Ah, my town. Nothing like mixing a missions trip and assault weapon shopping. [Archive] - The Well-Trained Mind Forums (aka Hive Mind)

Jackie in AR

02-20-2008, 07:01 PM

So my boys and I grabbed a bite to eat at a local cafe earlier ~ in between piano lessons and chess club. This is a long-standing farmer hang-out kinda place, owned by a friend of mine who bought it from her mother. I rarely go there, although it's well run and so on. But the food isn't my usual fare, and the chit-chat, well...the conversation at a neighboring table today sums it up well. It began as a discussion about missions trips to Central America. Well and good. Then it turns to how much easier and cheaper it is to pick up an AK-47 down there than up here.

"So you carry one down there?"

"Hell, I carry one where ever I can. I don't go anywhere I can't be armed."

Because I rilly, rilly like the gal who owns this place, I chose that moment to escape outside for a breath of fresh air.

Ho hum. Just another day in paradise!

So, was he (or she) packing a weapon today at the cafe? :D

That is just hilarious.

Jean in Newcastle

02-20-2008, 07:12 PM

Well, he would be right at home in the Philippines! When we were there last year (for a 3 wks. mission trip) they were very common - carried by store security guards! It was a bit surreal to be greeted at the door to the store by very polite store owners who were standing right next to a guard with a sub-machine gun or in some cases - a sawed-off shotgun. Now there's a deterrent for shop-lifting for you!

Jackie in AR

02-20-2008, 07:43 PM

Colleen

02-21-2008, 04:22 AM

So, was he (or she) packing a weapon today at the cafe?

Oh, I'd bet my bottom dollar on it. But I try rilly, rilly hard not to think about the number of people I know who are packing a (fill in the blank with firearm of your choice) at all times ~ church included. Interesting...what brings a sense of security to some brings a sense of revulsion to others...

Karen sn

02-21-2008, 08:35 AM

Oh, I'd bet my bottom dollar on it. But I try rilly, rilly hard not to think about the number of people I know who are packing a (fill in the blank with firearm of your choice) at all times ~ church included. Interesting...what brings a sense of security to some brings a sense of revulsion to others...

Colleen, I totally respect your right to feel that way. But imagine if - in every mall or college class - one concealed weapons permit holding individual was there when some whack job wanted to commit suicide AFTER killing all those innocent shoppers/students.

Theoretically - I don't like guns - would be a whole different world if they'd never been invented. But they ARE here - and so often easily found in the hands of the WRONG people. If the RIGHT people carried them more often, we could save innocent lives and take out the suicidal gunmen BEFORE they kill the 5 to 20 innocent unarmend shoppers and students.

I feel safe when farmers and locals carry guns. I trust the legal concealed weapons permit carrying individuals. It's the kids who steal or illegally buy guns who I am afraid of.

If some psycho just travelling through town wanted to open fire on the innocent - it would be one of those men you overheard who would stop the psycho before he hurt your family, friends, and neighbors.

Just a thought. Because my kid is only going to college when she can shoot her target, understands gun safety, and can legally carry a weapon concealed. If more sane people carried guns - the psycho gunmen wouldn't get away with much!

Sandra in NC

02-21-2008, 09:07 AM

[QUOTE=Karen sn;62773]Theoretically - I don't like guns - would be a whole different world if they'd never been invented. But they ARE here - and so often easily found in the hands of the WRONG people. If the RIGHT people carried them more often, we could save innocent lives and take out the suicidal gunmen BEFORE they kill the 5 to 20 innocent unarmend shoppers and students.

I feel safe when farmers and locals carry guns. I trust the legal concealed weapons permit carrying individuals. It's the kids who steal or illegally buy guns who I am afraid of.QUOTE]

I agree wholeheartedly. Utah is the only state where concealed carry is allowed on college campuses. I don't think they have much trouble there.
It's the state where an off duty policeman stopped a shooting rampage in a shopping mall (by violating the gun-free zone sign and carrying his weapon anyway). I do not own a gun, but I feel safter knowing people like my brother in law (a volunteer firefighter and upstanding citizen) carry concealed weapons.

In Britain, they've outlawed guns, toy guns, and now they want to make knives any larger than a small pocket knife illegal. Bad guys will always have weapons. We can not legislate that away!

Holly IN

02-21-2008, 09:24 AM

- one concealed weapons permit holding individual was there when some whack job wanted to commit suicide AFTER killing all those innocent shoppers/students.

Theoretically - I don't like guns - would be a whole different world if they'd never been invented. But they ARE here - and so often easily found in the hands of the WRONG people. If the RIGHT people carried them more often, we could save innocent lives and take out the suicidal gunmen BEFORE they kill the 5 to 20 innocent unarmend shoppers and students.

That is exactly what my dh said in our conversation over the killings at Northern Illinois University. We need more sane and right people carrying the weapons with permits of course. I agree with you Karen!!

Holly

HollyDay

02-21-2008, 09:52 AM

In Britain, they've outlawed guns, toy guns, ![/QUOTE]

I just want to comment on the toy gun thing. I recently had the wits scared out of me by a toy gun. I walked into my friend's place of business (she is a massage therapist and creates her own line of lotions,etc) and saw on the back counter a very nasty looking hand gun. Having my 2 dc with me, I was startled. I wondered if she had it because she works alone much of the time. Then her adorable youngest dc runs in and grabs it waving it around. I just about had a heart attack. They laugh since it was "just" a toy - the thing looked so very real.

Not long after that I was driving my car in my subdivision past the open area park we have. Several teens were hanging out there and 2 of them were carrying "weapons" - 1 a handgun, the other a shotgun type thing. I saw them as I started around the turn. The one with the handgun, pointed it at my car, tracked us and "fired" it. All his buddies laughed up a storm. These were big teens - probably 6ft tall carrying toys (I hope) and laughing about pretending to shoot at a family in a car. I dont want to even talk about where this type of "play" leads and what it says.

These toys look real, very, very real. Besides scaring me and my dc for no reason, what about their safety too. IF someone felt genuinely threatened and had the means to defend themselves or their dc or they are waving one of these things around a police officer - would someone get shot - over a toy? Why do they have to look so realistic?

PrairieAir

02-21-2008, 10:07 AM

I don't carry a gun. I don't particularly like guns myself. We have several rifles and shotguns for hunting. I have tried target shooting a few times and was actually a pretty good shot. But I don't enjoy guns. I do enjoy the deer meat my husband brings home. I had a friend whose husband required her to carry a gun whenever she went walking for exercise--with or without a friend and in a safe part of town. I personally would feel uncomfortable with that.

BUT, I agree with everything Karen sn said. I don't care to carry or use a gun, but I want those who prefer to carry one to have that right. It usually is not legal gun owners who are a problem. People who set out to commit a crime usually obtain one illegally for that purpose so that it cannot be easily tied to them.

I understand farmers who want to carry guns. With the increase in production and use of meth, farmers are in greater danger because they have one of the ingredients. (Sorry, can't remember what that is at the moment. Some kind of fertilizer maybe?) It happens around here, and I wouldn't want to be the farmer to unexpectedly walk up on someone stealing chemicals for use in meth and be unprepared.

I also understand why someone on a missions trip might want to carry a concealed weapon. Many missions trips are in places which are just not as safe as home. The town next to ours is the home of Gracia Burnham. People around here are well aware of how dangerous a missions trip can be.

I'm not sure what situations would make me feel the need to carry a gun. I am thankful that dh took one on our backpacking trip to Colorado with our four (then) young children. We hoped we'd never have to use it, and we never did, but with the possibility of a mountain lion or bear attack, it was important for us to be able to defend our family. After backpacking in Colorado, we headed down to the Grand Canyon. I was thankful dh had the gun again when we stopped at The Anasazi Inn late around midnight before hitting the Grand Canyon the next day. It was a scary, seedy looking place but there was no other place for miles and miles around and we couldn't drive any further.

Rebel

02-21-2008, 10:24 AM

I thought toy guns all had a yellow or orange colored barrel tip so they aren't confused with real guns. Maybe it's just a Texas thing. My son's paintball guns don't have the colored tip, but they look nothing like real guns anyway. The giant hopper on top is a dead giveaway. :-)

Friederike in Persia

02-21-2008, 10:26 AM

what do you do with a gun in church? Put it next to your chair?

Diana in OR

02-21-2008, 10:35 AM

what do you do with a gun in church? Put it next to your chair?

People who bring their guns to church usually carry them concealed. There are all sorts of variations of holsters that allow you to carry your gun comfotably and completely unnoticed.

Don't ask me how I know this. ;) And, no, I don't carry.

Bev in B'ville

02-21-2008, 10:43 AM

Here in Georgia there's a county that passed a law stating that all homeowners must have a gun in the home. They passed this law several years ago and crime in that county has diminished greatly. (google Kennesaw County in Georgia for more information)

I agree that if more responsible people have guns, and the bad guys know it, perhaps they'll be less likely to do harm. However, someone on a suicide mission is a whole different matter. They expect to be shot and killed, if not by someone else then by their own hands. We can only pray that someone else nearby has a gun and knows how to use it so that innocent lives are spared.

Just a side note. I used to live in downtown Atlanta and go to college at night. My father gave me a gun and told me to carry it back and forth from the parking lot (a very dark parking lot)to the apartment building I lived in (I did get a permit to carry a gun). One night, on the way from my car into my apartment building a male with a stocking mask approached me with a knife. I honestly to this day cannot tell you what, if anything, he said as I was completely focused on the knife. Suddenly I remembered I had a gun right there, on top of my books in my arms. I picked it up, pointed it at the man, who then began begging me not to shoot him. He ran away, thankfully. If I had had to fire I probably would have hit every car in the parking lot and missed him! My hands were shaking badly. Having a gun is not the end game, having the training to use one in critical situations is.

