Peter King (R-NY) introduces gun control legislation

[Wannabe Yogi]

The NT doesn't teach that self defense is wrong. Here are some passages and verses which address the Christian's right to protect themselves and others, and/or to serve in the military (which by necessity means carrying a weapon which may be used):

Sorry but verses you use are simbolic. You are grasping at straws. You should know it was a fact for the first 200 years of church History if a Christian joined the army he could not be a member of the church.

The idea of the reformation was to arive at the beliefs of the early church. You have seemed to reject this notion.

Jesus said this.

Matthew 5

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Either this is true or your bible is full of contradictions which one is it. Here are some more statements from early christians.

We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies.-Justin Martyr.

God puts his prohibition on every sort of man-killing by that one inclusive commandment you shall not kill-Tertullian

All Early Christians first 200 years rejected your views please give me some proof if I am wrong. If you don't want to believe this that all fine and good. Still it says what it says.

If any of us what to follow Christ. I have only meet 3 or 4 Christians in my life who I believe really want to do it 100% We must take up the Cross.
Because like Jesus said He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

 

[Archer]

Sorry but verses you use are simbolic. You are grasping at straws. You should know it was a fact for the first 200 years of church History if a Christian joined the army he could not be a member of the church.

The idea of the reformation was to arive at the beliefs of the early church. You have seemed to reject this notion.

Jesus said this.

Matthew 5

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Either this is true or your bible is full of contradictions which one is it. Here are some more statements from early christians.

We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies.-Justin Martyr.

God puts his prohibition on every sort of man-killing by that one inclusive commandment you shall not kill-Tertullian

All Early Christians first 200 years rejected your views please give me some proof if I am wrong. If you don't want to believe this that all fine and good. Still it says what it says.

If any of us what to follow Christ. I have only meet 3 or 4 Christians in my life who I believe really want to do it 100% We must take up the Cross.
Because like Jesus said He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Christ spoke philosophy and he is correct but application is another story entirely.

There is a time to fight back.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Christ spoke philosophy and he is correct but application is another story entirely.

There is a time to fight back.

I can except that. I live the same way. When I first became a Hindu I wanted to follow Gandhi and be completely nonviolent. Then I had the experience of a woman being beaten on public transit. I decided I was going to stop it non-violently. I know the guy was going to kick the crap out of me. I was scared to a level I could not imagine.( I went to an urban high school for a while and worked with violent mental patients so I was able to defend myself. I never experienced fear like that) I was lucky it stopped before I could get to him. From that point on I knew I was not strong enough to be perfectly nonviolent. I do believe that the Highest man is the nonviolent one. In Hinduism this is the duty of a monk. I have a family so it is ok to defend my self and others. To create a safe society that can produce the peaceful humans. It is our belief that by selfless service of others we can evolve to a high level.

From a Hindu point of view Jesus was attempting to create monks. His teaching were not for folks who had families and lived a common day to day life. His anti sex, give all your money to the poor, and pacifism seems not the life style of the common man.

To me Christ was also an example for the west of the perfect man. One who showed the way to be perfect our selves. That is an example that most of us just do not want to live. So we twist his teaching to make ourselves feel good about ourselves.

 

[Archer]

I can except that. I live the same way. When I first became a Hindu I wanted to follow Gandhi and be completely nonviolent. Then I had the experience of a woman being beaten on public transit. I decided I was going to stop it non-violently. I know the guy was going to kick the crap out of me. I was scared to a level I could not imagine.( I went to an urban high school for a while and worked with violent mental patients so I was able to defend myself. I never experienced fear like that) I was lucky it stopped before I could get to him. From that point on I knew I was not strong enough to be perfectly nonviolent. I do believe that the Highest man is the nonviolent one. In Hinduism this is the duty of a monk. I have a family so it is ok to defend my self and others. To create a safe society that can produce the peaceful humans. It is our belief that by selfless service of others we can evolve to a high level.

From a Hindu point of view Jesus was attempting to create monks. His teaching were for folks who had families and lived a common day to day life. His anti sex, give all your money to the poor, and pacifism seems not the life style of the common man.

Yes Jesus spoke many truths and I guess that is the purpose for salvation, we cant meet the mark.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because like Jesus said He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Tis fine for Xtians to refuse the use of weapons in self-defense. Just don't expect to force me to live by that faith.
The way I see it.....He who lives by the sword, lives.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Tis fine for Xtians to refuse the use of weapons in self-defense. Just don't expect to force me to live by that faith.
The way I see it.....He who lives by the sword, lives.

