Would Jesus pack heat? Is gun control a God issue?

[SecularMotion]

The tragic shooting at the Dark Knight showing in Colorado is promoting social media debates over where God would stand on gun control. Is it a pro-life issue?

To the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest who calls himself "pro-life across the board," it obviously is.

Within hours of posting that view on social media Friday morning, Martin had to shut down comments on his Facebook page and cut off trading tweets on the topic. It got too hot.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/07/dark-kight-shooting-gun-control-jesus-catholic/1?csp=34news#.UB52tc9lRw4

[slackmaster]

1. You can find just about any kind of weird shit you can think of on the Web if you look hard enough

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[SecularMotion]

2. You think the position of the Catholic Church on gun control is "weird shit"?

Last edited Mon Aug 6, 2012, 08:33 AM - Edit history (1)

He says that although the Catholic Church's position on gun control is not as publicly known as its stance against abortion, it's all about opposing the taking of human life.

[slackmaster]

14. I really don't care what the Catholic Church's postion on anything is.

HTH

[ileus]

3. Jesus probably not....his disciples mostly would.

Jesus knew the world was full of shitheads and that his followers would need to defend themselves once he was gone.

The world is still full of shitheads, and the self defense firearm has mostly replaced the sword.


Glad I'm not Jesus.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. I am also against the taking of human life, especially mine.

I carry because I value my life, and my family's life, above the life of a violent criminal. So if some thugs ever puts our live(s) in danger, then I will take his life if I have to, to protect ours.

[SecularMotion]

6. Are you Catholic or Protestant?

[GreenStormCloud]

36. Both have the same doctrine on self-defense.

FWIW - I am Protestant, but am knowledgable on Catholic doctrine.

[SecularMotion]

40. They may have the same doctrines, but their members hold different opinions on gun control.

When asked if they favored or opposed stricter gun control laws, the most support for stricter laws came from black Protestants (71%) Catholics (59%) and the unaffiliated (55%). But solid opposition was expressed by white evangelical Protestants (60% ). Only mainline Protestants were more divided (47% favor, 51% oppose).

[GreenStormCloud]

41. You are moving the goal posts.

The topic was religious doctrine on self-defense. You are now trying to tap dance away from that to what the members think of gun control. Even on your topic the members are divided.

[SecularMotion]

42. The OP is about the position of the Catholic Church on gun control.

Did you read the article?

[spin]

55. Many Black Protestants live in the inner city of large urban areas ...

many of which have strong gun control laws such as in Chicago. They see the tragic effects of the criminal misuse of firearms on a regular basis. Eighty percent of murders caused by firearms are the result of criminal or criminal gang activity.

It is not surprising that inner city Blacks intensely dislike firearms. Since they rarely see firearms owned by honest people used successfully to stop violent attacks they fail to see the value of civilian ownership of firearms.

And to be entirely fair, allowing the inner city Blacks in cities like Chicago to own and even carry firearms would do little to prevent gang warfare which often kills innocent bystanders during drive by shootings.

The solution is better policing of such areas coupled with cooperation from the residents. Since better policing is expensive especially in our nation's current economic situation and since Blacks often distrust police with good reason, such proactive policing and support from the Black community is unlikely to occur any time soon.

Legalization of some drugs might take much of the profit from criminal drug gangs but once again that is impossible in our nation at this time. The same appears true for improving our educational system to better prepare students for worthwhile well paying jobs. Our educational system is mired in the last century while we live in a world where many of our youth are computer literate. We could use modern technology to improve our educational system but that would require considerable money and would be strongly resisted by teachers and many parents.

We need leadership in our nation but both parties appear to be bought and owned by the 1% and fight like children in an unsupervised playground and refuse any form of compromise on the important issues that our nation faces.

Our nation has faced serious problems before and survived. Perhaps we will once again but right now we are mired in quicksand and we are failing but sinking.

We need a great leader. I voted for Obama as I felt he could deliver on his promise of hope and change. He is the best campaigner I have ever seen in my life but I am disappointed that he didn't use his bully pulpit to force real change. Perhaps he will achieve this in his second term and he is fortunate to be running against a weak opponent. But perhaps I am expecting far too much from Obama and my expectations are simply unrealistic for any human.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. Jesus carried a .38 snub up his sleeve. Before he fed the thousands with a few fish & bread...

He demonstrated that he could fire thousands of shots without reloading his 5-shot .38 snub nose J-Frame.