Just my $.02.

abbeyej

02-21-2008, 10:45 AM

I trust the legal concealed weapons permit carrying individuals. It's the kids who steal or illegally buy guns who I am afraid of.

From what I've read, the guns carried in the last two university shootings were obtained legally. Perhaps they shouldn't have bee

I would not consider myself a "gun control advocate", but I absolutely do *not* feel an added sense of safety at the idea of more concealed weapons on college campuses (yes, dh is a professor at a large university) or malls, etc.

DIY-DY

02-21-2008, 10:49 AM

I thought toy guns all had a yellow or orange colored barrel tip so they aren't confused with real guns. Maybe it's just a Texas thing.

:-)

DIY-DY

02-21-2008, 10:51 AM

Interesting...what brings a sense of security to some brings a sense of revulsion to others...

I'd rather eat in a cafe where every customer in there is a law-abiding gun owner carrying either concealed or open, than in one like the Luby's in TX, any day. Particularly with my children with me.

PariSarah

02-21-2008, 11:03 AM

If the RIGHT people carried them more often, we could save innocent lives and take out the suicidal gunmen BEFORE they kill the 5 to 20 innocent unarmed shoppers and students.

While there is, I'm sure, anecdotal evidence that legally purchased concealed weapons can be used to stop crimes when the stars align favorably, there is far greater evidence that the most effective ways to prevent crime have to do with education and participatory government. People who have access to education and the opportunities it provides, and who feel that the laws of their land are just, tend to commit far fewer violent crimes than those who have scanty access to education and who perceive themselves victimized by the law rather than protected by it.

My aversion to violence (even in self-defense) is connected to my religious faith, which not everyone on this board shares, so I will not mount a defense of my own (or what I suspect is Colleen's) position on guns and gun control (and guns in churches :mad:). But I did want to say that the evidence for your position--that carrying a concealed weapon makes you safer--is not very convincing.

If it were, my father (who was a police officer) would certainly have had all of his children trained to carry a gun safely. Instead, he forbade us ever to touch one.

RebeccaC

02-21-2008, 11:20 AM

At the last church shooting in CO a woman with a hand gun curbed the death toll considerably. I bet everyone in the church foyer picking up their nursery kids were exceedingly glad that she was carrying that Sunday morning. As it was two young hs sisters died in front of their parents and sisters in the parking lot where no one was carrying other than the gunman.

I live 35 minutes from where the shooting took place this last week. I prayer lead at our local House of Prayer and most of the folks who come to pray are between 14 and 24. I lead Tuesdays 12 noon to one right now. When our session was over all the college kids, most of which were young men, could talk about was the shooting. They all knew some one in the class who escaped or personally some one shot. One young man had a sister in the class and each man thought it would have been better if some one had been carrying and took the shooter out. I did not bring up carrying but the kids did. I think if the college shooting trend continues we will see a lot of young folks pushing for the right to carry.

All that said my weapon of choice being ex air force is an M-16 it far out weighs an AK-47 or any other weapon that I have handled.

RebeccaC

02-21-2008, 11:32 AM

Bev in B'ville

02-21-2008, 12:13 PM

While there is, I'm sure, anecdotal evidence that legally purchased concealed weapons can be used to stop crimes when the stars align favorably, there is far greater evidence that the most effective ways to prevent crime have to do with education and participatory government. People who have access to education and the opportunities it provides, and who feel that the laws of their land are just, tend to commit far fewer violent crimes than those who have scanty access to education and who perceive themselves victimized by the law rather than protected by it.

My aversion to violence (even in self-defense) is connected to my religious faith, which not everyone on this board shares, so I will not mount a defense of my own (or what I suspect is Colleen's) position on guns and gun control (and guns in churches :mad:). But I did want to say that the evidence for your position--that carrying a concealed weapon makes you safer--is not very convincing.

If it were, my father (who was a police officer) would certainly have had all of his children trained to carry a gun safely. Instead, he forbade us ever to touch one.

if I hadn't had a gun, but I feel convinced that I came out better for having one than not (see post below).

If education and participatory government should show a reduction in crime, then why is the U.S. a country with one of the highest crime rates? After all, everyone (including illegal aliens) have access to education and our system of government is one of the most participatory in the world.

Another side note. When I was in high school, we had a rifle team that competed with other schools. The kids brought their guns on the school bus and stored them in their lockers until practice time after school. There were no shootings at any of the schools then.

I think the statistics of the county in GA that shows a reduction in both violent and overall crime since instituting a mandatory gun ownership law bears out the fact that criminals will think twice before committing a crime in that area. The surrounding counties have not seen a decrease in crime.

I respect your views that you do not wish to own a gun, but the 2nd amendment bears out our right to own guns to protect ourselves. I will not see my family harmed if I have ability to protect us. Thanks to my reserve training in the U.S. Army for 8 years I have the training to do so. I wished I had had that training before the guy tried to mug me.

PariSarah

02-21-2008, 12:20 PM

I'd like to see the evidence that so many folks claim that education and government is the cure all.

I didn't say it was a cure-all. I used words like "tend to" and "far fewer." I don't believe in cure-alls that don't involve the second coming of Christ.

My point was that concealed weapons aren't any more of a cure-all than education and representative democracy. If you want to go anecdotal, you can talk about all the incidents where 1) criminals obtained and carried their weapons legally, right up to the point where they used them to do something illegal, and 2) where a legally obtained and carried weapon was turned against its owner by the attacker at whom the weapon was pointed. If you're looking for cure-alls, any instances like that would demonstrate that free access to guns is not one of them.

My father's mother was Amish don't think I got too much of the pacifist blood in me tho. Utopia is a myth and what you describe above is a utopian myth there will always be some one who feels victimized by something or someone and a small percentage of those folks will take it out on innocent people.

It's interesting that you brought up the Amish. My instinctual response to your first post (where you said that parents were probably glad that their children were saved by the woman with the handgun) was that none of the parents of the children who were murdered in that school shooting in PA a couple years ago started advocating concealed carry permits for the Amish. On the other hand, they accepted the assistance of armed police officers, who presumably would have killed the shooter on their behalf if the shooter hadn't committed suicide. They seem to have managed the mental gymnastics that let them be grateful for what is good while refusing to accept how that good came about. (In this way, they are like a woman whose beloved child was conceived through rape. She is "grateful" for the rape in the sense that she loves her child; yet you will not find her advocating for the repeal of rape laws.)

I don't think that the Amish, to take only one example of a group of people who reject violence, are living with their heads in the sand. They know exactly what the costs and risks of rejecting violence are. And yet they continue to reject violence. Is it because they're stupid? Because they didn't love the children that were murdered?

Or is it because they believe that the costs and risks of rejecting violence are less than the costs and risks of trying to manage violence through more violence?

Their refusal to use violence is all bound up with their religious beliefs, which, again, are not shared by everyone on this board. So I have no intention of using them as an example of what our nation should do. Their choices make no sense apart from their faith in their God.

I'm only saying that the calculus you're talking about (how many people are spared by guns vs. how many people are killed by guns) does not lead to clear-cut answers. The calculus that I'm talking about does: the rate at which well-educated people living in effective representative democracies commit violent crimes is demonstrably lower than under-educated people or people living under tyrannical dictatorships.

Cadam

02-21-2008, 12:31 PM

what do you do with a gun in church? Put it next to your chair?

There was recently a church shooting. luckily the church was large and employed a security guard who was armed and took down the shooter before more harm could be done.

Now, my church is much smaller, no security guard. However I would bet money that the mild mannered head greeter is packing and the head of the children's department is a former state trooper. Sweetest guy you will ever meet but he's huge and again, I would bet money he is armed. I feel a lot better knowing this good man is guarding my children.

Just chalk it up to one of those crazy American things :D

Regardless of laws the bad guys will always have guns. Why should the good guys be unable to defend themselves? In Washington DC guns are illegal and it has the highest crime rate in the country. 'nough said.

RebeccaC

02-21-2008, 01:19 PM

there is far greater evidence that the most effective ways to prevent crime have to do with education and participatory government.

By posting this line you implied or seemed to imply that there is evidence that your way is right way. I worked for a bit in the field of science and I know that studies, which is what most folks use as evidence can be and often are skewed to match political beliefs and religious beliefs. I did not ask for anecdotal although I gave it. I would tho like to see the evidence you are posting and see if it is biased or not. I suspect it probably is.

Look I respect religious belief I do not respect fuzzy evidence. Took a course in college that should have been title, Creative Grant Writing How to Lie Convincingly using Statistics.

As to the Amish parents they got to choose forgiveness after the fact the folks in the CO church were in the process of picking up their babies and tots when the shooting happened. What you choose in the moment of stress is quite different from what you choose after the fact. The woman who shot back defended and then later forgave. Would it have been better if she allowed the gunman to use all of his ammo? I wonder if some of the Amish fathers would have chosen to defend if given the chance? I don't know and neither do they because they learned after the fact. Forgiveness does not mean that you choose not to defend as your police man father probably knows. The folks in the CO church were gald that 200 rounds or so of ammo was not used.

Actually I was brought as a pentecostal my paternal grandmother was Amish not I :D She was born in 1898 the youngest of 22 kids. Her mothers older brothers were dis-fellowshipped for running off as teens and fighting for the union in the Civil War after their farm was burnt down. It was the burning of their farm that persuaded them to hang up their pacifist beliefs and to defend their country. My family had been Ana-Baptist since the beginning of the movement we have documents of a great great......grand father being burnt at the stake for his beliefs. Probably got my non pacifist blood from them union boys tho :cool:

Scarlett

02-21-2008, 11:03 PM

It's interesting that you brought up the Amish. They seem to have managed the mental gymnastics that let them be grateful for what is good while refusing to accept how that good came about. (In this way, they are like a woman whose beloved child was conceived through rape. She is "grateful" for the rape in the sense that she loves her child; yet you will not find her advocating for the repeal of rape laws.)

