As today marks Good Friday for the Christians among us (and simply Friday for everyone else as I was reminded by one irate Jewish coworker years ago at NRA when I mistakenly wished her a Happy Easter), I thought despite our diverse audience, it might be interesting to see what the chattering class has to say about Jesus’ stance on firearms ownership and gun laws, since his name is so often invoked.
A basic web search surprisingly turned up quite a bit on the topic. Most of it, as you probably already guessed, focuses on since Jesus was for peace, certainly he wouldn’t want us to have guns or at the very least use them, which makes for a more violent society, or at the very least, a more efficiently violent society.
Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but I do believe Jesus, most definitely would not want us going around harming each other with—well, really with anything—fists, swords, whips, knives, nuclear weapons, and certainly, I have to be fair and add guns to that list. But in my loose interpretation from a spotty life of church attendance, I also can’t imagine he’d have us pitched into the fiery pits of hell for defending ourselves or other innocents who are unfairly or unjustly attacked by an aggressor bent on serious harm or death. I mean a shepherd must protect his flock after all.
I think good people must be prepared to protect a good society from bad people bent on doing evil to others for their own enjoyment or gain. Peace in this world has never been achieved or maintained through weakness. Never in history. And guns are the best equalizer between good and bad, strong and weak, that mankind has ever created.
But, regardless of what my personal thoughts and beliefs may be, some of the arguments for and against the whole Jesus and guns argument were interesting. At the very least they are thought-provoking. So, I thought I’d share some short passages of the more interesting ones, whether I agreed or not, along with links so you could read the full article if you’d like.
Truth and Meaning: Jesus and Guns – The Midland Daily News
My blog last week generated enthusiastic response from ardent supporters of the right to keep and bear arms without a mandatory background check. At one point, one of these strident advocates cited Luke 22:36 as a defense of the position of his “God-given” right to own firearms. The verse describes Jesus talking to his apostles and reads, “He said to them, ‘But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one.’”
Since this verse comes up frequently in discussions of gun control, let’s destroy this argument once and for all. First, let us examine the full context of the verse by including the following two verses. “He said to them, ‘But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfillment.’ And they said, ‘Look, Lord, here are two swords.’ And he said to them, ‘It is enough.’”
The New Oxford Annotated Bible has this to say about the passage. “An example of Jesus’ fondness for striking metaphors, but the disciples take it literally. The sword apparently meant to Jesus a preparation to live by one’s own resources against hostility. The natural meaning of verse 38 is that the disciples supposed he spoke of an actual sword, only to learn that two swords were sufficient for the whole enterprise, that is, were not to be used at all.”…
… Jesus frequently used physical objects (seeds, lamps, vineyards, coins, lost sheep, etc.) to teach universal truths, and the same is true of the two swords. This interpretation is supported by Matthew 10:34: “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword,” (another verse often misquoted by gun advocates). In proper context, Jesus did not mean a physical sword that cuts up and bloodies the family, but a spiritual and moral one that may divide families nonphysically…
… Therefore, the words of Jesus in Luke 22:36 are not to be understood literally, that he would have his disciples furnish themselves with swords. His meaning is that, wherever they went and a door was opened for the preaching of the Gospel, they would have many adversaries. They would be met with violence, followed by rage and persecution. The phrase expresses the danger they will be exposed to.
When gun advocates use this verse to justify the purchase of guns without background checks for self-defense, they not only pervert the meaning of the statement, but the purpose for the warning. The disciples are entering hostile religious territory to preach a message, not to protect themselves from criminals. And the message they are preaching is one of love and peace, not “stand your ground” violence.
There are rational and compelling arguments on both sides of the gun control debate. Arguing that the Prince of Peace would have supported the right to keep and bear arms is not one of them. – Rev. Jeff Liebmann
What Does the Bible Say About the Right to Bear Arms? Should a Christian Practice Self-Defense – Learn Religions
According to conservative leader and Wall Builders founder David Barton, the original intent of the Founding Fathers when writing the Second Amendment was to guarantee citizens “the biblical right of self-defense.”
Richard Henry Lee (1732–1794), a signer of the Declaration of Independence who helped frame the Second Amendment in the First Congress, wrote, “… to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…”
As many of the Founding Fathers recognized, Barton believes that “the ultimate goal of the Second Amendment is to make sure you can defend yourself against any kind of illegal force that comes against you, whether that is from a neighbor, whether that is from an outsider or whether that is from your own government.”
Obviously, the Bible does not specifically address the issue of gun control, since firearms, like we use today, were not manufactured in ancient times. But accounts of warfare and the use of weaponry, such as swords, spears, bows, and arrows, darts and slings were well-documented in the pages of the Bible.
As I began researching biblical perspectives on the right to bear arms, I decided to speak with Mike Wilsbach, the manager of security at my church. Wilsbach is a retired combat veteran who also teaches personal defense classes. “To me, the Bible couldn’t be clearer on the right, even the duty, we have as believers to self-defense,” said Wilsbach.
He reminded me that in the Old Testament ”the Israelites were expected to have their own personal weapons. Every man would be summoned to arms when the nation confronted an enemy. They didn’t send in the Marines. The people defended themselves.”
We see this clearly in passages like 1 Samuel 25:13:
And David said to his men, “Every man strap on his sword!” And every man of them strapped on his sword. David also strapped on his sword. And about four hundred men went up after David, while two hundred remained with the baggage. (ESV)
So, each man had a sword ready to be holstered and used when required.
And in Psalm 144:1, David wrote: “Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle…”
Besides instruments of warfare, weapons were used in the Bible for the purpose of self-defense; nowhere in Scripture is this forbidden.
In the Old Testament, we find this example of God sanctioning self-defense:
“If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder.” (Exodus 22:2, NLT)
In the New Testament, Jesus sanctioned the use of weapons for self-defense. While giving his farewell discourse to the disciples before going to the cross, he instructed the apostles to purchase side arms to carry for self-protection. He was preparing them for the extreme opposition and persecution they would face in future missions:
And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38, ESV)
Conversely, as soldiers seized Jesus at his arrest, our Lord warned Peter (in Matthew 26:52-54 and John 18:11) to put away his sword: “For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
Some scholars believe this statement was a call to Christian pacifism, while others understand it simply to mean in a general sense that “violence breeds more violence.”…
… Scripture, we know, does not promote vengeance (Romans 12:17-19) or vigilantism, but it does allow believers to engage in self-defense, to resist evil, and to defend the defenseless.
Wilsbach put it like this: “I believe I have the responsibility to defend myself, my family, and my home. For every verse that I have used as a case for defense, there are verses that teach peace and harmony. I agree with those verses; however, when there is no other alternative, I believe I am charged with the responsibility to defend.”
Another clear basis for this idea is found in the book of Nehemiah. When exiled Jews returned to Israel to rebuild the Temple walls, their leader Nehemiah wrote:
From that day on, half of my men did the work, while the other half were equipped with spears, shields, bows and armor. The officers posted themselves behind all the people of Judah who were building the wall. Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked. (Nehemiah 4:16-18, NIV)
Weapons, we can conclude, are not the problem. Nowhere does the Bible forbid Christians from bearing arms. But wisdom and caution are of the utmost importance if one does choose to bear a lethal weapon. Anyone who owns and carries a firearm should be properly trained and know and carefully follow all safety rules and laws pertaining to such a responsibility.
Ultimately, the decision to bear arms is a personal choice determined by one’s own convictions. As a believer, the use of deadly force would be applied only as a last resort, when no other option is available, to prevent an evil from being committed and to protect human life. – Mary Fairchild
A Christian Perspective on Guns – Surrendered and Free
In respect of the gun control debate, there are both common goods and competing goods. The common goods are safety, a decrease in violence, and death reduction. The competing good is protecting the Second Amendment rights of the United States Constitution. However, I do not think these goods ought to be competing. In this post, I will defend a middle ground for gun control. I believe in the ability to enforce stricter regulations to help prevent guns and excessive weapons from getting in the hands of those they do not belong, as well as keeping the Second Amendment rights while simultaneously not punishing the masses of gun owners who are mentally healthy and law-abiding citizens.
