Gun Control

[Darkbloom]

This morning I read in Psalm 44

"I do not trust in my bow,
my sword does not bring me
victory;
but you give us victory over our
enemies,
you put our adversaries to shame.
In God we make our boast all day
long
and we will praise your name
forever.’

Guns are among us for the foreseeable future. Some will own them for self defense, and put their trust in this tool of killing. In my community, there are plenty of guns. You want one; you can get one legally or illegally. I know many who have died from gun shot wounds; having a gun would not have saved any of them. So for me, the challenge is how do we get beyond violence? What God wills is peace among us; what part of what God wills are we unwilling to will? We pray “Thy will be done on earth as in heaven.”

I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure David wrote most of the Psalms. He didn’t put trust in his bow or sword but in the Lord. But David had no problem using those implements when the need arised, as is shown in Scripture.

I’m not saying that everyone should be armed to the teeth - maybe that’s not how your personal walk is suppose to progress - but it seems equally erroneous to imply there is some sort of lack of faith or recalcitrance of will implicit in owning a gun.

 

[ddarko]

I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure David wrote most of the Psalms. He didn’t put trust in his bow or sword but in the Lord. But David had no problem using those implements when the need arised, as is shown in Scripture.

I’m not saying that everyone should be armed to the teeth - maybe that’s not how your personal walk is suppose to progress - but it seems equally erroneous to imply there is some sort of lack of faith or recalcitrance of will implicit in owning a gun.

Of course. That is why Just war doctrine exists. David was in fact a soldier considering Israel was at war at the time. So for him to carry around weapons is normal and in-fact 100% justified.

As the other person pointed out, this doesn’t apply to non-war or non-authority cases. Because me having a gun doesn’t stop the other guy who wants to murder me from having a gun. And all it takes is for him to fire it first and I really wouldn’t know till I get hit. At that point, the fact that I had a gun means nothing.

So I think his point is that guns don’t really solve the problem of violence in society. The correct thing to do is INFACT get those guns off the streets. Then give the people a proper education. Wielding a bigger stick only works till criminals get their hands on guns. And most criminals (when it comes to organized crime) DO INFACT possess guns.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

I have rebutted them - repeatedly. You just refuse to see (accept) it.

I must have missed it. Please be so kind as to provide the link to the post where you answered those questions. Thanks in advance.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Of course. That is why Just war doctrine exists. David was in fact a soldier considering Israel was at war at the time. So for him to carry around weapons is normal and in-fact 100% justified.

As the other person pointed out, this doesn’t apply to non-war or non-authority cases. Because me having a gun doesn’t stop the other guy who wants to murder me from having a gun. And all it takes is for him to fire it first and I really wouldn’t know till I get hit. At that point, the fact that I had a gun means nothing.

So I think his point is that guns don’t really solve the problem of violence in society. The correct thing to do is INFACT get those guns off the streets. Then give the people a proper education. Wielding a bigger stick only works till criminals get their hands on guns. And most criminals (when it comes to organized crime) DO INFACT possess guns.

God Bless

Exactly the reason why require folks should also possess guns so that they could be on equal footing – or, how so you plan on successfully fulfilling your Christian duty of defending your life?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I’m not going to try to twist your arm, as we seem to agree on the magisterial application of self defense and arms, but consider this:

**
]Jesus was giving His message to the Apostles to carry to the four corners of the world. Seeing that they misunderstood, why would He not clarify what He meant? Wouldn’t that ensure that they would spread the message incorrectly to others? Is that something that you would expect from the Great Teacher?*

Two swords between 12 apostles who were split up to go evangelize to the ends of the earth? Sufficient number of swords for their self-defense? We don’t know for certain if they traveled in twos and threes or even fours, but we do know they didn’t travel all together in a group of 12. Let’s presume they traveled even in fours; one group would not have a sword. How does that square with Jesus meaning that two swords were enough (for their own protection)?

Sufficient number of swords for them when they were together as a group. Remember, at this point they had returned from their trek and were together again.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is theological murder right here.

How many times have people explained here what Jesus meant by Swords.

None. If Jesus did not mean physical swords, why did He mix it in with other physical items? Are the other items also suppose to represent something? If not, why would the great teacher doing something confusing like this ans not explain it?