I don't think that the Amish, to take only one example of a group of people who reject violence, are living with their heads in the sand. They know exactly what the costs and risks of rejecting violence are. And yet they continue to reject violence. Is it because they're stupid? Because they didn't love the children that were murdered?

Or is it because they believe that the costs and risks of rejecting violence are less than the costs and risks of trying to manage violence through more violence?

Their refusal to use violence is all bound up with their religious beliefs, which, again, are not shared by everyone on this board. So I have no intention of using them as an example of what our nation should do. Their choices make no sense apart from their faith in their God.

Wow. Excellent post. Thank you.

Friederike in Persia

02-22-2008, 12:28 AM

Just chalk it up to one of those crazy American things :D

To my surprise I have to say the "pro" people don't sound as crazy, as I always had assumed.
I know statistics don't change many people's thinking, but what about international ones, that show that in countries with much strikter laws, much less people die? (Not 100 percent sure about the statistics, got them from the West Wing:D)

Colleen

02-22-2008, 01:18 AM

I agree that if more responsible people have guns, and the bad guys know it, perhaps they'll be less likely to do harm.

I don't. And even if I did, it wouldn't sway me to pack a gun.

I used to live in downtown Atlanta and go to college at night. My father gave me a gun and told me to carry it back and forth from the parking lot (a very dark parking lot)to the apartment building I lived in (I did get a permit to carry a gun). One night, on the way from my car into my apartment building a male with a stocking mask approached me with a knife. I honestly to this day cannot tell you what, if anything, he said as I was completely focused on the knife. Suddenly I remembered I had a gun right there, on top of my books in my arms. I picked it up, pointed it at the man, who then began begging me not to shoot him. He ran away, thankfully. If I had had to fire I probably would have hit every car in the parking lot and missed him! My hands were shaking badly. Having a gun is not the end game, having the training to use one in critical situations is.

I went to college in crime-riddled New Orleans, after which I lived by myself in Houston. I'm well acquainted with the potential for and realities of crime. Again, that doesn't affect my decision to refrain from gun ownership.

Colleen

02-22-2008, 01:23 AM

If the RIGHT people carried them more often, we could save innocent lives and take out the suicidal gunmen BEFORE they kill the 5 to 20 innocent unarmend shoppers and students.

In your opinion.:) I've given this a great deal of thought for the majority of my life and my stance remains unchanged ~ even with many friends on hand who do indeed carry concealed weapons. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but I can not agree.

Colleen

02-22-2008, 01:31 AM

I had a friend whose husband required her to carry a gun whenever she went walking for exercise"

What? How could her spouse "require" her to carry a gun? Presumably, she preferred to do so ~ or didn't mind too terribly much, anyway.

It usually is not legal gun owners who are a problem. People who set out to commit a crime usually obtain one illegally for that purpose so that it cannot be easily tied to them.

Is that your opinion or are you basing that comment on statistical evidence?

Colleen

02-22-2008, 01:34 AM

Needless to say, I agree with your comments in this discussion.

Colleen

02-22-2008, 01:39 AM

I respect your views that you do not wish to own a gun, but the 2nd amendment bears out our right to own guns to protect ourselves.

Yes, that's one interpretation of a well-regulated militia.

sdWTMer

02-22-2008, 01:44 AM

Eliana

02-22-2008, 01:50 AM

I don't think that the Amish, to take only one example of a group of people who reject violence, are living with their heads in the sand. They know exactly what the costs and risks of rejecting violence are. And yet they continue to reject violence. Is it because they're stupid? Because they didn't love the children that were murdered?

Or is it because they believe that the costs and risks of rejecting violence are less than the costs and risks of trying to manage violence through more violence?

This is beautiful, Sarah.

I was struggling to articulate my own feelings, but you have said it more clearly, more eloquently, and more succinctly than I could have managed.

One brief note on this highly charged subject:

I lost a dear high school friend to a gun suicide, which might have been prevented if there had been a waiting period. The correlation between ready availability of guns and increased suicide rates and domestic violence fatalities, which I had always known intellectually, has a deeply personal edge to it now.

Readily available firearms don't always wind up in the hands of "the good guys" who will prevent some horrible tragedy. They are bought by the suicidal, the homicidal, the unstable... they are brought into homes with children and lead to unthinkable tragedies.

While I am not enough of a pacifist to argue that all killing in self-defense is inevitably wrong, there is a difference between saying that it is good and right to be prepared to defend against an attacker and that readily available firearms is an effective, reasonable way to do that.

Eliana

Scarlett

02-22-2008, 08:26 AM

In your opinion.:) I've given this a great deal of thought for the majority of my life and my stance remains unchanged ~ even with many friends on hand who do indeed carry concealed weapons. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, but I can not agree.

When I was in my 20s a young man tried to get me to open my door to him when I was home alone. I refused and as I watched him walk away I saw him turn and come back to my bedroom window.I called the police, the man ran away and was never caught. When I told my BIL this story he was very upset (as was I) thinking of the harm that could have come to me. He said, 'See!!! That is why you need a gun!'.

That response still makes me laugh to this day...because as I told him at the time, 'what would I have done with the gun? Opened my door to him and held it on him until he 'tried' something and then shot him?'

If I had opened my door to him he could have had me incapacitated before I could have reached the phone much less a gun. What saved me that day was using the caution that my dh beat into me (because it didn't come naturally to me). I didn't need a gun. I just didn't open the door.

Peek a Boo

02-22-2008, 09:33 PM

Yes, that's one interpretation of a well-regulated militia.

I tend to agree w/ Sarah on the ultimate outcome of violence and share her religious convictions on the issue. i also agree w/ Colleen on the irony of the OP. The movie "Sergeant York" never did sit well w/ me.

However, I have heard the "well regulated militia" as being a state-issue argument quite a few times and simply disagree that it is a state right --the entire point of the Bill of Rights was to protect the rights *of the individual*.

""A bill of rights," Jefferson wrote, "is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth [emphasis mine-- includes state and local gvmts], general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

The Bill of Rights was added specifically to combat those who would not ratify the Constitution unless they saw a strong protection of individual liberties. The Framers intentionally used language that defined the Gvt, the State, and the People as Individuals. The second amendment is purposefully directed to the people [as are the other 7], not the State. The Supreme Court has upheld this viewpoint. The 9th and 10th amendments spell this out pretty well. i have to agree that any attempt by the state to infringe upon the individual's liberty to show up ready to participate as a well regulated militia [where we have to define "regulated" and "militia" according to the era's vocabulary] is probably the best example for why the Framers included that.

for anyone interested, here's an article that gives a pretty good rundown on both sides of the discussion:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

Peek a Boo

02-23-2008, 09:53 AM

That response still makes me laugh to this day...because as I told him at the time, 'what would I have done with the gun? Opened my door to him and held it on him until he 'tried' something and then shot him?'

I'm sure that most people who are pro-gun would respond "um, no....you shoot him through the window if he WON't leave your property or at least you'll have something to shoot him with when he kicks in the door or busts a window."

I do agree that caution is the best weapon. But if that person had been adamant about getting in [drugged, psychotic, etc], no amount of caution would have prevented it. However, the mere presence of a gun pointed in one's direction does wonders for weakening a person's resolve, as demonstrated in the case scenario a few posts above.

Scarlett

02-23-2008, 10:04 AM

I'm sure that most people who are pro-gun would respond "um, no....you shoot him through the window if he WON't leave your property or at least you'll have something to shoot him with when he kicks in the door or busts a window."

I do agree that caution is the best weapon. But if that person had been adamant about getting in [drugged, psychotic, etc], no amount of caution would have prevented it. However, the mere presence of a gun pointed in one's direction does wonders for weakening a person's resolve, as demonstrated in the case scenario a few posts above.

Ah, well I probably wasn't clear enough with the description of that day. He wasn't standing there screaming, 'let me in so I can rape/murder you!' He was a well dressed calm looking young man standing in the pouring rain, asking to use my phone. (long before cell phones). It only became apparent that he most likely had ill intentions when I saw him peeking in my bedroom window.

And although I agree that no amount of caution will prevent a crazed person from getting in my home if they really want in, I still do no believe guns are the answer.

Peek a Boo

02-23-2008, 10:14 AM

hee hee-- I'm sure that when it comes to whether guns can be *effective* in protecting you.... there is simply no argument. The philosophy of "guns aren't the answer" is a moral justification, not an evidential one. Your additional description only fuels the argument FOR having a gun --you simply cannot tell someone's intentions --guessing that he wouldn't break the window based on his demeanor is useless.

Like sarah, my discussions in this arena have just HAD to boil down to religious conviction. Am I prepared to die because i do not want to shoot someone to prevent my death --or my child's death?

Scarlett

02-23-2008, 10:21 AM

hee hee-- I'm sure that when it comes to whether guns can be *effective* in protecting you.... there is simply no argument. The philosophy of "guns aren't the answer" is a moral justification, not an evidential one.

The philosophy of it is a moral justification. However, I also believe there is factual evidence that a gun in a home is much more likely to cause accidental harm to the actual children living there than to protect against a potential intruder. I don't have that statistical information at my fingertips, and besides it would not convince anyone here anyway.

We do agree on one thing....it does come down to a religious conviction for me and probably many others.

Amy in NY

02-23-2008, 10:22 AM

what do you do with a gun in church? Put it next to your chair?

I'm coming VERY late to this discussion but wanted to say that I recall a recent church shooting out West somewhere. No place is safe from the wackos.

Amy

(And I completely agree with Karen sn. She's spot on with this one.)

PrairieAir

02-23-2008, 01:30 PM

I tend to agree w/ Sarah on the ultimate outcome of violence and share her religious convictions on the issue. i also agree w/ Colleen on the irony of the OP. The movie "Sergeant York" never did sit well w/ me.