Two years ago, I bought my first handgun and had to analyze the positives and negatives of this sensitive topic myself. There were several motivating factors for me, starting with safety. Over the last few years, I have had increasing chronic back pain. It turns out I have a back of a sixty-year-old and had a handful of significant issues. This news made me reevaluate my physical strength and health. Add on top the social unrest and getting married, and I felt as though if I needed to, I would not be able to defend myself or my wife in a physical altercation. So, I resorted to buying a handgun. As Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret) put it:
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.[1]
With a handgun, I have the confidence that I stand an excellent chance of ending any threat to my life or my wife’s if needed…
… An important question to ask, especially as a Christian, is “Is it moral to own and use guns?” My answer is yes, especially in the defense of oneself and others. Exodus 22:2 supports self-defense by allowing a person to kill someone who breaks into their home. Furthermore, I think you can love your neighbor by keeping them alive; even if that means you take the life of a demonic person trying to murder your neighbor. That said, I would have no problem explaining my choice to God to shoot someone if, for example, my action saved my classmates or church members from being innocently murdered. Owning a gun does come with an obviously massive responsibility. Thus, we need to seek out the best instruction and stewardship of safety for ourselves and others. Furthermore, I do believe guns should be used in a God-glorifying and moderate way in our contexts. We should never own guns to abuse power and control, or feed pride. We should not go out and look for trouble. We should practice wisdom, peace, and edification in all circumstances (James 3:17-18).
A second question to consider is, “What does the Bible say about guns?” While the Bible does not speak specifically to guns, there are applicable principles. Genesis 1:26 says that humans are created in the image of God. The Bible also tells us in Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12-14, and 1 John 3:15 that there are severe consequences for taking one’s life. Thus, if you put the two together, the Biblical principle is human life is priceless and worth safeguarding because we are created in God’s image.
The Bible does mention weapons. In fact, there are examples of people using weapons for self-defense. In Nehemiah 4:13-14, the people of Jerusalem defended the city with their own personal weapons. We have the instance of the apostles, who had weapons. On the evening Jesus was betrayed, He invited His disciples to bring swords. They took two, which Jesus said was plenty (Luke 22:37-39). At a different time, soldiers (who would carry weapons) came to be baptized by John the Baptist. When they inquired what to do to live for God, John said, “Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14). John did not say to give up their weapons. The bottom line here is these are examples of a case where personal weapons are not condemned and are also used for protection. – T.S. Weaver
I do not claim to be a Christian. I do claim the right of any living being to self defense and the best tools for the job.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
good stuff, but surviving is not failure.
My local radio station is right *now* playing Zappa’s ‘Montana’ from his seminal ‘Over ‘Nite Sensation’ album… 😉
Zircon encrusted tweezers, no less!
Who could imagine we would freak out in Kansas
I suppose in keeping with the context however it should be.
I got three beers and a fist full of downs
I’m going to get ripped so fck you clowns.
And that’s when the Devil farted and blew her over the cliff.
^It’s funny how both atheists and cowardly Christians use the same out of context Bible verses to excuse their behavior.
Atheist don’t use any parts of the Bible to justify anything.
That would be like using Alice in Wonderland to justify your tax deductions.
“Atheist[s] don’t use any parts of the Bible to justify anything.”
You couldn’t be more wrong, Miner. You’re even doing that on this very page in another comment! You’re constantly trying to prove your points by using Scripture. You also use verses to tell Christians how they’re doing it wrong. Just last year you were using Bible verses to justify abortion! Remember that? I didn’t mean to single out atheists. Pretend-Christians do it as well.
Listen to politicians. They especially love to do this. They’re always using Jesus to justify their stance on open border policies and a welfare state. Of course they use the Bible to justify disarming people as well.
MajorLiar,
OK, that is weak sauce, even for a lying, sh*tbag, Leftist/fascist propagandist like you. YOU, yourself, are on here ALL the time, citing Scripture to attack Christians and “right-wingers” (NOT synonymous, but you’re too ignorant to know that) – and ALWAYS (i) out of context, and (ii) without considering OTHER verses, equally or more applicable, that say different things.
As always, MajorLiar, “Thou art a liar, MajorLiar. In the community of liars, thou holdest a place of high esteem! All liars, when getting together to concoct their new lie, remark, ‘If ONLY MajorLiar were here!! HE could pull a lie out of his colon which would astound even the White Supremacist, Christian Nationalist, white, cis-gendered, right-wing fascists!!!'”
Unfortunately, they are as bereft of reason (and the ability to tell truth) as you are. Get thyself gone, MajorLiar. Hie thyself off and expire in an excavation. You will not be missed.
“Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor,…”
But not thy neighbor’s wife, and especially not thy neighbor’s *smoking* hot 15 year-old daughter, even if she really is “just asking for it”…
Dustin Hoffman in ‘The Graduate’ comes to mind.
“thy neighbor’s *smoking* hot 15 year-old daughter“
I have my own concerns about ‘men’ who think a 15-year-old girl is “smoking hot”.
It seems congruent with Mohammed’s nine-year-old wife, the Mormons child brides and Trump’s Teen Beauty pageants.
What about the hair sniffer in chief? Always apologizing for him.
“i have my own concerns about ‘men’ who think a 15-year-old girl is ‘smoking hot’.”
we know who you are Miner49er. Your only concern is a ‘man’ might get to a 15 year old, or younger, girl or boy before you can.
MajorLiar,
IF there were any truth to your protestations, a rational observer MIGHT be tempted to ask, “So, when are you going to renounce your affiliation with the Dimocrat party, the teacher’s unions, and the Communist left???”
But we all know the answer to that – you are both a hypocrite AND a liar. You support a party, and a philosophy, that literally GLORIFIES all those things, and pretend to be “shocked” that such is going on.
Congrats, MajorBuffoon, you’ve now earned a new nick: “Louis Renault”. Wear it in good lies, MajorTw*t.
If I had the luxury of waking back up in three days when killed, I probably wouldn’t worry much about needing to defend myself. Since I don’t have that luxury and the good Lord suffers the wicked to roam this world freely, I will continue to carry my own insurance policy just in case one decides that I’d make an easy victim. I can love mine enemies just as much AFTER their threat to me and mine has been neutralized, either through implied or direct force.
By the way, the “turn the other cheek” thing is a prescribed response to an insult; it does NOT mean that you must bend over and smile for anyone who would do grave harm to you or your family.
Correct. Jesus wasn’t asking people to be a doormat. Like .40 cal mentioned below, the people who hide behind this false interpretation are indirect predators. Jesus never said you can’t defend yourself. Did Jesus give money to, or only pray for the den of thieves within the temple? No. He let them know what they were doing was wrong. He defended the temple. Some of the lessons of the Sermon on the Mount are really the same lessons taught in the OT. Vengeance is not yours to give. Your heart can’t be full of contempt. You must love (and therefore obviously defend) life.
Dude, it is amazing how similar your statement is to an earlier statement by someone else.
Dude:
“Did Jesus give money to, or only pray for the den of thieves within the temple? No. He let them know what they were doing was wrong“
From ‘My Struggle’:
“And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests“
The resonance is fascinating.
You mean I’m not the only person in world history who has talked about that story contained within the most widely distributed book in the world? I guess that means I’m basically Hitler because our commentary had the EXACT same meaning. (Here you are again either playing stupid, or actually being stupid.) You guys need some new material. You had to really stretch for this one. People stopped paying attention to the basket of deplorables smear nearly a decade ago.
“The resonance is fascinating.”
yet referencing another concept for which Miner49er doesn’t understand the context for his reply to…
“Did Jesus give money to, or only pray for the den of thieves within the temple? No. He let them know what they were doing was wrong”
MajorLiar,
And, in fact, Jesus did EXACTLY that, MajorLiar. He asserted that His view of His Father’s religion (Jesus was a Jew, as you are too stupid to know – not ONE WORD of the New Testament had been written as of the time of Jesus’ death on the cross or his resurrection, FYI. Cocaine and ignorance are a hell of a drug, Leftist/fascist idiot) forbade their conduct. Kinda like the “Stop Oil” protesters blocking highways, INNIT, you f*cking lying propagandist buffoon???