[ileus]

7. And my wife can only fire 5 before reloading her J frame.

it's a sad sad world we live in where she's limited to 5 while some unknown male had a forever cylinder.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. Jesus used to carry a 1911 auto loader without having to reload...

Jesus is a huge fan of large caliber autos - especially the 1911. Not only was his 1911 invented by John MOSES Browning in the country where he would later reveal himself to the founder of the Church of Ladder Day Saints... its magazine holds the biblical significant/holy number of seven.

Of course, to Jesus the practical significance of the holy seven-round magazine was irrelevant because Jesus never ran out of ammo. But the baskets of spent brass that accumulated were becoming troublesome. Being against littering and also realizing that he didn't need the .45acp with his perfect shot placement - he made the choice to switch to the .38 snubnose.

Of course, we never hear about these miraculous events from Christ's life because of the Liberal Media that existed in the days of our Lord. Unlike today, the NRA from the same era was more of a practice & educational awareness group (for people without perfect shot placement that actually had to reload) and they weren't politically involved in gun politics. The NRA never really called the media on their bullshit so guns and related paraphernalia remained a specter throughout history until the non-christian Chinese nations documented the invention and uses of gunpowder in the 11th century.

[PavePusher]

18. Jesus was in movies?

Wow!

[Heather MC]

8. Umm Jesus said to his disciples, "if you live by the sword you die by the sword"

I think it's clear Christ would have nothing to do with a weapon. Please to all my DUers who are turned off by these gun toting God loving freaks. Please know they are not the true representation of Christ, they are some sick man-made perversion that has nothing to do with the true Christ.

I am Christian but I don't attend church anymore because I don't agree with the way churches have been representing the Lord. I would rather stay at home with my family, explore the scriptures and pray for understanding on my own than be told what to believe.

And I know in my heart God has never directed me to hate gays, or hate anyone, take up arms, or deny women a safe place for healthcare. And he never will.

[ToolMaker]

16. Another viewpoint...

He also said "if you have no sword, sell your robe and buy one". Luke 22:36

This was just before his arrest and crucifixion while he was in the garden with his disciples. While this scripture can be interpreted in a number of ways, we know that Peter cut off the ear of a Roman guard and Christ told him to put away his sword. Note that he did not tell him to discard it.

I do not believe that Christ was encouraging violence, but I do believe that he understood the world to be a violent place and that his followers would soon be without him and would have to provide for their own protection. This, IMHO, is not the same as "living by the sword". I think that phrase describes the act of living a life that is violent in nature, not defending oneself from the attacks of others.

I will let others read the scripture for themselves, taking the words in context according to the passages and events that surround them. I think Christ was indeed non-violent, but I also believe that he was not opposed to defending yourself from violence, even if this included the use of violence in doing so.

Read the scriptures and decide for yourself.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Hate has no place among Christians

As Christians we accept that there is some good in everyone. There is a bit of humor regarding churches and organized religion that goes as follows:

There is a man who has had a tough time recently. (In some versions of this story it is that he struggled with alcoholism or drugs. In other versions it's due to his coming out about being gay.) He had some arguments with other members of his family and his church and pastor. There were hard feelings all around.

One day he decides to return to the church to try to mend the relationships that have been affected. The members of his church family move away and won't sit near him. His mere entrance disrupts the service. People whisper about him and the pastor calls over and quietly tells an usher to show the man out.

Embarrassed and humiliated the man is shown to the door and leaves. Feeling rather abandoned he sits outside on the step with his head in hands unable to think of what to do or who to talk to. Jesus appears next to him on the step and asks what's wrong. The man explains what's just happened and how he feels. Jesus smiles and says not to worry about that church and that He hasn't been welcome in there for quite some time.

My opinion is that when Jesus returns, if He's looking for disciples again, He'll probably recruit some gay ones.

I began shooting when I was about 14. I don't carry a pistol for a number of reasons. I do feel that owning and carrying are not bad things. Jesus would have no need of a gun. The admonition you mention about living by the sword has a lot of wisdom in it. Today, 'living by the sword' may be anything from gang membership, to drug dealing, to regularly engaging in robbery, to working as a mercenary.

Almost 800 years ago, Thomas Aquinas said, "...Without doubt one is allowed to resist against the unjust aggressor to one's life, one's goods or one's physical integrity; sometimes, even 'til the aggressor’s death...".
Almost 200 years ago, Daniel Webster said, "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." Samuel Adams said a few dozen years before Webster, "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
In the 4th century, St. Augustine said, "Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."

Finally as spin points out in post #13 below, Jesus said, "But now whoever has a purse or a bag, must take it and whoever does not have a sword must sell his cloak and buy one."

