“Weapons in a place of sanctuary seem to me to be inconsistent with a God of love. The prince of peace isn’t spelled P-I-E-C-E. It’s P-E-A-C-E.” – Bishop Rev. Robert Christopher Wright, quoted in ‘Georgia’s Sweeping Gun Law Sparks Religious Backlash’ [via time.com]
This post won’t show much favor to the religious establishment, but some of the most power hungry and corrupt souls I’ve ever met wore a Reverends uniform.
Conincidentally, none of them liked guns. Do the math.
It’s pretty sad when a religion’s leaders don’t understand one of the most basic ideals that the book their religion is based on teaches.
Amen! May be he should READ the Bible before pontificating on it. For instance, when Jesus went into church in John 2 and MADE a weapon (a whip) and used it on the bad guys.
Or Abraham, “father of faith” in Genesis 14. When his nephew Lot is captured by marauding Mesopotamians, Abe gets his neighbors and his ‘318 armed, trained men”, surprises the bad guys at night, slaughters them in a 25 mile chase, and rescues all the hostages and booty. Then, Melchizedek, God’s representative on earth, blesses Abe for his actions! Finally, right after his “bloody deeds “, God finalizes His eternal covenant with Abe. Thus we learn that hunting down murderers, robbers,and kidnappers and slaughtering them gets you blessed by God for “loving your neighbor! Bishop Wright obviously knows (and cares) more about politics than the Bible.
What of Luke 22:36 ” . . .He (Jesus) said to them, “But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.”
Sounds to me like being armed was more important to Jesus than being warm.
“For instance, when Jesus went into church in John 2 and MADE a weapon (a whip) and used it on the bad guys.”
Sounds like it should have been a DGU.
That’s your opinion.
No that’s Ardent’s reasonable conclusion from the text. In fact, the Jew’s outer garment, or cloak, was such a valued possession that a lender who took a cloak as collateral was forbidden by the Law to keep it overnight. The lender had to return it before sundown.Ex.22:26-27
Jesus was saying that after He ascended and was no longer there to protect them, personal weapons would be more important to the disciples than their most valued possession. After all, the lives of ourselves and our loved ones are more valuable than any possession.
Indeed! There is a fundamental difference between declining to respond to hate and/or anger with hate and/or anger in kind (i.e. turning the other cheek) and letting an evil/insane person murder you or others. The Ten Commandments specifically state “Thou shalt not murder,” as opposed to ‘shalt not kill,’ because of the very real distinction between killing in self defense and robbing another human being of their life.
As two very, very old sayings go, “God helps those who help themselves,” and “God works in mysterious ways.” So who is to say that I am not acting as God’s instrument when I carry for self-defense and the defense of those around me in church (or anywhere else, for that matter)?
Well said Gregolas, though I actually knew that. I didn’t feel the detail mattered in this context but now I have to agree that it was important. Thanks for the clarification.
Yes, thanks, ST, for once again dragging out your anti-religious attitude.
Cool story bro.
u mad bro?
I might remind the good bishop of the lady down in Colorado Springs who stopped a mad shooter with her handgun. People with evil intentions know no boundaries. They are looking for targets. Having a gun and someone who knew who to use it stopped what easily could have been something like Aurora or Columbine.
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/09/sunday-horror-church-shootings-in-colorado-gunman-reportedly-killed-by-armed-female-church-security-staffer/
I likez girlz with gunz! 🙂
Basically equating guns with the devil.
Well, Bishop, you give peace a chance… We’ll cover you if that does not work out.
If you think it’s inconsistent with God, you need to go back to the book that is the source of His character. Violence in defense of innocence can be very godly.
Yup. As we all know full well, when Jews pleaded to Jesus about being violently oppressed by Romans (kinda like American colonists being oppressed by the British, except it’s even worse because the colonists were at least from the same culture and spoke the same language), he told them to take up weapons and rise in an armed revolt to swipe the injustice away, and personally lead it, winning many charges with a sword with his hand in defense of the innocent.
I wonder if he would change his mind just before some terrorist was about to saw off his head?
Actually, I believe to qualify as a martyr (and Christianity has plenty throughout history) it has to be a voluntary decision on the martyr’s part. If the Bishop wants to be a martyr to the dogma of anti-2A gun control, that’s his right, as it is the right of each of his parishioners. If they desire to worship unarmed and evil befalls them, that is their choice and I will not interfere.
But they have no God damn business trying to force other people to be martyrs against their will.