This really has nothing to do with the thread. I'm just curious why the movie "Sergeant York" never sat well with you. It's been a while since I saw it last, but I'm searching my memory and coming up empty for reasons why it wouldn't sit well with you or how it might tie in to the rest of this. Please explain so I don't spend all night tossing and turning over this one:)

unsinkable

02-23-2008, 01:49 PM

But, Colleen, if you don't have a gun, how are you going to KILL the kids at the library? :)

Peek a Boo

02-23-2008, 02:01 PM

This really has nothing to do with the thread. I'm just curious why the movie "Sergeant York" never sat well with you. It's been a while since I saw it last, but I'm searching my memory and coming up empty for reasons why it wouldn't sit well with you or how it might tie in to the rest of this. Please explain so I don't spend all night tossing and turning over this one:)

actually, Sergeant York has quite a bit TO do w/ the thread, lol. Whether it's right/moral to kill another person. In the movie, he argues pretty much a similar POV that Sarah uses. But as he finds himself in the war situation w/ people dropping dead around him, decides he needs TO kill in order to save other lives. I simply believe he was right to begin with and waffled on principle :)

RebeccaC

02-23-2008, 02:52 PM

Colleen

02-23-2008, 03:01 PM

But, Colleen, if you don't have a gun, how are you going to KILL the kids at the library? :)

With my bare hands, of course! Why use an intermediary weapon?:p

Colleen

02-23-2008, 03:05 PM

RebeccaC

02-23-2008, 03:34 PM

I'm well aware of the Scripture passages you cited, and I think I can safely say the same holds true for both Sarah and Peek. In my case, though, it is not a matter of religious conviction per se. My views on gun control are not an product of my faith.

Ahhh so then to the question that pops to mind if you are familiar with Jesus saying sell your cloak and buy a sword why the upset with the connection of buying an AK-47 and a missions trip?

Just so ya know I do not own a gun although I was awarded the Master Marksmen medal in the Air Force. I certainly would not buy an AK-47 mission trip or no mission trip :D However both my sons and dh shoot rifles in many varieties black powder and flintlock being favs of theirs. We as a family do not own a rifle they shoot with their scout troop and French trapper reenactment troop.

Peek a Boo

02-23-2008, 03:44 PM

Sergeant York is a very good example for this thread especially when you pair him with Romans 13:1-5. Or take the words of Jesus and what he said about swords, Matthew 10:34 and Luke 22:36 where he tells His disciples "and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one" and his actions when cleaning the temple twice. True He said that those who live by the sword will die by the sword but what solider does not know and accept that?

Just some passages to chew on for those of y'all reading this thread and standing on religious conviction. Just wondering if you are familiar with these and other passage on the subject.

oh. yeah. :)

Boy howdy are we familiar, lol....

yes, Rebecca-- and if you google Christian pacifism you'll find quite a few articles showing a different interpretation of those passages :-)

This guy below is kinda harsh, and I disagree w/ some of his conclusions in other areas, but he does an excellent job demonstrating the pacifistic principles of the Prince of Peace.

http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/

submitting to authorities does not equal a mandate to kill someone. per the ruling mentioned previously, owning a gun to "submit to the authorities" is not the same as using said gun. There are also at least two instances where refusing to submit to authorities is deemed absolutely right and proper in God's eyes --the Hebrew midwives and Daniel.

"Buying a sword" is clarified by the very next verse: Luke 22:37 --to fulfill "he was numbered w/ the transgressors". TWO SWORDS would be enough to defend a dozen guys from a roman army??? c'mon..... i think His "that will be enough" was accompanied by a heavy sigh and yet another "Why don't they GET this???"

http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/self-defense.htm

clearing the temple [using force to accomplish a specific task] is far from the use of deadly force. Christ does bring a sword --a sword of righteousness.

http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/anti-abs.htm

so yes-- there are a few different ways to interpret those passages, and yes, as colleen mentioned, we are aware. I can see Colleen being aware of the Christian pacifist view and still holding a mostly secular view of gun control --just as I tend to be conservative on many matters but more from a secular standpoint than a religious one.

kdeno

02-23-2008, 03:57 PM

Peek a Boo

02-23-2008, 04:03 PM

Otherwise know as non-resistance. Non-resistance stems from Jesus' teaching on loving your enemies also if someone asks for your coat, give him your shirt also. Not agreeing or disagreeing, just clarifying ( or muddying the waters as it were)

actually, not all forms of christian pacifism condone non-resistance of any type. Joseph fled Egypt. Paul fled. Christ Himself fled. Christ obviously "resisted" when He cleared the Temple. Many pacifists would not have a problem w/ three guys holding down a violent criminal till police could arrest him --they would just have a problem w/ killing him.

Just wanted to clarify that too :)

Caroline

02-23-2008, 04:04 PM

Here in Georgia there's a county that passed a law stating that all homeowners must have a gun in the home. They passed this law several years ago and crime in that county has diminished greatly. (google Kennesaw County in Georgia for more information)

Just my $.02.

Kennesaw is a city, not a county. The law was passed to make a political statement about an anti-gun law passed in a town in Illinois. The law in Kennesaw carries no punishment and is not enforced. No one has ever been prosecuted under this law. I know plenty of people who live in Kennsesaw who own no weapons. The small reduction in the Kennesaw crime rate (although there has been no reduction in the burglary rate, while the one in the town in Illinois has dropped significantly) is because they jettisoned the higher crime areas back into Cobb County, so they are no longer part of Kennesaw. (I know there is a WSJ article calling Kennesaw a county, but it is not. It is part of Cobb County.)

Colleen

02-23-2008, 04:11 PM

The law in Kennesaw carries no punishment and is not enforced. No one has ever been prosecuted under this law.

Yep ~ it's not as if Big Brother is going into homes, verifying gun ownership. Bottom line, it's voluntary.

kdeno

02-23-2008, 04:13 PM

actually, not all forms of christian pacifism condone non-resistance of any type. Joseph fled Egypt. Paul fled. Christ Himself fled. Christ obviously "resisted" when He cleared the Temple. Many pacifists would not have a problem w/ three guys holding down a violent criminal till police could arrest him --they would just have a problem w/ killing him.

Just wanted to clarify that too :)

Thank you for pointing that out!
I am by no means an expert. I have a few Mennonite friends who are challenging my thinking. I didn't weigh in with my opinion because I am still wrestling with all sides. It is interesting to read everyone's POV.

Kari

kdeno

02-23-2008, 04:15 PM

Note to self: insert "No Weapons" clause into all future missions trip announcements.

http://www.33smiley.com/smiley5/emotions/1.gif

An unnamed member of my family took a group of teens to do mission work and one of the teens stole a gun from an elderly women's house they were supposed to be serving and was packing heat!!

Yikes

Peek a Boo

02-23-2008, 04:16 PM

crime rates--

yeah, here in our little town they passed an ordinance that all gas stations must be prepay. No More Drive-offs. If you report a drive off to the police and you didn't collect a prepayment, you are eligible for a $500 fine. This was done for 3 reasons:

1. To free up police for "more criminal" matters
2. To reduce the crime rate over all, and
3. So the gas station doesn't hafta to be the "bad guy" on making people prepay, lol.

Most gas station owners like the new ordinance, but I haven't talked to all of them :)

Peek a Boo

02-23-2008, 04:18 PM

I didn't weigh in with my opinion because I am still wrestling with all sides. It is interesting to read everyone's POV.

weigh in anyway!!! I think it is just as enlightening to watch people wrestle w/ information and viewpoints as it is to read those who have already made a decision :)

Colleen

02-23-2008, 04:19 PM

Caroline

02-23-2008, 04:37 PM

Furthermore, I prefer not to peruse Scripture and excerpt verses as justification for my choices.

Amen!

PariSarah

02-23-2008, 04:40 PM

Scarlett

02-23-2008, 04:47 PM

OT---Why can't I give Colleen or Sarah rep! I tried a few days ago and it said I must spread some around first. So I've been doing that, and keep trying to give Colleen and Sarah positive (of course! :)) rep points and it won't allow it.

Peek a Boo

02-23-2008, 04:57 PM

Tutor

02-23-2008, 04:58 PM

Kari, Peek, Colleen, PariSarah, anyone... have any of you read Charles Marsh's Wayward Christian Soldiers? I am reading it now. I went to hear Prof. Marsh speak a few weeks ago and read from the book. I'm just wondering what you all thought of it... if you've read it. I shared my thoughts on the talk and what I've read so far on my blog here (http://apollosacademy.blogspot.com/2008/02/wayward-christian-soldiers-by-charles.html). I haven't arrived at any conclusions yet... probably never will. But it definitely gave me a lot to chew on.

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity and sharing your thoughts.

As a side note, my grandparents were the founders of the Unitarian congregation in their NJ town. When the Vietnam War rolled around, they ended up having to leave the congregation because they refused to actively protest against the war, even though they disagreed with it, because their son (my father) was fighting in it. (He paid for college by participating in ROTC and had a military obligation to fulfill.) The congregation was pacifist in its beliefs, and my grandparents unwillingness to protest against the war was seen as violating this pacifist requirement of the congregation. Just thought it was an interesting tidbit that demonstrated how multi-faceted and confusing this issue can be.

Scarlett

02-23-2008, 05:02 PM

you hafta wait about 5-7 days to rep the same person -- I keep meaning to keep track of exactly how long but always forget, lol.

so max out your daily rep [10, i think?] on some other great posts, and circle back around to them in a few days :)

But, but, but....I:confused:I don't remember reping either one of them recently. Hmmm....now I feel like I'm on a mission to get my reps accepted!

