath is just lazy and suggests you’re tragically unfamiliar with any of her philosophy. Disagreeing with her is fine, but offhandedly dismissing her because she doesn’t fall in lock-step with your worldly perspective is worthy of an eye roll.

          Think hard, I’m sure you can fit “faux-libertarian” into your next post.

        11. avatar HotandEmpty says:

          @matt
          Attacking the messenger is much easier than attacking the message, which our society has been conditioned to do out of vanity.

          I verbally attacked you the other day because I felt you misrepresented the message that 3% stands for, which was wrong of me because I don’t even give credence to your message, like you show with God.

          Christians have to be tolerant of being persecuted, which is what Jesus did by telling Simon Peter to sheath his sword. Christians do not have to tolerate evil being forced upon them, which happens to arise from rabid individualism.

        12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          HotandEmpty,

          I do not agree with your statement that, “Christians have to be tolerant of being persecuted, which is what Jesus did by telling Simon Peter to sheath his sword.” Jesus’ mission was to die on the cross to atone for all of mankind’s sins. That is why Jesus told Peter to sheath his sword. His (Jesus’) time to die on the cross had finally arrived. Peter’s deployment of force would have interfered with that mission.

          I believe that Jesus expects us to be slow to anger and ignore petty insults. He also warned us that many people in the world would hate us because they hate Him. Thus, we simply expect persecution. And while we should ignore “petty” persecution, I don’t believe we should ignore major persecution. Why would Paul have appealed all the way to Caesar otherwise?

        13. avatar mark s. says:

          Great discourse here from everyone , great civility and kindness displayed throughout . I do understand how one can have faith and lose it , The text of the Bible is replete with this phenomenon and there are multiple warnings about it throughout , under both covenants , to Jew and Gentile . One of the more significant warnings comes from Paul . The world we live in today makes faith so much more challenging because we can generally make it through life without feeling a need for
          ‘ God ‘ .
          We no longer need to pray for God to deliver our weather that betters our survival .
          We no longer need to pray for God to protect us from roaming hoards and bandits .
          We don’t pray to God for knowledge when we have computer search engines , wisdom , well that’s something else entirely . We don’t ask God to cure us when we have modern medicine .
          The very momentum of the world is to replace God with technology . ( Apple )
          God seems to favor our dependence on Him and our reliance on His grace .
          I will say that going before him in arrogance is generally a poor approach although He does not seem to disdain our deal making with Him as long as we honor our promises we have made , but the best way to actually meet Him personally is on our bellies , in the face of our own mortality , when technology has no answer and our only ‘real’ path is up . The loss of a child was my wake up call to Jesus . I had played the game since I was 8 years old when I felt Him call me in a Sunday church service , Years of drugs , alcohol indulgence , wives and girlfriends mingled with affairs and sexual addiction to porn and fantasies and 40 years of cigarettes along with multiple instances of rededication and relapse , it took the drowning death in a flash flood of my 20 year old daughter to bring me to really meet Jesus , where he welcomed me back to him with arms warm and wide . My experiences with him since have left me no question that He is as real and more real than anything in the universe .

        14. avatar Drew in Michigan says:

          Lol, Matt, as a deeply christian man I to struggle In my faith.

        15. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @HotandEmpy

          Don’t play the “I just misunderstood” card and try to insult me at the same time… I’ve been forthcoming, had meaningful discussion, and outright lamented the fact that I don’t have faith. Here you are, though, bringing a Westboro Baptist level of argument to a discussion that was much better off without you.

          And maybe you should re-read the bible. Christ specifically told his followers that they WOULD be persecuted, that it was their lot.

          I do not and would not force rabid individualism on you, nor do I expect you to accept it. I just expect that you wouldn’t force your particular flavor of collectivism on me.

          Good day

        16. avatar SCW says:

          Seems you haven’t figured out the difference b/t an agnostic and an atheist either. They are not mutually exclusive.

          Agnosticism goes to what you know, atheism goes to what you believe. You can be an agnostic atheist, gnostic atheist, agnostic theist, or gnostic theist. So which are you? If you don’t believe in a god, you’re an atheist. Congratulations.

          It takes no faith to be an atheist. Atheism is the rejection of a belief in god, not an assertion of non-existence/non-belief.. You say there is a god. I say I don’t believe you, do you have evidence? Do you have faith if you don’t believe that I have an invisible dragon in my pocket?

          The person making the claim has the burden of proof (the theist). They must present evidence for their claim. If sufficient evidence cannot be provided, the logical thing to do is to withhold your belief until such time as it is demonstrated.

          If I, as an atheist, say “there is no god”, I would then have my own burden of proof. So again, atheism isn’t the assertion that there are no gods. It’s simply the rejection of belief until sufficient evidence is presented.

        17. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @SCW

          No, sir, you are the one who is misguided. In your attempts to paint me as something I am not, you’ve pointed out a massive hole in your own argument…

          Atheists and agnostics are QUITE different. I, as an agnostic, acknowledge that I have no idea whether or not an omnipotent exists and I’m open to the possibility that one does. An atheist (do I need to break down the latin for you?) definitively believes there is no omnipotent being. The conviction required to say there is/isn’t a god is based entirely on faith. God cannot be “proven” (I’d appreciate it if you chose not to split that particular hair) therefore it comes down to I believe/disbelieve.

          Please do not insult me and tell me what I believe, I have not and will not do that to you. I’d also appreciate it if you didn’t further insult me with your poor attempts at (improperly and incorrectly) distilling my personal position.

          In a nutshell: check your premises because your intellectually dishonest rant makes me look the bigger fool for bothering to engage and correct you.

        18. avatar brentondadams says:

          That’s a lot to consider. Thanks

        19. avatar SCW says:

          @Matt Richardson

          Did you miss the part where I said that atheism and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive? You can be both at the same time b/c each addresses two prongs of an idea. One addresses belief, one addresses knowledge.

          Atheism isn’t the assertion of the non-existence of god. It’s an absence of belief or the rejection of theistic claims. A gnostic atheist, or anti-theist will say that they know there are no gods and also believe there are no gods. An agnostic atheist will say that they reject or withhold belief in any gods b/c sufficient evidence has not been presented, but they do not know that there isn’t an actual god. See how there are two prongs of the statement that have to be addressed? We have to address both knowledge and belief as separate entities.

          It takes no faith to withhold or reject a belief. Do you have faith that there isn’t a green nazi bear on the dark side of the moon? Does it take faith to not belief that there is an elephant in the next room that becomes invisible when you enter the room?

          So I ask you again. Are you an atheist or a theist? Agnostic tells us nothing about what you actually believe b/c you can be an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

          I don’t understand why you think I was insulting you. You simply have a common misconception about atheism and agnosticism. You should really read up about epistemology and how belief is different from knowledge. The reason we address belief first is b/c you don’t wait until you have knowledge of something to act upon it.

          If you think atheism is the claim that there are no gods, then you’re just wrong. That’s nothing to be ashamed of unless you continue to misuse the term. The definition of atheist that is in common use today is “a person who lacks a belief in a god or gods.”

    3. avatar Anonymoose says:

      This is why I’m not a Presbyterian anymore.

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        I was raised Lutheran. I absolutely adored church services too.

        I still take pleasure in the occasional service with family, not because I find any spiritual value in them, but because I think the message is good and church is a generally wholesome place.

        I miss having faith.

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          Matt ,
          God bless you , first .
          Please do me a favor , I know you must have had people try and help you in your faith before but please go to your nearest bookstore and buy one or two books , read and critique .
          Lee Strobel , ‘ A case for Faith ‘ and also the complementary ‘ A case for Christ ‘ .
          You may end up a great Christian warrior yet .

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          Interesting Matt. I started as an agnostic in a secular family on the west coast in the Bay Area.

          Then I experienced a direct connection to the universal intelligence that imbues all things. A timeless moment of the Now that had past and future happening in the Now. With a feeling of complete oneness with all things, the pure feeling of unconditional love that surrounds me, us, as the universal light of the ALL.

          I later explored that connection through American Indian Teachings. Later coming to the Christ.