Are you ready to pull your head out of rectal defilade and actually look in a mirror, you lying sh*tweasel??? IF (and it is an ALLEGATION, not a fact) Matt Goetz did consort with minors? His sorry @$$ should be run out of Congress. NOW do Robert Menendez, and Billy Zipperpants, and Jeffrey Epstein, and THOUSANDS of other “good Dimocrats”.
You are a pathetic hypocrite of a liar, MajorLiar, and any rational man would be embarrassed to be you. Lies stink, and your presence on this thread hath raised a foul stench. We shall henceforth refer to all threads in which your idiot commentary appears as “John”. (If you don’t get the joke, I’ll explain it to your. You STILL haven’t figured out the Balaam’s off ass reference, have you, you pathetic ignoranus????)
“You mean I’m not the only person in world history who has talked about that story”
The interesting part is that you, just like Herr SchickleGruber, used that story to prove your point.
“Balaam’s off ass reference”
Lamprey, I’ve seen you reference that story many times, I was being polite and not publicly calling out your disability. But if you want folks to know you believe donkeys can talk, who am I to stand in the way…
Would you like to share with the group exactly what Balaam’s donkey said?
“The interesting part is that you, just like Herr SchickleGruber, used that story to prove your point.”
That’s irrelevant because we were using the same story to prove different points. The only point I was making was related to the question posed in this article. That has absolutely nothing to do with Hitler unless he did that same thing. Even if he did do that, there would be nothing wrong with me making a similar argument because there’s nothing inherently bad about the argument I made.
You’re really stretching to try and link me to a bad person because that’s about all you have. Insults and trying to change the topic. I bet even Democrats who read this are embarrassed for you.
ajorLiar,
Dayum, boy . . . if fish were as stupid as you, I’d catch my limit every time!
Heh!! You STILL don’t understand the Balaam reference. No, I don’t believe an ass can talk (although, apparently, at least ONE ass can keyboard enough to post partisan insanity) . . . unless God wants that ASS to talk. (Now, for bonus points, explain the reference to “Balaam’s OFF ass” – you’ll fail, spectacularly, just like you did on the original, but . . . it will be fun to watch you flounder!!).
I know EXACTLY what Balaam’s ass said (seriously, you are STILL choosing me off on theology, the Bible, and Christian doctrine???? Dayum, boy, the shrinks have a name for that, and somehow it historically links with the name “Marquis de Sade”. Sad, sorry, drunk, and stupid is a hell of a way to go through life, MajorMistake!).
NOW . . . how about you actually address the SUBSTANCE of what I’ve posted?? Or is that beyond the reach of your (extremely) meager mental abilities???
And the gun owner said……Can we get an NIV translation? I cant understand ye!😉
Well, the Good Book says it so I know it’s the truth
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
You better watch where you go and remember where you been
That’s the way I see it, I’m a simple man
‘An eye for an eye’ leaves both men blind.
An eye for an eye was a type of justice meant to limit what people could do. It wasn’t about excessive punishment. It was about fair punishment.
OOH!!! PROFOUND WISDOM, MajorIdiot!!!
Not. I realize that you are incapable of analysis, ratiocination, OR mathematics, but . . . people have two eyes. “An eye for an eye” would, technically, leave a bunch of one-eyed people, who would likely have a PROFOUND respect for . . . not poking other people’s eyes out, you absolute simpleton.
considering this upcoming final conflict, and what many hope and expect to transpire, our little skirmishes pale. self defense? try justifying what will be necessary as predicted. and try not to look into lazarus’ eyes.
That’s surfer Jesus in the pictures. Jeshua didn’t look like a Caucasian.
You were there to judge, boomer?
Great theorizing. Do the Tooth Fairy and Spiderman next.
If the Good Lord did not want me to have firearms I would be a tree today so any old azzhole could come along and do to me what they want. Otherwise it’s Onward Christain Soldiers…
But if you wuh a twee, what kind of twee would you be?
A nutty one
bawa&aq…two wooden heads.
Yep, it seems that fellow Jesus was an Asian, with dark curly hair and a big nose, just like the rest of his family.
Some would say he looked quite a bit like old Saint Nick (another Asian), but Jesus didn’t have Black Peter to help him make his rounds.
https://mymerrychristmas.com/the-story-of-black-peter/
so Miner49er… its not only black people you are racist against and stereotype but now also Asians. I guess you Marxist soci – alism faci- st are gonna faci -st
Nope, I don’t care what color, size, shape they are, if they live their life based on a delusion rooted in talking snakes or a man splitting the moon, my assessment is they are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
But I do find the details of the fables quite entertaining, mankind has such a fertile imagination.
miner hates all. He’s a bigoted jack boot that has the absolute conviction that it is okay to hate others and pass judgement on them because they do not believe the same as him.
He has a religious fanaticism against religion.
MajorLiar,
” . . . if they live their life based on a delusion rooted in talking snakes or a man splitting the moon, my assessment is they are a few sandwiches short of a picnic.”
COOL STORY, BRO!!! Now apply that same logic to certain insane idiots who believe that a philosophy/economic system that has NEVER WORKED, in the history of the world, is going to save us from the “evils of capitalism and the free market” (which has lifted millions, if not billions, out of poverty).
(By the way, just FYI, none of those beliefs you mentioned are beliefs of ANY Christian denomination, just FYI, you uneducated idiot.)
You remain (and are, apparently, ineradicably) too stupid to insult.
“pass judgement on them because they do not believe the same as him“
You must be speaking of all those on this forum who do exactly that regarding my posts.
And my position isn’t one of belief, but rather of disbelief, disbelief of the God claims because sufficient evidence to warrant belief has not been presented.
So, miner. You’re admitting to being no different than a bunch of red neck hill jacks. Because you do exactly that. It strokes your ego to come hear and stir up an argument. People respond and it makes you feel ….something.
Why are you compelled, as an addict is compelled, to challenge religious belief? You know it gets a reaction. Your only reason for being here.
That was a long article. I didn’t read the whole thing because (having read the Bible) I already have a pretty good idea about what Christ would have of us. It is good for a man (and even a woman,) to be armed and know how to use it. At the same time, our hope and confidence is to be in God alone. I am well armed. More importantly, my name is written in the Lamb’s Book of Life.
He is risen indeed!
For ye(& me) died & my life is hid with CHRIST in GOD. Meanwhile I take “buy a sword” literally. JESUS was born,lived & died for one reason. HE redeemed mankind & eventually the entire universe. He was resurrected and is returning soon. HE won’t be the willing sacrifice for the world. Eyes as a flame of fire. In righteousness he doth judge & MAKE WAR. And HE is returning with an army. I am commanded to take care of my own family. That includes protection. My weapons are not for offensive use. HE is risen! I barely scanned this endless missive. I miss the departed staff🙄
AOW, if you thought the article was long, wait till you see what .40 caliber Booger posts tomorrow morning at 07:30 !
Probably the same thing he’d say about owning a hammer or a car. Don’t bludgeon or run over anybody and we’ll be fine. Unless you have to keep your own ass alive of course. In which case swing away.
People in Biblical history delt with the same issues we have today. They should be answered in the same way. “You, sir, are doing a bad thing and causing harm to the innocent. Allow me to show you something you’re not going to like very much.” Then fuck up his day three ways from Sunday.
Tru dat
The correct translation of the 5th commandment is thou shall not murder, which acknowledges that there is such a thing as a lawful killing.
Also see Saint Augustine‘s Just War theory.
And, there’s the phrase “the meek shall inherit the earth”, but meek is mistranslated. Jesus wasn’t meek, as in weak or helpless, he was all powerful but obedient to the Father. So meek really means powerful but humble and in control of that power.
Also see the Catholic Catechism section 2258-2267 for a full explanation.
Just search for “CCC 2258”.
Came to the comment section to post exactly that. I can’t speak for the other Christians, but Catholics are obligated to protect our own, and actively oppose evil in general.
Worms, worms are meek.
Earth is dirt
“The correct translation of the 5th commandment is thou shall not murder, which acknowledges that there is such a thing as a lawful killing.”