Peek a Boo

02-23-2008, 05:06 PM

hm...maybe it's more a rep count than days? I try to max out slinging rep around :) If you aren't giving out much rep right now, try increasing it --go read some posts and give good rep for good posts! You should do about 10 a day :D

Peek a Boo

02-23-2008, 05:22 PM

Kari, Peek, Colleen, PariSarah, anyone... have any of you read Charles Marsh's Wayward Christian Soldiers? I am reading it now. I went to hear Prof. Marsh speak a few weeks ago and read from the book. I'm just wondering what you all thought of it... if you've read it. I shared my thoughts on the talk and what I've read so far on my blog here (http://apollosacademy.blogspot.com/2008/02/wayward-christian-soldiers-by-charles.html). I haven't arrived at any conclusions yet... probably never will. But it definitely gave me a lot to chew on.

i haven't read the book, but we have discussed the premise :-)

It is an interesting issue. I have personally decided that I will not be steering my kids to a career that has killing other people as a job description. there are too many jobs out there that can benefit the country and glorify God w/o resorting to violence as a job description.

In short, i have seen many American Christians put the Constitution above the Bible. I believe that is misplaced. Yet i also believe that you can be a solid Christian and an effective Statesman. Ron Paul kinda comes to mind :-D

i do think your grandparents' treatment is an excellent description of pacifist doctrine gone awry. Unfortunately we are seeing a LOt of that, and not just in the arena of pacifism.....

PariSarah

02-23-2008, 05:52 PM

Kari, Peek, Colleen, PariSarah, anyone... have any of you read Charles Marsh's Wayward Christian Soldiers? I am reading it now. I went to hear Prof. Marsh speak a few weeks ago and read from the book. I'm just wondering what you all thought of it... if you've read it. I shared my thoughts on the talk and what I've read so far on my blog here (http://apollosacademy.blogspot.com/2008/02/wayward-christian-soldiers-by-charles.html). I haven't arrived at any conclusions yet... probably never will. But it definitely gave me a lot to chew on.

I haven't read that book, but I know Marsh and his work, and I have a LOT of respect for him. I'm glad you're reading him. I can't recommend his work highly enough.

His critique of American Evangelicalism is very close to how my advisor, Stanley Hauerwas, approaches Christianity and politics. (Only Hauerwas is much less sympathetic to evangelicals. He's pretty much written them off. I lean more in Marsh's direction, myself--I think there's more hope for evangelicals than for comfortable mainliners. Evangelicals will at least listen when you talk about what Jesus said about violence.) When you're finished with Marsh, you could dip your toe into a little Hauerwas.

He's quite a character. :eek:

Bev in B'ville

02-23-2008, 05:52 PM

Kennesaw is a city, not a county. The law was passed to make a political statement about an anti-gun law passed in a town in Illinois. The law in Kennesaw carries no punishment and is not enforced. No one has ever been prosecuted under this law. I know plenty of people who live in Kennsesaw who own no weapons. The small reduction in the Kennesaw crime rate (although there has been no reduction in the burglary rate, while the one in the town in Illinois has dropped significantly) is because they jettisoned the higher crime areas back into Cobb County, so they are no longer part of Kennesaw. (I know there is a WSJ article calling Kennesaw a county, but it is not. It is part of Cobb County.)

The fact that Kennesaw is a city not a county does not invalidate my argument. Neither does your statement that no one's ever been prosecuted for not having a gun. The fact that the law exist and crime has come down (even if it means that the criminals have moved on to surrounding areas) does support my statement.

Renee in FL

02-23-2008, 06:33 PM

RebeccaC

02-23-2008, 07:30 PM

oh. yeah. :)

Boy howdy are we familiar, lol....

yes, Rebecca-- and if you google Christian pacifism you'll find quite a few articles showing a different interpretation of those passages :-)

This guy below is kinda harsh, and I disagree w/ some of his conclusions in other areas, but he does an excellent job demonstrating the pacifistic principles of the Prince of Peace.

http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/

submitting to authorities does not equal a mandate to kill someone. per the ruling mentioned previously, owning a gun to "submit to the authorities" is not the same as using said gun. There are also at least two instances where refusing to submit to authorities is deemed absolutely right and proper in God's eyes --the Hebrew midwives and Daniel.

"Buying a sword" is clarified by the very next verse: Luke 22:37 --to fulfill "he was numbered w/ the transgressors". TWO SWORDS would be enough to defend a dozen guys from a roman army??? c'mon..... i think His "that will be enough" was accompanied by a heavy sigh and yet another "Why don't they GET this???"

http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/self-defense.htm

clearing the temple [using force to accomplish a specific task] is far from the use of deadly force. Christ does bring a sword --a sword of righteousness.

http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/anti-abs.htm

so yes-- there are a few different ways to interpret those passages, and yes, as colleen mentioned, we are aware. I can see Colleen being aware of the Christian pacifist view and still holding a mostly secular view of gun control --just as I tend to be conservative on many matters but more from a secular standpoint than a religious one.

Peek a Boo,

I never gave my beliefs on the passages I posted I only asked if y'all were familiar with them. I am the daughter of a theologian and spent many years my self studying the scripture. During family devotions my father always read the original language first and then translated it in to English. He helped work, translate the New American Standard Version of the Bible.

The passage in Romans is not just about submitting but it is also the role of government. Thinking of verse 4 if memory serves me right and Sergeant York and how his bringing destruction upon evil men is not a breaking of scripture but the will of God as long as he was acting for the government. I know quite a few folks in the military and on police forces who find comfort in Romans 13.

So what happens to the Prince of Peace theology when one gets to the book of Revelations? Is it not the Lamb who breaks the seals of judgment? Does He not dip His robes in blood in Revelations, just more fuel for thought. One of the mistakes that the Hebrew people made in the first coming of Jesus was that He would come as a warrior as the Lord of Hosts but instead He came as the Suffering Servant and so they missed the day of their visitation and I wonder if some modern Christians do not make the same type of mistake by looking only for the Lamb (Prince of Peace) and ignoring all the passages on The Lord of Hosts. The Lord of Hosts is used to describe God more than any other term in the Bible and it is a military term. Again just more fuel for thought.

Again I am not giving my views just another way to look at it. I reckon He is both the Prince of Peace and The Lord of Hosts sometimes that is kind of hard to wrap this bitty mind around that concept :o How He can be both. Be full of love a wonderful father who extends love to thousands and yet a righteous judge, Who describes Himself most often as a military commander and at the same time be good all the time. Yet I do believe that He is good even when He looses the seals of judgment. I have been pondering Rev 4 and 5 been reading and mediating there for about 6 months along side Ex 34:6-7a. God is describe 268 times as the Lord of Hosts and yet only 3 or 4 as the Prince of Peace. He calls Himself by that military title more often than by any other title. Any way nough of that.

Hebrew midwives and Daniel are good examples but so are the 3 Hebrew Children who told Nebuchadnezzar that they had no need to answer him in this matter Dan 3:16 and then into the furnace they went. That is my personal favorite. Although I really like the midwife story too.

We could :D talk about the meaning of the Hebrew word kill in the Ten Commandments which is not really kill like we think of it but more like the word premeditated murder.

RebeccaC

02-23-2008, 08:01 PM

I disagree with your view of these passages. Your interpretation is merely one of many ~ and a wrong-headed one, in my opinion. I believe Jesus advised his disciples, in a figurative sense, to "arm themselves" ~ to be prepared for persecution. I see absolutely no basis for private assault rifle ownership in the verses you're citing. Furthermore, I prefer not to peruse Scripture and excerpt verses as justification for my choices.

Colleen I did not give an interpretation just asked if you were familiar with those passages. I kind of left them hanging there to see how familiar y'all are with scripture and how well y'all had thought out your views. I never stated that those verses should be used to justify the owning of assault rifles or semi automatic weapons. I know that you are passionate about what you believe but I never wrote what you just wrote only asked if you were familiar with big difference. I think what Peek a Boo posted with her links was good and showed that she has perused looking at both sides in a logical manner. That is what I was looking for are you familiar with.....

I do tho think that Romans 13 might explain York and what decision he came to if you look at that passage as to what the role of government is.

I know that when one is passionate about a subject it can be hard to talk, read, write, think, about it in a calm logical manner. That is why careful reading of what is posted might be of help instead of jumping to conclusions about what another believes. So for the record I do not think that AK-47s should be in the hands of folks who are not acting as an agent of the US government unless they are overseas and living in a land with out a strong government to protect them. In fact I don't think AK-47s should be in the hands of those representing the US government as there are better weapons to use than those :rolleyes: So the long and short of it is I think semi automatic weapons should be illegal in the US and I wish that the Pandora's box of semi automatic weapons had never been opened but it has and that is a sad reality.

kdeno

02-23-2008, 08:29 PM

I have not read that book, it looks good. I read The Kingdom that Turned the World Upside Down. It sounds similar in some ways. For right now, I stopped reading books so much and am trying to stick to the Bible. I was getting to be like the man in James 1, tossed too and fro with every wind of doctrine. I have very dear military friends who I love and are very strong Christians. I truly do not have answers on this one.

Kari

Tutor

02-23-2008, 09:14 PM

For right now, I stopped reading books so much and am trying to stick to the Bible. I was getting to be like the man in James 1, tossed too and fro with every wind of doctrine.

I've done that, too. Right now, my dh is on a news fast because he found himself getting so angry and discontent watching the primary coverage. Definitely not good for maintaining self-control.

Peek a Boo

02-23-2008, 10:22 PM

That's fine, Rebecca :-) The "you" is more of a general "you" in threads like these, lol. Anything i type is directed to any lurkers too ;) so don't take anything personally --it's a discussion I've been through a few times so we're pretty familiar w/ "the next questions" lol.

The passage in Romans is not just about submitting but it is also the role of government. Thinking of verse 4 if memory serves me right and Sergeant York and how his bringing destruction upon evil men is not a breaking of scripture but the will of God as long as he was acting for the government. I know quite a few folks in the military and on police forces who find comfort in Romans 13.

I'm not finding anything in Romans --or elsewhere-- that gives Christians license to break God's laws "if it is the gvt's will." Quite the opposite. There's also nothing in Romans that suggests the "punishment" is death. We already know that "sword' has several connotations too.