I’d rather be part of my church – that has an an undercover armed security team. Speaking of which, it’s almost qualification time again. If one (or was it two or more) of Jesus’ disciples carried swords in the presence of the King, I can’t see why so many “Christians” support gun control.
Not only did they carry swords in Jesus’ presence, they were carrying their swords at the last supper. And what is so special about the last supper you might be asking? They were observing Passover — the most solemn and important Jewish religious event of the year. It would be equivalent to church members having swords on their sides while taking communion on Easter Sunday.
You should read that passages that cover those events closer before using them as some kind of Biblical support of bearing arms. Here’s a very crude paraphrase:
Jesus: You guys need some swords
Some disciple: See? Here are two swords!
Jesus: That’s enough. (*enough for what, you should ask yourself. Two swords would be sufficient for 11 guys against the temple guard or the Roman garrison? Probably not even against a band of robbers)’
[next morning]
*Peter cuts off a guy’s ear, probably was hoping for more than that*
Jesus: Put that away, do you think that’s what I’m about?
After that you don’t find any mention of arms in connection to the (now) Apostles. Peter and friends take a lot of abuse at many hands, submitting to it cheerfully. The only reasonable conclusion is that Jesus was putting a sword into Peter’s hands know that Peter, being who he was, would swing it at someone for the purpose of chiding him AGAINST bearing arms in the furtherance of spiritual purposes.
Calvin,
Why did you omit the verses where Jesus ordered his disciples to go buy swords if they did not have one? If Jesus does not want us to have weapons, why did Peter have one in the first place? Why did Jesus implicitly tell Peter to keep his sword? (Jesus simply told Peter to put it away, not to get rid of it.) You have to look at the entire Bible in context.
Sure, God wants us to be slow to be angry, to be tolerant, to accept insults without violent reprisal, and do everything in our power to persuade people about the truth. None of those objectives preclude self-defense. God is simply telling us not to be flippant with human life — either an attacker or our own.
Sorry Calvin. Jesus rebuked Peter because Peter was screwing up Jesus’ need to go to the cross as a willing sacrifice. Read all the Last Supper accounts in each Gospel together, and you’ll see Jesus told them(my paraphrase), “Look guys, while I was here you were under my divine protection. But now, It’s a tough world out there, and you’ll need arms, THEN they said, “We’ve got 2 swords. And He said It is enough.” Enough to scare the Priests’ posse into leaving the small fry alone (among many other reasons). The point is that Jesus told Peter to REHOLSTER the weapon, NOT throw it away! As Jesus said at the Passover, now He was leaving they’d need them. Paul mentions in 2 Corinthians that he had many occasions in his travels when he could( and may) have used a sword: for wild animals, robbers, and false Christians who (presumably) led him into traps.
For a detailed study of what the entire Bible says on self-defense, the death penalty, and the military/police, see my book; “A Time To Kill:The Myth of Christian Pacifism.” Available on Amazon.
uncommon_sense, I’m not omitting anything. I’m doing the opposite; filling in what was left out by others:
Matthew 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. <<< That's at most 8 hours later from when Jesus told them to get some swords.
Either Jesus couldn't make up his mind about the swords/no swords thing or this doesn't have anything to do with self defense and bearing arms. In Hermeneutics context is everything.
Calvin,
Perhaps Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in his scabbard because otherwise Peter would be interfering with Jesus’ mission to reconcile our sins. Or maybe it is something else. Nevertheless, you have not addressed the fact that Peter had a sword in the first place. Peter had been with Jesus for what, three years? If that was improper behavior, don’t you think Jesus would have corrected him long before the last supper?
Calvin,
If you believe what you read in the Bible then you will understand why he told Peter to put the sword away. Also, he raised people from the dead so don’t you think he would have also had to power to defend himself?
“… seem to me to be inconsistent with a God of love.” – Bishop Rev. Robert Christopher Wright
Here is an Earth shattering concept Rev. Wright: our God of love mandates that the object of his love have free will. Otherwise God is just a cosmic puppeteer. Thus love can only exist if there is free will. And what is love? Love is choosing to treat another person with the best of intentions to the best of our ability.
The up side to free will is, indeed, love. The down side to free will is, tragically, the capacity to be violent and harm others. More importantly, the Bible never says that God suspends free will in churches or that He will supernaturally prevent harm to parishioners. That is why anyone who feels moved to do so should be armed in church.
