Some thoughts on guns in the USA ...

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,282
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I think they show that causes can be righteous and that God is not against caritol punishment or self defense
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,194
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I think they show that causes can be righteous and that God is not against capitol punishment or self defense

I do not agree that capitol punishment is approved by God but I am sure old testament passages can be supplied to show that stoning is what God commands. Other forms of execution are, without doubt, also found in the old testament. The range of crimes that received capitol punishment in the Law is breathtaking. Disobeying parents is worthy of it apparently. A women who is raped in a town without screaming loudly enough is worthy of it too. I'll leave you to decide what you think those laws mean as far as being an example for Christians to follow goes.
 

Tallguy88

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
117
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Are you sure or is that a convenient way to justify what you want to do while ignoring what the Lord teaches about violence? Many people who would not fist fight become killers when they have a gun.

What I'd it you think I'm trying to justify, except that which the catechism explicitly justifies (CCC 2263-4). I already said I don't carry a gun in public. I do have them at home. If I don't have a right to defend myself at home, what right do I have?

Self defense is not contrary to the Bible or Church teaching.
 

Tallguy88

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
117
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
..hmmm what part of turning the other cheeck encompasses SELF defense ? interesting is it not ?

what you'r saying quite clearly is when push comes to shove . you don't have a trust in God but you have every faith in your ability to kill an attacker ... -yup. that's the message that im hearing from one or another person every time the topic comes up.it is like it is swome crime to preach trust in god alone .

to be honest ,some times i think i believe in different God to the one other Christians seem to speak of, .. my god can do ALL things and with him NOTHING is impossible .how about yours ?

God expects people to help themselves. God did not magically give oil to the foolish virgins who had none. Instead, he blessed the ones who helped themselves by preparing beforehand.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,194
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What I'd it you think I'm trying to justify, except that which the catechism explicitly justifies (CCC 2263-4). I already said I don't carry a gun in public. I do have them at home. If I don't have a right to defend myself at home, what right do I have?

Self defense is not contrary to the Bible or Church teaching.

CCC 2263 & 2264 eh?

A little context is a good thing. More context would be better but one's posts are limited in size :)
I. Respect for Human Life

The witness of sacred history

2259 In the account of Abel's murder by his brother Cain,[SUP]57 [/SUP]Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: "What have you done? the voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. and now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand."[SUP]58[/SUP]

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God's gift of human life and man's murderous violence:

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.[SUP]59[/SUP]

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.[SUP]60 [/SUP]This teaching remains necessary for all time.

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."[SUP]61 [/SUP]The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. the law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"[SUP]62 [/SUP]and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.[SUP]63 [/SUP]He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.[SUP]64[/SUP]

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... the one is intended, the other is not."[SUP]65[/SUP]

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to 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 of moderate 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.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[SUP]66[/SUP]

Capital Punishment

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[SUP]67[/SUP]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
57 Cf. ⇒ Gen 4:8-12.
58 ⇒ Gen 4:10-11.
59 ⇒ Gen 9:5-6.
60 Cf. ⇒ Lev 17:14
61 ⇒ Ex 23:7.
62 ⇒ Mt 5:21.
63 Cf. ⇒ Mt 5:22-39; ⇒ 5:44.
64 Cf. ⇒ Mt 26:52.
65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art.
66 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art.
67 Cf. ⇒ Lk 23:40-43.
68 Cf. ⇒ Gen 4:10.​
(source)​
One can't help but notice the negative comments on capitol punishment in the CCC. And a just-war is not easy to come my.
 

Tallguy88

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
117
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
CCC 2263 & 2264 eh?

A little context is a good thing. More context would be better but one's posts are limited in size :)
I. Respect for Human Life

The witness of sacred history

2259 In the account of Abel's murder by his brother Cain,[SUP]57 [/SUP]Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: "What have you done? the voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. and now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand."[SUP]58[/SUP]

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God's gift of human life and man's murderous violence:

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.[SUP]59[/SUP]

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.[SUP]60 [/SUP]This teaching remains necessary for all time.