So what happens to the Prince of Peace theology when one gets to the book of Revelations? ... One of the mistakes that the Hebrew people made in the first coming of Jesus was that He would come as a warrior as the Lord of Hosts but instead He came as the Suffering Servant and so they missed the day of their visitation and I wonder if some modern Christians do not make the same type of mistake by looking only for the Lamb (Prince of Peace) and ignoring all the passages on The Lord of Hosts. The Lord of Hosts is used to describe God more than any other term in the Bible and it is a military term. Again just more fuel for thought.

Absolutely --you have a different time. Christ instituted a new Covenant, so we no longer need to make sacrifices. But until then those sacrifices were a proper response to God. We are in one time --NOW-- looking to Christ as the Prince of Peace. There will be another time where He will unmistakably be acting in another capacity. But until then, we have His model and Words to go by. Right now, Priests don't speak a word and have people disappear, lol. But that time will come. But I do think that a respect for the time and patient waiting for the next is necessary.

We could :D talk about the meaning of the Hebrew word kill in the Ten Commandments which is not really kill like we think of it but more like the word premeditated murder.

Sure! Except that in a war situation [or any other situation that involves the killing of people as a Job Description], the premeditation is literally by default: you go out ready to kill someone. You train to kill people. You HAVE to be ready to kill to do your job effectively. War is a VERY premeditated action. It may be implemented at a moment's notice, and details may need to be hammered out, but the Intent is the same. Anything that involves the killing of people and dealing with violence takes training, thought, and planning behind the scenes to be effective. That's a far cry from someone cutting down a tree and accidentally killing someone.

From a constitutional POV, the Founding Fathers were pretty clear about the reasons for wanting citizens to be armed --to be able to gather a well-regulated militia. WHY?? to fight the biggest thing they had just come out of in the Rev War: their own gvt. Per that line of thinking, i think a private citizen should be allowed to be *as armed as* the gvt. That is in line w/ submission to the gvt --our gvt specifically calls for and protects the rights of citizens to BE armed. Our gvt calls [mostly] for limitations on the GVT, not private citizens.

Caroline

02-23-2008, 10:23 PM

The fact that Kennesaw is a city not a county does not invalidate my argument. Neither does your statement that no one's ever been prosecuted for not having a gun. The fact that the law exist and crime has come down (even if it means that the criminals have moved on to surrounding areas) does support my statement.

Actually, what I wrote does not support your statement. The crime is in the same place. Exactly the same place. Kennesaw just does not consider those places part of Kennesaw any more. It is a move that many cities around here have been making. Jettison your high crime areas and low standardized test scoring areas back into the county, and your crime statistics and schools look better. Also, the burglary rate did not change. That is what should change if every household has a gun. People should not want to break into homes.

The fact that Kennesaw is a city and not a county means you don't have your facts straight. Perhaps your source is bad.

I am sorry, but I personally knew someone who was brutally murdered in Kennesaw last year. She was murdered and her boyfriend was accused of the crime. You see, he was found dead at the scene, shot to death. And the wonderful Kennesaw Police decided, without further investigation, that it was a murder/suicide. A month later, her parents got her credit card statement. Her credit card was being used up and down the East Coast by the real killer.

All of that is to say, I really doubt any crime statistic in Kennesaw because I don't trust their police.

Caroline

02-23-2008, 10:25 PM

Thank you.

RebeccaC

02-23-2008, 11:02 PM

Well Peek a Boo you have thought this out well :D I am not a dispensationalist (sp?) or so I am leaning right now so I wonder how you see Rev 19 particularly verse 11 where Jesus is describe as "And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war." Is war figurative for you here as sword is in Romans? If so is all of Rev 19 and 20 also figurative? What about the "armies in Heaven" in verse 14 of chapter 19 many see this as the saints which would then be Christians who go to war with Christ. Is this a dispensation thing where God changes His mind and says its OK for Christians to go to war? All of what I write is just conversation I am not trying to change your mind just trying to see what the well thought out side of this is. Does that make sense :cool: I might have read your post wrong and you might not be a dispensationalist if so please correct me on this :o

One thing that I bat around in my mind is that we (general tense) really do not know all that we think we know about God. I guess what I am trying to say is I don't like stereotype boxes that some theologies put Him into. Does that make sense. I think He is just too big for the human mind to completely comprehend.

Do you think that the Christian woman in CO should have not carried or held her fire and allowed all the ammo the gunman had to be used on folks in the church. Which is better that she shot and helped kill the gunman or that in the name of nonviolence she allowed him to kill many others? Even Jesus taught that the law should be broken to save a life, his healing on the Sabbath in many places and I won't quote them all ;)

How do you come down on things like Hitler? My fil lost most of his family in the camps. My oldest son is named for my great uncle in law who lost all of his family in the camps. Should America have used non violence against Hitler? This I also suppose has been batted around on these boards also but I would be interested to read how you view such things.

Most of the pacifist that I have met have not really thought out well why they believe what they believe. I get the feeling that they are folks with the gift of mercy and do it as a knee jerk reaction. It is nice to read some one who can put down why they think the way they do with out using studies that might be skewed. Hope that does not read combative.

PrairieAir

02-23-2008, 11:22 PM

In regard to Sergeant York, Peek said:
"But as he finds himself in the war situation w/ people dropping dead around him, decides he needs TO kill in order to save other lives. I simply believe he was right to begin with and waffled on principle."

That's not how I'm remembering the movie. If our video player was working now, I'd pop the video in and watch since it's one we own. Didn't Sgt. York go out of his way not to kill anyone? If he did kill anyone, it was very few. Don't you remember the scene where he single-handedly captures all those prisoners and marches them across the battlefield in order to spare their lives? The way I see it, God provided a way for him to do what he felt was right and pleasing in God's eyes while still obeying his orders and saving himself and others he was fighting alongside.

I'm not sure if I would have done the same or not, but killing someone in a wartime situation or in defense of myself or others does not go against my beliefs. I hope that I would have the presence of mind to pray first and that God would provide a different method of deliverance.

I'm not sure who brought up the verse which says they who live by the sword shall die by the sword, but I believe it's taken out of context when applied here. Jesus said that in reference to a very specific situation. Judas had betrayed him and soldiers were coming to lead Jesus away. Peter drew his sword and cut off a man's (Malchus?) ear and Jesus healed him. It was about the same time that Jesus said that those who lived by the sword would die by the sword. The apostles were greatly outnumbered. If they fought against those who had come to take Jesus, they likely would have perished. Besides, Jesus knew this was part of the plan. (Snicker. Makes me think of this clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qnq7N6X4x84&eurl=http://mentalmultivitamin.blogspot.com/).) It would be pointless for the apostles to risk their lives when everything was going according to that plan.

If Jesus had truly meant that all those who live by the sword will die by the sword, why is this not the case? Many people fight in wars and then die of old age. Was he just mistaken? I don't think so. It makes sense that he would have been talking about that one particular instance.

Colleen

02-24-2008, 02:45 AM

...to see how familiar y'all are with scripture and how well y'all had thought out your views.

I'll repeat what I said previously in this discussion: "I've given this a great deal of thought for the majority of my life". That is to say, my position is well-thought out.

That is what I was looking for are you familiar with.....

To which I replied ~ yes, I'm familiar with those verses.

Bev in B'ville

02-24-2008, 07:52 AM

Actually, what I wrote does not support your statement. The crime is in the same place. Exactly the same place. Kennesaw just does not consider those places part of Kennesaw any more. It is a move that many cities around here have been making. Jettison your high crime areas and low standardized test scoring areas back into the county, and your crime statistics and schools look better. Also, the burglary rate did not change. That is what should change if every household has a gun. People should not want to break into homes.

The fact that Kennesaw is a city and not a county means you don't have your facts straight. Perhaps your source is bad.

I am sorry, but I personally knew someone who was brutally murdered in Kennesaw last year. She was murdered and her boyfriend was accused of the crime. You see, he was found dead at the scene, shot to death. And the wonderful Kennesaw Police decided, without further investigation, that it was a murder/suicide. A month later, her parents got her credit card statement. Her credit card was being used up and down the East Coast by the real killer.

All of that is to say, I really doubt any crime statistic in Kennesaw because I don't trust their police.

I still won't be swayed from owning a gun or teaching my children how to use one. If someone is bent on killing someone else, then if it's not a gun it'll be another weapon. I'm sorry for your loss. In the army as a medic I saw many wounds and death, some people I knew, others not. I guess when the red cross on the side of the helicopter means open target practice to the other side it gives one a different perspective regarding weapons and the ability to fight back. Viewpoints change dramatically when someone is shooting at you.

kdeno

02-24-2008, 09:33 AM

How do you come down on things like Hitler? My fil lost most of his family in the camps. My oldest son is named for my great uncle in law who lost all of his family in the camps. Should America have used non violence against Hitler? This I also suppose has been batted around on these boards also but I would be interested to read how you view such things.

I have batted this around a lot. So many countries let Hitler just march right in. I often have marveled at Winston Churchhill's bravery and steadfastness. In the book The Kingdom that Turned the World Upside Down the author states that if Christians were non-resistant Hitler would not have been able to carry out his plan because most Germans were Christians. I think many people wrestle with this and give it a great deal of though, much ink has been spilled defending both sides. May God give us wisdom.

Kari

RebeccaC

02-24-2008, 02:49 PM

I have batted this around a lot. So many countries let Hitler just march right in. I often have marveled at Winston Churchhill's bravery and steadfastness. In the book The Kingdom that Turned the World Upside Down the author states that if Christians were non-resistant Hitler would not have been able to carry out his plan because most Germans were Christians. I think many people wrestle with this and give it a great deal of though, much ink has been spilled defending both sides. May God give us wisdom.

Kari

Well this is something that I bat around and that is that no one has error proof theology. Martin Luther was undoubtedly a great man of God but his views on Jews is what opened the door for many German Lutherans to look the other way when Hitler began his final solution. For this reason alone I like to search the scriptures myself and not just jump on a theologians bandwagon no matter what a great man of God he is. You are so right in that we need God's wisdom now more than ever.

RebeccaC

02-24-2008, 03:04 PM

I'll repeat what I said previously in this discussion: "I've given this a great deal of thought for the majority of my life". That is to say, my position is well-thought out.

To which I replied ~ yes, I'm familiar with those verses.

Now my question to you is why did you write this I disagree with your view of these passages. Your interpretation is merely one of many ~ and a wrong-headed one, in my opinion.

Since I did not state an interpretation at all?
I see absolutely no basis for private assault rifle ownership in the verses you're citing. Furthermore, I prefer not to peruse Scripture and excerpt verses as justification for my choices.

I also wrote nothing about assault rifles or more importantly semi automatic weapons which are not always in rifle form. I have no doubt that you have well thought this matter out but I do doubt that you can in a reasonable conversation defend your stance. All that written I do forgive your misreading of my post understanding that your passion for the subject hindered you :o

Peek a Boo

02-24-2008, 03:12 PM

so I wonder how you see Rev 19 particularly verse 11 where Jesus is describe as "And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war."

I think there will be a time and a place for *God* to wage war.

Is war figurative for you here as sword is in Romans? If so is all of Rev 19 and 20 also figurative? What about the "armies in Heaven" in verse 14 of chapter 19 many see this as the saints which would then be Christians who go to war with Christ.

I believe that when you're talking about God waging an actual war, then there will likely be an actual sword :-) If Christ is leading, then yeah, I'll continue to follow *Him* into battle.

Is this a dispensation thing where God changes His mind and says its OK for Christians to go to war?

I don't think so --but then again I haven't read up on "dispensational" thinking, lol. I'm just calling it like I see it ;) God does not change His mind. He has said that there is a time for everything --a time for war, and a time for peace. I believe that is what we are seeing here: a different time, revealed in prophecy. No, i do not think that because God has a time that He decides to wage war means that we are justified in deciding when WE want to go to war.

One thing that I bat around in my mind is that we (general tense) really do not know all that we think we know about God. I guess what I am trying to say is I don't like stereotype boxes that some theologies put Him into. Does that make sense. I think He is just too big for the human mind to completely comprehend.

I absolutely agree.

Do you think that the Christian woman in CO should have not carried or held her fire and allowed all the ammo the gunman had to be used on folks in the church. Which is better that she shot and helped kill the gunman or that in the name of nonviolence she allowed him to kill many others? Even Jesus taught that the law should be broken to save a life, his healing on the Sabbath in many places and I won't quote them all ;)

Christ made a HUGE distinction between the laws of God and the laws of Men.
Man's laws can and should be broken if they are in disagreement w/ God's laws. God's laws should always be followed even if they are in disagreement w/ man's laws. The secular part of me sides w/ the "kill a life to protect more lives." The Faith side of me looks at God's command to not kill. To not take a human life On Purpose With the Intent to Kill. As a Christian, there is no fear of losing another Christian to heaven. I do NOT believe that means we shouldn't take prudent, non-lethal steps to intervene whenever possible. God gave us a brain and a command to have dominion over the earth --within the bounds of His laws. To directly answer your question, if given the opportunity to advise the lady in the church, i would have advised her to put the gun away and ordered everyone to pin the guy to the ground. Yes, people would have died --much like cannon fodder. But modeling Christ is more important, IMNSHO. And i see no scripture that even hints that Christ would tell us to kill that man. I can see Him sacrificing His life so that even terrible people have the opportunity to Live tho. {{*I* could probably be content w/ shooting to wound. But that's just me. :D}}

How do you come down on things like Hitler? ...Should America have used non violence against Hitler? This I also suppose has been batted around on these boards also but I would be interested to read how you view such things.

This has already been batted around in the Bible too--- What does Paul say? Does he call Christians to riot and rebel against those who are KILLING innocents? I think evil is terrible. I think bad people are horrible. Where is it scriptural to retaliate against violence w/ more violence? Of course Hitler [and others] were awful. ARE awful. I do believe that God uses Christians and non-Christians to fulfill His purposes. And i don't believe we can say exactly what those purposes are......

Most of the pacifist that I have met have not really thought out well why they believe what they believe. I get the feeling that they are folks with the gift of mercy and do it as a knee jerk reaction. It is nice to read some one who can put down why they think the way they do with out using studies that might be skewed. Hope that does not read combative.

yeah.... i get that same feeling w/ a LOT of people --pacifists or not, Christians or not, lol. Unfortunately a lot of people skew the Bible the way they want also --skewing isn't limited to studies :cool:.

Elaine

02-24-2008, 03:22 PM

I'd rather eat in a cafe where every customer in there is a law-abiding gun owner carrying either concealed or open, than in one like the Luby's in TX, any day. Particularly with my children with me.

Preach it, sister!

I own a gun and I am not afraid to use it. If someone makes the unfortunte mistake of breaking into my home with the intent to do me and my family harm, I will use it.

My father is a retired Jersey City, NJ police officer and we grew up with guns in our home. When I was 13 my father took me to the firing range and taught me how to shoot a gun. (He also took me a number of times afterward and I am very good shot.) He showed me how to care for the firearm and I was requied to take a gun safety course put on by the local police deparment. I have a deep respect for guns and do not take my ownership lightly.

Peek a Boo

02-24-2008, 03:40 PM

In regard to Sergeant York, Peek said:
"But as he finds himself in the war situation w/ people dropping dead around him, decides he needs TO kill in order to save other lives. I simply believe he was right to begin with and waffled on principle."

That's not how I'm remembering the movie. If our video player was working now, I'd pop the video in and watch since it's one we own. Didn't Sgt. York go out of his way not to kill anyone? If he did kill anyone, it was very few. Don't you remember the scene where he single-handedly captures all those prisoners and marches them across the battlefield in order to spare their lives?

Yes, he did go out of his way, But when the time for the decision on whether to kill or not came, he decided to kill. That was against his earlier statements that killing *even in war* was wrong. He changed his mind.

I'm not sure who brought up the verse which says they who live by the sword shall die by the sword, but I believe it's taken out of context when applied here. ...If Jesus had truly meant that all those who live by the sword will die by the sword, why is this not the case? Many people fight in wars and then die of old age. Was he just mistaken? I don't think so. It makes sense that he would have been talking about that one particular instance.

There is a difference between a *promise* and a *proverb* --Most of the statements in Proverbs "don't come true" either. But many do. Whether a Biblical statement sees its fruition in the immediate future or not doesn't negate the fact that it was spoken as a general principle to follow.

Now I am not saying that *this specific sword statement* is such a general principle, but neither would I limit it as a *specific instance only* statement. i do believe there is more in scripture as a whole that supports a philosophy of pacifism than not.

RebeccaC

02-24-2008, 04:51 PM

God does not change His mind. He has said that there is a time for everything --a time for war, and a time for peace. I believe that is what we are seeing here: a different time, revealed in prophecy. No, i do not think that because God has a time that He decides to wage war means that we are justified in deciding when WE want to go to war.

Ok good one! I was wondering if you would use the Ec passage or the Hebrews 13:8 Jesus is the yesterday....... Either one fits.

Ok so here is one for you to bat around maybe and all of this is just batner because God's wisdom is needed and I am not claiming to have it but....... What if in God's mercy He did not want a bunch of folks to be canon fodder in CO and so He raised up a that woman. See I can see your view but I can also see this view.... So what do you think?

Peek a Boo

02-24-2008, 04:59 PM

What if in God's mercy He did not want a bunch of folks to be canon fodder in CO and so He raised up a that woman. See I can see your view but I can also see this view.... So what do you think?

I don't believe that "God's mercy" includes breaking God's *Will* or His commands. back to "God is Constant." I don't see anywhere in scripture where God is concerned about people extending their life here on earth at the expense of breaking His commands --quite the opposite. God's mercy is an eternal one, not a temporal one.

The Ec. passage isn't the only one that speaks of God's timing vs man's timing :)

PrairieAir

02-24-2008, 05:03 PM

"There is a difference between a *promise* and a *proverb* --Most of the statements in Proverbs "don't come true" either. But many do. Whether a Biblical statement sees its fruition in the immediate future or not doesn't negate the fact that it was spoken as a general principle to follow.

Now I am not saying that *this specific sword statement* is such a general principle, but neither would I limit it as a *specific instance only* statement. i do believe there is more in scripture as a whole that supports a philosophy of pacifism than not."

Oh, I'm not arguing the whole pacifist thing with you. I do not quite share your beliefs in this area. I just don't think this scripture supports either position. I also don't believe you can call it a proverb or a promise. The proverbs and promises I can think of seem pretty clear that they are just that. This sounds to me like a simple statement regarding the situation at the moment. There's no evidence it will or will not happen at any other time in the future, though surely many who live by the sword (choose your weapon) will die by it.

Frankly I was surprised when I glanced back through the discussion and saw that quite a few had accused one person of twisting scripture to make it fit her argument. There was a lot of tut-tutting over that, but I didn't see where anyone else mentioned how this verse had been used. Whether you (general you or, LOL, General You) think Jesus meant it as an admonition to anyone who would consider violence as an option or not, it seems it was thrown out there as a defense of someone's position in a manner several said they preferred not to use scripture. Whether that was the OP's (of that scripture) intent or not, it really didn't come across any different to me.

Now as for Sgt. York, I am going to have to find a working VCR so I can check this out. That's just not how I'm remembering it, but I've been wrong once or twice before:D

Peek a Boo

02-24-2008, 05:32 PM

I just don't think this scripture supports either position.