“Also see the Catholic Catechism section 2258-2267 for a full explanation.”
I’ve bought this up before in other comment sections, but being Catholic myself wanted to point out in this context of it not being ‘murder’ to lawfully kill in valid self-defense…
Citing Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism says
“Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”
“one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”
Interesting to view the teachings of the Catholic Church, when one considers what are said to be the actual words of Jesus:
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”
John 15:13
Once again miner49er, understand what context means, and stop your cherry picking to satisfy your confirmation bias.
“…since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”
does not have any relation to your very gross and stupid understanding of the bible grabbing at straws to justify your own ignorance.
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends
John 15:13″
ya see the word “friends”?
“…since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”
and if you had not cherry picked and knew what context means you would see that … Citing Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism … your cherry picked out for context … in its context “…since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.” is referring to the one that needs to defend his life from another person. Or in other words not a ‘friend’ but in the ‘incident’ the ‘enemy’. Or to put it another way, the defending person has no obligation to worry about taking care of the life of the person trying to harm them, in the Catechism’s words … “…since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.” where in its proper context had you not cherry picked ‘another’ being the one (e.g. the ‘enemy’) trying to harm the defending person (or those which the defending person is protecting).
Why are you so willfully ignorant? I would think even the most stupid of atheist knows the difference between ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’, but you’ve proven that atheist don’t have any understanding at all. So why don’t you keep out of discussions for which you obviously have no understanding of the subject matter.
“Atheist[s] don’t use any parts of the Bible to justify anything.” -Miner49er
“Atheist[s] don’t use any parts of the Bible to justify anything. -Miner49er”
🤣
The atheist primary source of every anti-religion argument justification of theirs, is the Bible in some form or use. Sometimes they try to hide it with wording but still can not get away from going back to some concept in the Bible. And like Miner49 they always cherry pick to take out of context because they don’t understand what context is. For example, above look at Miner49er’s ignorant cherry picking and ignoring context. There are even seminars and classes for atheist on “how to read” the Bible where all they get is their own out of context interpretation – its a like a fungal infection that just feeds on its self.
For example, do a search on Bing with “why do atheist use the bible” and you will see page after page of atheist use of the Bible to in some way justify in some way or another their arguments or views contrary to the Bible.
“The atheist primary source of every anti-religion argument justification of theirs, is the Bible”
Absolutely, because it is the theists who use the Bible to justify every one of their immoral actions.
Slavery, no problem it’s in the Bible!
Leviticus 25:44-46
Genocide, no problem, it’s in the Bible!
Deuteronomy 7:2-3
Child rape, no problem it’s in the Bible!
Numbers 31:17-18 KJV
Oppression of women, no problem it’s in the Bible!
1 Timothy 2:11
In other words, .40 cal was correct. It wasn’t necessary, but thanks for the affirmation nonetheless.
MajorIdiot,
I guess you missed the part about “his friend”, eh, MajorMoron???? A guy trying to mug me, steal my car, kill me, rape my wife or daughter, etc., is my friend, eh? Even Jesus didn’t advocate that (and FYI, you blithering idiot, NO Christian believes that they are the moral equivalent of Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus was the ONLY perfect man ever to exist – because he was both man, and God. But that’s more complex than your tiny, empty mind can cope with).
MajorMoron, because, immediately after Easter and my celebration of the wonder of the Pascal Sacrifice, I am impelled to generosity of spirit, I will offer you a word of advice – you aren’t very bright, or very educated (you apparently believe Ghandi was a “Hindu holy man” – ONLY Ghandi and his followers ever made such a ciaim. But you’re too stupid to know THAT, either!). Try not to engage in “intellectual” or “philosophical” or “ethical” or (God forbid!!) theological argument or discussion. You are unequipped for any of those.
The nature of tyranny, the tactics of oppression and the blessedness of being secure in one’s person and possessions have not changed over the millenia.
That’s why those who say the Bill of Rights is antiquated are of full of shit, at best…
I thought I heard him say that any handgun caliber less than .40 is a mortal sin.
With the obvious exception of .357 magnum! 😁
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!
Kill’em all and let God sort’em out. Something my cousin brought back from S.E.A.
Guns exist. They are therefore part of God’s Plan.
“‘God-given’ right to own firearms”
Its expressing a concept, not a direct ‘interpretation’ thing like the left wing anti-gun want to take it and then point to the Bible and say “where does it say that?”
Its a ‘God-given’ right to defend self and/or family and/or others, with our ‘best means’ available to overcome, what we call today, the ‘threat’ to harm or kill. Its in all animal species, even the human species, and in the natural inherent broad context, what we call today and scientifically and medically acknowledged and proven to exist, ‘fight or flight’.
And to ‘fight or flight’ the species must have the means to do so.
‘Flight’ does not mean to simply ‘run away’, its not a choice vs ‘fight’ to avoid ‘fight’ even though it can be used that way. It means to escape the threat and escaping and simply running away are two different things when the threat has the capability to overcome you. To ‘escape’ the threat means being prepared to, willing to, have the means to, ‘fight’ anyway to assure that ‘flight’ is effective.
For example, have you ever seen some kind of nature show where a herd of animals sees the predator coming and they sort of band together to protect the herd and warn off the predator? The could have run, or ‘flight’, but they know in their understanding that if they were to run some of the weaker members of the herd would be exposed to the predator because the weaker members would not be able to keep up. Mean while the predator also knows this, that if they can get the herd to ‘flight’ that weaker members would be likely to become their next meal. So, the herd ‘stands their ground’ and ‘fights’ by doing so with the ‘best means’ at their disposal ranging from warding off the predator by posturing showing a readiness to fight to using their physical means of horns or hooves and physical strength or what ever means they have available to physically fight.
We see this ‘stands their ground’ and/or ‘fights’ concept in higher ‘social’ members in the animal/insect species, for example, in chimpanzees, elephants, dolphins, whales, lions, wolves, hyenas, prairie dogs, bees, crows, etc… in other words its a natural inherent thing.
Notice how in the higher ‘social’ members in the animal/insect species they don’t farm out their defense to another species or simply give up or not use their ‘best means’ of defense against predators and aggressors (e.g. the ‘threat’) when that ‘threat’ shows up.
Humans don’t have claws and hooves and horns and stingers and beaks and the defense means of the higher ‘social’ members in the animal/insect species. Humans are not matched on the basic level where each ‘side’, aggressor vs victim, are evenly matched in a natural sense like for example, if the herd runs weaker members would be likely to become the next meal of the predator and both sides have natural ability to carry out their agenda goal of predator getting that next meal or keeping the predator from getting that next meal.
Humans need the means, the ‘best means’, to keep from being the ‘next meal’ of the ‘predator’, and the best known overall means is firearms even if there is ‘flight’ available.
There is a reason running away from an imminent threat only works in about 4% of cases for humans. Its because, unlike the higher ‘social’ members in the animal/insect species, humans do not overall have the means to turn and fight with natural ability against a stronger predator that can easily overtake them to stop the predator from overtaking or harming them. So even in ‘flight’ the human still needs the ‘best means’ of defense in the imminent and that’s a firearm.
Thus, the expression of the concept ” ‘God-given’ right to own firearms”, because the founders of our country understood that, what we call today, ‘fight or flight’ is a natural inherent thing in humans and under stood that humans are not matched evenly naturally against prepared ‘predators’ be that ‘predator’ in the form of tyranny or other humans. Our founders understood that the ‘best means’ was firearms.
Thus, also, the concept expression “‘God-given’ right to own firearms”, that the founders expressed in the Declaration of Independence as ‘Creator’ because they knew, even as it was in their time, there would be those who balked at the use of the word ‘God’ because there are people even as it was then that do not believe in a ‘God’. But they also knew, even though their understanding context of ‘creator’ was ‘God’, and did express that in their other writings, that ‘creator’ was enough because all humans have a ‘creator’ in a sense of being born via from a male fertilizing a female and the resulting human also having the natural inherent right, or what are known as unalienable rights, of ‘fight or flight’ thus expressed, to protect “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” from the ‘threat predator’ be that tyranny or other humans but the founders understood the threat overall to Americans was tyranny of government but did not dismiss and did recognize other ‘predators’ (e.g. ‘threats’, for example, criminal elements) would also need to be defended against and this was also a form of tyranny. Thus, as a check against tyranny be that government or other humans, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
Humans are the only species that wants other humans to not take responsibility for their own safety and defense. The humans that do that, want to disarm you, are also the ‘predator’ indirectly.