          I am now a non-denominational baptised Christian.

          To me, it is not faith that we are part of a greater whole, an intelligence, call it what you will.

          And that I AM is love.

          I started the journey by trying the idea that G-d, if asked, will answer, in time. It worked, in time. So, unbelieving, I asked. I was answered, in time.

          Some thing to think, pray about.

        3. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @mark s. and ThomasR

          First and foremost, thank you both for your kind words, thoughts, AND prayers. I appreciate them all more than you’d think.

          As I’ve tried to stress, I’m NOT combative about my position. I may even be slightly ashamed that I’ve lost my faith. I have no particular reason for it, it just happened. I am ALWAYS open to reading books on the subject, and coincidentally was recommended The Case for Faith by a friend today after discussing the current topic on TTAG with him. The journey to my position has been long and hard and I always offer help to others who struggle wherever I can. I don’t have a dog in the fight as far as faith/no faith goes. My children attend church every Sunday with their grandmother. If nothing else, they’ll have a firm grasp on the morals I hold and have a firm understanding of why we in the US live the way we do. Their decision on their faith will come later, and with as little influence from me as I can manage.

          Again, thanks guys. It means a lot! 🙂

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          +1 to the recommendation for The Case for Faith. I’ll even mail you my copy if you want.

        5. avatar Matt Richardson says:

          @Chip

          If you’re serious I will definitely take you up on that offer

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Completely serious. My email is [firstname]@[firstname][lastname].net.

  5. avatar pwrserge says:

    1. The commandment is a prohibition against murder, not killing.
    2.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.”

    —Luke 22:36

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Beat me to it. Maybe she needs a new and properly translated Bible. Seems to me that there was an awful lot of smiting, raping, slaughter and pillaging when Moses led the People into the Promised Land, even with those freshly graven tablets. So who is fooling who? I guess it was not “murder” to cleanse the land of the other tribes who were living there, and therefore not a violation of the 6th Commandment. I’d like to see her try to explain herself around that one. Oh, and wasn’t it David who slew Goliath? That was a good thing, right? Not a violation of the 6th either.

      1. avatar david says:

        and those are just a few quotes from the Old Testament, the book is full of displays of violence against oppression and oppressors. God does not want you to die for the sins of your brother, that was Jesus Christ job. yours is to live a fruitful and bountiful life and do unto others as you would have done unto yourself. and if that other person intends on killing you well then do unto others before they do unto you. the Bible is full of quotes and profits speaking of self defense against the tyranny of evil human and otherwise. this lady is a joke, and if I was a member at her church I would have stood up excuse myself and walk right out the door along with my family.and then I would have called the church and let them know that their pastor was preaching politics and her way of life at the pulpit. and that I would no longer be attending their church due to the fact of this matter nor will you be getting any more of my money and donations to support a church that I can’t agree with or believe in. she straight up bending the words in the Bible to boost her political aspirations.

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          The reason people can get by saying false things , misquoting and butchering Gods word , the constitution , the Bill of Rights , the Declaration of Independence and other historical documents and truths , is because we have raised two or three generations of Americans with out teaching anything and the so called adults , myself included , have been to busy consuming , to care . I self learned long after my public and private schooling and thank God I had just enough of a foundation in my childhood to make me desire real truths .

  6. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    On any given day…
    You too, can save your own life or those of your loved ones, by being armed.

  7. avatar Bob says:

    The correct translation of the 6th Commandment is “Thou shalt not murder”. Killing in self defense was not considered murder.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Bob is spot on. Just yesterday I posted a similar response to another article …

      From Exodus 22:2

      If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed …

      In this verse the Bible clearly allows use of violent force, even killing someone.

      So much for the supposed “Reverend” Kristine Eggert comment about the “6th Commandment of thou shalt not kill.”

      I think a more suitable Bible verse for the “Reverend” is Luke 17:2

      It would be better for [her] to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around [her] neck than to cause [a believer] to stumble.

      Telling Christians that it is wrong to defend their lives — because Ms. Eggert incorrectly says it is wrong to kill in self-defense — and thus causing Christians to suffer grievous bodily harm or death is definitely an example of causing a believer to stumble.

      1. avatar vv ind says:

        1 timothy 2:12-14?

        1. avatar Didymus says:

          Can I get an AMEN!!!

  8. avatar js says:

    Bearded wizards in the sky are not the basis for my rights.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      Wow.

      So. Much. Fail. On so many levels…

      I get your point, but, uh, you DO remember the little phrase “Endowed By Their Creator,” don’t you? I mean, uh, well, gee, the WHOLE BASIS of “natural right” is that it transcends that which is “human.” Or, as one might say, is given by God.

      I get you are atheist and think cutesy little statements like “bearded wizards in the sky” make you look superior(*), but your statement really does not make sense given the basis for enumerating natural rights into a form of government.

      I blame public school. Still.

      (*) You might think such comments make you look superior, but, they don’t; they make you look completely ignorant of theology and philosophy as well as completely one-dimensional and closed minded. “God” != “wizard in the sky” to..well…anyone.

      1. avatar Chrispy says:

        I don’t blame public school, they still tried to make me say “Under God” every morning.

        My parents are the ones who taught me to believe what I feel is right, and not to spit in the face of someone who believes anything different.

        1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Those words ‘under God’ is what differentiates this country from totalitarian regimes. It’s an acknowledgement that you allegence to the state is subordinant to you right and duty to follow your conscience. Can you imagine the school children in North Korea making such a qualifier on their pledge to Kim Jong?

        2. avatar BDub says:

          So prior to 1954, America was just a cesspit of totalitarianism, then? No, what differentiates this country is that I can say we are different and not get lined up against a wall and shot.

        3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          If your conscience is subordinated by force by the whims of the state that is the definition of a totalitarian cess pool. The fact that limits to the state’s authority are acknowledged in the Pledge of Allegence does not in itself make it so, but taking out that phrase amounts to denying the First Amendments protection of religious liberty.

        4. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Gov. William J. Le Petomane, I think you just proved BDub’s point. The phrase “under God” in our pledge is a relatively new addition, specifically added to mark America as a nation falling under the authority of God, as opposed to the communist block nations who’s leaders did not recognize an authority beyond the state.
          The subjugation of conscience you write of is forcing people to make a pledge to some higher power they do not believe exists. I will say the pledge with “under God”, but I will not subjugate a fellow American who does not believe to make the same oath.

        5. avatar david says:

          you spend American money don’t you? Clearly printed on the money is in God We Trust and you spend that without feeling like you’re crossing the line correct? I don’t think it’s as big a deal as people make it out to be. but if you don’t like that, simply don’t say that part of the pledge it’s as easy as that nobody needs to remove anything or ban anything else!

        6. avatar MarkPA says:

          We need not become too enamored of the Pledge; either under its original text nor under the modified text. It was written by the socialist Francis Bellamy.

          Reference to the “flag” rather than the Constitution is probably forgivable because of the goal of selling flags to schools.

          The notion of “one nation” probably served to cement the abandonment of the principle of federalism – an important outcome of the Civil War. We SHOULD always to continue to question the wisdom of struggle to become one nation vs. a federation of 50-some nations.

          Arguably, with a great deal of retrospect, we all agree that one-nation abolishing slavery is a very good idea. On this board there is probably great agreement about one-nation acknowledging the rights to both keep and to bear arms would be a very good thing. Yet, in contrast, we might remain open to the possibility of federalism with respect to the reasonableness of various forms of searches and seizures.

          Is it conceivable that in NYC “the People” regard Stop & Frisk for guns to be “reasonable” whereas in Arizona its pointless when the bearer is OCing? If NYC were both Shall-Issue and granted widespread reciprocity, the Arizonian visiting the WTC museum wouldn’t have too much of an objection if one of NY’s Finest asked to see his CWP. (Might not like it, but might concede that it would be a vast improvement over the present situation.)

