Question for Christians

[Hos]

(Mods just delete if this is against the forum's "religion" rule but it's not about its validity so I'd think this will be ok...)

I think a majority of Christians are ok with chl and defending yourself and others with deadly force if necessary. But I happen to have quite a few family members and friends who are conservative in every other way but don't really get the chl aspects of the 2A.

If you are a Christian, please give me some ideas as to how to best explain the position that deadly force is ok and chl is not only ok, but favorable to being an easy victim.

I think some of this goes back to "turning the other cheek" bible verse and the "love your enemies" verse, meekness, etc. Then, there's all the Christian martyrs out there and it's hard to be a martyr if your M-14 is taking a few down with you. I think some Christians would see chl'ers as having a lack of Faith that God will protect you although this is untrue since a gun is a tool for us to use.

[seamusTX]

My answer is that God gave us gifts of free will, strength, courage, and intelligence. We are obligated to use those gifts to preserve what is good and fight evil. Our actions should cause more good than harm.

Allowing someone to rob, injure, or kill you or your family does no good, and allows the criminal free to do more harm.

On the subject of martyrs: They were killed because they professed and refused to renounce their faith, not for their wallet or no reason.

Some Christian pacifists are steadfast in their beliefs, but they are not the mainstream of Christianity. You may notice that the Amish and Mennonites came to the U.S., which has freedom of worship, after being persecuted in countries that did not.

- Jim

[jimlongley]

First of all, I consider myself Christian, somewhat newly minted after a long life of being somewhere between indifferent and pantheistic, and I carried when I was being baptized two years ago, in the water and all.

I firmly believe that Christ did not mean for people to just allow themselves to be assaulted, raped, murdered, or even robbed. Taken in context His statements about turning the other cheek appear to me to have more to do with teaching His disciples to be passive resistors. Remember He also told them to prepare to defend themselves.

Of course that is my own interpretation of what I have been taught in my Bible study classes.

[dewayneward]

Wahoo!!! god and guns, doesnt get better than this. I am Christian and in my mind a "studied" one at that. What I mean is that I wasnt brought up as a Christian, just irreligious. Later in life, I began studying all the ones based on their claims and couldnt explain away the evidence.

Anyway...Yes, a number of Christians give the ole' turn the other cheek and certain nonsense like that. Some of them ARE pacifists. In fact a number of first/second century Christians took oaths that would appear to make them pacifists in the general sense. Its only when you really look at the examples and read the history that you learn some of the context this was done in.

Take for example Peter. Good ole Peter, quick to talk, but the brain was always a few seconds behind him. Love him dearly, but not the most reserved guy in the world. One of the many examples is when the guards came to arrest Jesus in the garden, Peter grabs a sword and chops off a guards ear(Matt 26:51). Hell, he told his disciples to take their swords in another section (sorry, speaking off the top of my head here so I cant give you exact passages on some of this).

As far as the folks that gave themselves up for death. Basically they were given a choice (one they couldnt fight their way out of) and that was to renounce Christ or die. Odd thing is that many of them did not. Something to consider since these guys were alive that the time of Christ and saw the events with their own eyes.....and willingly chose death over turning away from the Messiah.

The famed "turn the other cheek" has often been misused to teach pacifism. Did some research on this and it is easily explained to not teach wimpiness.

Here is the passage:

Matthew 5:38-39 You have heard that it was said, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth(read Ex 21:24 and Lev 24:20 for more info to understand context) But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Now, without even examining (btw, I use the New American Stand Version (NASB) as it is the most literal word for word translation) the Old Testament part of this, you see some interesting items. The one that I will jump on (I love this stuff and can drone for hours...I'll spare you this) is that Jesus specifically mentions the "right" cheek. That is one of the things that people will miss on (as the OP did as well).

Now for the breakdown, most of the world is right handed (I am a southpaw so ). Most of the OT (old testament) refers to left and right as left is bad and right is good (I will resist making a similar reference to political parties). Imagine you are facing someone. How would you strike their RIGHT cheek? Give up?? With a back handed right swing. Now, what does it mean when you slap someone across their RIGHT cheek with the back of your RIGHT hand? It is meant as an insult. The smack is not meant to cause pain/damage, it is meant as an insult...plain and simple. So, to take this and put it back into the verse Jesus is saying to not return an insult with an insult.

The thing is is people are trying to superimpose what they want (or today's understanding) with what the scriptures teach. The bible does NOT teach that we are to be wimps. Actually I am a member of an organization called Christian Soldiers Karate (http://www.christiansoldierskarateonline.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) that teaches me how to defend myself. Yes, we are to pray for and love our enemies, but that doesnt mean that we are suppose to let them trample us.