So yes, by virtue of natural inherent right, or what are known as unalienable rights (‘ endowed by their Creator’), of ‘fight or flight’, it can be said that it is a ” ‘God-given’ right to own firearms”
Clarification for “Thus, also, the concept expression “‘God-given’ right to own firearms”, that the founders expressed in the Declaration of Independence as ‘Creator’ because they knew..”
No, there is no exact wording of “‘God-given’ right to own firearms” in the ‘Declaration of Independence’. I am not saying that. What I mean here, overall, in the context of the use of ‘Creator’ expressed in ‘endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights’
Correction for: “Humans are the only species that wants other humans to not take responsibility for their own safety and defense. The humans that do that, want to disarm you, are also the ‘predator’ indirectly.”
should have been…
“Humans are the only species that wants other members of their own species to not take responsibility for their own safety and defense. The humans that do that, want to disarm you, are also the ‘predator’ indirectly.”
“The humans that do that, want to disarm you, are also the ‘predator’ indirectly.”
Excellent point!
Also, I believe the founders referred to God in various generic ways because they were setting the stage for religious liberty. They didn’t want to be seen as “picking sides.”
Clarification for : “Our founders understood that the ‘best means’ was firearms.”
Our founders understood this having been engaged in our war for freedom from the British. So in the second amendment, even though they understood this, they said ‘the right to keep and bear arms’ and not specifically firearms. Their understanding at the time was that ‘arms’ is anything a defending person can take into their hands for defense and they knew this included firearms but they also knew that advances in technology would happen. And indeed by the time the second amendment (and somewhat before that) came about there were such advances in ‘arms’ in the form of ‘repeating firearms’ (the fore runners of want we call semi-auto or automatic firearms today) and the founders embraced this advance in technology and knew the firearm was the ‘best means’ superior to others overall and even, some of them, endorsed that all Americans should have a firearm even if not in a militia. Our founders understood that the ‘best means’ was firearms.
It seems politicians would be stinky like a skunk at least.
Evolution.
I have found it rather relaxing NOT being part of the discussions here lately. Part of that is that inspite of the fact that TTAG put out an article specifically wanting user opinion on the site itself, I see nothing has changed. Except maybe for a lowering of article quality.
I agree with .40Cal in that there is no such thing as a “God given right to firearms”. That is just someones conjured up craziness on par with calling AR15’s Assault Rifles. We have a God given right to self defense. We absolutely DO have a right and a responsibility to protect life. Particularly our own. If that means guns then that is simply what it means. It could just as easily mean baseball bats.
Far too many people equate Jesus with ‘peace’. Many had that misinterpretation even 2000 years ago. It was never about peace nearly as much as putting down tyranny. A very big part of his life as a human was filled with violence. Wether brought to him or as an expression of anger and defiance. He was about taking care of the defenseless every bit as much as speaking truth to power. There were plenty of stories in the Bible of both him and his father telling people to take up arms and fight as soldiers against oppressors. Even the whole ‘David and Goliath’ story is about that. The Arch of the Covenant was even used as a weapon.
It is not immoral to own or use guns. That is a twisted piece of misinformation from the left. It isn’t wrong to own knives either. What IS wrong is the use of these things to take the life of an innocent. The color of your skin makes no difference anymore than your gender.
Our Lord is the creator. He understands us better than we know. He also understands what evil is. This is his world. We are merely tenants.
You want to know what The Lord might would say about guns? Well…read your Bible.
The israelis are were some of the baddest dudes on the planet when it came to war, still are. Inhave to think Thats part of Gods plan
Free at last, free at last, 2000 years of slavery and we are free at last. Thank God almighty We are free at last.
I just can’t wait to go back to worshipping golden calves, how about you?
Worshiping the Golden calf?
Wait no longer, today’s conservative Republican party has your graven image ready for your worship:
“Golden Trump statue turning heads at CPAC was made in … Mexico
Artist Tommy Zegan reveals figure was constructed in country the former president has assailed and demonized
Guardian staff
Sat 27 Feb 2021 11.13 EST
A golden statue of Donald Trump that has caused a stir at the annual US gathering of conservatives was made in Mexico – a country the former president frequently demonized.“
“Worshiping the Golden calf?”
like you?
you obviously don’t understand the complete meaning of the ‘Golden calf’ idol in the Bible.
it wasn’t that it was a golden calf idol worship, it was that ‘no other God’ commandment of God.
you Miner49er worship your self by your Atheism thus replaced God with self. you are the perfect example of the ‘golden calf’ idol worship.
A statue of someone does not mean idol worship of that statue. The worship of the statue as a replacement for God is idol worship. Like your replacement of God with self that you worship in your Atheism.
“you Miner49er worship your self”
Nope, unlike your chosen god, my ego does not require constant worship.
You can ignore me, and I still won’t cast you into the lake of everlasting fire because you did not properly stroke my ego.
And you know, many protestants believe praying to any saint is a form of necromancy, invoking the dead for special supernatural rewards is certainly against the teachings of the Bible.
MajorLiar,
“And you know, many protestants believe praying to any saint is a form of necromancy, invoking the dead for special supernatural rewards is certainly against the teachings of the Bible.”
Will you EVER tire of both misunderstanding, and misstating, “Christian beliefs”???? NO Christian denomination believes that revering saints is “necromancy”, MajorMoron.
Technically, at WORST, it would constitute a violation of the injunction that “thou shalt have no other gods before me” – which IS, in fact, the actual basis for the Protestants’ refusal to worship saints (which you would know, if you weren’t a COMPLETE ignoranus).
There is literally not ONE SINGLE THING that you cite as “Christian belief” which bears any resemblance to the actual beliefs and doctrine of any Christian denomination. Are there a FEW people out there who believe nonsense like that, and assert their Christianity? Sure . . . and there are FAR more Leftist idiots, more highly regarded in Leftist doctrine/theology, who are billionaires (we all KNOW the Dimocrats are the party of billionaires). ‘Splain that one to me, Lucy.
thanks for proving my ‘golden calf’ point about you Miner49er … and you don’t even see it.
keep out of discussions for which you have zero understanding.
“Technically, at WORST, it would constitute a violation of the injunction that “thou shalt have no other gods before me”
“the injunction”?
You’re calling the First and most important of the 10 Commandments an ‘injunction’?
So all Catholics are ‘technically’ in violation of the 10 Commandments?
“Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and in the hour of death. Amen.”
“Talking to the Dead in the Bible
The Old Testament teaches that believers are defiled by their attempts at communicating with the dead, a practice that is detestable to God.
The New Testament instructs believers to seek guidance from God and his Spirit only.
The Bible reveals that psychic experiences are real but demonic, and that deceiving sprits are counterfeits for the true Spirit of God.“
Amazing, everyone praying to those saints is actually communicating with demons in an act of necromancy.
MajorMistake,
I will give you credit to this extent – after you’ve completely beclowned yourself, you are totally willing to come back, pick up that shovel, and keep digging. (Hint, MajorSh*tbag – rational people try to learn from their failures; you double down).
And INTENTIONALLY misstating the definition of “injunction”? That’s freakin’ weak tea, even by YOUR pathetic standards. Feeling that like of a life preserver, are you, MajorIdiot???
Look up the definition of “injunction”; try the OED.
You are a pathetic @$$clown, MajorMoron. Personally, I find it hilarious that your understanding of Christian theology is every bit as deficient as your understanding of Marx and Keynes. You don’t study or learn; you memorize. And then you think it makes you look smart to trot out your lame “understanding” of philosophies you never bothered to learn in the first place.
MOST people on this site understand (even if they don’t agree or practice) Christian theology better than do you . . . and yet you continue to arrogantly assert your “superior” knowledge of things about which you are COMPLETELY ignorant. Again, I would pity you, were you deserving of pity.