        7. avatar mark s. says:

          For BDub ,
          Please try and be less defensive and give people a chance to express themselves without nitpicking everything or looking for the one place to attack .
          I’m sure that Chrispy and the Gov know that the phrase was put in later , but look at the reality of the times . Before the 1950’s many of the children in America were taught their lessons by ministers and were literally taught directly from the Bible . Many schools were rural and the children were already well versed in Christian ideology through their churches and parents and there weren’t the prohibitions in schools against prayers and religious instructions . Times were much different in the decades that produced what is now considered the greatest generation . The children raised from the 1870’s thru the 1930’s .

        8. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          JW – ‘…forcing people to make a pledge to some higher power…’

          This is exactly what the Pledge of Allegiance was until 1943 when the Supreme Court ruled that children of Jehovah’s Witnesses could not be compelled to say the pledge in school. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Controversy ) The state is of course a much higher power than an individual citizen. Expelling children over their religious objections to swearing an oath to the state sounds a lot like totalitarianism to me, BDub.

          As far as ‘forcing’ people to say ‘under God’, first, no one should be compelled to say anything they don’t want to. But I don’t personally see why an atheist would object to it because we all have gods, even atheists. If a Hindu says the pledge then to him ‘under God’ means Brahma, Vishnu and Siva. To a Muslim it means Allah. To a Christian or Jew it means Jehovah or Yahweh. To an atheist it means himself.

          Put it this way, if an atheist lived in Nazi Germany would he have a right of conscience to refuse to send Jews to the gas chambers? If you truly have no god other than the state then you would have to say that you wouldn’t have that right. The state is the ultimate authority, not the individual. Unless of course you place the state ‘under God’.

      2. avatar BDub says:

        I wouldn’t be waving the fail-wand at anyone, if I was you. The fact that you can use the term “natural right” and then make the huge logical leap that somehow “natural” transcends natures, of which humans are firmly a part, is a bit fail-like itself.

        That “little phrase” was written by a Deist, and specifically chosen to encompass many and varied beliefs, including the belief that one was not created by any god, but by nature itself. The entire point is not to ascribe divine origin to Rights, but to firmly proclaim the existence of Rights (whatever you believe their source to be) apart from, and above, the privileges and rights derived from a King.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Nice try. I never said transcends nature. I said transcends HUMAN.

          Here you go…a copy and paste from my original post:

          “it transcends that which is “human.” “

          Don’t rephrase what I wrote and then try to use “what I said” to beat me up.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “That “little phrase” was written by a Deist, and specifically chosen to encompass many and varied beliefs, including the belief that one was not created by any god, but by nature itself.”

          And where in what I wrote is anything inconsistent with this? If one defines “God” simply as “that which transcends HUMAN,” what I wrote and what you wrote are not contradictory at all.

          I am writing about this VERY metaphysically and abstractly. One does not need to limit the term “God” to “bearded wizard in the sky” to see philosophical truth in The Word of God.

          For that matter, one does not even need to limit God by man’s interpretation of the Word of God.

          And, taken one step further, to hinge back onto your point…one does not even need to limit God by the very act of DEFINING God using Man’s words (as supernatural being, as nature itself, etc.)

          Don’t lump my words into some projection about what you might THINK I believe “God” means.

        3. avatar mark s. says:

          Jefferson was a Deist ,
          Teachings of the 1960’s progressives and 1970’s NEA .
          BDub , you seem bright , research this ruse and you may find yourself on a great new adventure .
          Read ALL of Jefferson’s writings , not just the ones from one span of his life , he was a prolific writer and a very diverse thinker , going through many transformations over his long life . The one real constant was his deep faith in an almighty God . Perhaps the most read of all the founders and having a speaking knowledge of five languages and probably some Aramaic he was far to complex to be labeled a Deist .
          God bless .

  9. avatar Kenshinwulf says:

    It’s “thou shalt not MURDER”, NOT “kill”. It’s a pet peeve of mine how people always mess that up.

    1. avatar David says:

      If by people you mean whole Bible translations than yeah. רצח (ratsach) – can be translated kill or murder. “Murder” is probably closer. “Slay” would work too. Clearly in The Law killing is acceptable, or even called for, in some circumstances.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      It’s an easy mistake to make, given that the King James Version reads “kill” (Exodus 20:13). The other more modern translations I checked (NIV, NRSV, NKJV) either read “murder” or sometimes say “murder” then in a footnote say “or kill” (NRSV) which accords most closely with David’s comment about how the Hebrew word ratsach can mean both but contextually indicates “murder” here.

      Many Christians hold that the King James Version is the perfect translation, that the translators themselves were inspired by God. It appears you’re not one of them.

      It’s ironic to note that most of the ten commandments monuments that we secularists complain about are modeled after the King James Version. Maybe this is a reason for you to agree with us; the State should certainly not be endorsing a mistaken translation of the Bible.

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        I believe King James rejected the first three translations and it was the 4th we know as the King James Bible. The first copy was probably the most accurate.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          An interesting historical tidbit. But unless the manuscript of that first draft survives (or some quotes by others from it do), we’ll never know for sure.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Another fun historical tidbit: it was only post KJV that the belief of “young earth creationism” was born. It stems mostly from the work of a man named Ussher.

          When Ussher’s “chronology” of the earth was included in a mass published printing of an early KJV, it became “Geezer Science” in that people read it in the Bible and thus took it as true. Ussher’s margin notes were not, and to my knowledge never have been, Canon of the Scripture.

          I actually taught a class on this a few years back, and the history is fascinating. While we can’t be 100% in intent and meaning of the original writings in terms of “day” in Genesis, it seems to me (and many scholars) about 99% clear that that use of “day” (by comparison of other uses of that word for day) did NOT refer to a 24 hr terrestrial day.

          So, it could well be argued that the KJV (and its elevation to status of the “one true Way”) has caused a LOT of problems in terms of interpretation of Scripture.

          Another anecdotal example (a fun one). When I was in high school, I was helping at my girlfriend’s church. We were preparing the annual “Christmas Pageant” or whatever, and we had the usual collection of smaller children with speaking parts. One child was having trouble learning and saying the lines in “KJV English.”

          Someone (maybe me, I don’t remember) suggested just letting the child say the part in a contemporary way. The lady leading the play said we can’t do that; “That’s the way they talked back then” referring to the time of the Nativity.

          I was a bit shocked, but did not have the heart to tell her (I was a teen and she an older lady) that no, no, they most certainly did NOT talk “like that” in Bethlehem.

        3. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          Thanks JR_in_NC, that was interesting. The world would be better off except for that mis-translation.

        4. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          Good info, JR. I never understood the literal view of Genesis chapter 1. It seems to me that there are plenty of things in the Bible that are obviously to be taken figuratively and to me Gen. 1 is a prime example. Still, if you believe in an all powerful creator, why not one that could make the whole world in 144 hours? I just don’t get why he’d leave behind so much evidence to the contrary.

        5. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “I just don’t get why he’d leave behind so much evidence to the contrary.”

          Indeed.

          Somewhere, I have a laundry list of Bible citations that assert that God reveals himself to us through the clues in creation itself…AND…that God does not lie to us for any reason.

          This would seem to indicate that all the evidence we see of “old earth” is consistent with both the Bible and Divine creation itself.

          The notion that “he put that stuff there to test our faith” (as is often claimed by young-earth proponents) is rather absurd to me as both a scientist and lay student of theology.

        6. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

          Hit up YouTube and search for Dr. Michael S. Heiser. He had some interesting things to say on that topic. In short: genesis isn’t, and is not intended to be a science textbook. It’s largely theological messaging. “No, ba’al isn’t the one who rides the clouds, Yahweh is. Yahweh is really the one who created everything. ..” and so forth. Including a different take on the first few lines.

          He also has some interesting things to say on the nachash, or the serpent, and the possible meaning of the Hebrew word.

          He has a few PhDs in ancient languages and takes a very scholarly approach to the subject, no televangelist style preaching. He provides the evidence he has for his views and sometimes the evidence against it.

          Very interesting stuff if your interested in theology.

        7. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Thanks, Marcus. I’ll look him up.