There will always be folks that use their positions of trust to direct their followers to limit the freedoms of those who are different. They will accuse the different ones of crimes or say they're sub-human or just declare them 'the enemy'. I'm always suspicious of folks who talk more about our enemies than about our friends. I used to be a Republican and many things caused me to change my views, healthcare, education...

Webster also said, "Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority... the Constitution was made to guard against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."

BTW, welcome to the group.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

29. "Hate has no place among Christians"? Is this sarcasm?

If not, have you truly had life experiences in which those who call themselves "Christians" have not spent time disapproving of others?

While the level of hate may range from very mild to outright vitriolic, is disapproval an essential element of Christianity? Even the Quakers disapproved of and hated slavery.

If you call yourself a Christian, are there things that you disapprove of and hate? If you call yourself a Catholic, for example, don't you disapprove of and hate the pedophilia that has been covered up and protected by the Catholic Church?

Hate does not require vitriol, but it can involve that or milder expressions of that emotion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. Hate...

...for others has no place among Christians. Hate for evil acts is not a problem. The object of anger is not the sinner but his action.

I never said there weren't evil act done in the name of Christianity.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. On an objective basis from encountering "Christians"

all of my life, however, I think that you are wrong.

None of those who I have ever encountered with their hate have ever limited their hatred to: "Hate the sin, but not the sinner."

Based on my life experiences, such cant is just one more expression of hypocrisy.

Incidentally, I never said that you ever "said there weren't evil act done in the name of Christianity." My words speak for themselves and don't need to be re-interpreted to say something which I did not say.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

39. Your opinion and mine deserve respect.

Anytime people engage in religion, there generally follow some strong emotions. Hate is one of them and Christians have, as I mentioned, done evil in the name of Christianity.

My expression "I never said..." was just an expression and not an attempt to counter anything in particular other than just me agreeing that evil has been done in the name of Christianity.

Folks like Wellsboro Baptist and others make the news, call themselves Christians and do what they do. I have differences with most all organized religions and I couldn't point to a place of worship without having my doubts as to the collective sincerity.

It is a sad thing that you've had such negative encounters but keep in mind that, while maybe we all deserve it some, it is a plenty broad brush.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[rrneck]

9. Killing is always wrong, every time.

Sometimes it's necessary. That doesn't make it right. It makes it human.

[spin]

12. I would argue that murder is wrong every time ...

and that killing in legitimate self defense is defensible but always tragic. If I ever have to use my legitimate self defense weapon to counter an attack from an individual who seriously intends to severely injure or kill me and has the capacity to do so, I am not seeking to kill him but merely to stop his attack. If I succeed I will make every effort to save my attacker's life as long as I am not putting myself in further danger.

Killing in warfare sometimes could be considered murder but is often justified. Warfare is always tragic as it shows that our species lacks the ability to resolve issues peacefully.

Note that we are not disagreeing.

[rrneck]

15. It's like being sucked into a moral black hole.

Everything we know and believe gets compressed into a singularity that makes no sense in the real world. It seems that actions that might otherwise be trivial can sometimes lead to somebody getting shot. And where we come out at the other end of that tunnel can depend on the smallest details of our entry.

It's hard to figure out. That's why I spend so much time here rather than politics 2012. My choice for political parties is easy. Only an idiot would vote for anyone other than a Democrat. But the self defense issue, much like religion, is a crucible to test liberal ideology, which for most human concerns is the best way to organize our society right now. But the way our ideology is currently understood, it doesn't appear to work very well when it comes to direct conflict. Liberals seem to have forgotten how to fight. Really fight. Throw down, eye gouging groin kicking fight. I think it puts us behind the times, which is the worst possible place for a liberal to be.

[spin]

24. Once again we agree ...

I really don't fear that the Democrats will ever succeed in any misguided effort to ban some or all firearms. Democrats in large urban areas that have strong control laws but suffer largely from gang violence have a strong and justified dislike of firearms but are largely inexperienced with honest gun owners. It's hard to convince Democrats who live in such areas that firearms not only take lives when welded by criminals but often save lives when used legitimately by honest citizens. To be fair honest citizens can do little to combat gang violence as that is and should be the job of the police.

In fact I question the wisdom of voting for Republicans on the gun control issue as they represent the rich and powerful far more than they do the middle classes or the poor in our nation. In fact if you carefully examine history it will show that in many cases Republicans were far more willing to impose draconian gun laws than Democrats in order to protect the upper class against a potential upraising or crime from the lower classes. Republicans have recently successfully used the gun control debate as a wedge issue to win many close elections but I seriously believe they will sell out gun owners in a heartbeat if the opportunity presents itself.