Why would I ? Who am I to tell you how to live. The fact is if all of us lived that way we would be over run and all of us would be slaves. I believe this teaching is just for some, not all.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why would I ? Who am I to tell you how to live. The fact is if all of us lived that way we would be over run and all of us would be slaves. I believe this teaching is just for some, not all.

I hope I didn't sound harsh....we be good.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I hope I didn't sound harsh....we be good.

We are always good bro.

 

[Requia]

Sorry but verses you use are simbolic. You are grasping at straws. You should know it was a fact for the first 200 years of church History if a Christian joined the army he could not be a member of the church.

The idea of the reformation was to arive at the beliefs of the early church. You have seemed to reject this notion.

Jesus said this.

Matthew 5

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Either this is true or your bible is full of contradictions which one is it. Here are some more statements from early christians.

We who formerly murdered one another now refrain from making war even upon our enemies.-Justin Martyr.

God puts his prohibition on every sort of man-killing by that one inclusive commandment you shall not kill-Tertullian

All Early Christians first 200 years rejected your views please give me some proof if I am wrong. If you don't want to believe this that all fine and good. Still it says what it says.

If any of us what to follow Christ. I have only meet 3 or 4 Christians in my life who I believe really want to do it 100% We must take up the Cross.
Because like Jesus said He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Some context for a couple of those

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

The custom in the time and place was to slap and inferior, but backhand an equal. It was also custom (I believe it still is?) in the middle east to only touch another person with your right hand. So if somebody slaps you on the right cheek, and you presented them with the left cheek, this is forcing them to either back down, acknowledge you as an equal, or shame themselves by touching you with their left hand.

Likewise, "If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles." A Roman soldier could make somebody carry their pack for them for one mile, but forcing them to go farther got them in trouble, going two miles with them was a way to get back at them for bothering you in the first place.

These aren't pacifistic statements, they're ways to fight back against those in power without getting into trouble.

 

[Kathryn]

.

Sorry but verses you use are simbolic. You are grasping at straws.

Nope- one of the verses I gave was where Jesus was talking to his followers IN THE GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE and he was offering practical advice, not symbolism. He made it clear that there is a time to use a weapon for self defense or the defense of others and that at times we may need to arm ourselves.

He did not tell Peter to get rid of his sword, even when Peter cut off the ear of the Roman soldier. He told him to put the sword back in it's sheath, but he did not tell him to get rid of it.

These words and others of Jesus imply that though we are to seek peace as much as possible, and even allow our enemies and those who wish to harm us some leeway, I do not believe that defense is condemned.

You should know it was a fact for the first 200 years of church History if a Christian joined the army he could not be a member of the church.

All Early Christians first 200 years rejected your views please give me some proof if I am wrong. If you don't want to believe this that all fine and good. Still it says what it says.

Here are a few soldiers and military men in the early Church, who were not only not required to give up their military service, but who are actually considered saints by the Catholic Church:

Agathius (died 303 AD)
Agathius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adrian of Nicomedia (died 306 AD)
Adrian and Natalia of Nicomedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crescentinus (died 303 AD)
Crescentinus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demetrius (early 300s)
Demetrius of Thessaloniki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eustace (died 118 AD)
Saint Eustace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Florian (died 304 AD)
Saint Florian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Longinus (first century)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longinus_(hagiography)

John and Paul (not THE John and Paul of the NT) died 362 AD
John and Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marcellus (mid 3rd century)
Marcellus of Tangier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maurice (mid 3rd century) HIS ENTIRE LEGION WAS COMPOSED OF CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS
Marcellus of Tangier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mercurius (died 250 AD)
Saint Mercurius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orestus/Edistus (died 60 AD)
Edistus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sergius and Bacchus (3rd century)
Saints Sergius and Bacchus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theodore (died 306 AD)
Theodore of Amasea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Typasius (died 304 AD)
Typasius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The idea of the reformation was to arive at the beliefs of the early church. You have seemed to reject this notion.

Actually, I'm a great fan of the early church, and have a lot of respect for the doctrines developed through the early church fathers.

Because like Jesus said He who lives by the sword dies by the sword

It IS true that a soldier is more likely to be killed in battle than to die asleep in his bed. It's a matter of taking risks.

The bottom line is - we all die. Some by the sword, and some in their beds at night. Pick your poison I guess.

 

[Archer]

Nope- one of the verses I gave was where Jesus was talking to his followers IN THE GARDEN OF GETHSEMANE and he was offering practical advice, not symbolism. He made it clear that there is a time to use a weapon for self defense or the defense of others and that at times we may need to arm ourselves.