      2. avatar Tom Chaney says:

        The reliability of a document can be reasonably determined by a “chain of custody” or time gap analysis. When was it written, what is the time span between copies, how many copies are there, references in other works, and how accurate is one copy to another. We accept the works of ancient authors like Pliny, Herodotus, and Aristotle at face value, and yet their “chain of custody” pales in comparison to the biblical texts – of which exists a veritable avalanche of evidence for, with very short time frames between references. In other words, there’s plenty of evidence to establish that the well vetted translations capture the authors intent. Now, whether or not a person accepts or believes that, well, that is a whole other subject!! Which is why, I’m glad I live in a country where we can accept or reject that, we can argue about it, but we don’t set to killing each other over it. I’m glad everyone doesn’t agree with me – I’ve been wrong about alot of things. That’s when I got what’s called “experience”!!

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          So to the present question: Should it be “kill” or “murder”? I personally think it should be translated as “murder”

          As an aside, a lot of what you’ve said seems to apply to the New Testament more than to the Old (correct me if I am wrong). Even given what you’ve said, there are more discrepancies between extant early New Testament manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament–fortunately the vast majority of them are easily resolved, a clear mistake by a scribe.

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Yes, I think the ‘vetting’ of the Old Testament is a bit more problematic in a pure ‘forensic’ sense.

          Much of it started as oral tradition and was recorded later; the nature of the written Hebrew language was such that only consonants were written, so ambiguities can crop of if one attempts literal translations.

          Stuff like if you saw bt, how would you render that? It is bet, bit, but or bat? Or, nowadays, could we even render it as bot?

          Mostly, it’s clear from context. But, not always.

          I took a class once taught by a seminary Hebrew professor, and what we spent most of the class doing was:

          (1) Select a given Bible passage
          (2) Examine and discuss the original Hebrew as written
          (3) Examine and discuss the rendering in 4-6 different English language translations.

          It was a fascinating exploration, and has changed the way I read, interpret and think about the Old Testament. It’s not to say things in any given version are wrong…but the places where these ambiguities often occur are exactly places where serious meditation and contemplation are beneficial.

          I find that poetic its own way.

        3. avatar Xanthro says:

          of which exists a veritable avalanche of evidence for, with very short time frames between references. In other words, there’s plenty of evidence to establish that the well vetted translations capture the authors intent.
          ————

          I read Koine, I’ve studied the translation of the works of the New Testament and the Septuagint. If you want, we can debate esoteric individuals words all day. I even helped push the Huntington Library in California to release copies of the Dead Sea scrolls so they would be available to the public.
          What you wrote has no basis in fact. We do not have anything resembling a textual chain of custody and there are often gaps of centuries between extant copies.
          We have nearly 3,000 extant copies of the works of the New Testament, and the closest any two mach is 92%.
          When the King James Bible was translated, an actual Koine version of Revelations was not even available, so they used a version where a person translated Latin into Koine, then they used that to translate into English.
          What texts to use, and what words to use in translating is an entire large area of Biblical study. There is no original text of New Testament works that we can use as a foundation upon which to even base a translation.
          Nor, can we even translate every word, as some words, especially those used by Paul, exist only in Biblical texts. Normally, we’d compare the usage of a word outside Biblical texts to ascertain meaning, but with words such as arsenokoitai which literally appears only in works written by Paul, or references to Paul’s works.
          And for those pretending we can definitively ascertain the meaning of the word from Leviticus 18:22 in the Septuagint, below in Koine.
          καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν

        4. avatar Tom Chaney says:

          Xanthro: I’m raising the BS flag on your reply. If you are educated on the finer points of biblical exegesis you would not call Revelation (aka The Revelation of St. John the Divine) “Revelations”. Looks like “Google Smart” to me. I will concede that I was a little dogmatic, but that’s just because I think SteveInCO is right on the question at hand (and pretty hilariously snarky with some of his quips), that my guns aren’t idols, and that “kill” in self defense is different than “murder”, even for those who view the 1611 King James Version as though God wrote it with his personal quill pen. However, if you want to “win” this discussion, I concede your victory – Congratulations!

  10. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Says the preacher who prays at the alter of Social Justice.

  11. avatar Art out West says:

    Women are not meant to be pastors.

    “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet”. (1st Timothy 2:12)

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Right. It doesn’t mean they can’t lead, because they can and do, but they weren’t meant as such… Makes you wonder a bit about the real problem of the men around her that are refusing to lead.

  12. avatar Tom Chaney says:

    Fascinating. Advice from a biblically ignorant pastor of an apostate church that suggests that inanimate objects have agency, and therefore, are capable of violence. She might want to actually comprehend what she’s referencing, and she definitely needs to brush up on proper exegesis before Sunday. I would suggest reading up on David for another perspective, just for the sake of variety. Besides, where does she get the idea that guns are the idolatrous bane of our existence? Hasn’t she been watching our elected officials? Everyone knows our most common idols are pride, arrogance and self, with a little hedonism and greed thrown in for good measure.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      “Everyone knows our most common idols are pride, arrogance and self, with a little hedonism and greed thrown in for good measure.”

      +100,000

      Well said.

      Everyone SHOULD know this; few seem to. It seems “Idol” has to have a physical existence rather than a spiritual one for some folks to think in those terms.

      Worship of self is the new American Way. There’s an idol if there ever was one.

      1. avatar Tom Chaney says:

        You are spot on. It’s amazing to me how much that’s true. It’s like we live in a world of spoiled, impetuous children masquerading as adults.

    2. avatar Bill Kohnke says:

      So where does she stand on stones and slings, or swords for that matter?

    3. avatar Sean in MT says:

      Great comment! It seems that her and her husband are big-time gun-grabbers: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/anti-self-defense-groups-using-church-affiliations-deter-legislators-allowing-concealed

      This kind of misuse of the Bible has been hitting my radar screen more and more these days. She is way off the reservation. “And her prophets have smeared whitewash for them, seeing false visions and divining lies for them, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord God,’ when the Lord has not spoken.” Ezekiel 22:28

      “And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.” Matthew 24:11

      1. avatar HotandEmpty says:

        “This kind of misuse of the Bible has been hitting my radar screen more and more these days. She is way off the reservation”

        -This hypocrite lady is the same thing as police and political military officers, who are more concerned with power over others, even if that power is unlawful or immoral.

        -The generals and officers who don’t trust men with guns because some act irresponsibly, are afraid of negligent discharges from improper respect of a handling a loaded gun. This fear justifies disarming the men out of avoiding political embarrassment.

        -Police will kill one of us for open carrying or not submitting immediately, to their authority, even if that authority is an abuse of the color of law, in direct disobedience of the Constitution.

  13. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    I don’t know about you guys, but my guns are in a safe. They are not on an alter or shrine. I do not pray to them. This view is delusional at best. Just stay safe in your church, because we all know nothing bad happens in churches.

  14. avatar David says:

    The use of Isaiah 2:4 here is a perversion. The passage is talking about the peace brought about during the Messianic age. The Messiah brings peace not Americans pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.

    If you beat your swords into plowshares before the Messiah returns then you will probably be plowing for those who did not.

    Blessed be the LORD, my rock,
    Who trains my hands for war,
    And my fingers for battle.

    Psalm 144:1

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      If you beat your swords into plowshares before the Messiah returns then you will probably be plowing for those who did not.

      I love it! I will be shamelessly quoting this … a LOT!

  15. avatar Kapeltam says:

    There are many passages promoting self defense and even advocating lethal force. Perhaps they should read the entire bible instead of picking and choosing what fits their agenda.

  16. avatar TravisP says:

    Wooo, good thing I worship Odin

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Nope, God Before Guns represents all faiths, according to their website. So they’re lumping the All Father in there too.

      1. avatar TravisP says:

        Nooooooooooooo!

  17. avatar Ted says:

    As a pastor, I was going to defend a couple of things she said in the opening paragraph because I do think that we (all of humanity) place many things up as idols consistently breaking the first commandment. I was… then I read the rest of her “sermon” and realized that she is very anti-gun and uses her pulpit to preach on a pet political topic / current event instead of, actually… I don’t know… practicing good scriptural exegesis.