I firmly believe in capital punishment (even like that we put in an express lane). For folks that oppose this, learn the original hebrew, it is thou shalt not MURDER, not kill. Murder is the taking of an innocent life (such as murdering an unborn baby). Killing is not the taking of an innocent life. Words have meaning....

I firmly believe in defending myself...with deadly force if necessary.

God gave us brains and intellect to use it. If we dont then its our fault. I chose my sig line for a reason

[Oldgringo]

My answer is that God gave us gifts of free will, strength, courage, and intelligence. We are obligated to use those gifts to preserve what is good and fight evil. Our actions should cause more good than harm.

Allowing someone to rob, injure, or kill you or your family does no good, and allows the criminal free to do more harm.

On the subject of martyrs: They were killed because they professed and refused to renounce their faith, not for their wallet or no reason.

Some Christian pacifists are steadfast in their beliefs, but they are not the mainstream of Christianity. You may notice that the Amish and Mennonites came to the U.S., which has freedom of worship, after being persecuted in countries that did not.

- Jim

Didn't most early white settlers come to this country for religious freedom - more or less? I don't know what that has to do with CHL?

Here goes - I'm not particularly interested in any religious concept/belief/cult that wants me to believe that martyrdom (mine) is good. I'll try to protect my Christian brothers and sisters to the best of my ability from those trying to harm and/or destroy me, mine and our way of life.
The preacher will just have to deal with it. And yes, I/we do carry in our Methodist church.

[Hos]

Good stuff.

I did a search and found this verse too, I don't remember reading this before and unless I'm reading it out of context, it's pretty good at proving the point.

Exodus 22:2-3
"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed"

Wow, one has to be careful to jump to conclusions but if you can protect your property from a thief, how much more from a robber? Of course then there's the whole "we're under Grace and not the Law" of the OT but your posts have helped with that.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... dus+22:2,3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[carlson1]

Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword (Colt 1911 in the Greek), let him sell his garment, and buy one."

God INTENDS for you to protect you and yours.

[seamusTX]

Didn't most early white settlers come to this country for religious freedom - more or less?

Many did. I can't speak about "most" one way or the other.

However, that is not related to the topic of Christian pacifism. Most of the early Christian immigrants to North America had simply lost the fight somewhere in Europe. Various sects tried to enforce their version of the faith by the sword in the 17th century (guns being not very reliable at the time).

- Jim

[Originalist]

For me simply the same reason war is ok and murder is not.

[RPBrown]

Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword (Colt 1911 in the Greek), let him sell his garment, and buy one."

God INTENDS for you to protect you and yours.

Thats the verse I was looking for but you beat me to it. I couldn't remember book and verse

[TheArmedFarmer]

These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood...

If God hates hands that shed innocent blood, we ought to hate it, too. We who are able are called to defend those who are defenseless - this means primarily our wife and children, then others (IMO).

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Defense is also a provision we are called to provide.

[Zero_G]

I don't have the reference (I may have pulled this from elsewhere on this board), but this is the best quote I've seen:

Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."

CS Lewis also has an essay on "Why I'm Not a Pacifist" (available in some of his collected works).

[edit: found a link http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html with that quote and a discussion, similar to some of the posts above]
Keith

[bdickens]

dewayneward has it partly right. "turning the other cheek" is actually an act of defiance. Instead of taking the insult of a backhanded slap, by turning the other cheek you are in effect saying "if you are going to hit me, you are going to hit me like a man and an equal!"

Likewise is "going the extra mile." By law, Roman soldiers could impress civillians to carry their burdens for one mile - one mile only and no farther. So by saying "and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile," (Mt. 5:41) Jesus was asking his followers to highlight injustice by putting the Romans in a very awkward position.

[TxD]

Good stuff.

I did a search and found this verse too, I don't remember reading this before and unless I'm reading it out of context, it's pretty good at proving the point.

Exodus 22:2-3
"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed"

Wow, one has to be careful to jump to conclusions but if you can protect your property from a thief, how much more from a robber? Of course then there's the whole "we're under Grace and not the Law" of the OT but your posts have helped with that.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... dus+22:2,3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You referenced verse 3 but didn't quote it. Here it is from your source:
Exodus 22:2; Exodus 22:3 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

Exodus 22:2
:2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

Exodus 22:3
:3 but if it happens [a] after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed.
"A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.

Footnotes:[a] Exodus 22:3 Or if he strikes him

Verse 3 says that the defender cannot take the life of a thief in the daytime.