He did not tell Peter to get rid of his sword, even when Peter cut off the ear of the Roman soldier. He told him to put the sword back in it's sheath, but he did not tell him to get rid of it.

These words and others of Jesus imply that though we are to seek peace as much as possible, and even allow our enemies and those who wish to harm us some leeway, I do not believe that defense is condemned.





Here are a few soldiers and military men in the early Church, who were not only not required to give up their military service, but who are actually considered saints by the Catholic Church:

Agathius (died 303 AD)
Agathius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adrian of Nicomedia (died 306 AD)
Adrian and Natalia of Nicomedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crescentinus (died 303 AD)
Crescentinus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demetrius (early 300s)
Demetrius of Thessaloniki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eustace (died 118 AD)
Saint Eustace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Florian (died 304 AD)
Saint Florian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Longinus (first century)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longinus_(hagiography)

John and Paul (not THE John and Paul of the NT) died 362 AD
John and Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marcellus (mid 3rd century)
Marcellus of Tangier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maurice (mid 3rd century) HIS ENTIRE LEGION WAS COMPOSED OF CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS
Marcellus of Tangier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mercurius (died 250 AD)
Saint Mercurius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orestus/Edistus (died 60 AD)
Edistus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sergius and Bacchus (3rd century)
Saints Sergius and Bacchus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Theodore (died 306 AD)
Theodore of Amasea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Typasius (died 304 AD)
Typasius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Actually, I'm a great fan of the early church, and have a lot of respect for the doctrines developed through the early church fathers.



It IS true that a soldier is more likely to be killed in battle than to die asleep in his bed. It's a matter of taking risks.

The bottom line is - we all die. Some by the sword, and some in their beds at night. Pick your poison I guess.

Great post. Frubs when I can.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Some context for a couple of those

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."

The custom in the time and place was to slap and inferior, but backhand an equal. It was also custom (I believe it still is?) in the middle east to only touch another person with your right hand. So if somebody slaps you on the right cheek, and you presented them with the left cheek, this is forcing them to either back down, acknowledge you as an equal, or shame themselves by touching you with their left hand.

Likewise, "If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles." A Roman soldier could make somebody carry their pack for them for one mile, but forcing them to go farther got them in trouble, going two miles with them was a way to get back at them for bothering you in the first place.

These aren't pacifistic statements, they're ways to fight back against those in power without getting into trouble.

When I went to bible college I learned about many of these customs are not true. (this might be the case with the whole back hand thing) Many of these customs have been made up over the last 500 years. The problem you have is that the early Church universally rejected your view on violence. (These people agreed on very few things) To the point your ideas would have made you not a candidate for church membership. Tell me why all the early Christians believed it one way. You think they are wrong. Would they not better understand the customs of the day. Why should I believe you over them?

I would recommend you reading the early Church fathers. You will find that modern American Christians almost show no likeness to the ethics of todays Christians.

If you like I could give you many more quotes.

 

[Archer]

When I went to bible college I learned about many of these customs are not true. (this might be the case with the whole back hand thing) Many of these customs have been made up over the last 500 years. The problem you have is that the early Church universally rejected your view on violence. (These people agreed on very few things) To the point your ideas would have made you not a candidate for church membership. Tell me why all the early Christians believed it one way. You think they are wrong. Would they not better understand the customs of the day. Why should I believe you over them?

I would recommend you reading the early Church fathers. You will find that modern American Christians almost show no likeness to the ethics of todays Christians.

If you like I could give you many more quotes.

Your points are valid but what impact do you see from the proliferation of the Bible in written form? People today are not superstitious and they are still reverent of the Divine. I mean in the crusades many of the foot men were ignorant and were told their sins were pre-forgiven. The Knights, many times, knew what they were doing and it was a quest for land, notoriety and power for them and they could use God as an excuse.

We may not be what those early Christians were but we are mild compared to the Roman born decedents.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

He did not tell Peter to get rid of his sword, even when Peter cut off the ear of the Roman soldier. He told him to put the sword back in it's sheath, but he did not tell him to get rid of it.

This is the modern view not the view of the early church fathers. Again you are putting your spin on this verse.

Here are a few soldiers and military men in the early Church, who were not only not required to give up their military service, but who are actually considered saints by the Catholic Church:

First off most of these soldiers existed well after to 200 years I was talking about.

2nd All of the early ones (by the info you gave) were legendary figures. Many of early saints never existed and there were even pagan gods that were turned in to saints. To convert the masses. They even turned the life story of the Lord Buddha into a saint.