    While I hate to point out specks in other people’s eyes, this is a common problem in churches today.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Ted,

      There is nothing wrong with “point[ing] out specks in other people’s eyes …” in regards to calling out errors in their “sermons”. Actually, we have a God-ordained responsibility to correct and rebuke false teaching from supposed “Reverends” such as Ms. Kristine Eggert.

      As long as you are willing to recognize and correct any errors in your sermons, you have already pulled the plank out of your own eye.

  18. avatar Art out West says:

    I looked at their website and they quote the Koran as “Scripture”. Talk about idolatry! (from Christian viewpoint). Muslims can quote the Koran all they want. It is their book. Any Christian who quotes the Koran as “Scripture” is way out of line.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      That’s taking “ecumenicalism” a lot farther than most would, that’s for sure.

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      God Before Guns doesn’t claim to be a Christian organization. They say they represent “all faiths”. All but mine apparently .

      1. avatar JWM says:

        Thank God I don’t have any faith.

        1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          As a Christian, that brought tears to my eye. The laughing kind.

          Well done, sir.

  19. avatar Chrispy says:

    …And Jesus said unto them: “Dude… do you guys want to just stop at like, Taco Bell or something?”

    Wait, are we talking about Jesus Christ?

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      That quote is complete and utter bullshit, everyone knows that the fast food market in early Roman Empire Judea was completely monopolized by Del Taco.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        And you sir win the Intertubez for the day!

      2. avatar Chrispy says:

        Nicely done!

        Funny how the mascot for that particular chain of restaurants was a rat…

      3. avatar Tom Chaney says:

        That really is funny.

  20. avatar Charles Ray says:

    Hey, when you guys donate to this great cause, be sure to write “God Before Guns” on the memo line on your check. Ha.

  21. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    First of all, someone who deigns to refer to herself as reverend should not cast aspersions regarding the first and second commandments.

    Secondly, the sixth commandment is not do not kill, but rather, do not murder.

    Third, where is God in the second commandment? Try reading the Bible:

    Genesis 9:5-6
    Proverbs 24:11-12
    I Corinthians 3:16-17

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      You forgot Judges 3:31. One of my favorites. I love it because basically, Shamgar is a farmer, out plowing his fields. One day, he just get’s tired of the oppressive bullsh!t he’s dealing with. So when the Philistines show up, he says “HELLZ NAW!”, gets the ol’ spirit of the Lord on him, and kills 600 of them with a sharp stick.

      This folks, this is why I love the Old Testament.

      1. avatar Tom Chaney says:

        Yep – Shamgar goes HAM!!

      2. avatar jwtaylor says:

        And there’s Genesis 34 as well. There’s the biblical example of what to do with rapists. Ouch, and double ouch.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Secondly, the sixth commandment is not do not kill, but rather, do not murder.

      Although I tend to agree that’s almost certainly the intended meaning of the original Hebrew ratsach in this context, note that the King James Version, still considered “the” Bible and a perfect, divinely inspired translation by many in the United States, does read “kill” (Ex 20:13). So many people will continue to “mis”quote it this way.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        …note that the King James Version, still considered “the” Bible and a perfect, divinely inspired translation by many in the United States…

        The only truly God-inspired writing is the original text, in its original language. If I ever have a question or confusion about a word/phrase meaning, I go back to the original language. The only really good thing about KJV (other than that it is truly poetic writing) is that I use it to cross-reference with a Strong’s concordance.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Chip, I’m not sure if you think I agree with them or not, so I’ll assure you I don’t. The KJV’s primary value is literary and historic at this point. It’s not an authoritative translation of the original by any means.

          There are loads of problems with the KJV as a translation of the original Hebrew OT (it’s largely secondhand via the Septuagint, for one thing) or Greek NT (and Jesus almost certainly preached in Aramaic but is quoted in Greek in the oldest extant manuscripts, so there’s already a layer of translation right off the bat).

          Teasing out the original wording when manuscripts–centuries newer than the original, which is long gone–disagree with each other a lot can sometimes be very tricky (most of the discrepancies between the NT manuscripts are trivial and easily resolved–a repeated line, or an omitted one, or a misspelling–but a few are not, and tend to become footnotes in versions like the NRSV).

      2. avatar Tom Chaney says:

        SteveInCO: Good point. I’m certain that Jesus Christ was not around in 1611,did not speak King James english, and that there are multiple, albeit well documented, translation issues with the King James version. Unfortunately, many are unwilling to dig in deep enough to understand the context, the nuances of Greek or Hebrew, or when scripture is speaking metaphorically or allegorically. Attention span of a firecracker….:)

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          Tom Chancy ,
          I appreciate your stances on these biblical issues , the calling out of Xanthro was classical but perhaps a little harsh , They may have been in the early stages of the quest and trying to spread their wings and you may have clipped so short that they won’t grow back , who will know . I can tell you are well read and that Biblical hermeneutics isn’t new to you so you are probably somewhat set firmly in your faith . I would only caution that some others are very new to these debates and can have their paths altered almost irrevocably if they sense they have been called out or discredited harshly , Teach with kindness and remember, you were once green behind the ears . People will be more apt to read your words for what you mean them to relate than be so defensive they don’t register .
          God bless .

        2. avatar Tom Chaney says:

          Well said, and true. I have always struggled with loving others even though I know it’s how I should relate to the world. I should change my name to “He who struggles…”. Too often I’m a living example of why we need grace.

        3. avatar mark s. says:

          Tom Chaney ,
          You sir are an honorable man .
          I am Humbled .

        4. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “I’m a living example of why we need grace.”

          Amen.

          Fits here on this end, too. Every. Single. Day.

      3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        SteveInCO,

        Even if someone wants to translate the Hebrew word as “kill” rather than “murder”, they still have to understand that statement in the context of the entire Bible. When you look at the entire Bible, you realize that there are circumstances where God allows use of violent and even deadly force. Once you do that, either you have to decide that God is schizophrenic and flip-flops like an 8-cylinder engine running on 3 cylinders, or you have to come to the understanding that the 6th Commandment refers to murder, not all killing.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          That would indicate to me that the person who wants to translate it as “kill” here is quite simply mistaken. And that the KJV is therefore mistaken but of course will continue to be quoted anyway, especially on Ten Commandments monuments.

    3. avatar jwtaylor says:

      And there’s Genesis 34 as well. There’s the biblical example of what to do with rapists. Ouch, and double ouch.

  22. avatar James says:

    I don’t worship my guns, but I do need them. And pardon the crudeness, the fact that she has “sand in her vag” and can’t “live and let live” is the proof why they’re needed. Her attitude of “I don’t approve so you must change” is simple totalitarianism. She a fraud as a compassionate human being. She uses her religious status as a cloak to cover the very real evil of human nature that lurks deep inside the human soul. You can keep your beliefs in higher beings and I keep my firearms for my natural self reliant protection and we can coexist if you choose to abide by live and let live.

    1. avatar Tom Chaney says:

      James- you are spot on about the evil in the heart of man. Not to be preachy, but “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” I think Jeremiah sums it up rather well. People like this lady are profoundly ignorant, particularly when they ascribe actions or intent to anything other than a human, and more so when it’s an inanimate object. People intent on perpetrating evil have a plague upon their heart and soul, and they cannot be coddled with moronic platitudes. She’s completely disassociated from the reality of this, and unfortunately, has chosen to use her personal and experiential filter as the foundation in place of rudimentary biblical scholarship – a gross error to the detriment of those who follow this crackpot.

  23. avatar Mecha75 says:

    She is partially right. We don’t have a God given right to own a gun. We have a God given right to defend our lives and liberty with anything we have on hand. The 2nd Amendement of the US Constitution guarantees that we have that right by not limiting the choices we have to preserve that right for self defense against those that wish to do us harm( and this includes, but is not limited to, tyrany in all its forms). It guarantees that we can use a firearm, ANY firearm that we feel necessary to exercise that right. And i know they think we dont need standard capacity mags and full auto firearms. But those are the best weapons to use when peacefully resisting tyranny is no longer an option.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      To further emphasize your point re the second amendment, it reads “arms” not “firearms” which means any weapon. It would have been applicable before the invention of guns, and will remain applicable after the invention of Star Wars-style “blasters.”

