Ghost-Hunting: Is it immoral?

[Sir_Knight]

If you jump ahead to Luke 22:50 (rsv), you will read how one of them cut off the ear of the slave of the high priest. Then Jesus says “no more of this!” and reattaches the ear. Is it not now clear that this was His intent when He advised that two swords were"enough"? It seems clear to me that He wanted one last opportunity for those who would arrest Him to see for themselves that He had miraculous powers - that they might change their hardened hearts and believe in Him.

Yet, that didn’t happen, did it? They still turned Jesus over to the temple priests, Being God, Jesus would have know that this was to happen so to conclude that was the reason why Jesus instructed them to buy swords is incorrect. Additionally, they did not have time to go and buy the swords they already had the swords. Being God, Jesus knew this as well. Thus, if His purpose was to demonstrate His miraculous powers, the swords were already present and there was no need for Jesus to issue the command in the first place. Thus, the command to buy swords could only be seen as instruction for them for the future.

EDITTED TO ADD: Note how Jesus responded in Matthew 26:52-54 when Peter used his sword to cut off the ear of a servant of the high priest: *“Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”

*Read those verses in context and they support my position. Jesus told Peter he would be committing suicide to choose a fight in this situation – as well as undermining God’s plan to allow Jesus’ death on the cross and resurrection.

Jesus told Peter to put his sword in its place – at his side. He didn’t say throw it away. After all, He had just ordered the disciples to arm themselves. The reason for the arms was obviously to protect the lives of the disciples, not the life of the Son of God. What Jesus was saying was: *“Peter, this is not the right time for a fight.” *

“They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon,” we’re told in Nehemiah 4:17-18. *“For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded.” *

 

[Sir_Knight]

If my interpretation is correct, then the sword/s were meant to serve a specific purpose: To reveal the true identity of Jesus to those who did not know Him and were about to be responsible for His arrest…not for self-defense of the apostles, for He would always defend them Himself. Of course, this is my interpretation and no more absolute than your own - which is why Christ gave us a Church which can interpret scriptures for us whenever we are in doubt. However, don’t you agree with the logic of what I have observed?

While on earth, Jesus always protected the Apostles but He knew that He would be leaving them and that they would have to fend for themselves which is why He said that when He sent them out previously they did not need anything but now they would and instructed them to have things such as a walking stick, a money bag, etc., AND a sword because Jesus would no longer with physically with them.

Do you wear a seatbelt when driving or do you rely on God to protect you and not wear a seat belt? Do you have a fire extiguisher in your house or car? If so, why. God will protect you. Do you go to the doctor when sick? Why, God is the Great Physician. Do you get your food from the grocery store? If so, why? God provided manna from the sky when His people were hungry.

The point is that God helps those who help themselves. Which is why Jesus instructed them to have the things that they needed INCLUDING a sword to defend themselves with.

 

[Sir_Knight]

anyone who is “offended” by someone obeying christ’s and church teaching (the vatican has formally declared that we not only have a right but a duty to defend ourselves and our loved ones with arms), needs to re-examine their own faith!

Please cite your source for this quotation. I have a feeling that the Vatican document you cite must be referring to national warfare, not personal defense. However true it may be that the Church asserts our right to personal self-defense, we are also frequently warned by Her that simply because we have a right in no way means that we should indulge that right. That is to say, we are meant to be judicious and wise in enacting any rights we have been granted by God. (e.g. We know that we all have a right to eat and to maintain our health, but that right can easily be abused to our detriment. Therefore, the Church would advise that we not overindulge our apetities.)

I refer you to Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144) which tells us …

… the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS. This right can become a SERIOUS duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can justify the possession of arms.

… it doesn’t get any clearer than that.

 

[Sir_Knight]

While we do, of course, have a duty to protect our families from assault and a weapon may be owned for this purpose, this is not self-defense, but the defense of another - just as the apostle tried to defend Our Lord. Again, I think it is a different matter altogether when the question is simply self-defense.

I refer you to CCC2264 which tells us that “… one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s …” If we are bound to take greater care of our own lives than that of others and we have a DUTY to defend our families, then it stands to reason that we have an even greater duty to defend ourselves.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Look at our example: Did Jesus defend Himself from insults, rejection, assault, and finally torture and death? No. He accepted it all willingly out of love for others. He valued His own life far less than He valued ours.

Jesus’s primary purpose for coming into this world was to die for our sins. If He defended Himself, that purpose would have never been accomplished. We were not created to die for the sins of the many. Thus, this is not an accurate comparison.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is why I said earlier that it would be a terrible thing to be in a situation where one is forced to take the life of another person. Although that person is the attacker, only God can know what is in his heart - how much rejection and pain he has had to bear in his life - and only God can know if he might be converted before the end of his life, if permitted the time to do so.

If we live in a state of grace, loving God, we are not likely to go to hell when we die. However, a criminal engaging in an assault is not so assured of God’s mercy. So whenever we consider the possibility of taking another’s life, we must also consider the eternal consequences of our choices.

You incorrectly equate self defense with a criminal act which the Church OFFICIALLY teaches us is not the case. I again refer you to CCC2264 which tells us that “… Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow …”. However, if we FAIL to defend ourselves, then we have failed to perform a duty that we have and that would be a sin of omission.

 

[Sir_Knight]

As you said yourself, if one buys a weapon, there is not much point in that unless one intends to use it. To me (and I am not, believe me, a “liberal” person) owning a weapon would be a continual occasion of sin because there is the concurrently continual intent that it may be used - unless it is meant only to defend our loved ones. However, this is a topic for another thread…

“Owning a weapon would be a continued source of sin”? How so? I owned guns for over a quarter of a century. I carry a gun every day. What sin have I committed? Our monsignor carries a gun on his hip while saying mass. What sin has he committed? Would you call 911 if someone was breaking in your house? Why is it OK for a cop to carry a gun and shoot the bad guy, but you can’t?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Why is it foolish to seek out ghosts? Your kidding right?
Ghost appear for a reason. If they don’t appear to you in your normal activities. They were not sent for you.

Then they won’t appear to you if you do to a “haunted” place either and if they do, then by your own admission, you were meant to see them.

Remember, they were people like us once. To treat them like a novelty is very wrong. Better to seek out living people who could use your attention. There are plenty of them.
ATB

It is estimated that 90% or more of “ghost” activities have an earthly cause behind them. If it isn’t earthly in nature, then it may be a spirit seeking prayers to be released from purgatory.

According to the lives of the saints, a priest once haunted a Church where he was assigned while alive. The “hauntings” were investigated, the reason was discovered, he was prayed for and he later revealed that he was in heaven due to the prayers said for him.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Then they won’t appear to you if you do to a “haunted” place either and if they do, then by your own admission, you were meant to see them.

It is estimated that 90% or more of “ghost” activities have an earthly cause behind them. If it isn’t earthly in nature, then it may be a spirit seeking prayers to be released from purgatory.

According to the lives of the saints, a priest once haunted a Church where he was assigned while alive. The “hauntings” were investigated, the reason was discovered, he was prayed for and he later revealed that he was in heaven due to the prayers said for him.

I suspect you choose to miss the point. But I’ll give it a go just incase I’m wrong about you. My point is that it’s a waste of valuable time to go in search of ghosts. If you encounter one in your usual activities. Prayers are your action of choice.

An estimated 90% or more of ghost activities? Someone (aside from God) actually knows how much activity there is in the unseen world?
I don’t think so. But anyway, I have choosen to devout my energies to the seen world. So, I’ll sign off now.
ATB

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

We all have escapist fantasies from time to time. Better to focus on the seen world. In this way we can serve God and do some good. If you want to interact with a ghost. Have a mass said for them. Thats all you can and should do.
ATB

Ugh, I don’t know about you but I’ve had enough of the “seen world” to last me two lifetimes. You try sitting in a college classroom trying to ram heavy info into your head while worrying about your family’s current situation. Top it off with the anxiety of figuring what job to get for your future when you’ve got limited skills (and knowing that over 85% of available jobs out there aren’t that all exciting anyways) and you’d find yourself admiring how your faith is the only thing that’s keeping you from snapping.

What’s really ironic though is that it’s not my faith that’s keeping me from ghost hunting but because I’m an uncontrollable chicken. Now I know how Ichabod Crane feels… -_-;;

 

[Sir_Knight]

I suspect you choose to miss the point. But I’ll give it a go just incase I’m wrong about you. My point is that it’s a waste of valuable time to go in search of ghosts. If you encounter one in your usual activities. Prayers are your action of choice.

An estimated 90% or more of ghost activities? Someone (aside from God) actually knows how much activity there is in the unseen world?
I don’t think so. But anyway, I have choosen to devout my energies to the seen world. So, I’ll sign off now.
ATB

Let me re-phrase my statement – an estimated 90% of reported ghost activities have earthly explainations. The remaining 10% do not have an earthly explanation – meaning it might be ghosts, demons or of an earthly nature that just can’t be identified and explained.

Being an explorer by nature, I would play the odds of 9-to-1 and seek to find an explanation for what was happening. If I encountered an actual ghost in the process, I would pray for her/him and maybe even have masses offered up for her/him. If it was a demon, I would hope that the blessed religious items would offer me protection until I could get out of there.

Again, I would not be motivated by an encounter with the supernatural but to find a natural explanation for what was happening – thus, the reason for the gun, knife, etc.

 

[K_C]

ATTN: SIR KNIGHT (1) -
You posted quite a lot in reply, so I will try to extract pertinent points below and address them - within a few posts….

You: For Jesus to say that the money from selling one’s cloak should go toward the purchase of a weapon instead of being given to the poor, implies that being able to protect oneself is more important than providing for the poor.

That is quite a jump in deduction, I think. It may seem to be an implication, but I would not make such a broad assumption based upon this one incident. The theme of helping the poor is often reiterated throughout the New Testament, but self-defense is hardly mentioned.

You: The part about prophesy being fulfilled in Jesus refers to Jesus being treated as a transgressor – those two ideas are combined in the same sentence and has nothing to do with the commandment to purchase a sword in the previous sentence.

I think it is commonly understood that “transgressors” usually carried swords in those days, so I think it is related. However, that does not therefore mean that Jesus did not have another reason for this command, and I think that the one I suspected is still quite possible: that He knew that a sword would be used to manifest His miraculous powers one last time.

You: Furthermore, while it is true that Jesus often spoke in figurative language and the Apostles often misunderstood Him, scripture tells us that Jesus always explained what He meant to them in private and we always see that explaination.

Really? Then why didn’t Jesus answer Peter when he asked, “Are you saying these things for all men, Lord, or only to us (the apostles)?” I’ve always wondered why Jesus did not answer this and I’ve never come across any explanation. (But this is tangential to our discussion.)

You: Yet, that didn’t happen, did it? They still turned Jesus over to the temple priests, Being God, Jesus would have know that this was to happen so to conclude that was the reason why Jesus instructed them to buy swords is incorrect.

No, it did not happen. However, although God does know the future and knows when someone will refuse His grace, that never stops Him from providing that grace just the same because He loves us all equally and wants each of us to have a clear choice of either accepting or rejecting that grace.

You: Additionally, they did not have time to go and buy the swords they already had the swords. Being God, Jesus knew this as well. Thus, if His purpose was to demonstrate His miraculous powers, the swords were already present and there was no need for Jesus to issue the command in the first place. Thus, the command to buy swords could only be seen as instruction for them for the future.

This is a bit confusing. “There was no need for Jesus to issue the command” in either case, since He knew that the apostles already had swords! Therefore, He apparently wanted to emphasize or draw attention to the swords they already had. We might ask a further question: If Jesus did not want the ear of the servant to be cut off by one of those swords, why did He not tell the apostles to buy swords at a later date - after His arrest? I still think that He was drawing attention to His intention to heal the servant’s ear and to offer those in the “posse” a chance for conversion and salvation.

You:* "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.*

Exactly! All who take up the sword shall perish by it - and I am sure that Jesus would say the same thing about guns - if they had been invented and in use in His time. Now doesn’t this sound contrary to your position?

You: While on earth, Jesus always protected the Apostles but He knew that He would be leaving them and that they would have to fend for themselves which is why He said that when He sent them out previously they did not need anything but now they would……do you rely on God to protect you and not wear a seat belt?...

Again, this sounds a bit confusing. The implication is that Jesus somehow had more power to protect his apostles while He was still present on earth - even though He sent them out to towns far away from where He was staying. You also seem to think it implies that God cannot protect His own as well from heaven as He could while on earth. But we know that God can do anything He wishes, no matter where we may go.

Perhaps He was telling them that they would be “on the road” for much longer in the future, so it would be easier for them to bring provisions. It is also possible that a sword was meant to fend off wild beasts - as well as being used to show His final miraculous act.

Finally, no, I do not rely solely on God for every protection. As you say, God does help those who help themselves. However, Jesus had special regard and care for the men who would spread His gospel throughout the world. I have never been entrusted with such a weighty mission. But if I were, I would trust in God’s protection fully - even without a sword or gun in my hand.

(continued below…)

 

[K_C]

ATTN: SIR KNIGHT (2) -

You: … the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS. This right can become a SERIOUS duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can justify the possession of arms.

See the words which you just quoted - the highlighted ones, that is. This does not refer to self-defense at all.

You: (I) refer you to CCC2264 which tells us that “… one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s …” If we are bound to take greater care of our own lives than that of others and we have a DUTY to defend our families, then it stands to reason that we have an even greater duty to defend ourselves.

Yes, yes, and NO. That is entirely your own conclusion. Let’s examine the quotation from the CCC2264 more fully: “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder, even if he isforcedto deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful…Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act ofmoderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”

CCC2265 - Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family, or of the state.

If you read the above more carefully, you will see that the intent is to remove concern about the threat of the sin of murder being attached to an act of self-defense. HOWEVER, there is great emphasis placed upon the fact that only MODERATE force be used in resistance of an aggressor. Furthermore, as I suspected, “legitimate defense” is focused more on the defense of others, not oneself. It does also say that we are “bound” to care for our own lives rather than those of another (an attacker), but there is no mention of an obligation to do so, and there is no mention of sin or fault attached to refusing to take the life of another.

I still maintain that many saints have died specifically to save the lives of others, therefore I doubt very much that God frowns on them for doing so.

You: Jesus’ primary purpose for coming into this world was to die for our sins. If He defended Himself, that purpose would have never been accomplished. We were not created to die for the sins of the many. Thus, this is not an accurate comparison.

No we weren’t, but He IS our role model - our Way, Truth, and Life. We are always admonished to follow His example and He was willing to die for the sake of others, as were many saints.

You: You incorrectly equate self defense with a criminal act which the Church OFFICIALLY teaches us is not the case. I again refer you to CCC2264 which tells us that “… Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow …”. However, if we FAIL to defend ourselves, then we have failed to perform a duty that we have and that would be a sin of omission.

I said earlier that it would be a terrible thing to be in a situation where one is forced to take the life of another person. How do you construe this statement to mean that I think self-defense is a “criminal act”? I simply think that refusing to take the life of another - whenever that can be attained - is admirable and Christ-like. (continued below…)

 

[K_C]

ATTN: SIR KNIGHT (3) -

You: “Owning a weapon would be a continued source of sin”? How so? I owned guns for over a quarter of a century. I carry a gun every day. What sin have I committed? Our monsignor carries a gun on his hip while saying mass. What sin has he committed? Would you call 911 if someone was breaking in your house? Why is it OK for a cop to carry a gun and shoot the bad guy, but you can’t?

Please reread what I said in my post above your last comment: “To me (and I am not, believe me, a “liberal” person) owning a weapon would be a continual occasion of sin because there is the concurrently continual intent that it may be used - unless it is meant only to defend our loved ones.” An occasion of sin is not necessarily a source of sin. It is only a “person, place, or thing” which provides an atmosphere of temptation to us.

I have no idea why any cleric would wear a gun on his hip while saying Mass! (It would be interesting to ask him that question.) But simply wearing a gun is not sinful in itself, nor is owning a gun. However, it may well be an occasion of sin - i.e. something which makes sin more likely to happen if the disposition of the owner is not what it should be: to use only moderate force necessary to the protection of others.

It is OK for a cop to carry a gun because he is trained to do so as part of his job. Also, and more importantly, he (hopefully) is not in a continual state of mind which may make him eager to use that gun - simply because he owns it. This is a real danger for all who are not specifically trained in the use of weapons, and even if they are trained to some degree, there is always far more danger associated with personal ownership of weapons than there is when they are simply worn as a necessary part of one’s daily vocation: the defense of the public - others.

BOTTOM LINE The reason why I engaged you at such length in this discussion is this: I have never before seen any CA member post - repeatedly - an array of guns on a thread. The “spook kit” is somewhat amusing. However, your subsequent post of several types of guns is no laughing matter. It seems that as a Knight of Columbus and using “Sir Knight” as your moniker, you may be a bit obsessed with the idea of chivalry. That is not a bad thing - something we ladies always approve in men. However, when chivalrous thoughts extend to modernizing “swords” into a collection of guns, there is real concern about the eventual use of these weapons.

A spiritual website such as Catholic Answers is happy to have members who are spiritual warriors - men who do battle against God’s spiritual enemies. However, is it really appropriate to display in its threads actual weapons and then to boast of one’s apparent eagerness to use them on *human *foes?

I admire your manly instincts, but I find your apparent preoccupation with guns rather scary - not only for those around you, but for you yourself. I do not advocate depriving our citizens of the right to bear arms, but I also fear for those who become fixated upon this right. There are just too many tragedies associated with gun ownership, and I pray that you and those close to you will not become one of them. God bless and keep you.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I’ve kinda been wanting to go to places that are reputed to be haunted and just hang out. Is it immoral?

Let me note, I’m not interested in seances or stupid rubbish like that. I’m a practising Catholic and I know that seances and psychics and whatever are wrong.

But, like, I’m staying in the Philippines right now and there is a Film Centre that Imelda Marcos had built. As the story goes, she wanted it built in a hurry, so when there was a big acccident there, she didn’t wanna bother saving the people who were buried in the rubble and just built over them. The place is supposed to be haunted; Wikipedia says that it may just be an urban legend, but I’ve gotten confirmation from a professor at a top school in this country who was a journalist and saw the blood and mess and everything. I wanted to sleep over at that Film Centre, though I changed my mind when I drove by there once and saw that homeless people live there (yes, I’m crazy; ghosts don’t scare me but homeless people do).

Also my nephew/best friend is a dormer at a university here and I plan to go there to spend time with him. There’s supposed to be a room there where nobody will stay because it’s haunted. I heard people claim they hear noises from there.

Anyway, is it a sin if I just want to go there and, say, sleep or just stay there? I’m not going to summon a ghost but I’d like to see if anything happens. Stupid to do, maybe, but is it sinful?

This is actually a very good question. I have done ghost-hunting. Ghusts are very real. But very real what? There was an appearance, in the ghost-hunting and library research that I did, that ghosts are innately benign things, but they are like a glove, into which demons may very readily place their hands.

I was foolish enough to talk to what I believed was a ghost. A demon responded. It caused trouble for years.

So, anyone engaging in ghost-hunting should be careful. Keep it light. Do not talk to the things.

 

[lizaanne]

I admire your manly instincts, but I find your apparent preoccupation with guns rather scary - not only for those around you, but for you yourself. I do not advocate depriving our citizens of the right to bear arms, but I also fear for those who become fixated upon this right. There are just too many tragedies associated with gun ownership, and I pray that you and those close to you will not become one of them. God bless and keep you.

Are you suggesting that there is some sort of threat of violence because this man owns LEGAL firearms, is a collector and a shooter, and wishes to maintain his RIGHT to defend himself and his family? I seem to hear you calling him an extremist - someone we need to be worried about.

Give me a break.

He is one of millions of Americans in this country who LEGALLY and RESPONSIBLY collect and shoot firearms, and who take that responsibility very seriously. He collects guns. So what? Many people collect many different things. Just because his choice happens to be firearms (and he is not alone in this), he is painted as some sort of extremist wacko that needs to be told to be careful???

Honestly - the guy who collects power tools, yet has never had a single minute of training on how to use them properly and carefully, has a far greater chance of hurting himself or a family member than someone who has been trained to LEGALLY handle firearms.

The fact that you are scared by someone handling and collecting firearms is because you are not fully educated and experienced with them. It is an unknown, not something you are obviously personally familiar. You see horrible things in the news (illegal things I might add) that involve firearms, and the assumption is made that guns = violence and illegal activity. This is not true, and is not the case.

I strongly suggest you spend a wonderful day at an NRA event for women called Women on Target. This is an outstanding program that will teach you how to be comfortable around all different types of firearms - and to not be afraid of what you don’t know.

Give the guy a break. He’s not doing anything wrong, immoral, or illegal. So why are you afraid of him or for him?

~Liza

 

[celticcrusader]

When I was younger I was very afraid of Bee’s , I met a Bee keeper who taught me about Bee’s, I am not afraid of Bee’s anymore but I do have a healthy respect for them. Guns are kind of the same thing. Louisville Sluggers scare me you can not trace them ! As for Ghost Hunting I used to do a lot of Ghost hunting when I was younger . here are some fine examples of the various hunts that are displayed in my trophy room

                  <<
                   <<

shot up in new england area

                       <<
                       <<
                       <<

this one was got in a castle in England
I would post more but I do not want to bore you with pictures of ghosts.