Romney is a shape shifter who today acts like he supports RKBA but has a long history that proves otherwise. Obama has actually been supportive of RKBA and has received an "F" rating from the Brady Campaign.

I feel that in order to preserve freedom in our nation and to prevent the 1% from gaining total control it is necessary to allow the 99% to own firearms as a deterrent. Our nation is a unique experiment in history and firearm ownership was essential to the establishment of our nation. Of course it could be argued that the civilian ownership of firearms is largely irrelevant in today's world but I would point out that recent events in the middle east prove that even dictatorial governments can fall to largely unarmed citizens if the circumstances justify a rebellion that has overwhelming support. In such a circumstance it would be far easier in our nation with 300,000,000 firearms and 80,000,000 firearms owners to resist a tyrannical government run by the rich.

If we as liberals sacrifice our right to bear arms we might well find ourselves oppressed by the rich and powerful. No matter how you look at it, allowing civilians to own firearms is a deterrent to tyrants. A deterrent is most effective in preventing something but hopefully will never have to be used. If a deterrent is ever required it failed in it's basic purpose.

As far as self defense using a firearm it should only be used when absolutely necessary. That would require an actual attack from an individual who intended to seriously harm his victim or to kill and had the capacity to do so. In such circumstances I refuse to fault the gun owner. I do find fault with the Trayvon Martin shooting as I feel that the situation could have been avoided easily if Zimmerman had merely used commonsense. Such incidents are fairly rare and far more gun owners successfully use their firearms legitimately without question to defend themselves and many of these involve no shots fired.

[rrneck]

26. Absolutely. And well said. nt

[spin]

32. Thanks for your support. (n/t)

[Starboard Tack]

43. +1

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. Would Jesus pack heat? You mean IF he walked the earth today?

Is gun control a God issue? I guess it could be argued that ALL issues are of God.

navel gazing at its worst, imo.

[spin]

13. Jesus did not carry a weapon but some of his disciples did. ...

Swords were the handguns of Jesus' time. In reality a sword is a far more deadly close range weapon than most of the small caliber handguns that are carried to self defense in today's world.

Then Jesus asked them, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" "Nothing," they answered. 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 is enough," he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

In fact one the the disciples of Jesus did use a sword.

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.) (John 18:10 NIV)

However Jesus did not approve of this action as he felt it was not truly necessary.

Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” (John 18:11 NIV)

[braddy]

38. The question was answered in the garden when they came for him, they met a side arm.

I guess that besides that battle sword, that everyone there carried a knife, even Jesus.

My understanding is that carrying your own knife was the norm as it is a primary everyday tool for all sorts of tasks in that type of living, it was for basic self defense, and it also was a necessary part of eating until modern times.

I don't think a traveling man of the times would constantly be asking companions, servers, hosts, and vendors to borrow the only carving and eating utensil of the period.

[Starboard Tack]

44. If he was the "Only true son of God" as the NT claims, he had no need for physical weapons.

Makes one wonder why he hung out with armed disciples.
I don't buy the whole messiah thing and I don't believe Jesus ever claimed to be the messiah. If he existed, which I think very probable, he was a peaceful activist who tried to do the right thing and got crucified for his troubles. What others have done since, in his name, ranges from the best of human spirit to the most vile.
Jesus preached humility and love. He would never have carried a weapon, nor would he have condoned such behavior, no matter how much so-called Christians would like to think otherwise.

[spin]

53. Any religious person can care for others and lead a good life ...

but still carry a self defense weapon for protection.

A good person of any religion usually has a large number of people who benefit or have benefited from the fact that he is alive. Consequently it is a great tragedy when such a person is severely injured or murdered by a predator who has little regard for others.

Of course carrying a weapon for self defense is an indivual choice. Many very religious people refuse to do so and that is their choice as it should be.

Mahatma Gandhi who was a very religious and peaceful individual had this to say about self defense:

“Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right”
http://pennypincherpersonalfinance.blogspot.com/2011/11/some-inconvenient-quotes-by-gandhi.html

[Starboard Tack]

56. He said much more than that on the subject and never suggested carrying a gun.

"Self-defence by Violence

I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

The strength to kill is not essential for self-defence; one ought to have the strength to die. When a man is fully ready to die, he will not even desire to offer violence. Indeed, I may put it down as a self-evident proposition that the desire to kill is in inverse proportion to the desire to die. And history is replete with instances of men who, by dying with courage and compassion on their lips, converted the hearts of their violent opponents.