      1. avatar Tom Chaney says:

        I hope the Jedi council will let me get a lightsaber. Would that be an NFA item?

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Only if it turns on fully automatically.

      2. avatar Tom Chaney says:

        You’re hysterical. They would find a way to muck that up.

      3. avatar Mark N. says:

        I’d check your history books on that one, Stevie. There were many muskets used in the Revolutionary War, as well as cannon. Most of them were British trade guns, which were a cheaper version of the Brown Bess, and others were of French manufacture. Remember that the war started with “The Shot Heard ‘Round The World.”

        1. avatar mark s. says:

          It is my personal belief that the term arms meant ALL arms . I truly believe that some of the framers would have argued eloquently , as I have tried to do on numerous occasions , that every American has a right to a nuclear warhead in their own backyard if they can get the resources to make or purchase one of their own and had they ( nuclear warheads ) been around at that time .
          Cannons , rifled barrels , incendiary devises of all types would have been guaranteed under the 2nd A . I also believe that every American today has a right , under our constitution , to every form of arms made today . As long as we hang onto our ownership of the government under a constitution we are the owners of every tank , automatic firearm , surface to air missile and launcher , laser guided bomb , aircraft , submarine , ship and shop in these United States and everywhere our flag is flown , It is only by vote and law that we allow certain individuals to inventory and use these ARMS in our name . If we needed to , by vote and law , we could retake private possession of every afore mentioned ARM in our great nations arsenal and if the people who believe this isn’t the case keep gobbling up power that belongs to the citizenry , there will come a time when we will have to take back what is actually , already ours .
          Remember to support your local law , your state law and our military law enforcers and keep them squarely on the side of the US Constitution . We must have a citizen army of constitution enforcers if we are to survive .

        2. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Mark N. You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. I was NOT claiming the 2nd amendment was written before guns, I was saying it was phrased in such a manner that it *could* have applied *if* it had been written before guns, because they used the more general “arms” instead of “firearms”

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      You make a great point, but let’s remember that the Constitution, as well as the Bill of Rights, are just pieces of paper that can be changed. The 2nd Amendment can be legally repealed. And yet, our right to keep and bear arms will still not go away.
      Their guarantor of the Bill of Rights is the people, not the paper.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        True, the right persists, but repeal of the 2A would mean that the government will no longer guarantee that the right will not be infringed.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Prior to the ratification of the 2A a man disarmed by his government had a course of appeal to the natural right to life and the means to defend it. Society would have acknowledged the legitimacy of that appeal and – in the absence of a compelling argument that he OUGHT to be disarmed – would respond favorably to his appeal.

          After ratification of the 2A such a man could appeal to the guarantee, whether found in his State constitution or the Federal constitution. Still more members of society would have acknowledged legitimacy. Perhaps, as constituents of the sovereignty, would have felt even more compelled to respond.

          The difficulty – as our founders often noted – is that constitutional guarantees are but parchment barriers. The real guarantee always rests in the willingness of society to adhere to the principles supporting each right.

          Today, respect for any notion of God-given/natural-rights is enormously diluted. Worse still, especially among the secular voters, there is no respect for the contractual terms of constitutions. The simple premise of “majority rules” together with the maxim that rules will be broken to achieve a majority now obtains. The founders warned us of mere parchment barriers.

          Survival of any right ultimately depends upon the sentiments of at least a majority that that right deserves to be respected. Indeed, its probably necessary for a super-majority to hold that the right must be respected.

          And so, our struggle is and will remain a political one. We must continue to win more converts to our viewpoint than those whom we drive away. All of our rhetoric must be framed by this political reality.

  24. avatar Dean Carpenter says:

    This is way over my head. I still can’t figure out how “shall not be infringed” can be infringed much less if concealed carry will result in eternal damnation.

  25. avatar david says:

    I hate to rain on your parade lady, but 13 years of private Catholic school in multiple years of studying religions in general proves you very wrong. It’s not only mentioned several dozen times in the Old Testament, but even in the New Testament. You know that if you read a Bible once in your life before. these anti-gun types are just so fake it makes you want to puke! Where do you think an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth came from? the Old Testament God speaking about leveling the playing field when being oppressed and speaking directly about self defense and making sure that you appreciate your human body because it’s a temple of God enough to realize that you have to defend yourself against all evil on this world and otherwise. this bitch is fake!

  26. avatar TT says:

    A few thoughts.

    Guns certainly become idols for people. So do lots of other things.

    The vast majority of us on gun internet sites aren’t involved in violence. The U.S. has many communities where violence is a terrible, widespread problem. Trying to reduce this violence is a noble and important cause. Drug prohibition and policy has a much stronger causal connection to this violence than the availability and numbers of guns in the U.S. As far as what causes this violence, freely available guns are way down the list.

    People that advocate against gun ownership generally don’t own guns or understand gun owners. They conflate inner-city violence with widespread gun ownership in the U.S. The two aren’t connected much at all.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      The inner cities are full of basically honest people who don’t own guns (and are therefore disarmed victims when inter-gang gunfire goes astray), so it’s less egregious to conflate them with what society would look like with gun control, than to conflate them with the positive gun culture in this country.

  27. avatar Lomaka says:

    posted

    “First of all, the American Bill of Rights is deeply based on natural rights theory.
    Natural rights sustain themselves in one two alternatives: Divine Law and Non-relativistic logic.
    The idea that a individual hasn’t a natural right to defend his life and his physical well-being is accepting the existence of rights as pure propositional mores.

    To say that self-defense is not a god-given right is the same thing as saying that rights are only human abstractions and therefore are the same bases for any religious commandment.

    Second, the founding fathers were Christians and Deists, and by so they created the bill of rights with absolute respect for Christian and Judaic principles and laws.

    It is part of nature in it’s god made essence that every sentient animal has ways of fighting for his life.

    Killing in self defense is not murder. And self defense with firearms is not dependent on killing much less dependent in INTENT OF KILLING.

    Either you have natural rights or you have no right at all, only societal agreement.”

    1. avatar jwtaylor says:

      You’ve given quotes with no reference. Are you quoting yourself?

      1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

        At least he’s not quoting a non-existent book he supposedly wrote like another of our more prolific posters. Right? amirite?

  28. avatar Fred says:

    I would have to agree with this statement partially. For the anti-gun side guns have become a god, after all, guns can kill instantly, go off without warning, are the cause crime, make a peaceful person violently bloodthirsty, are the root of mass shootings, and beget the destruction of large cities.

    For the pro-gun side it’s a different story, a firearm is a tool for:
    -Defense
    -A Hobby
    -Competition
    -The Means to Fresh and Natural Meat
    -Conservation

    To say X,Y,Z is an idol in America is misguided. That assumes America is completely homogeneous, that everyone thinks exactly the same. Who usually believes everyone thinks exactly as they do or believes everyone should think exactly as they do? Statists and left-leaning advocates. Who also is more likely to be wrapped up in idols? Statists and left-leaning advocates. They are arguing, as they usually do, from their own point of view and wonder why others don’t jump on the bandwagon. They are arguing that they have false idols and want someone else to take the idols away from them and tell them how to feel and think and worship. Here the Rev. is suggesting the government tell us how and what to worship because she personally holds a false idol.

    In terms of scripture she is dead wrong. Self defense is not forbidden in Christianity for Jesus even instructed some of the disciples be armed to protect them all. Her argument wrongfully equates defense with aggression and preserving life as murder. That simplistic thinking comes from the media and not the Bible or the Constitution.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      +1

      Excellent post. I would add “Fashion” (BBQ gun for example) to the pro-gunner uses list.

    2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      You said it better than I could. My Christianity is rough, a work in progress.

      1. avatar Tom Chaney says:

        And that’s OK man. We are all works in progress, and in dire need of grace. Struggle is an unavoidable reality of the human condition. So, we’re all in this together!

  29. avatar ckirk says:

    Unfortunately GBG is worshiping the idol of ‘feeling safe’. The scriptures do not say thou shalt not kill; rather: Thou shalt not commit murder.