I love it when Miner49er gets on his bible rants. His posts on the subject are a complete clown show … its so very obvious he doesn’t understand the subject, keeps contradicting himself, and feeds his confirmation bias and ignores context … and he doesn’t even realize it…. to the point where it has me 🤣 …
ya would think an atheist would know of the hole traps they walk into with their stuff, but not Miner49er … he just grabs a shovel and keeps on digging.
.40 cal,
Yeah, MajorIdiot never bothered to learn the “First Rule of Holes”, did he. Or, for that matter, ANYTHING. He is the living embodiment of my dear daddy’s old (sarcastic, and intentionally so) comment, “I may be wrong, but I am NEVER uncertain!”. Just as he is the living embodiment of Ronnie Reagan’s famous quip, “It isn’t that our [Leftist] friends are ignorant; it’s just that they “know” so much that isn’t so!”. Yeah, that MajorMoron in a nutshell (which is, in reality, where all Leftists SHOULD be).
*i have to think
Jesus also said, “Those who live by the sword die by the sword.” Jesus in scripture never denounced swords or having one as noted above. We live by Him and his Spirit. This is not to say that in self defense situations that we can’t defend ourselves and others if the situation avails itself else multitudes of innocents will die. Greater love has no man that he gives his life for his friends.
That is usually misinterpreted. It was intended as a warning TO criminals. Killers will be killed. This is what is happening to Hamas right now at the hands of Israel. Hamas wanted war and they now have it. The drugs that George Floyd loved so much was primarily of what killed him. People tend to get what’s coming to them. Good or bad. You and I are no exception.
All the great atheist leadership in history wanted to make sure, that the civilian populations had been disarmed.
Five hundred years ago Martin Luther was correct. He said everyone needs to read the Bible for themselves. Instead of relying on what others tell them what’s inside the bible.
It also helps to have some historical background knowledge about the time period.
“Five hundred years ago Martin Luther was correct“
Really? If Jesus had been around when Martin Luther was alive, Martin Luther would probably crucified him again:
“Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them.“
From “On the Jews and Their Lies is a 65,000-word anti-Judaic and antisemitic treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther”
An atheist quoting the bible is just the enemy of America. As stated by President Eisenhower. When he said the enemies of the USA are atheistic in nature.
They and you have never believed in the Bill of Rights.
As I recall German Jews during the time of the Third Reich couldn’t pass a government “background check” to own a firearm and we all know how that worked out for them.
That’s close enough to Jesus for me on this subject.
I can settle this topic in very short order. Look VERY carefully at Jesus’ exact words to Peter after Peter whacked off the dude’s ear in the Garden of Gethsemane. Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword away.”
Look at those words again, “Put your sword away.” Those very words demonstrate unequivocally that Jesus was okay with Peter having a sword and wearing it. How so? If having a sword was sinful, Jesus would have told Peter to get rid of the sword. Instead, Jesus simply instructed Peter to put his sword away, e.g. back in its sheath on his belt.
And I can add an exclamation point to the FACT that God graciously recognizes and allows for our need for weapons for righteous self-defense. The Bible (specifically Paul in Romans 12:18) tells us:
“If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.”
Again, look very carefully at Paul’s exact words. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Paul does not tells us to live peaceably with everyone at all times and in all situations not matter what (e.g. to be pacifists). Rather, Paul tells us to live peaceably with everyone to the extent that it depends on you. That makes it crystal clear that there are situations where an attacker eliminates the possibility of living peaceably and your attacker’s decision to attack you relieves you of your obligation to live peaceably.
If you have read the Bible through normal literary principles, what I stated above is 1000% consistent with the entirety of the Bible.
Good points. Jesus would have taken that opportunity to teach them that carrying weapons was wrong, if it was wrong. That would have been an important, noted point.
Yes, there are many missed opportunities in the Bible.
“Jesus would have taken that opportunity to teach them that… “
Slavery is wrong.
Child rape is wrong.
Genocide is wrong.
But no, the Bible commands the slaves to obey their masters:
Ephesians 6:5
“Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”
Oh well, maybe next time…
In other words, you can’t disagree with me, so you change the subject. You need a new routine, Miner. You’re very predictable.
MajorMoron,
Jesus, IN FACT, preached against every one of those things. OOPS!! Looks like SOME uneducated moron hasn’t read his New Testament, has he???
Simple advice, MajorIdiot – go buy a “red letter” Bible. Oh, don’t know what a “red letter” Bible IS, you pathetic cretin?? It is a Bible in which the actual (reported by the Four Witnesses) words of Jesus are presented in red.
Read the parts in red, then come back and we can talk. And then I can explain to you why Jesus was necessary in the first place, you complete drooling idiot.
Let’s follow your logic dude, Jesus didn’t say not to carry weapons, so carrying weapons is fine by Jesus.
Jesus did not say don’t own slaves as property and give them to your children forever, so biblical chattel slavery as practiced in the American south is fine by Jesus.
And you think Jesus somehow stands for a high objective morality standard?
We’ve been through this before within the past two months. Either you don’t understand what I’m saying, or you don’t want to understand it. Jesus didn’t have to say don’t poke your mother in her eye because that’s already covered under other things he said. You can’t oppress or abuse people when you love them. There was nothing Christian about American slavery. Anyone saying otherwise is a fraud.
Also, you’re viewing Biblical slavery through your understanding of American chattel slavery. It wasn’t the same. That slavery was mostly debt slavery or indentured servitude which was willingly entered. There wasn’t a bankruptcy mechanism back then to save people from debt. It was also difficult for some people to have food, clothing, and shelter. For some, it was a matter of surviving, or trying to give their child a better life. Some Jews even considered going back to Egypt to be slaves because life was so rough. I’m sure there’s plenty of information out there if you want to learn about the different types of slavery that existed.
Some form of slavery has always existed in the world. It was a fact of life back then. Therefore, it was regulated. There were regulations on how to treat them, etc. This was done so people wouldn’t be abused. Christians have never been commanded to enslave people, just like they’ve never been commanded to have multiple wives. It was a fact of life for some people, so it was noted as such. What marriage is supposed to mean is made very clear, therefore, there doesn’t have to be a specific command against polygamy.
MajorMalfunction,
If you had the wit to comprehend what you read, YES, you pathetic loser, Jesus preached against ALL those things. Who were the people who were MOST strident, and MOST effective, both in England and in the US, against slavery???
Oh, that would be the . . . Christian denominations.
And you MIGHT, if you weren’t a complete @$$clown, learn the distinctions between “servants” and “indentured servants” and “slaves” (NOT endorsing any of the foregoing, but your idiot ideological brethren intentionally ignore the differences ALL THE TIME).
Simple question, MajorDunce – would the average slave in the antebellum South have been better, or worse, off if the Old Testament rules on treatment of slaves had been observed???? For BONUS points, please list the major cultures that have NOT practiced slavery, and the list the ones that STILL DO.
You are pathetic, stupid, uneducated, and intentionally obtuse – because your worldview can’t stand up to intellectual scrutiny, and you are vaguely aware of that fact (and in terror of it).
I commend to your consideration (to the extent you are capable) Socrates’ teaching as to the basis of wisdom – which you have clearly NEVER practiced, or even considered. You are smug in your insulated ignorance . . . which makes you even more laughable.
“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” Seems to define you rather well, MajorMistake.
would the average slave in the antebellum South have been better, or worse, off if the Old Testament rules on treatment of slaves had been observed?
That’s a good point. Ignoring everything else in the Bible, if American slavery was based on “Biblical slavery” then why weren’t they following those rules of treatment? Now we’ve debunked another excuse that Miner gives for hating Christians. Every single time I go into the weeds for his reasons, I discover they’re all based on (perhaps willful) ignorance. Racism in America was partially based on ignorance in the past. What is it when you take away the ignorance, and the hatred/extreme prejudice still exists?
Dude,
While I am NOT (not, not, NOT!!) endorsing slavery, or any ‘polite’ variation on it, thank you for recognizing the obvious. Yes, ancient Israel practiced slavery . . . along with EVERY OTHER culture around them (or in the world, at that point). But they made an effort to ameliorate the worst excesses of slavery (without recognizing the inherent evil in slavery).