Want to give yourself a headache (or induce a spiritual crisis) some day? Try looking up Martin Luther v. Erasmus on free will. I liked what you said but had some dim recollection from my Lutheran upbringing that he was not down with the free will concept. So I used my Google-fu. Almost wish I had not.
JeffR,
I discussed this topic with an uncle who had just finished seminary (in a classical Lutheran tradition as it turns out). He made the point that God “is in control” and was skirting on the concept that we do not have free will. Let’s just say his position did not reconcile with the entire Bible and simple life experiences.
If someone claims that we don’t have free will it creates the following paradox: if we have no free will, how does our holy God (who hates sin) cause a woman to be a prostitute? The resolution to the apparent paradox of God’s control and free will is really rather simple. In basic terms God sits back and let’s us exercise our free will a vast majority of the time. Does He sometimes intervene on our behalf to soften the consequences of our decisions? Absolutely. Does God sometimes manipulate nature, Earth, the heavens, and people to bring important events (such as Jesus’ trial and crucifixion) to bear? Definitely.
Maybe the best way to think of it is that we have free will within limits. When we were children and our parents physically restrained us from burning ourselves on a hot stove, did we not have free will? Or when our parents took us along with them to the grocery store, did we not have free will? The obvious answer is that we did have free will. However, when exercise of that free will would lead to a calamity that our parents were not willing to endure, they would intervene. And God does the same with us.
God’s Will is “that you and everyone else in Our Creation be completely free and empowered to do whatever you want, go wherever you wish and be with whomever you choose.
“At first your mind will have difficulty understanding how this could be possible, but We can assure you it is not only possible, but necessary. Free Will, completely free and joyous in the presence of unwavering loving Light is the truly natural way in our Creation. And this Creation is the basis of your own Creation and the full manifestation of your greatness.” — http://www.godchannel.com/folksinterview.html#mothersdream
A little OT for the article but an answer to the question of free will has always been a simple one for me. One cannot love without it. We are called to love our Creator. Matthew 22:37, Luke 10:27, etc. Likewise, Jesus had free will and could have chosen not to go to the cross. Luke 22:39-46. If Jesus had no free will choice in the matter then, IMHO, the sacrifice wouldn’t have had meaning. Sending an automaton to live a sinless life and to the cross isn’t quite the same. Jesus was tempted and made a free will choice to follow his Father. Lastly, one cannot rebel without free will. It is impossible to do so and there are ample Bible verses that speak of rebellion.
A little OT, but that’s why this website is so enjoyable. “The greatest good… which can be done for a being, greater than anything else that one can do for it, is to be truly free.” – Kierkegaard.
Anything other than total Free Will has always resulted in tyranny, and always will. Our mission on Earth, as creations of The Creator of Everything, is to learn to live our own lives without needing to be told what to do by some external authority.
Ultimately, there really is no external authority.
We at Moms Demean Gun Owners™ applaud Bishop Wright for having #gunsense and starting that #OogaBoogaGuns have no place in places of worship.
People only bring their prosthetic penises to church to serve an agenda from the #OogaBoogaNRA. Don’t they know that nobody ever wants to attack a religious building for any reason ever?
Put a sign up Bishop. In fact, grow a pair and post when the collection occurs. Let’s see how you feel @ the issue then.
At my church, we carry.
I also carry at church and have done so for 10 + years and I am by no means the only one.
Same here. In fact, it is a small number that do not carry. I’m not sure how this dude equates being prepared and praying it will not be needed is not peaceful. The carriers I know are actually the most peaceful individuals in the community.
This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and I absolutely hate it when church leaders speak about things they are ignorant of.
This priest, on the other handm is a good poster-boy for how Christians should give thought to using weapons in self-defense:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/01/did-jesus-tell-the-apostles-to-buy-weapons-yes-to-use-them/
Father Z has a bunch of other great posts about spirituality, prayer, and the morality of carrying a defensive weapon. Check him out!
Not that other guy, up there – leave him to his ignorance.
I wonder if the Bishop has read Numbers 31:1 – 31:54. . . there seems little doubt regarding Gods view of possession and use of weapons. Perhaps he should also read Hosea 4:6 – “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”
. . .and then start thinking about a new line of work.
Uncommon sense is shown to be superior to “common sense” TM
Tell the armed killer that he is being “inconsistent” and get back to us on how that works out.
Hopefully, there will never be an event on church property when the presence of an otherwise armed good person could have saved good people from bad. Additionally, hopefully there will never be an incident when a good unarmed person on the way to his church or after leaving the church property is confronted with a violent and dangerous life threatening situation.