  30. avatar KAP says:

    Another religious political leader, his agenda is political power, thou shall not do because I say! The Heavenly Father has nothing to do with it! KJV of the bible list Sayings by Jesus telling Disciples and people in general too arm them selves using Assault weapons of the day, slicing an ear off by a disciple was not love thy neighbor but protection by an armed good guy! Ownership of Weapons is not limited by what kind and how many, KJV clearly delineates the difference between Self Defense and Murder, self defense is acceptable with conditions while murder never has been nor is condoned since Cain used an assault rock to murder his brother, this sanctimonious hypocrite will not accept that the Heavenly father and his Son practice freedom of choice , where as the beings on the dark side compels obedience by force and trickery if you do not choose his way! Unbelievers follow this destructive disarmament path because of greed for power or are are so cowardly from speaking political lies they are afraid for their lives and if they disarm the Peon’s the Jack booted Federal Baby Incinerators or any of the other Alphabet agencies will enforce this corrupt political will on the Peon’s
    Sorta like the Democrat Party, and Rhino party not far behind

    1. avatar mark s. says:

      Good job KAP ,
      Like +1

  31. avatar george from fort worth says:

    female preacher; oxymoron (emphasis on the last).

    nothing to see here. move on to the next posting

  32. avatar Another Robert says:

    I think the Rev. Kristine should take a break from expounding on the relationship between God and the US Constitution, and study a couple of other Scriptures: 1Corinthians 14:34 ( “…let the women keep silence in the church…”) and 1Timothy2:13 (“I suffer not a woman to teach…”). When she can justify her position vis-à-vis those and similar scriptures without resorting to just saying, “well, some parts of the Bible are just mistakes”, then I might think about listening to her explain how she knows which rights are God-given and which aren’t.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      So in other words women are too stupid to listen to and should get back in the kitchen?

      My jaw literally dropped open reading your post. Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you said.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        You must have misinterpreted my post, because I didn’t state a position on anything myself anything. I referred to and quoted Scriptures from the Holy Writ that the Reverend, as a [nominal] Christian, purports to believe in, and in effect challenged her to explain how she can hold the position that she holds given those statements from the Book she purports to believe is the inerrant truth. I didn’t even say whether or not I agreed with the sentiment expressed in those quotes. So pick your jaw up off the floor, and just read what’s there, not what you assume to be there.

      2. avatar Another Robert says:

        BTW, I might also point out that saying, as a spiritual matter, women have no business in the pastorate is not the same as saying women are stupid and have no place except in the kitchen. The same books that I referred to in my post also tell about Lydia, a businesswoman of means who used her wealth to help support the same fellow who made the statements I quoted. As for my own experience, I’ve had no personal difficulty practicing under female supervisors, practicing before female judges, and having female attorneys practicing in front of me. I do understand that the usual liberal response to criticism and challenge is to start of with the ” you just hate women/blacks/homosexuals/Muslims/the poor/ fill in the oppressed section of the populace of the day here. But it does get tiresome.

      3. avatar george from fort worth says:

        i was going to argue with you, but i realized i agreed with your first sentence.

  33. avatar pg2 says:

    Are humans the only animal in the animal kingdom that tries to prevent it’s own from using any means possible/necessary to protect itself and the lives of it’s young? In nature we admire the tenacity of animals who outwit, outmaneuver, overpower their opponents. For humans we condemn and try to outlaw it?

  34. avatar Kevin says:

    Yeah, this lady is nuts. Guns are just tools, when properly used, protect the gift of life that is God given. Nobody is elevating them to “God” status.

    Maybe some of mine are elevated to Saint status, as in, “the patron Saint of leave me the fuck alone.”

  35. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Just another gun grabbing statist lying and denying her true position. She’s cloaking her freedom-infringing agenda in divinity, as statists throughout history have done, to lend it mantle of legitimacy.

    We’ve seen this from the “Pharaoh-Gods” to the “divine right of kings”, and even up to the present where North Korea’s state-run media churns out various fairie tales regarding the founding of the country and the births of its leaders. Good grief.

    This chick’s arument is an insult to our intelligence, an affront to our faith, and an embarrassment even to fresh-thinking propagandists.

  36. avatar david says:

    this woman is guilty of practicing false religion against God himself by including her anti-gun personal propaganda peace in her summons. just another oppressor trying to use her pulpit tjam anti-gun rhetoric down your throat, and make you think that you’re a sinner if you don’t do what she says boy that sounds like a free country done that. enough is enough now they’re going after our freedom of religion are they going to try to hit all 10 constitutional rights in our Bill of Rights?? I think not this political correctness has to stop and it has to stop now! please vote for somebody in office that isn’t a freaking moron!

  37. avatar Cesare says:

    Eavesdropping on the adults again? Certainly that explains the incoherence and overlap. I am afraid I DO have a natural right to self defense and my 1911 is more convenient than a sword. That said I am not a gun idolater, I sure like the ones I have but religious adulation, no. As for the entire “thou shalt not kill…’ business I believe you will find that the direct translation from the Aramaic is Thou shalt not do murder. Long story short; killing an assailant who has broken into my home a 0 dark:15 is not the same as shooting Grandma in the back of the head unawares for the sport of it, not even in the dim moral equivalence that plainly guides your world. I’d also appreciate it if in future, pastor if you would just plain lodge your faulty assumptions, blanket indictments, and strident accusations firmly in your lower bowel, sideways if possible. Every last issue on earth is not reducible to a simple fulcrum or lens to demonstrate just how strong your feelings are. Sometimes, like this it’s actually important and you don’t get to ‘feel’ my natural rights away.

  38. avatar MarkPA says:

    Our (American) political theory and tradition is summarized in the Declaration of Independence where it is written that we are “. . . endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life . . . ” The signatures and ratifiers of this Declaration were all from the Christian tradition and so they thought about government in these terms. Another term for this notion of God-given rights is “natural rights”. It matters little (if at all) what you call this notion; the fact that it was / has been / is recognized as a useful perspective is all that is required. If – arguendo – there were no God or that we are mistaken that “life” was one of the rights S/He endowed us with, nevertheless, it would be a useful fiction.
    In any case, from this train of thought (natural or God-endowed) arose the political decision ratified as the 2A. Our Federal government will not infringe upon the RKBA. And, the 14A and McDonald decision served to incorporate that guarantee upon the States (and incidentally their municipalities.) Therefore, even if – arguendo – the founding generation were in error as to the existence of God or Her/His decision to endow the right-to-life, it nevertheless remains a political fact that the guarantee of this right is Constitutionally enshrined.
    Perhaps – arguendo – it was / has become / is now a mistake for our governments to guarantee the RKBA against infringement. Our founding generation established the mechanism to conclude that such an error was made and to correct it. It’s found in Article V. Just as soon as 38 States ratify an amendment altering or abolishing this guarantee then the matter will be resolved, at least politically.

    In view of the foregoing rationale, I acknowledge the Reverend’s God-endowed right to hold her opinion and equally to speak and publish the same. Her opinion matters not one whit. Thirty-eight State legislatures will never repudiate the right-to-life of a born individual. Nor will they repudiate the right to defend such a life by the keeping, bearing or use of arms. Unless and until I’m proven wrong, my response to the Reverend’s opinion is: Carry on!

  39. avatar Mad Max says:

    I left a very polite comment on Rev. Eggert’s site regarding the inalienable rights, the Bill of Rights, and the founders and, as you would expect, it was deleted.

    Truth be dammed…by the Reverend.

  40. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

    My reply. Let’s see if it stays up on her comment section:

    “People who believe in the fundamental principles on which the USA was founded hold sacred the idea that certain individual rights are subject neither to the will of rulers nor the whims of the easily manipulated mob. These inalienable rights include the right to effective self defense. We do not worship firearms any more than we worship the printing presses of the legacy media or the computer you used to write this blog post. Tools change over the centuries, the basic principles of respect for the autonomy of individuals do not. Your argument reminds me of a favorite gambit of the secular arm of the civilian disarmament movement, which has tried to characterize us with epithets such as “ammosexual” in an effort to trivialize and dismiss opposing views.