You must remember that after Christianity became the official religion of Rome the rules were changed. The saints were used to back up this new morality. I tend to agree with the Roman Churchs view of a just war. I believe there changes were good. Still it does not change the fact of the beliefs of the early church.

It IS true that a soldier is more likely to be killed in battle than to die asleep in his bed. It's a matter of taking risks.

The bottom line is - we all die. Some by the sword, and some in their beds at night. Pick your poison I guess.

It is now believed that roman soldiers lived longer then the average roman citizen due to better food and living conditions.

 

[Requia]

When I went to bible college I learned about many of these customs are not true. (this might be the case with the whole back hand thing) Many of these customs have been made up over the last 500 years. The problem you have is that the early Church universally rejected your view on violence. (These people agreed on very few things) To the point your ideas would have made you not a candidate for church membership. Tell me why all the early Christians believed it one way. You think they are wrong. Would they not better understand the customs of the day. Why should I believe you over them?

I would recommend you reading the early Church fathers. You will find that modern American Christians almost show no likeness to the ethics of todays Christians.

If you like I could give you many more quotes.

Early church? There wasn't a unified church until after Constantine, there might have been some groups pushing for pacifism, but there's literally nothing everybody agreed on.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Early church? There wasn't a unified church until after Constantine, there might have been some groups pushing for pacifism, but there's literally nothing everybody agreed on.

Sorry, but as far as I can tell this is one of the points the whole church agreed. I have not read one contradiction of this fact in the early church. Even in the writings of the proto orthodox church criticizing the gnostics. They seem to admit that they lived up to this standard, they just believed they were less willing to push the martyrdom issue. I guess some of the gnostics believed by forcing the roman authorities to kill them it was influencing them to behave in a violent manor. If you can find some writings on this issue please point it out. I have been looking for them.

Again my argument is that this was the position of the early church. The problem with Sola Scriptura you are left with this idea only. I think that the belief of the RCC and the Orthodox churches on using the bible and the church councils is more reasonable.

What ever your views, pacifism was a common early christian view and should be respected as such. It is almost completely ignored in America today. Gun ownership has become a christian Issue in this country. There is no support for this view in the early church. The early Christians were much more interested in feeding the poor then self defense.

It is hard for me to understand my old friends from my Christian days who makes this a major reason to support a candidate while tying it in to their faith.

One more time I am not arguing that ever Christian should be like gandhi.

 

[Oberon]

G1223
διά
dia
dee-ah'
A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.

It doesn't really help to copy and paste the entirety of a lexical entry of a preposition when it comes to it's use in compound words. They are polysemous, even more so than most words. The "thoroughly" part of the "shake thoroughly" is the dia here.

Taken in context this is not saying commit no violence it is saying no unnecessary roughness or intimidation, epically intimidation.

It's actually even simpler. It's don't take money by force or threat of force.

 

[Archer]

It doesn't really help to copy and paste the entirety of a lexical entry of a preposition when it comes to it's use in compound words. They are polysemous, even more so than most words. The "thoroughly" part of the "shake thoroughly" is the dia here.




It's actually even simpler. It's don't take money by force or threat of force.

If I don't put it all out there and not use my own words I have to listen to people complain about what something does or does not mean. This way it is all out there and beyond repute (well it should be)

Cut and paste is easier than typing it out:run:

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

No I watched the whole thing and what part of this was not clear? "Rhetoric. Ignore the commentary and focus on the facts. He was responsible and he was not there when the shooting was going on and if he had been then he would have shot at the shooter not the guy holding the gun."

"Sorry that = fail."

If he had been there before the tackle he would have not shot at the wrong person and the fact that he did not shoot also shows responsible gun ownership because the situation was getting under control and he did not know the facts. He could not have shot the wrong person because he did not shoot. Don't twist things man.

lolwut? Um, pretty basic logic fail there. "Could have" != "did." The important thing is that the guy was ready to fire his gun, and in doing so would have killed an innocent bystander. Though this is just one case, however serious, it does prove that having an armed citizen nearby is not an automatic deterrent to someone else shooting innocent people.

 

[Archer]

having an armed citizen nearby is not an automatic deterrent to someone else shooting innocent people.

I can 100% agree with that and I will add to it. A sick in the head individual will rush into a hail of gunfire to make a kill. I don't believe a nut job is deterred by anything.

I think I stated earlier that even if the guy with the gun had been out there he probably would not have had a clear shot anyway. In many cases the armed person will be the one who can stop the violence in its tracks but the deterrent factor come in when dealing with sane people.

BTW: saw today he plead not guilty.