Wonder what the good Reverend pretends to make of Jesus beating up people inside his church? John 2:15.
“I don’t know how you reconcile Jesus who says, ‘Love they neighbor, love thy enemy,’ and at the same time being armed to the teeth,” Wright says.
Maybe it’s to deal with the ones that don’t love you back?
I sold a gun to a priest once. When he showed me his ID he had his collar on in the picture. If I ever went back to church, I’d go to that priest’s congregation.
I’m not Catholic, or even religious but during an odd time I once traveled extensively in the company of a somewhat radical Monsignor who appreciated my being armed for our defense and offered to perform the baptism of the blood should I fall defending him (he considered my willingness to risk myself for his well being to be an act of contrition, I considered it only what one friend might do for another).
That said, I have perfect certainty that one could interpret or cherry pick the bible to support almost any position whatsoever.
The good Bishop is correct and you guys are wrong. Where the Bishop makes his mistake is that we live in a fallen world where not everyone accepts the word of God and will seek to do evil things. God put the word in the hand of the Clergy not the sword. The Sword is the responsibility of the Civil society. I personally feel uncomfortable bringing a weapon into church because it is a distraction from the reason for me being there. I have my Pastor’s permission to carry in Church but under normal circumstances I choose not to.
“Where the Bishop makes his mistake […]” So the good Bishop is not exactly correct, and we are not exactly wrong. Maybe the point is that we both have something to learn about Christianity and carrying firearms for self-defense, but I don’t think that lesson includes abandoning the right to protect oneself or others inside of a church building.
Being a martyr is an amazing and blessed thing, but you can’t require someone to become a martyr – they have to choose it for themselves.
^ This. It would appear that the Bishop and perhaps tdiinva are guilty of projection: just because they feel called to be martyrs does not mean everyone else is supposed to be a martyr.
THAT is the thought that I couldn’t seem to form into words. Thank you.
The church is a place of peace and should be honored as such.
You seem mistake the concept of martyrdom. That is dying for the faith. It doesn’t include violence done to you for other reasons including if it is done in church.
Yes, it should be honored as a place of peace.
Just as schools full of children should be honored as such.
Doesn’t always work out that way, for churches, schools, or any other place. Deranged people don’t play by the rules.
Please explain how a gun in my holster “dishonors” the church. I’m fairly sure that expecting people to volunteer to become victims is far worse.
tdiinva,
You wrote, “The church is a place of peace …”
I am not sure I even agree with that. Church is certainly a place of worship and learning and Paul tells us that our worship should be orderly. And if all people in attendance actually apply God’s principles for living, church activities will certainly tend to be peaceful. However, we also know that there are people in churches (whether members, visitors, or intruders) who do not live according to God’s principles and when those people assert themselves, there will not be peace in that church.
I end with Paul’s instruction in Romans 12:18 “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” That statement makes it clear that there will be times when we will not be at peace with others. And when that happens, we have a Godly obligation to defend ourselves.
Come on now. God may have put the word in the hand of the clergy but Tyndale put the word in the hand of everyone who wants to read it. Tyndale to the clergy:
That is not what the phrase means. It refers to roles within society. See Martin Luther on the death in battle of Huldryk Zwingle.
I don’t know anything of Luther or his theory of social roles. I’m not even sure of Bible verses which say that no man should set himself up as (or accept the role of) a clergyman: But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ—Matthew 23:8-10.
And, others have mentioned it upstream, but Jesus put swords into the hands of his disciples. But then they might not have been clergy, being only disciples following his instructions.
John 22 – Peter, the leader of the Apostles, had a sword (which Jesus told him to purchase, by the way – I wonder if he had to pass a NICS check?). Sure, he used it at the wrong time, but even then Jesus didn’t tell him to throw the sword away and never use it again – Jesus only told him to ‘sheath the sword’, for now.
tdiinva wrote, “The Sword is the responsibility of the Civil society.”
Your statement is misleading and incomplete … and it contradicts the fact that two of Jesus’ disciples were wearing swords in his presence not to mention Jesus’ instruction that his disciples go buy a sword if they did not have one.
I think you are confusing or perhaps conflating the role of government and self-defense. The Bible clearly establishes government to uphold righteous laws and punish evil doers. The Bible just as clearly condones righteous self-defense including the use of deadly weapons and deadly force.