 

[rpp]

ATTN: SIR KNIGHT (3) -

You: “Owning a weapon would be a continued source of sin”? How so? I owned guns for over a quarter of a century. I carry a gun every day. What sin have I committed? Our monsignor carries a gun on his hip while saying mass. What sin has he committed? Would you call 911 if someone was breaking in your house? Why is it OK for a cop to carry a gun and shoot the bad guy, but you can’t?

Please reread what I said in my post above your last comment: "To me (and I am not, believe me, a “liberal” person) owning a weapon would be a continual occasion of sin because there is the concurrently continual intent that it may be used - unless it …

{snip}

Asside from being one of the most uninformed, ridiculous and anti-Catholic opinions I have ever seen, it is off topic. It is against forum rules to hijack a thread. This thread is about ghosts and ghost hunting. Not about firearms. If you want to post your anti-Catholic opinions about firearms, start a new thread.

 

[mreckers]

I have not read all the posts. I did see a tangental discussion of guns. I would like to address ghosthunting.

Before I state my opinion, I would like to make a few related points:

1. When we die, we immediately stand in judgement before the Lord. Our fate will be one of three places, namely, heaven, hell, or purgatory. We don’t get to choose to stay around this old house.
2. The Church forbids, as grave matter, the effort to commune with the dead in seances, through media, or the like.
3. Jesus said he saw Satan fall from heaven to earth as lightning. With him 1/3 of the angels fell and became demons who prowl the earth seeking the ruin of souls.
4. Demons and Satan are far more intelligent than us. It is quite possible that the hauntings people see are demonic in origin. It could be that demons are taking on the appearance of human spirits to deceive us into focusing on the paranormal instead of on the Word of God.
5. Those who seek out the paranormal are opening themselves up to demonic forces. One can become opressed or even possessed by these demons. I would encourage you to read “An Exorcist’s Story” which is written by a Roman Catholic Priest who has performed exorcisms. In that book, he talks of how people invite demons into the temple of their soul by involving themselves in the paranormal.
6. Demons are real and are more powerful than us but not as powerful as the Holy Spirit. Having said that, the Holy Spirit is not to be used by us. To go to a haunted house while armed with sacramentals like holy water and scapulars is a misuse of God’s gifts. God gives us these sacramentals to protect us. He gives his holy angels to watch over us. He does not give us these gifts so that we can chase ghosts for our own curiosity.

HAVING SAID ALL THAT, I WOULD STAY AWAY FROM ALL PARANORMAL PHENOMENUM and I think it is a sin to chase ghosts.

 

[K_C]

Are you suggesting that there is some sort of threat of violence because this man owns LEGAL firearms, is a collector and a shooter, and wishes to maintain his RIGHT to defend himself and his family? I seem to hear you calling him an extremist - someone we need to be worried about.

Give me a break.

Not at all. Perhaps you should read again what I actually said. I AM WORRIED FOR HIM.

The fact that you are scared by someone handling and collecting firearms is because you are not fully educated and experienced with them. It is an unknown, not something you are obviously personally familiar. You see horrible things in the news (illegal things I might add) that involve firearms, and the assumption is made that guns = violence and illegal activity. This is not true, and is not the case.

I am not scared BY him, but FOR him. I do have some experience with firearms. My dad took us to a firing range when I was a kid and I used a .22 rifle there. However, I have far sadder experience too. A neighbor was a policeman who WAS TRAINED in firearms, obviously. He kept his guns locked up in a cabinet and instructed his kids never to touch them. However, one day his two sons were home alone and bored. They managed to find his key, open the cabinet, and one son shot the other in the head. The result was very tragic. The boy lived, but was horribly scarred and his life forever altered. I simply do not want others to experience the same tragedy - THAT’S ALL.

I strongly suggest you spend a wonderful day at an NRA event for women called Women on Target. This is an outstanding program that will teach you how to be comfortable around all different types of firearms - and to not be afraid of what you don’t know.

My hubby is also from Michigan and used to hunt with his dad, so I understand the desire/need for rifles felt by many who live there. Hunting is fine. But, unless I really don’t understand clearly, hand guns are not used for hunting game and Sir Knight seems preocuppied with his collection - enough to post photos of them on a spiritual website. I could be wrong in my estimation, of course, but I became worried for him. As for the invitation to the women’s NRA - thanks, but no thanks, Annie Oakley!

~Liza