I agree. I remember seeing the live by the sword/die by the sword reference one time as a question. I don't remember seeing it used repeatedly to bolster a viewpoint, mostly for the very reasons you gave :-)

I also don't believe you can call it a proverb or a promise. The proverbs and promises I can think of seem pretty clear that they are just that. This sounds to me like a simple statement regarding the situation at the moment. There's no evidence it will or will not happen at any other time in the future, though surely many who live by the sword (choose your weapon) will die by it.

I kinda agree -- I don't think you can pin this statement down to ANY category: proverb or specific. I tend to go w/ general cuz I get that same feeling reading other scripture about the subject.

Frankly I was surprised when I glanced back through the discussion and saw that quite a few had accused one person of twisting scripture to make it fit her argument. There was a lot of tut-tutting over that, but I didn't see where anyone else mentioned how this verse had been used.

i guess I'm not reading the same way you are --could you clarify w/ examples? I've seen quite a few posts about difference in interpretations.... that seems plausible and expected :-)

Whether you (general you or, LOL, General You) think Jesus meant it as an admonition to anyone who would consider violence as an option or not, it seems it was thrown out there as a defense of someone's position in a manner several said they preferred not to use scripture. Whether that was the OP's (of that scripture) intent or not, it really didn't come across any different to me.

Um, I know sarah mentioned that her reasons were faith based and didn't get into cuz she simply knew that not everyone here shares her view. I'm sure if you email her she can provide a ton of scriptural sources. But she simply wasn't interested in pursuing it. Colleen was the only one i saw that intentionally did not feel like discussing the issue w/ scripture. I'm game though :D

Now as for Sgt. York, I am going to have to find a working VCR so I can check this out. That's just not how I'm remembering it, but I've been wrong once or twice before:D

you can just read it at wiki if you want, or google the movie for a synopsis. I think he did a fabulous job at minimizing losses, but he ultimately did kill several people.

PrairieAir

02-24-2008, 06:24 PM

Well, I'd rather not single anyone out, but I got the feeling that a few people kinda jumped on the one gal (Rebecca?) at one point saying she was using scripture to prove her point. Now, I'm not saying I agree or disagree with anyone entirely in this thread. I'm not taking sides between pacifists and gun toters--although it might be wise to pick the gun toting side if things get bloody;) (Joking!)

I'm not trying to attack anyone else's position, persuade anyone, or argue scripture. I've stated how I feel and if I need to search the scriptures a little more on my own in the matter, I'd rather do it on my own looking at scripture only. I guess I saw a little bit of a double standard in how people were treated after bringing up a scripture reference and it seemed to depend on whether or not the scripture was used in a way that agreed with one position. Again, I've been wrong once or twice before and I could be here. Hard to read tone in a message and all that. I'll take your word on the Sgt. York thing. (Ha, not really. Now I have to look it up:p)

RebeccaC

02-24-2008, 07:08 PM

I don't believe that "God's mercy" includes breaking God's *Will* or His commands. back to "God is Constant." I don't see anywhere in scripture where God is concerned about people extending their life here on earth at the expense of breaking His commands --quite the opposite. God's mercy is an eternal one, not a temporal one.

The Ec. passage isn't the only one that speaks of God's timing vs man's timing :)

I think you might be looking at this from mans view and not God's are you saying that God in His mercy would not raise up some one to take down a killer?

I find this quite fascinating I really do. So if God's mercy is antral and not temporal then what about Mt 9:27-30, 27

"As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed Him, crying out, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" 28 When He entered the house, the blind men came up to Him, and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to Him, "Yes, Lord." 29 Then He touched their eyes, saying, "It shall be done to you according to your faith." 30 And their eyes were opened."

So Jesus healing was not a sign of God's mercy on these men? Maybe I have read you wrong. Surely this healing is temporal and a sign of God's mercy? There are several healing in which folks cried out for mercy and Jesus gave it. What about Elizabeth in Luke:58 "neighbors and her relatives heard that the Lord had displayed His great mercy toward her; and they were rejoicing with her."

Surely that is more temporal than eternal? Giving Elizabeth the baby John.

So if we go back to God is unchangeable and is constant then the same God who gave the commandment not to kill and does not vary from it. God states several times that He can not lie yet this same God in 1 Sam 15 said "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek {for} what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " Did He not punish Saul for not killing Amalek? So how do you rectify the God of the OT who says to kill a whole people group with the God of the NT?

Peek a Boo

02-24-2008, 07:56 PM

{{and all you lurkers are just waiting for this one, right? :) }}

I suggest you read the link I provided initially and study it a bit --it addresses every single instance you have brought up, including God's direction to kill a whole group of people. It even includes some stuff you haven't brought up yet. God does not Lie. He does not waver. The killing of the people was to cleanse the land itself. Now if God Himself tells us to kill someone *now*, we might have a justifiable discussion on our hands.

http://members.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/#war

"The Bible clearly says that the Canaanites polluted the Promised Land with their Leviticus 18-20 - type sins. The entire nation had to be dedicated to God as a sacrifice in order to cleanse the land. War in the Old Covenant was conducted by priests as a liturgical event. The objective was the shedding of blood....
After Christ's work on Calvary, there is no longer a Biblical justification for "Holy War," and therefore no justification for war of any kind (Micah 4:3)."

God did not slaughter a whole nation for "mercy."

of course Jesus and God demonstrate a temporal mercy, but nowhere in those instances does God break His own law Where do you see God or Christ killing someone to demonstrate "mercy?"

So do I think that God would raise up a killer for "mercy" sake? I can't see that scripturally. i'd be interested in seeing how you would justify that.

The difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT is in Christ --the consolation of Israel that rectifies the God of the OT w/ the God of the NT. We don't sacrifice doves or bulls because Christ WAS the sacrifice. We don't stone our disobedient sons because Christ TAKES the penalty of death.

wait --I *gotta* edit this: God *in his Mercy* sent His SON to die for us. THAT's how God's mercy works.

RebeccaC

02-24-2008, 11:15 PM

{{and all you lurkers are just waiting for this one, right? :) }}

"The Bible clearly says that the Canaanites polluted the Promised Land with their Leviticus 18-20 - type sins. The entire nation had to be dedicated to God as a sacrifice in order to cleanse the land. War in the Old Covenant was conducted by priests as a liturgical event. The objective was the shedding of blood....
After Christ's work on Calvary, there is no longer a Biblical justification for "Holy War," and therefore no justification for war of any kind (Micah 4:3)."

God did not slaughter a whole nation for "mercy."

Well I would peek at the link but it doesn't work. However 1 Sam 15 states that the people group of the Amalekites was killed not for the reason you gave but "2 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek {for} what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt." So a people group was not killed to cleanse the land but to punish them for what happened 3 or 400 years earlier in Ex 17 the story where Moses' hand needed to be held up. What God said at the end of the battle was interesting, 15 Moses built an altar and named it The LORD is My Banner; 16 and he said, " The LORD has sworn; the LORD will have war against Amalek from generation to generation."

I don't think I posted that God slaughter a nation for mercy I should have been more clear. I just wanted to see how pacifist would rectify things like 1 Sam. I think that, and I could be wrong, but in instances like 1 Sam 15 and Ex 17 God kills the enemy as judgment on the enemy but also as mercy for His people. I could be wrong but I don't think so.

So how what about David killing Goliath does that not not have a small bit of mercy in it in that it kept the Hebrew men from being killed and the women and children from slavery? Or does the pacifist see it solely in the light of Goliath mocked God and so he deserved to die. Was David a killer when it came to Goliath or God's Champion? I am particularly interested in this since one of the titles for Jesus is son of David.

Peek a Boo

02-25-2008, 12:30 AM

hm. the link works fine for me-- anyone else wanna try it?

so let's recap. We have God Himself ordering a war to wipe out a people. I already stated that i totally buy that --there is a time and a place for war, and God is the Ultimate War chief. i don't believe that GOD is a pacifist, i believe that we as Christians are called to BE pacifists. There is a time for war, and a time for peace.

what did the Amalekites do to Israel? They attacked Israel. Why?? Deut 25:17--

17 Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. 18 When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind; they had no fear of God. 19 When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!
that's not about mercy for Israel-- it's all about a healthy respectful fear of God. Sure-- Israel receiving mercy may very well be a benefit, but it was not The Goal. So yeah, I think you're wrong in guessing the focus of God's actions as mercy for Israel and not as a direct retribution for how the nations feared --or did not fear- God Almighty.

if you actually read Leviticus 18-20, there are numerous warnings given to what happens to a people that does what the Amalekites do: lots of land defiling happening there. What were they doing to so defile the land? They did NOT FEAR GOD enough to keep His commands. They did that which was detestable to God.

since you can't access it, I'll post a quick clip:

"national "capital punishment" (i.e., a shedding of blood), is the sacrifice of a sinful people who will not accept the Lord's sacrifice and righteousness by faith. The sword of vengeance, which belongs to God, is the warfare whereby God slaughters a disobedient people in a fiery sacrifice, relegating these idolatrous self-sacrifices and their dreams of Empire to the "dung-heaps" of history."

As you mentioned, a lot of people expected the Messiah to be a warrior that would save them --um, it's NOT ABOUT ISRAEL. It wasn't about Israel in the OT [tho they were God's chosen vehicle], and it's not about Israel in the NT. It's about God and His plan to reconcile people to Him through Christ. The Son of David :) and yes, i totally believe that it was about Goliath's taunting of God. read what David says:

David said to the Philistine, "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. 46 This day the LORD will hand you over to me, and I'll strike you down and cut off your head. Today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel.

David ain't exactly talking about mercy!! He's putting the focus on GOD --where it belongs.

David was an adulterer and murderer too, so i don't think Christ's name w/ David has anything to do w/ David's actions, but of David's *faith*. David knew that Goliath's sin was against God, not Israel. back to reconciling the God of the OT w/ the God of the NT.