And I agree that God put the word in the hands of the Clergy. That means their vocation is sharing the Bible with people and teaching them the content therein. That in no way, shape, or form precludes the Clergy from being armed for righteous self-defense. All that means is that the Clergy should NOT use the Sword (weapons) to coerce believers and seekers.
Words spoken or on paper is extremely unlikely to stop a deranged person from willfully carrying out an evil deed if their mind is made up to do so.
I mean, just look at the Bible. Everyone that reads it, should be adhering to it’s rules and values, yes? How’s that working out for everyone?
What’s that? There are 2.4 million people in prison? Many of which all had free access to Bibles and Church. The written and spoken word apparently does nothing to deter murderers, rapists, or other criminals…
Yet, the amount of DGUs in this country is a quantifiable, effective, and measurable fact. I think people like facts.
I always find it entertaining that those in the clergy ALWAYS choose to cherry pick the words of faith to support their cause, then again I think everyone does that at this point, “personal interpretation” I suppose.
No Thanks Rev, Ill keep my science and my guns.
+1
God loves me and wants me to protect myself because I am precious to Him.
Agreed. Anyone who hampers your ability to defend yourself or outright forbids self-defense is denying the sanctity of human life.
It’s all about serving mankind…
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0734684/
I know at least a few priests here in Madison carry. I ran into one of them at Walmart buying 9mm. Nice guy.
Do they carry in Church when they are celebrating the Eucharist?
Not making any commentary about God, here, since He is in control of everything, but unless He has decided to impart into some mean-spirited ne’er-do-well the notion that robbing or killing anyone within a church setting will not be in his best interest, the old Arabic adage, “Believe in Allah but remember to tie up your camel,” would seem more appropriate. God helps those who help themselves, but not at the expense of others.
Bishop Bob, here, would do well to put his own fears aside and remind his parishioners what happened to the Jews during WWII Germany, and actually ALL of the post-war German citizens, when they caved in and gave up their guns.
Bob, while the miter is off and your head doesn’t look so big, take a gander at what that same mentality of compliance did in Germany, then come back and we’ll talk:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/03/sexual-and-predatory-magnitude-of-the-allied-forces-after-wwii-part-ii/
The catechism of the Catholic Church has a line in it that every one has a natural right to self defense. And that we have a moral duty to protect those who can not protect themselves.
In the Catechism their is certainly not a prohibition on force. We are called to love one another and in my opinion we must be like the good samaritan, willing to go to great lengths to help those in need, and yet with concupiscence we will always have evil in this world. Therefore the useful sections for those who are interested include
#2363 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “the act of self defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life, and the killing of the aggressor…The one is intended, the other is not.
#2364 Love towards oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.
This sections also comments that someone should not use more than necessary force.
#2365 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.
This section also discusses legitimate authority and who is responsible.
A god of love? The same one that orders murders and does them itself? This reverand would have a point if his supposed god actually did something useful like stop murderers or at very minimum send a messenger down and say “Hey, today a mad person is coming to kill all of you!”. Till then our safety is left to ourselves. He acts as if that is some safe zone like the special tree used as base when children play tag. Some magical forcefield means no one can do harm.
From personal experience all preachers (of any religion) say that God is loving, I always ask why is he so wrathful? Why throw plagues, failures and death at believers? Then mention the story of Job (for people of the Book) and you get thrown out of a religious building.
Never really got an answer to all of those. Most of times I have an intense dislike for preachers, mainly because all I have seen are more loyal to money than the God they say they cherish. Few exceptions, one of them, my father was thrown out of the religious establishment (organization? It covers the country, not sure about terminology) here in Norway mainly because he didn’t bend down and actually taught kids and people the religion.
Maybe I am a bit biased.
Maybe the Marxist wealth redistributionist Pope can start the ball rolling by divesting the Catholic Church of most of its land holdings, gold reserves, and other tangible assets, to help the poor. After all, why does the Church really NEED all that gold and land?
Or maybe he will just help Obama take more tax payers stuff to give to bums and illegal aliens. That seems more fair. After all, Obama is the epitome of a good Catholic.
The Catholic church doesn’t *give* anything to anybody. That is not what it is about.
What is it about then? The Pope is demanding this govt GIVE more welfare to bums and illegal aliens. The hypocrisy of a gold encrusted pedo infiltrated tax exempt billionaire church demanding taxpayers GIVE more money to those who dont earn and just take is HIGH COMEDY.
Right, Obama is a Catholic what with his broad support of Abortion, his pushing of contraception and his HHS mandate. Sure thing bud. I suggest you read a little more about this Pope other than that message the main stream media has delivered to us. If you want a Catholic perspective try EWTN news.