    I suppose you could argue that my golden calf is the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including your right to preach and practice your version of Christianity and denounce me as an idolater. I’ll own that. Proudly.”

    1. avatar david says:

      that was spoken very well I agree with you a hundred and ten percent. using religion nowagainst our constitutional freedoms, God and country that’s how I do it. but there’s just too many verses in the Bible that clearly specifies that God wants us to stand up for our own being and person with the tools of the times! if they had guns back in the biblical times they would have used them, it’s just common sense which apparently she has none left of! Laughing out loud! I think it’s clear to say we can call this woman a moron, and I didn’t say Mormon I said moron lmao.

    2. avatar Mad Max says:

      Censored….no dissent on the Reverend’s site!

  41. avatar pres stone says:

    but this selective judgement whore makes no mention of her and the rest of the country worshiping the almighty dollar, thats ok, guns bad.

  42. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

    For a preacher she’s pretty ignorant. The 6th Commandment is not Thou Shalt not Kill. Its Thou Shalt not Murder. There’s a difference.

    1. avatar david says:

      amen to that brother

    2. avatar Doc Samson says:

      Yes! Thank you! Big difference that very few people understand.

    3. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Thou Shalt not Kill Since you chose to phrase it in KJV-style English, I’ll point out that the KJV version of Exodus 20:13 is precisely that. (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A13&version=KJV)

      Every other translation I checked (including the New King James Version) uses “murder” but KJV–which is still the culturally dominant translation–does indeed read “Thou shalt not kill.” That’s why it’s quoted that way so often. Including on many “Ten Commandments” monuments.

      I believe that translation is mistaken, by the way, but you could run into people who will seriously argue with you about the 6th commandment because they are using the KJV as their authority…I’d avoid using “thou shalt” when “quoting’ the 6th commandment for that reason.

  43. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    While we were endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, she was not endowed with a significant capability to understand reason or logic and is thus to be pitied, but otherwise ignored. There is no point in my mind to spending much effort trying to educate people like this their capacity for retention is sub normal.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      No, perhaps not.

      But, we neglect responding to her at our own peril. People will read her words. If they go unchallenged, they will likely be seen as truth.

      Commenting on her tripe is not to convince her so much as others. That’s the way I see it, anyway.

  44. avatar Hal J. says:

    I tried to post a very calm, reasoned reply in the comments section of her article. For a couple of hours, it was “awaiting moderation”.

    Now it’s gone.

    Go figure.

  45. avatar jojo says:

    Simple…her god is not my God.

    Mine wants good to triumph over evil by any means necessary.

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Which God is “your God,” jojo?

  46. avatar Dustin says:

    Looks like another false flag psy-op to stir up anti-christian hate. If anyone has actually read the book, they know she is preaching against it, not from it…

  47. avatar Dustin says:

    One thing I wish God would have breathed inspiration…

    “I am responsible for my words. I am not responsible for your willful failure to understand them.”

    Do you believe in God’s word, or do you believe in your ability to twist it to your agenda?

    So many false churches generating reasons to hate them…

  48. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    If a man comes to slay you, slay him first.

  49. avatar LarryinTX says:

    So many entries on this thread are clearly of the impression that they, personally, speak for one god or another. Or perhaps that they ARE one god or another. Right along with the fake the thread is about, who is CLRARLY telling us that she speaks for god. That should be cause for involuntary hospitalization.

  50. avatar TCinPA says:

    John L has a Ruger Redhawk named Billy that might be a deity….Not sure on that one…he didn’t fully explain….

  51. avatar Tom says:

    It should be clear that Reverend Eggert is a hypocrite. She preaches a sermon against idolizing guns while turning government into a idol and deity. I posted on her blog, but my bet is that she will remove any and all opposing responses.

  52. avatar the ruester says:

    Maybe she doesn’t realize the lefts “guns as idols” meme is meant as an insult to both gun owners AND Christians. The implication is that CHRISTIANITY is in and of itself a murderous tragedy, pursued with irrational zeal. They make the comparison to cast that “bitter clinger” net over both groups, because their is so much overlap between them. Or maybe she does realize this, and agrees with the sentiment.

  53. avatar Robert says:

    Last I checked we lived in a democratic republic not a theocracy. Why do fundamental Christians seem to forget that all the time?

  54. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Hmmm…nothing to add that hasn’t already been stated. Just another left-wing apostate loon gal…not dissimilar from jesse j or fadder phfeggma…

  55. avatar Wiregrass says:

    Face it. This lady is just against liberty. She’s against people engaged in anything or enjoying anything she doesnt agree with. Firearms are just. the latest incarnation. If it wasnt guns she would taking God’s name in vain against something else.

  56. avatar Vitsaus says:

    Trying to justify gun rights with the bible is like trying to justify abortion by siting Marx.

  57. avatar gsnyder says:

    “Where is God in the 2nd Amendment?” Why does it matter? Why must the 2A be proven against any religion? The 2A is part of our American Constitution, it’s an umbrella thing, get it? it’s a Right, hello. She’s a bum pastor, you’re fired!

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      ” The 2A is part of our American Constitution,”

      I understand the point you are trying to make, but I do think it worthwhile pointing out that the RIGHT outlined in the 2A transcends even the US Constitution.

      The Constitution LISTED (enumerated) that right; but, the right ITSELF is “natural” to all men by virtue of existence. To a Christian, or other theist, the right comes from God. No matter how you interpret “natural right,” the point is that Constitution only lists the right as existing ABOVE GOVERNMENT.

      That is, Government (or no man) can take such a “right” away.

      I’m not disagreeing with what you wrote so much as I just wished to clarify that the right does not “come from” the Constitution; it’s listed there as being “before government” and therefore as not being within the purview of government.

      1. avatar Marcus (Aurelius) Payne says:

        Yep. Even if the 2nd amendment is repealed we will still have that right (and the guns). Which is an important point. Many people talk about violated rights as no longer existing. While it’s powerful language I think it helps legitimize the violation.

        It is possible for someone to forfeit their rights. We have due process to make resonably sure we have the correct individual, and that they really did the deed, and then we toss them into prison where they no longer have the right to travel freely or to be secure in their papers or effects. That person really does not have those rights for the duration on the sentence, and we accept that as legitimate.

        When we apply that language to a violation of the rights of someone who has committed no crime, seen no due process, or has been convicted under a law that governed had no authority to enact, and therefore has not forfeited any rights, I think it implies legitimacy for those violations.

        My $0.02 worth.

        Didn’t mean to preach, now where was i? Oh yes.

        Have the birds got jobs? No they don’t, and they’re doing alright…

    2. avatar Tom Chaney says:

      Good idea, but unfortunately, the leadership of that “church” (dare I say) would not fire her. They are there because they WANT to hear this kind of lunacy that is disconnected from reality. I’m OK, you’re OK, everyone’s OK but a system made from polymer, metal, brass, propellant, etc. for launching projectiles is inherently evil. It’s simpleton, crackpot logic and they WANT to hear this pile of bovine droppings. I think they believe that they can’t be OK (spiritually) if they concede that evil or violence is resident in the heart of man – that doesn’t jive with their contrived biblical narrative or cultish line of thinking.

    3. avatar Tom Chaney says:

      Good idea, but unfortunately, the leadership of that “church” (dare I say) would not fire her. They are there because they WANT to hear this kind of lunacy that is disconnected from reality. I’m OK, you’re OK, everyone’s OK but a system made from polymer, metal, brass, propellant, etc. for launching projectiles is inherently evil. It’s simpleton, crackpot logic and they WANT to hear this pile of bovine droppings. I think they believe that they can’t be OK (spiritually) if they concede that evil or violence is resident in the heart of man – that doesn’t jive with their contrived biblical narrative or cultish line of thinking.

  58. avatar Chr. says:

    Thanks Dan for alerting us another Bloomberg shill. I encourage all of my Gun Nut friends to remember the wise words of Benjamin Franklin…”when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. I’m a man of God, but these self righteous sons of bitches can go pound sand!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email