But, Leftist/fascist idiots, like MajorMoron, can never attempt something so ‘nuanced’ as . . . actually evaluating history in the context in which it occured. Slavery was evil, as was colonialism, as was the “Monroe Doctrine”, as were many things that were taken for granted, at the time.
JFK, a Dimocrat saint, would be characterized as an “evil, right-wing MONSTER” by the standards of the modern Dimocrat party.
“Yes, there are many missed opportunities in the Bible.
‘Jesus would have taken that opportunity to teach them that… ‘
Slavery is wrong.
Child rape is wrong.
Genocide is wrong.
But no, the Bible commands the slaves to obey their masters:
Ephesians 6:5
“Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”
Oh well, maybe next time…”
Oh man… did you ever get this one wrong.
First – Jesus did teach that “Slavery is wrong”, “Child rape is wrong” and “Genocide is wrong”. You obviously do not understand this subject. He just didn’t come right out and say “Miner49er, its wrong.” like you seem to want him to have said. Does your “golden calf” idol worship of self in your atheism through hubris never end?
Second – it is false that “the Bible commands the slaves to obey their masters” in Ephesians 6:5. Paul was speaking to those in slavery who were Christians and generally.
In Ephesians 6:5, Paul, recognizing that slavery was wrong but did exist, in verses 5 through 9 Paul provides instructions for servants and masters. Paul notes the importance of obedience to one’s master. Basically; Paul was telling them that if they disobeyed they would be punished …or in short even though they were in slavery, as form of defense for their own sake they needed to obey sincerely. Paul was giving them instructions for how to survive in their slavery until they were free. Paul tells them to do this with, basically, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as you would Christ, or in other words, by using ‘sincerity of your heart’, is telling them to obey with respect and reverence as they would Christ… and not with terror or living in dread. In other words Paul is giving them instructions for how to survive their captivity until they can be freed.
And for the masters remind them they are not better than those they oversee and God will deal with them, and not show favoritism between ‘slave’ and ‘master’ (because a ‘master’ followed mans law or Jewish law – or in other words, there was no excuse they could give for enslaving and it was wrong).
Paul often sought freedom for slaves, for example, Philemon 1:15–16, yet also encouraged those in bondage to still live for Christ.
Paul was writing as ‘instruction’ from him for defense survival instructions for the slaves and for them to continue to live for Christ, and a warning and condemnation to the masters. It was not a ‘command’. Your claim of “the Bible commands the slaves to obey their masters” in Ephesians 6:5, is a false claim.
For those that haven’t read the bible. Or may have read it. But haven’t found this Government gun control reference.
Samuel 13:19
“Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of israel, for the philistines said “lest the hebrews make swords or spears.”
So in other words no gunsmiths, no gun stores aloud in your neighborhood.
edit
So, in other words no gunsmiths, no gun stores allowed in your neighborhood.
Scripture and statistics can be used to “prove” anything. The conundrum regarding defence/violence:
Weapons:
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.”
– – Matthew 10:34-36
Defence:
“As it is written: Because of you we are being put to death all day long; we are counted as sheep to be slaughtered.”
– – Romans 8:36
Has there ever in the history of this planet been a time when something or someone could be ‘defended’ WITHOUT the use (or the threat of the use) of some form of ‘violence’?
Scripture can prove anything only to those that do not understand that there is a world of difference between killing a criminal in self defense and murder. The mere existence of the decalog is just as simple to understand as the American 2nd Amendment and every bit as hard to follow. It doesn’t say just anything. If that were the case it would not be so revered. If there is a guide book to life, it is this.
Statistics can prove anything so long as there is a desire to worship a human above all else. Polls are for those that believe the island of Guam can be tipped over and sunk.
Sheep to be slaughtered have no defense.
Peace is what comes AFTER. Not before.
Know God know peace, no God no peace.
“Weapons:
‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.’
– – Matthew 10:34-36”
A little context here…
Isaiah 9:6, Luke 2:14, and John 14:27 make it clear that Jesus came to bring peace between man and God. Not to bring peace among man kind.
When Jesus said …
“‘Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.’
It was referencing that “peace between man and God” and means that those who chose to follow Christ would be hated by their family members or their family members would be against them because the family members shunned and did not follow Christ. The reference to ‘sword’ is that of ‘cleaving’ in love and belief the follower of Christ from the family members who did not follow Christ – or in other words the reference to ‘sword’ is love of family should not be greater than love for the Lord and by that love for the Lord greater than love for the family one would be separated as if cleaved away from the family in love devotion as if by a sword being the love of the Lord over family.
“Defence:
‘As it is written: Because of you we are being put to death all day long; we are counted as sheep to be slaughtered.’
– – Romans 8:36”
some context….
This verse is a quote from Psalm 44:22. Paul is addressing the Christians in Rome. By quoting this from the Psalms, Paul is saying that God’s people have faced persecution and hardship for generations.
.40 cal Booger,
But, but, but, if we apply normal literary principles–reading the Bible as a whole and in context for the intended audience–we cannot cherry-pick tiny pieces and distort their meaning to advance unGodly principles.
“But, but, but, if we apply normal literary principles–reading the Bible as a whole and in context for the intended audience–we cannot cherry-pick tiny pieces and distort their meaning to advance unGodly principles.”
correct.
The dude who took a whip to the Soros’ & Schwabs’ rooking pilgrims during Passover and who defied the Schumers’/Durbins’/Nadlers’/Raskins’ controlling the temple surely would want us armed and able to defend ourselves and others including the unborn.
“The dude who took a whip to the Soros’ & Schwabs’ rooking pilgrims during Passover and who defied the Schumers’/Durbins’/Nadlers’/Raskins’ controlling the temple“
Amazing, your language also parallels that of another historical figure:
“And the founder of Christianity made no secret indeed of his estimation of the Jewish people. When He found it necessary, He drove those enemies of the human race out of the Temple of God; because then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests“
From ‘My Struggle’
Thank you for that comparison, I’m honored beyond words.
MajorLiar,
If baseball rules applied to discussion on this site, you would have al iifetime batting average of 0.000 – you haven’t managed to even hit a pop foul in less than 5 tries, yet.
Jesus NEVER drove JEWS from the Temple; he drove out moneylenders (read, for your purposes, “payday lenders” – perhaps putting it in Leftist talking-point context would make it easier for your tiny mind to grasp). What you fail to understand is . . . well, frankly, EVERYTHING, but for historical/theological purposes, EVERYONE around Jesus, during his life, was pretty much a Jew. There were a few odd exceptions, but not in Judea – not in Bethlehem, or Jerusalem, or Galilee, etc.
You remain too stupid to insult.
Luke 22:36
Killing in self-defense is very normal in Biblical times. And it should be in the 21st century.
Malcolm Gladwell gave a fantastic speech a number of years ago on the fight between David and Goliath. I encourage all to watch it but in summary our understanding of what transpired is fundamentally wrong in many respects. Goliath was huge and a fearsome melee fighter. But David as a Shepard was highly skilled with a sling from fighting off predators. A sling can be lethal and David went into battle being able to outrange his opponent.
In modern vernacular “He took a gun to knife fight.” with predictable results.
This would make for a good article.
When someone in a conversation starts quoting scripture, we are done. They can believe what they want just don’t start spouting off this garbage to me. I don’t need religion to live a good life and a moral life. Morality and ethics are really simple to understand, do the right thing, even when no one is watching. I was raised in a strict catholic family, catholic school, church on Sunday, ETC. Didn’t take me long to figure out that religion is a just a mechanism to control people, a type of mental slavery. Believe whatever you want, just don’t share your lunacy with me.
Wally1,
“I don’t need religion to live a good life and a moral life. Morality and ethics are really simple to understand …”
Fascinating. What is your objective “yardstick” for determining what is “good” and “moral”???
Note: in the absence of Holy Scripture a Satanist can claim that his/her beliefs and values are just as valid as yours. Of course your beliefs/values are likely diametrically opposed to a Satanist in many areas.