Look up the word “hapless” in the dictionary, your picture is next to it.
Then look up the term “dry sarcasm” and re read my post.
The Pope has obviously abandoned traditional Catholic ideals to conspire with hardcore commie ideals. Maybe he can gay marry Obama and Reggie Love.
If you don’t believe in much of what is written about guns by the main stream media why do you believe what they say about this Pope and his so called take from the rich mentality? Until the Pope changes Canon Law absolutely NOTHING has changed in terms of the moral order. His Charism, (like St Francis of Assisi) is obviously to focus ourselves towards caring for the poor which is what Christ asked us to do.
You mean this guy?
http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/libertarian-jesus.jpg
The Bishop needs to read Luke 22.
“I came not to bring peace, but to bring a sword“ – Jeebus
Personally I see where the reverend is coming from. While I don’t believe any government should ever regulate the ownership or carrying of arms (i.e. the RKBA applies to all people, at all times and in all places, no exceptions), churches are places of peace. I choose not to carry in them unless there is some manner of elevated risk.
That’s not a knock on those who do carry in a place of worship; I know those locations are more secure with you than without you. But even as an agnostic with presbyterian leanings, churches, synogogs etc are the only places I voluntarily lock the Glock up out of a sense of reverence and respect. perhaps I am just a sentimental fool. No matter how much evil I have seen in the world, and how much force I have used against it, I still believe in the power of good people, good deeds and stout hearts.
Hal,
Please check out http://www.carlchinn.com where he lays out all the various acts of illegal violence done in churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, etc. every year. Then read his book, “Evil Invades Sanctuary.”
So, lunatics inform you ahead of time of what they’re going to do, and you can schedule the days you’ll need your GLOCK™?
If that kind of thing ever happened, and for some reason, not going wasn’t an option, I’d bring a rifle, to start with. Why rely solely an underpowered, harder to aim weapon? People who really expect to get into gunfights, that is military units, take rifles and other sundries, and plenty of friends similarly equipped.
Handguns are for when you expect there to be no danger. If your expectations are incorrect, then you have something to work with.
I suppose that’s what I get posting something feel-good in this den of curmudgeons. You stay classy fler.
I do agree with Carlos about carrying a rifle. That’s why the LMT rides 24/7. However, there are lots of variables that could lead me to conclude that the level of risk is higher for a particular situation. Not all of them necessarily lead me to think I would get into a gunfight.
Huh, one wonders if Ol’ Bishop Bob here, has ever heard of the Swiss Guard? Pretty well armed last I heard. And all devout Christians too.
Heck yeah! I’ve seen their armory – it’s impressive. Made my mouth water! Full auto? All over the place!
Huh, one wonders if Ol’ Bishop Bob here, has ever heard of the Swiss Guard? Pretty well armed last I heard. And all devout Christians too.
Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν· οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.”
– Matthew 10:34
It’s the Lord’s job to save my soul, it’s my job to save my ass.
For some reason this seems to be the default stance of all black church leaders. “Guns are tearin’ our children apart”-esque attitude about what is really a series of parenting/familial failures in their communities. They’re unable or unwilling to solve that core problem, and so instead blame external variables, i.e. guns and gun ownership.
Yup. Because houses of worship of any faith are never ever a target of rival religious violence.
A pretty good example of why Eastern tribes (Islam) are kicking their Western brethren all across creation just about now. Most Western churches have spent the past few centuries bending further and further over for the progressive drones. All in some vain effort to curry favor, not with God, but rather with his diametric opposite. You know it’s about time for a reboot when the pronouncements of some backmarker like Bloomberg in practice carry more weight for many, than those of the pope himself. Or, even worse, the Book itself.
Nothing high fertility and an aggressive culture from the East can’t and won’t “fix”, but I’m a bit concerned those guys may manage to throw out some of the tiny babies still left over from Western once-were-civilization, along with the progressive (thankfully rather barren) bathwater.
Yeah the progressive will be laughing and smiling all the up until they’re actually living under Sharia Law or Communist China Occupied America.
If one believes in the Triune Godhead ( Father, Son & Holy Spirit ) the same God who appeared to Abraham is Jesus Christ. Jesus said ” before Abraham was I AM”. He is the SAME Jesus in the book of Revelation. Eyes as a flame of fire returning to earth with a SWORD to execute judgment upon the world. It is simplistic in the extreme to say Jesus is just about peace. Plenty of guns at the large Baptist church we’ve been attending. Interesting this guy is another Reverend Wright LOL
It is simplistic in the extreme to believe any of that.
It omits the Mother of Everything, It has recently been revealed/discovered that it is denial of the Mother of Everything, in the form of denial of Free Will – Just as Divine Spirit is the father of everything, (Well, actually, that would be the Father of Manifestation – Spirit is just the Holy Spirit) the Divine Will is the Mother. – that is the source of all evil.
In a nutshell God’s Will is Free Will.
I’m sure the reverend will feel noble in his pacifism right up to the moment he’s ankle deep in his flock’s blood.
Wright is wrong.
Whether “God” and religious belief protects the soul is one (debatable) thing; but it is pretty obvious that no god protects the body, as demonstrated by the countless millions over the course of history, up to and including the present day, who have been slaughtered on their alters, bombed to oblivion or boarded up in their churches, temples and sanctuaries and burned to death. For protection of our lives, we are left to our own devices.
agreed, god did not stop the vikings from looting and burning churches way back, we must be able to take our defense in hand.
Reminds me of a line in “The Destroyer:” where the priest says to the guy on death row, while offering him a pill, asks, “Do you want to save your soul or your ass?”
Unless he believes in complete pacifism then specifying a church as somehow different is just hypocritical. Either one has a right to defend themselves and a duty to preserve life, or not.
1) he is not a Catholic bishop
2) am I the only one wondering if the woman in the picture is his girlfriend or if he tapped that?
Whaaaaaat? That would imply sanctimony within the church. Why, I’ve never heard such rubbish!
As to question #2; you are not the only one. I’m too cynical for my own good sometimes. 😉
Let me be blunt. You all can quote Biblical passages all you want, but at the end of the discussion it comes down to this Bishop being as blind-ass stupidly ignorant of the dangers his Congregation faces as are the blind-ass stupidly ignorant Parents who put their children in Schools everyday that are undefended. There are people out there right NOW who hate you for being Christians and think you have no right to live. Across the World NOW there are person’s of different religions actively persecuting and killing persons of other religions exactly BECAUSE they have chosen a different belief. These people who hate you because you do not believe what they believe would not hesitate to kill you and your family and other families in their place of Worship for one moment. Neither would they hesitate to murder your children in their schools for one moment.
Beyond religious differences, there are people here in the U.S. now assaulting Christian Believers at every opportunity for social and political agendas, and the current Administration and Justice Department do NOTHING to even express disapproval of this behavior in the name of your Constitutional Right to practice the Religion of your conscience and choice.
Everyone here who is a Christian and believes in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for personal defense has already reconciled their religious beliefs with their belief in the right to self-defense as both a natural and civil Right. The Biblical quotes don’t change a thing about that reconciliation. You can always choose to believe differently, if you wish, because it IS your choice.
For my money I would rather bet on permitting armed Congregants in the Sanctuary and risk offending the Deity, than bet that it is not possible that any Religious Fanatic of another Church might make my Sanctuary a place of slaughter and tragedy for the lack of the presence of a few Arms. This Bishop can do what he pleases, and if his Congregation is comfortable with that, they can go along with him. Political Correctness, or whatever delusion the Bishop suffers from, does not stop bullets, nor does some illogical belief that Places of Worship are somehow exempt from attack in the present World situation.
Finally, Christians in this country need to grow a spine and stand up for their core values. The secular values being shoved down our collective throat are a reduction to the lowest common denominator and an erosion of our Rights.
Why should I care about what this man has to say?
His opinion is irrelevant to me and my way of life. I’m more concerned about the laws that take away my right to defend myself and family, or at least the ones that punish me when I do.
Another Pastor’s viewpoint – http://www.ammoland.com/2011/09/self-defense-a-christian-viewpoint/#axzz31KwMkl3G
These hustlers and hucksters make their living making other people’s lives a living hell. They propagate scape goat conspiracy theories and perpetuate the victim mentality. It includes the Catholic Church, with the Pope’s recent anti-capitalism, pro-socialist rants; but takes amplified effect with many of these black churches. Self-styled, so-called “black leaders” are more often than not craven opportunists bent on keeping the black community pinned down and ginned up for their own personal financial gain.
These monsters would rather keep blacks disarmed, uneducated and forever beholden to various authorities like themselves and the government, so that they never attain true individual independence. They rob their kinsmen of self-reliance from the inside. They’re worse than wolves in sheep’s clothing. They’re wolves in wolves’ clothing.
It’s staggering and sickening that the progress blacks have made over the last century+ has hit a plateau, and is even being reversed by these charlatans committed to keeping the grievance group gravy train rolling full steam ahead.
Peice vs. Peace. Wow that’s some genius substantive rhetorical argument right there. I bet he won UIL competitions for persuasive writing as a kid.
Time to rethink my entire spiritual worldview.
/sarc.
Mary Shepard would disagree with the bishop. See was almost beaten to death in her church and her subsequent lawsuit against the state of Illinois resulted in a shall issue carry law.
The below link includes a graphic picture of her after the beating.
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-shepard-victim-of-thug-and-chicago.html
“Are there any Episcopalians in fox holes?” (From the cover of National Review magazine sometime in the 1980’S)
I am sure Eric Holder or the IRS will be reviewing the non-profit nature of this Church for making political statements in 3, 2, never. Also I might listen to the Catholic leaders against the Georgia bill as soon as the Pope renounces violence and abolishes his private army, the Swiss Guards. Jesus had really harsh things to say about hypocrites.
“Sanctuary” carries exactly the same amount of weight as “gun free zone”.
I leave the rest to you.
I disagree, at least in my mind. To me ‘sanctuary’ implies someone actively protecting you, i.e., there is no prohibition on the one providing sanctuary being armed.
Weapons belong anywhere good, honest people are. When someone says weapons don’t belong around them I take it as an admission of dishonesty.
More an expression of ignorance.
Fear. What they fear is imaginary, but the fear is real – once the nerve signal comes down and fires up the adrenal glands, the adrenal glands can’t tell if that’s from a real threat or a boogeyman. See Pavlov’s dogs.
Please disregard this Episcopalian bishop.
Many others of us feel this way:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/03/daniel-zimmerman/one-pastor-advocates-right-keep-bear-arms/
My rod and my staff, they comfort me.
Yeah, those are the words of a sheep, talking to a shepherd. It’s not for me, thank you very much. 2000 years ago, some guy said if you follow instructions good enough, that you could have eternal life. Well, they executed him for being a rabble rouser, some gang martyred him, and so far I haven’t heard of anybody making it longer than maybe 110, there are legends of people in remote mountains lasting 145 years, but still, what has everybody been missing? I just can’t hypnotize myself into believing that becoming dead and getting either burned to ashes or embalmed and entombed in a bronze box is a step on the path to eternal life.
Meanwhile, eat, drink, and be merry, but keep your powder dry! 😉
MY “rod,” and MY staff – my weapons; I am more comfortable when armed.
It’s a play on words, apropos to a discussion of Church doctrine.
[extraneous post withdrawn]
Oops! My bad!
http://youtu.be/V3FnpaWQJO0&autoplay=0&height=200
That got a belly laugh; thanks.
On another note: at the time, Jesus might be construed to be basically head of the PLO…
No one ever attacks houses of worship…
Or college campuses…
Or office buildings…
Some of you people are delusional.
Luke 22:36-38
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.
It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.
—
Clearly as written Jesus asked them to purchase weapons for fulfillment of a prophesy. It is nowhere close to a call to arms for his followers.
What most of those using that verse won’t quote is this though:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
Matthew 5: 43 – 48
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
—
I’ll add on top of that from a private property aspect all you talking about 2nd amendment rights are off base. It isn’t a 2nd amendment issue.
The Rev. has every right to declare the house of worship he is over a no gun zone.
Respect his stance or leave.
Quote all the scripture you want, it’s completely irrelevant. The only pertinent thing you said was the last part:
“I’ll add on top of that from a private property aspect all you talking about 2nd amendment rights are off base. It isn’t a 2nd amendment issue.
The Rev. has every right to declare the house of worship he is over a no gun zone.”
The scripture isn’t irrelevant at all to the people it is directed at.
If churches were still sanctuaries, they wouldn’t have their doors locked anytime mass isn’t in session. You used to be able to enter a church any time, day or night, to pray, seek help, whatever you need. And why do they lock their doors? Crime. They’ve realized that the world is full of evils & they’ve taken steps to protect themselves & their property but they deny their parishioners the same right. Utter hipocrisy.
And in the days of some of the earliest settlements here, the rules of the settlement required that men go to services armed.
Stay unarmed ,be a victim,no problem.”God made man,Colt made him Equal!
Plenty of things christians do are inconsistent with a “god of love” protecting their friends and loved ones seems pretty admirable.
Comments are closed.