Nonviolence cannot be taught to a person who fears to die and has no power of resistance. A helpless mouse is not nonviolent because he is always eaten by pussy. He would gladly eat the murderess if he could, but he ever tries to flee from her. We do not call him a coward, because he is made by nature to behave no better than he does.

But a man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward. He harbors violence and hatred in his heart and would kill his enemy if he could without hurting himself. He is a stranger to nonviolence. All sermonizing on it will be lost on him. Bravery is foreign to his nature. Before he can understand nonviolence, he has to be taught to stand his ground and even suffer death, in the attempt to defend himself against the aggressor who bids fair to overwhelm him. To do otherwise would be to confirm his cowardice and take him further away from nonviolence.

Whilst I may not actually help anyone to retaliate, I must not let a coward seek shelter behind nonviolence so-called. Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one's life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.
Self-defence....is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation."
http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

[DWC]

17. Luke 22:36

New International Version (©1984)
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.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Semper Fi,

[msongs]

19. everybody knows that version is not the TRUE bible lol nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. "...TRUE bible..."

??? What's that mean?

[gejohnston]

22. to some fundies

the King James Version is the only true English translation.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. I see...

thanks

[jeepnstein]

52. And if you take it to the extreme...

as they often do, then we should limit ourselves to bronze swords only. I'm pretty sure they'd reject that strict interpretation.

[Starboard Tack]

25. Pick a book, pick a chapter, pick a verse - whatever suits your argument.

Quoting the bible is on a par with quoting the fiction section of a library.

[Clames]

30. Well that pretty much sums up how worthless this topic is.

Bring up God and religion and not expect a few Bible quotes thrown around....

[gejohnston]

31. it is in the philosophy section.

are you saying secular philosophy belongs in the "pointless academic navel gazing that has no application in the real world" section?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. Opinions...

...everyone's got 'em.

[DWC]

37. The OP asked a Biblical question

I gave a Biblical answer.

But I must add - disregarding your religious beliefs; if you do not recognize the value of the Judeo-Christian morales and ethics which are the foundation of Western Civilization, you have a long way to go before you will be capable of successfully engaging anyone of competence in intellectual discussion and/or debate.

Semper Fi,

[spin]

54. I don't know exactly what Bible you consider to be true ...

but if you visit this link you will see the many different versions of Luke 22:36.

http://bible.cc/luke/22-36.htm

They all seem to say basically the same thing.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Paper never refuses ink!

[DWC]

46. What does that mean??? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

47. It's an old Irish proverb

Your quote is from a book rewritten in 1984, which is a rewrite of a book written for King James 500 years ago, which was itself a rewrite of a bunch of books written in Latin that were selected by guys who preferred them to other books, all of which were written centuries after Jesus supposedly lived, if he ever existed.

All these books, together with even older books of the OT are written with ink on paper.

BTW, I've no idea if it really is an old Irish proverb. It could be. I just made it up. I guess internet message boards represent the new paper and ink.

Or it could be just a polite way of calling something bullshit.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[DWC]

48. I repeat

"Disregarding your religious beliefs; if you do not recognize the value of the Judeo-Christian morales and ethics which are the foundation of Western Civilization, you have a long way to go before you will be capable of successfully engaging anyone of competence in intellectual discussion and/or debate."

That you consider any document that has been so significant in defining our social order as "bullshit" shows demonstrates the mentality of the ignorant.

Semper Fi,

[gejohnston]

49. Greek not so much Latin.

Greek was the lingua franca in that part of the world at that time. Mark Anthony and Cleopatra most likely spoke Greek during their pillow talk.

[Starboard Tack]

57. Cleo was about 1500 years before King James

I was referring to the translation to English from Latin, not the Greek versions or the Aramaic.

[gejohnston]

58. according to this

the OT was from Hebrew while the NT was from Greek.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

50. Cool

The only Latin I know is "Illegitimi non tatum carborundum."

[rDigital]

27. Another failed attempt at dividing the Pro-2A crowd. NT

[4th law of robotics]

28. I would gladly give up my right to self defense if it came with the ability to resurrect.

When that is an option the comparison is valid.

[TPaine7]

51. Were I God, I wouldn't own a gun. Or wear a seatbelt. Or look both ways before crossing the street.

Or be afraid of getting between a grizzly and her cubs. Or have a fire extinguisher. Or avoid contagious diseases. Or...