And, if Jesus wasn’t talking about actual swords, what was He referring to? If we don’t have what, are we to sell our cloak and buy what?

ALSO, you seem to be missing a VERY KEY point even if we interpret it your way. You are ignoring ALL the rest of the teachings by Jesus INCLUDING the sermon of the mount.

And you are ignoring the fact that Jesus was always in perfect agreement with His Father and God OFTEN called upon people to use the sword.

That is WRONG.

Not as wrong as you are.

It clearly contradicts Jesus’s teaching in Gethsamane it self too

YOU CANNOT INTERPRET ONE PART OF SCRIPTURE IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT CONTRADICTS ANOTHER PART.

Thats like Theology 101 which you seem to have thrown out of the window.

Exactly. Now you are starting to see the light. God oftened called upon the people to use the sword. Jesus was in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father and He was also calling upon people to use the sword if and when needed.

Do you know who else tried doing what you are doing here? The reformers and all the proponents of heresy.

Here’s an example:-

There are ample amount of passages in the Bible that can be quoted for Sola Fide doctrine. Does that mean the doctrine is correct? NO. Its WRONG because it contradicts all the passages in Scripture that speak about the importance of works AND FAITH being dead without works.

So honestly, at this point, it seems like you are not aware of how proper theology works. If you interpret things on their own, you can end up with heresy.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Jesus also didn’t always clarify what he meant. I don’t know which Bible you read but he never clarified what he meant when he spoke of his death and they had a misconceived view. He knew things will become clearer with time.

You just lost all of your creditibility right here proving that you do not know what you are talking about …
*With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them (the crowds that followed Him), as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, **he explained EVERYTHING. – ***Mark 4:33-34 (NIV)

So even that passage with the swords, he obviously knew it will be obvious with time when taken together with ALL his teachings in context, just as his words on his death and resurrection.

In conclusion, God’s infallible word is INFALLIBLE. There is NO contradiction. BUT, you seem to be doing a pretty fallible job at theology.

Given your own faulty understanding of scripture (RE: Mark 4:33-34 above), I wouldn’t go around commenting on somebody else’s job at theology, if I were you.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

ESV Matthew 12;29
Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.

So if we use Sir Knight’s criteria for Scripture interpretation we can state that Jesus is OK with us breaking and entering our neighbor’s house, tying him up, and stealing his possessions?

I think you just won the debate momor, kudos to you

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Exactly the reason why require folks should also possess guns so that they could be on equal footing – or, how so you plan on successfully fulfilling your Christian duty of defending your life?

Explaining why civilians shouldn’t have guns to you is equivalent to explaining the existence of God to Richard Dawkins…just my take on it God Bless!

 

[Newbie2]

Sufficient number of swords for them when they were together as a group. Remember, at this point they had returned from their trek and were together again.

Seems like eisagesis to me.

Hasta la Pizza.

 

[Darkbloom]

Of course. That is why Just war doctrine exists. David was in fact a soldier considering Israel was at war at the time. So for him to carry around weapons is normal and in-fact 100% justified.

As the other person pointed out, this doesn’t apply to non-war or non-authority cases. Because me having a gun doesn’t stop the other guy who wants to murder me from having a gun. And all it takes is for him to fire it first and I really wouldn’t know till I get hit. At that point, the fact that I had a gun means nothing.

So I think his point is that guns don’t really solve the problem of violence in society. The correct thing to do is INFACT get those guns off the streets. Then give the people a proper education. Wielding a bigger stick only works till criminals get their hands on guns. And most criminals (when it comes to organized crime) DO INFACT possess guns.

God Bless

It is completely starry eyed to think the way to counteract criminals with guns is to disarm law abiding citizens.

I’m not maintaining that guns reduce violence (though there is support for this view), but it does help to ensure the outcome of a violent altercation ends as it should.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Explaining why civilians shouldn’t have guns to you is equivalent to explaining the existence of God to Richard Dawkins…just my take on it God Bless!

Just like it is trying to explain to someone that the Church can not tell us that we have a GRAVE DUTY to do something (protect life) and then deny us the means by which to do it (own guns). :banghead:

 

[Ender]

Explaining why civilians shouldn’t have guns to you is equivalent to explaining the existence of God to Richard Dawkins…just my take on it God Bless!

You are free to hold whatever position you choose. I find the arguments supporting that position unconvincing, and, since I am free to hold whatever position I choose, we have little to debate at this point. There is, however, no justification in claiming that either position is morally superior to the other or that the Church supports one and condemns the other. Such claims would be factually incorrect.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

None. If Jesus did not mean physical swords, why did He mix it in with other physical items? Are the other items also suppose to represent something? If not, why would the great teacher doing something confusing like this ans not explain it?

And, if Jesus wasn’t talking about actual swords, what was He referring to? If we don’t have what, are we to sell our cloak and buy what?

And you are ignoring the fact that Jesus was always in perfect agreement with His Father and God OFTEN called upon people to use the sword.

Not as wrong as you are.

Exactly. Now you are starting to see the light. God oftened called upon the people to use the sword. Jesus was in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father and He was also calling upon people to use the sword if and when needed.

One has nothing to do with the other.

You just lost all of your creditibility right here proving that you do not know what you are talking about …
*With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them (the crowds that followed Him), as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, **he explained EVERYTHING. – ***Mark 4:33-34 (NIV)

Given your own faulty understanding of scripture (RE: Mark 4:33-34 above), I wouldn’t go around commenting on somebody else’s job at theology, if I were you.

Dear Sir Knight, this must be the most absurd reply I’ve ever seen.

You put out two claims.

1. Jesus supported carrying weapons and their use
2. Jesus always explained things to disciples in private

I provided counter examples to both from Scripture.

For you to provide me counter examples to my counter examples is … pointless. Thats Logic 101. Did you read my post to you explaining how logic works and what the nature of counter examples are? I take it NO.

The thing is, if you don’t use proper logic its very hard to argue with you. You can always hold on to your position like its faith just as religious fundamentalist do in some parts of the world. So all I can ask is, humbly approach this problem. Forget that you are a gun salesman. Start fresh. Analyze the arguments. See if in all honesty you can hold your position.

I am afraid its almost an obvious truth that Gun possession by Civilians and Christianity don’t go together.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

You are free to hold whatever position you choose. I find the arguments supporting that position unconvincing, and, since I am free to hold whatever position I choose, we have little to debate at this point. There is, however, no justification in claiming that either position is morally superior to the other or that the Church supports one and condemns the other. Such claims would be factually incorrect.

Ender

Welcome back.

I addressed your such claim made before on this thread. That is I am afraid erroneous. This is not a matter we can agree to disagree on.

INFACT, the entire Christian doctrine speaks of what exactly is the right way in this matter. Your reason to hold a gun, which is based on the suspicion of your brother and sister in Christ attacking you is Unchristian grounds to hold weapons.

There is a distinction between carrying a gun in war zone and carrying a gun everyday. One is not based on a suspicion of your brother or sister. The need has risen to defend because you are indeed under attack. BUT, in the case of personal gun ownership, it is indeed based on suspicion. To suspect your own brother and sister in Christ is judgmental and a SIN.

So what you need to understand is that every single Church document is against Gun possession because it starts with the premise that EVERYONE is a brother and sister in Christ. That is a core of our faith.

Personal Gun ownership rejects this. It is based on the suspicion of ones brothers and sisters and an implicit rejection; i.e. these are my brothers and sisters who I must protect AGAINST THEM. So there is a THEM and a US. Such understanding is UNCHRISTIAN.

Once again, I make the appeal, don’t approach this problem to justify your own case. Thats worthless and you won’t learn or hear anything that is being said. Approach it fresh. The evidence against personal gun ownership (in the sense which it has been argued here) is right in front of your eyes in EVERY CHURCH document.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Just like it is trying to explain to someone that the Church can not tell us that we have a GRAVE DUTY to do something (protect life) and then deny us the means by which to do it (own guns). :banghead:

Sir Knight, here is a counterexample and please don’t give me a counter example to a counter example. Alright?

So here it is,

None of Apostles stood up against the Roman Empire and Jews as it persecuted the first Christians. NONE OF THEM. According to you, they are ALL IN SIN because they failed at their “GRAVE DUTY”.

Now that is ABSURD. Those people have been Canonized and INFACT highly regarded for their non-violence and martyrdom.

So please PLEASE understand. Your position IS INCORRECT. AT BEST, it is INCOMPLETE. That is LOGIC. For you to keep thinking you are ‘refuting’ that by providing many more example in favor of your position is LOGICALLY meaningless.

Case in point, let me repeat an example I provided before

Sir Knight: All prime numbers are ODD.

**Others: **2 is a prime but is not ODD. Therefore position is false.

Now what you keep doing in this thread is repeat the following:-

Sir Knight: No. Look, 3,5,7,9…etc are all Primes and ODD. I can give you so many examples of Primes that are ODD. So my position MUST be TRUE.

Do you see the absurdity in what you are saying in the above example?

If not, please say so because then I know this discussion is not worth continuing and it will save the time of everyone else on this thread as well.

God Bless

 

[Newbie2]

Welcome back.

I addressed your such claim made before on this thread. That is I am afraid erroneous. This is not a matter we can agree to disagree on.

INFACT, the entire Christian doctrine speaks of what exactly is the right way in this matter. Your reason to hold a gun, which is based on the suspicion of your brother and sister in Christ attacking you is Unchristian grounds to hold weapons.

There is a distinction between carrying a gun in war zone and carrying a gun everyday. One is not based on a suspicion of your brother or sister. The need has risen to defend because you are indeed under attack. BUT, in the case of personal gun ownership, it is indeed based on suspicion. To suspect your own brother and sister in Christ is judgmental and a SIN.

So what you need to understand is that every single Church document is against Gun control because it starts with the premise that EVERYONE is a brother and sister in Christ. That is a core of our faith.

Personal Gun ownership rejects this. It is based on the suspicion of ones brothers and sisters and an implicit rejection; i.e. these are my brothers and sisters who I must protect AGAINST THEM. So there is a THEM and a US. Such understanding is UNCHRISTIAN.

Once again, I make the appeal, don’t approach this problem to justify your own case. Thats worthless and you won’t learn or hear anything that is being said. Approach it fresh. The evidence against personal gun ownership (in the sense which it has been argued here) is right in front of your eyes in EVERY CHURCH document.

God Bless

Every single Church document is against gun control? Is that what you meant to write?

 

[ddarko]

Every single Church document is against gun control? Is that what you meant to write?

Woah Thanks, fixed it. I meant to say Gun Possession

God Bless

 

[Ender]

Woah Thanks, fixed it. I meant to say Gun Possession

If every single Church document opposes the private ownership of guns it should surely be a simple thing to cite one. Can you provide any citation that supports your claim? Personal interpretations of Scripture do not qualify as Church documents.

Ender

 

[KathleenElsie]

If every single Church document opposes the private ownership of guns it should surely be a simple thing to cite one. Can you provide any citation that supports your claim? Personal interpretations of Scripture do not qualify as Church documents.

Ender

I also would like to see “every single” document saying private ownership is in oposition to the Church. Not sure how many documents Holy Mother Church has in ther fires from the time of Jesus but I’ll bet there ate lots of them.

 

[momor]

Dear Sir Knight, this must be the most absurd reply I’ve ever seen.

You put out two claims.

1. Jesus supported carrying weapons and their use
2. Jesus always explained things to disciples in private

I provided counter examples to both from Scripture.

For you to provide me counter examples to my counter examples is … pointless. Thats Logic 101. Did you read my post to you explaining how logic works and what the nature of counter examples are? I take it NO.

The thing is, if you don’t use proper logic its very hard to argue with you. You can always hold on to your position like its faith just as religious fundamentalist do in some parts of the world. So all I can ask is, humbly approach this problem. Forget that you are a gun salesman. Start fresh. Analyze the arguments. See if in all honesty you can hold your position.

____________________________________________________****

I am afraid its almost an obvious truth that Gun possession by Civilians and Christianity don’t go together.

God Bless

FYI, I think you need to separate your two arguments here. One is the problem with logic we have seen over and over, which I agree with you on, and the other is your opinion, which I don’t agree with. You are losing others on the logic argument (assuming they are capable of intellectual honesty of course ) because they simply focus on disagreeing with your opinion. Just my take on it.