“What is your objective “yardstick” for determining what is “good” and “moral”???“
Well, it sure isn’t the book of ancient taboos that encourages slavery and genocide.
I hear that line of thinking from Christians often, and it is a bit alarming. Apparently, the only thing that keeps most Christians from murdering and stealing is the threat of punishment after they die.
Apparently, the only thing that keeps most Christians from murdering and stealing is the threat of punishment after they die.
Nope. Jesus said loving your neighbor is the second-most important commandment. If you don’t love your neighbor, then you can’t be a Christian.
“Well, it sure isn’t the book of ancient taboos that encourages slavery and genocide.”
as if you aren’t in your participation in a Democrat left wing agenda specifically for the purpose of subjugation and elimination by government of people who want to exercise their constitutional rights.
“Jesus said loving your neighbor is the second-most important commandment“
So that’s why we turn the stranger away from our border, the refugees fleeing poverty and starvation, that all fits within the commandment?
“In “Love the Stranger,” an article written for the annual meeting of the College Theological Society, biblical scholar Alice Laffey states that in the Hebrew Bible, the words “gûr” and “gēr” are most often cited as referring to the “stranger,” though they are also translated as “newcomer” and “alien” or “resident alien,” respectively.
In the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, the word “gēr” appears almost 50 times. The fifth book, Deuteronomy, specifically sets out requirements for treating “the stranger” not just with courtesy but also with active support.
For example, Deuteronomy states that a portion of produce should be saved by farmers every third year and given to strangers, widows and orphans. In the “temple sermon” attributed to the prophet Jeremiah, the Jewish people are also exhorted to “not oppress the sojourner.”
I appreciate it Miner, but I don’t need any more help in proving the point I made about you guys always using the Bible to justify your policies.
So, miner. Open borders are your Christian duty? I thought you were an atheist?
And we don’t need .gov, we have charity? Wow, you have seen the light.
MajorMoron,
“Well, it sure isn’t the book of ancient taboos that encourages slavery and genocide.”
Of COURSE not, MajorMalfunction!! No, instead of taking wisdom from books that have existed, and been seminal influences in the world, for 5,000 years, YOU, and your fellow Leftist/fascists, obtain your “wisdom” from books by such “great” men as (i) an unemployed, racist trust fund baby who lived off his family and his wife, NEVER had a job, and wrote economic fantasy and CALLED himself an economist (Karl Marx), (ii) a grifting power-hungry despot who intentionally murdered MILLIONS of his own people to preserve his power and control (Josef Stalin), (iii) another grifting, power-hungry despot who was determined to prove Stalin a piker on the murder of innocents (Mao Xedong), (iii) a Jew-turned-atheist who preached a philosophy/doctrine of sheer power and utilitarianism that exceeds even the absurd excesses of Niccolo Machiavelli (Saul Alinsky).
And you MIGHT want to consider the fact that the Bible consists of two books – the Old Testament and the New Testament. Go read both, then come back and we can talk about WHY God saw the need to bring his Son into the world, and sacrifice Him on the cross. If you were CAPABLE of understanding, it might give you a ray of understanding . . . but you are not.
I may, or may not, achieve salvation, MajorIdiot – that is up to God – but if I am judged worthy, it is reassuring that I am unlikely to encounter you there.
Wally1,
“I don’t need religion to live a good life and a moral life. Morality and ethics are really simple to understand …”
Fascinating. What is your objective “yardstick” for determining what is “good” and “moral”???
Note: in the absence of Holy Scripture a Satanist can claim that his/her beliefs and values are just as valid as yours. Of course your beliefs/values are likely diametrically opposed to a Satanist in many areas.
Holy duplicate comment Batman!
I have no idea why/how my duplicate comment appeared. Please disregard.
Doug, good article. I’d like to propose that any person interested in this subject read my book, “A Time To Kill: (The Bible and Self-Defense”. It was reviewed on TTAG in 2016. The subtitle then was “The Myth of Christian Pacifism”) I am a lawyer of35 years experience, and have
prosecution, criminal defense, police advisor, city court judge in 2 towns, and appellate clerk for the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. I taught Bible for 40 years.
As a Christian/Gun Nut/Lawyer, my book is the result of years of study and research. As we all know, mindset is paramount to self defense. We must be secure in the conviction that it is moral to use deadly force when legally justified, or we will hesitate at the worst possible time. ATTK is for Christians and Jews who want to be sure about the Biblical morality of self defense. My conclusion is that God commands us to use legally deadly force to defend the innocent, and blesses us for doing so.
The book cites only the Bible on the subject so that as best as I could determine, it shows God’s view of this subject, and not theologians, founding fathers, etc. It analyses the Scriptures regarding self defense, from Genesis to Revelation. In addition, it often compares modern day state criminal statutes to Biblical standards of criminal law, and demonstrates their application through cases I have handled.
It explains Jesus’ hard sayings; “sell your cloak and buy a sword”, “turn the other cheek’, and “live by the sword, die by the sword”, in their Biblical contexts. It ahs 3 chapters on Jesus and what He had to say about self defense. It has 3 more on Jesus and the military and police. Neither He nor His apostles ever told a soldier to quit the army. it also has 3 chapters on the Bible and the death penalty.
“A Time To Kill: The bible and Self Defense” is available on Amazon in paperback and Kindle My name is Greg Hopkins. Reviewers, including Massad Ayoob, have said it is the most comprehensive study of the subject to date. I encourage all Jews and Christians who wish to settle this argument in their own minds to read this book.
Doug, good article. I’d like to propose that any person interested in this subject read my book, “A Time To Kill: (The Bible and Self-Defense”. It was reviewed on TTAG in 2016. The subtitle then was “The Myth of Christian Pacifism”) I am a lawyer of35 years experience, and have
prosecution, criminal defense, police advisor, city court judge in 2 towns, and appellate clerk for the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. I taught Bible for 40 years.
As a Christian/Gun Nut/Lawyer, my book is the result of years of study and research. As we all know, mindset is paramount to self defense. We must be secure in the conviction that it is moral to use deadly force when legally justified, or we will hesitate at the worst possible time. ATTK is for Christians and Jews who want to be sure about the Biblical morality of self defense. My conclusion is that God commands us to use legally deadly force to defend the innocent, and blesses us for doing so.
The book cites only the Bible on the subject so that as best as I could determine, it shows God’s view of this subject, and not theologians, founding fathers, etc. It analyses the Scriptures regarding self defense, from Genesis to Revelation. In addition, it often compares modern day state criminal statutes to Biblical standards of criminal law, and demonstrates their application through cases I have handled.
It explains Jesus’ hard sayings; “sell your cloak and buy a sword”, “turn the other cheek’, and “live by the sword, die by the sword”, in their Biblical contexts. It has 3 chapters on Jesus and what He had to say about self defense. It has 3 more on Jesus and the military and police. Neither He nor His apostles ever told a soldier to quit the army. it also has 3 chapters on the Bible and the death penalty.
“A Time To Kill: The bible and Self Defense” is available on Amazon in paperback and Kindle My name is Greg Hopkins. Reviewers, including Massad Ayoob, have said it is the most comprehensive study of the subject to date. I encourage all Jews and Christians who wish to settle this argument in their own minds to read this book.
Greg — I’ve added your book to my ‘buy’ list. Always interested to see quality research on this subject.
I write fairly gritty Christian fiction (somewhere beyond Dekker and Peretti but not crass or foul). One of the prominent evangelical Christian characters in my first book, Turn Red Tomorrow, is forced to defend his use of arms and violence to protect his family and friends. He’s not perfect in his understanding of the matter, but does well. He’s also fairly tolerant of those that hold the Christian pacifist viewpoint — unless he feels it’s an excuse to be a coward.
I really came here to explain that the “turn the other cheek” is constantly misinterpreted. It’s an admonition against revenge, not a command to stand tall and just get assaulted or killed by whomever comes along. I’m sure your book has plenty to add on this point.
Thank you Michael. I hope you find my book helpful. Historically, Christians have been schizophrenic on this issue. As a former history major, I try to give historical context to this indecisiveness. (As a history major, I HAD to go to law school-I had no marketable skills.) I agree with your conclusion about turn the other cheek.