Christians and guns?

[68Charger]

Christianity is a fairly pacifistic religion as it stands. Turn the other cheek and the entire altruist morality fairly well implies that defending yourself is at least frowned upon.

Medieval europe was when the Christian faith was taken the most seriously...you did not see monks (Templars excluded, and anyone in the Templars who fought could only be a lay person, not to mention being disbanded for buggery) wearing swords, but they did renounce the "corrupt" material world for a life of contemplation of God and self-denial.

To be prepared to fight for your property and life, both of which should be worth little to you if you are an ideal Christian, seems to be a little odd.

You can take isolated bits of scripture to try and support the idea that Christianity isn't contrary to the ideas of self-defense and come up with some good ones, but the fact remains that the entire character that Christianity encourages and the long history of Christian thought (the vow of poverty was actually originally meant to be a vow renouncing the use of weapons, and is one of the key ideals of a man renouncing the 'corrupt' material world in order to be closer to God) idealizes the pacifist and sees the warrior as a necessary evil at best.

That said, Christianity cannot be practiced consistently in any man who wishes to live long on this earth. So a Christian is welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to pick and choose which parts of their faith to follow.

Of course, I'm an atheist (though I did take great interest in Christianity earlier in life, and studied scripture and the history of the church,) but I am trying to be objective in my analysis vis a vie weapons and Christianity. Historically it doesn't really fit with much Christian thought, but today's flavor of Christianity has a heavy pagan (Aristotlean, thanks to Thomas Aquinas, who is also largely responsible for pulling humanity out of the dark ages) influences. Christianity has had a lot more Aristotlean influence than most religious scholars are willing to admit.

I would argue that what you've been taught is "Churchianty" rather that true Christianity...

The churches that you see are run by men, and are therefore subject to the flaws of man... my personal faith is much closer to what you'd find from John Eldredge.. not that I worship him- just that I agree with his viewpoints.. http://ransomedheart.com/

I've been trying to get this message out within my church, and would love to sit & talk with anyone about it... I'm not a "bible thumper", I'm not into forcing anything down anyone's throat... this has just made sense to me personally.. My father is an Atheist, and I was Agnostic for most of my life... it took my Mother's death to make me seek a more spiritual purpose to my life... but none if it made full sense until I heard this message...

your viewpoints are very close to mine- even with regards to the church in general... I believe that most organized religion has it's own agenda.... that is in many times in conflict with God.... which means at least some of it is influenced by other sources...

Christ himself was not a pacifist .. how would somebody that was completely pacifistic get crucified? His actions were completely in the face of the Pharisees, so much so that they wanted him DEAD.. they told him not to heal on the sabbath, and he chastised them... and did it again, right in front of them.. I've personally wondered if "turn the other cheek" is a form of defiance... (that didn't hurt, try the other cheek)

When Jesus confronted those at the temple that were participating in commerce with in the temple- he "made a whip" and cleared the temple by force.. does this sound like the actions of a pacifist? He was tempered in his anger, but was far from non-confrontational...

I believe that the biblical position of protecting yourself personally may be open to debate, but when it comes to protecting the innocent, I think there's no question that even violence is not only condoned, but encouraged if required...

The Templars were well known for their selfish desires of power... at some point it stopped being about God, and started being about themselves....
using violence to FORCE people to believe something (the crusades) is also a false belief that has lead to many deaths... and is not biblical, IMHO...

I would hope that in the end, you don't let the fault of men to come between you & your relationship with God... there are some who would be pleased with that..

any belief in God is going to be short lived, if you don't believe that God has an enemy that is poised to "steal, kill & destroy" all that would believe in him..

[DOC]

Its a slanderous statement about gun owners a stereotype about someone who likes guns. Its just not frowned at like making black jokes. But its the same thing just one is ok and the other is a federal offense.

[XJ]

You were trolled on the radio, during a discussion about firearms. C'mon now, that is funny.


I'll bet the radio-show caller would go apoplectic if he knew about JPFO.

[GunTroll]

You were trolled on the radio, during a discussion about firearms. C'mon now, that is funny.


I'll bet the radio-show caller would go apoplectic if he knew about JPFO.

I'm not sure what you mean with any of that internet lingo.

And if implying it was a caller it wasn't, it was the asshat radio jock that brought it up.

[Roger]

I started a security team at my church years ago. A couple of years ago there was a madman with guns that came in shooting. A team member dropped him with some well placed 9mm rounds. It made the news. Now most people not only accept the team and its weapons, on some level expect it.

Hmm, wonder why.

[RRD3]

I remember that.

Hat's off to you Roger.

[Irving]

It's not a Federal offense to make a black joke!

Anyway, I don't think that this correlation exists, or if it does, it is a correlation without causation. Just because the media talks about "assault weapons," doesn't mean they exist either.

So no one has to read between the lines here, I think it has to do with being conservative in values and views in the first place. So, if one is conservative in values, they are more likely to own guns, and they are also more likely to be a vocal member of a conservative religion. I don't believe that there is a direct correlation between Christianity and gun ownership. There are approximately 200 million guns in this country of 300 million people. How many gun owners does that make? 150 million perhaps? How many "Christians" are there?

I think the talk show host was asking a question that could have been answered with a few moments worth of thought.

[DOC]

You know what I mean you can't discriminate against a race of people. But you can call all gun owners names no matter the race and get away with it.

[Pancho Villa]

I would argue that what you've been taught is "Churchianty" rather that true Christianity...

The churches that you see are run by men, and are therefore subject to the flaws of man... my personal faith is much closer to what you'd find from John Eldredge.. not that I worship him- just that I agree with his viewpoints.. http://ransomedheart.com/

I've been trying to get this message out within my church, and would love to sit & talk with anyone about it... I'm not a "bible thumper", I'm not into forcing anything down anyone's throat... this has just made sense to me personally.. My father is an Atheist, and I was Agnostic for most of my life... it took my Mother's death to make me seek a more spiritual purpose to my life... but none if it made full sense until I heard this message...

your viewpoints are very close to mine- even with regards to the church in general... I believe that most organized religion has it's own agenda.... that is in many times in conflict with God.... which means at least some of it is influenced by other sources...

Christ himself was not a pacifist .. how would somebody that was completely pacifistic get crucified? His actions were completely in the face of the Pharisees, so much so that they wanted him DEAD.. they told him not to heal on the sabbath, and he chastised them... and did it again, right in front of them.. I've personally wondered if "turn the other cheek" is a form of defiance... (that didn't hurt, try the other cheek)

When Jesus confronted those at the temple that were participating in commerce with in the temple- he "made a whip" and cleared the temple by force.. does this sound like the actions of a pacifist? He was tempered in his anger, but was far from non-confrontational...

I believe that the biblical position of protecting yourself personally may be open to debate, but when it comes to protecting the innocent, I think there's no question that even violence is not only condoned, but encouraged if required...

The Templars were well known for their selfish desires of power... at some point it stopped being about God, and started being about themselves....
using violence to FORCE people to believe something (the crusades) is also a false belief that has lead to many deaths... and is not biblical, IMHO...

I would hope that in the end, you don't let the fault of men to come between you & your relationship with God... there are some who would be pleased with that..

any belief in God is going to be short lived, if you don't believe that God has an enemy that is poised to "steal, kill & destroy" all that would believe in him..

As I said, I do not believe thoughts like this intruded into most Christian theology until about the time of Aquinas.

You can claim everyone before those kinds of thoughts was mistaken, and I'm not particularly interested in a theology discussion (as you've noted, there's plenty of room for interpretation in the Bible, not to mention the fact that I'm almost a decade out of practice,) but I do not think that jives well with such Christian virtues as humility, poverty*, chastity**, or such lauded actions as "turning the other cheek" and so forth.

Out of curiousity, how do you, personally, reconcile the ideal of turning the other cheek with defending yourself and/or your property from a thug? Please know I am not trying to attack you (or anyone else) here (its futile anyway, and I don't bear Christians any particular resentment so long as they stay out of my business, regardless of my thoughts on their belief system,) but I am genuinely curious how a (to all appearances) faithful man reconciles this heavily promoted Christian virtue with the ideals of self defense. I know the Templars justified that and also the sin of pride by being able to do violence only in defense of Christians (in the holy land,) and being able to take pride only in the organization they belonged to, not any pride in personal accomplishments. Is it something similar with you?

Anyway, I do not think any real 'debate' is possible on these points, which is why I only asked questions and gave my take on it. Faith is by definition belief in abscence of evidence***, and there really is no consistent, objective standard one can point to in matters of faith that everyone can agree to. Thus all the "bad" christians, many of whom genuinely believe or believed that they were being pious to the best of their ability.

So long as I'm left alone I don't have much problem with modern-day Christianity. If only that was more common than it was, but in this company at least I am fairly confident no one wants to push particulars of their belief system onto me.

*The oath of poverty that monks used to take was not, in fact, originally an oath to take on no material wealth (though of course you don't hear about any rich monks.) It was actually an agreement not to carry weapons, which is particularly relevant here.

**Thank God I don't hold that as a virtue! :P

***Before someone tries to present "proof" of God to me: I've heard it all, and I'd rather not go on that merry-go-round again.

[68Charger]

Out of curiousity, how do you, personally, reconcile the ideal of turning the other cheek with defending yourself and/or your property from a thug? <snip> I am genuinely curious how a (to all appearances) faithful man reconciles this heavily promoted Christian virtue with the ideals of self defense. I know the Templars justified that and also the sin of pride by being able to do violence only in defense of Christians (in the holy land,) and being able to take pride only in the organization they belonged to, not any pride in personal accomplishments. Is it something similar with you?

It's not based on pride, it's based on protection...
if they put my family in direct danger- then it's no longer just self-defense- but defense of my family...

if it were just my life that was threatened... do I let him kill me? how does that allow me to protect my family in the future? If he gets away with killing me, how many more would he kill after that?

if it were just property, It would depend on the circumstances... armed robbery, for example- puts people in danger.... if I were to let that person get away with it, they will most likely do it again- and what if somebody is killed the next time... would their blood be on my hands if It were in my means to stop him when he robbed me?

evil must be confronted & combated, or it will remain unchecked...

when I presented (to my pastor) the idea that "turn the other cheek" could be interpreted as an act of defiance, he found it interesting- but would not fully disagree...
there are also cultural differences that make the specific wording more significant... such as striking the right cheek, offer him the other... to strike someone with your left (unclean in that time/culture) hand to strike the other cheek would bring dishonor on the striker... in the same passage, Jesus mentions "if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." this is also a cultural reference- leaving yourself naked would bring shame upon those that viewed your nakedness... not upon the naked. There's also jewish law from the time that would prevent someone from taking "the shirt off your back" to pay a dept...

I believe that the overall message is one of not seeking vengance, not specifically letting someone beat the crap out of you...