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: "Do not slay the innocent and the righteous."[SUP]61 [/SUP]The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. the law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, "You shall not kill,"[SUP]62 [/SUP]and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.[SUP]63 [/SUP]He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.[SUP]64[/SUP]

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... the one is intended, the other is not."[SUP]65[/SUP]

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to 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 of moderate 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.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[SUP]66[/SUP]

Capital Punishment

2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[SUP]67[/SUP]

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
57 Cf. ⇒ Gen 4:8-12.
58 ⇒ Gen 4:10-11.
59 ⇒ Gen 9:5-6.
60 Cf. ⇒ Lev 17:14
61 ⇒ Ex 23:7.
62 ⇒ Mt 5:21.
63 Cf. ⇒ Mt 5:22-39; ⇒ 5:44.
64 Cf. ⇒ Mt 26:52.
65 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art.
66 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 64, 7, corp. art.
67 Cf. ⇒ Lk 23:40-43.
68 Cf. ⇒ Gen 4:10.​
(source)​
One can't help but notice the negative comments on capitol punishment in the CCC. And a just-war is not easy to come my.

I don't support capitol punishment or unjust wars. I support being able to defend myself from a legitimate immediate threat using proportionate force
 

YESLORDIWILL

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 26, 2015
Messages
129
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Married
What do you believe that passage teaches?
"When I sent you without money or provisions or shoes, did you lack anything?" And they said, "Nothing." Then he said to them: "But now, let whoever has money take it, and likewise with provisions. And whoever does not have these, let him sell his coat and buy a sword. For I say to you, that what has been written must still be fulfilled in me: "And he was esteemed with the wicked." Yet even these things about me have an end." (Luke 22:35-37)​

Just stirring the pot, mc :friends:

I do not agree that capitol punishment is approved by God but I am sure old testament passages can be supplied ....


...there are sins unto death ...all unrighteousness is sin: but there are sins not unto death. 1 John 5:16-17
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,194
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Just stirring the pot, mc :friends:

...there are sins unto death ...all unrighteousness is sin: but there are sins not unto death. 1 John 5:16-17

Now, tell me dear one, do you believe those verses are about capitol punishment, self defence unto death, or some other human to human violence resulting in death? Is that what a sin unto death is?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,194
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don't support capitol punishment or unjust wars. I support being able to defend myself from a legitimate immediate threat using proportionate force

Gun for gun?

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, wounding for wounding?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don't support capitol punishment or unjust wars. I support being able to defend myself from a legitimate immediate threat using proportionate force


I agree....


I do NOT argue that capitol punishment is immoral or unbiblical, but I do think it is unnecessary, impractical and that we have better alternatives.

I also thing that the "just/unjust war" thing ain't so easy to determine - these are often very complex issues and rarely is anyone or any "side" sinless. But yes, I think war in general is bad but I acknowledge that in this sinful, fallen world populated 100% by sinners - violence is going to happen and must be addressed. I know the modern principles the individual RC Denomination teaches on this (and I think them very good in principle) - I support them - I just think it's not easy to apply them (witness that Catholic countries and Catholic leaders seem to be no less void of "unjust" wars than any other).

In general, I'm very pro-life. And like the individual RC Denomination, I see this as far more than an abortion issue.




- Josiah
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,282
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
While i will agree that capital punishment does little to deter I still do not find it against the bible and as for guns or this country Ithink I made myself very clear
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,194
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Religion like civilization is hardly even skin deep.
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
God expects people to help themselves. God did not magically give oil to the foolish virgins who had none. Instead, he blessed the ones who helped themselves by preparing beforehand.

and that has what to do with guns and trusting God .. again ..you God seems to differ from the one I believe in .

Andi do hope you not quoting that god helps those who help themselves verse lol
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,282
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
and that has what to do with guns and trusting God .. again ..you God seems to differ from the one I believe in .

Andi do hope you not quoting that god helps those who help themselves verse lol
It is called using what God gave you. If there are natural answers to your problem then chances are that God has given you all you need to deal with it. Your choice whether you do or not
 

Tallguy88

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
117
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
and that has what to do with guns and trusting God .. again ..you God seems to differ from the one I believe in .

Andi do hope you not quoting that god helps those who help themselves verse lol

It's called "hope for the best, plan for the worst". Do you refuse to wear a seat belt or buy insurance because you trust in God? Do you refuse to use vaccines or medicine because that wouldn't be trusting in God? How far do you take it?

Do bad things only happen to the ungodly?
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,194
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Eye for eye refers to revenge, not defense.

Your claim is incorrect. The Law stipulates "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" etcetera as proportionate response. It has nothing to do with revenge.
If men will have quarrelled, and one of them has struck a pregnant woman, and as a result she miscarries, but she herself survives, he shall be subject to as much damage as the husband of the woman shall petition from him, or as arbitrators shall judge. But if her death will have followed, he will repay a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a scrape for a scrape, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise. (Exodus 21:22-25)​
Under the new covenant things seem to be different. The Lord Jesus Christ put it this way:
You have heard that it was said: "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil, but if anyone will have struck you on your right cheek, offer to him the other also. And anyone who wishes to contend with you in judgement, and to take away your tunic, release to him your cloak also. And whoever will have compelled you for one thousand steps, go with him even for two thousand steps. Whoever asks of you, give to him. And if anyone would borrow from you, do not turn away from him. (Matthew 5:38-42)
Both passages have to do with proportionate response but under the new covenant a better way of responding is to violence and to law suits is to stop resisting.
 

Tallguy88

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
117
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Your claim is incorrect. The Law stipulates "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" etcetera as proportionate response. It has nothing to do with revenge.
If men will have quarrelled, and one of them has struck a pregnant woman, and as a result she miscarries, but she herself survives, he shall be subject to as much damage as the husband of the woman shall petition from him, or as arbitrators shall judge. But if her death will have followed, he will repay a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, a scrape for a scrape, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise. (Exodus 21:22-25)​
Under the new covenant things seem to be different. The Lord Jesus Christ put it this way:
You have heard that it was said: "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil, but if anyone will have struck you on your right cheek, offer to him the other also. And anyone who wishes to contend with you in judgement, and to take away your tunic, release to him your cloak also. And whoever will have compelled you for one thousand steps, go with him even for two thousand steps. Whoever asks of you, give to him. And if anyone would borrow from you, do not turn away from him. (Matthew 5:38-42)
Both passages have to do with proportionate response but under the new covenant a better way of responding is to violence and to law suits is to stop resisting.

Eye for an eye is to settle up after a wrong has been committed, similar to what we would use a lawsuit for today. It is not a response to a direct, immediate thread of harm. I agree revenge is un Christian. But defending myself from immediate harm is not unbiblical. If someone tries to hit me, I can use my body to stop them. If they pull a knife, I can shoot them. If they run, I must let them flee since the threat of immediate harm has ended.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,194
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Eye for an eye is to settle up after a wrong has been committed, similar to what we would use a lawsuit for today. It is not a response to a direct, immediate thread of harm. I agree revenge is un Christian. But defending myself from immediate harm is not unbiblical. If someone tries to hit me, I can use my body to stop them. If they pull a knife, I can shoot them. If they run, I must let them flee since the threat of immediate harm has ended.

Matthew 5:38-42 is about immediate response. That can't be denied.
 

Alithis

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
2,680
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
It's called "hope for the best, plan for the worst". Do you refuse to wear a seat belt or buy insurance because you trust in God? Do you refuse to use vaccines or medicine because that wouldn't be trusting in God? How far do you take it?

Do bad things only happen to the ungodly?

are you asking?
i would not be opposed to medications .God may tell me take some..presently i never do. im obliged by law to have house insurance.its a bank thing.
seat belts are imposed on me by the law of the land.
modern vaccines are designed for profit and i trust god more then mans drugs.
when we go and do what the lord is asking you to go and do.. he is with us.

can he protect me.. yes
can he allow my destruction in the flesh.yes.
can he raise me up again from the dead..yes.

trusting in god means following him where ever he may lead.not staying home watching telly and doing whatever we will.

why is trust in God for protection seeming so foriegn to you.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom