The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Should a Christian "bear arms"?

Kulindahr

Knox's Papa
JUB Supporter
50K Posts
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Posts
123,002
Reaction score
4,576
Points
113
Location
on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
I thought about putting this in the religion forum, but I decided it should have a wider audience. Please try to treat it, and others here, with the same sort of respect that would apply in the religion forum, please.

In the discussion of the D.C. gun ban issue going before SCOTUS, it was asked whether a Christian ought to be carrying any weapon at all. Here's a snippet to get things going here:
So, you're saying Jesus wasn't a pacifist? What about Matthew 5:38-39? Was I taught all wrong? And what of Matthew 26:52? John 18:22-23?


So what do you think: should a Christian bear arms?
 
I looked them up:

Matthew 5:38-39

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 26:52

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.

John 18:22-23

22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?
23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?
 
I don't see any conflict with being a Christian and bearing arms. The verses in Matthew and John have nothing to do with whether or not a person can bear arms. While I might "turn the other cheek" and seek a peaceful solution to conflicts, I'm not forbidden from taking up arms should the need arise. For example, if I'm called to go to war and fight, there's nothing in the Bible that says I shouldn't. I'm sure people will have many different opinions on this matter.
 
So what do you think: should a Christian bear arms?
No, but they should arm bears.

bear_arms.jpg
 
Before we quote biblical references, we need to understand the historical and cultural setting. Jesus is talking to a nation ready to break free of Roman occupation, the grip of the Herod dynasty, and to go it alone. The people he spoke to by and large were the poor and marginalized of society. Sometimes it's better to accept reality than to do something foolish like taking on the Roman Empire or the authorities. They learned that lesson a few years later when Jerusalem was destroyed and the Temple demolished. He is also talking about the use of violence in inter-personal relations. Sure it feels good to smack an idiot, but then you have to live with the fall out. Sometimes it's just better to walk away. Again, remember his audience.

I think if a Christian wants to keep a gun they should. If they feel it is a violation of their conscience they shouldn't but it shouldn't be a decision forced on them by the Church or it's leaders.

One last note. Jesus is recorded as taking a whip and beating the shit out of the folks he believed defiled the temple. Jesus got angry. Jesus hit people. Jesus was not a pink pantied preacher who walked dirt roads with a pie in the sky mentality. I don't think he meant for people to see themselves at doormats.
 
One last note. Jesus is recorded as taking a whip and beating the shit out of the folks he believed defiled the temple. Jesus got angry. Jesus hit people. Jesus was not a pink pantied preacher who walked dirt roads with a pie in the sky mentality. I don't think he meant for people to see themselves at doormats.
Jesus also lived over 2000 years ago during the Bronze Age, and they didn't have guns then.
 
Should ANYONE "bear arms"?

No. Life is the only truly sacred thing. Instruments of death are enemies of Creation. It's hard for something to be objectively evil... but guns most certainly are.
 
To be a Christian and bear arms is the biggest hypocrisy and the greatest disrespect to the teachings of Christ. It shows a person who follows Jesus only to pay lip service rather than put actual practise into what they preach.

One of the fundamental teachings of Jesus was that of forgiveness. And also that of judgement. Jesus talks about the number of times we should all forgive. To bear a weapon is not to even consider forgiveness. If one cannot even forgive then they missed the point completely.

Jesus said that the person who calls their brother a fool has already committed a crime against God.

This is why the road to salvation is the hardest, because to walk with vengeance and carry a weapon is easy. It's primitive. To be of the highest kind of being is to be able to forgive. That is hard for anyone to do, and that's what makes the act so sacred.

A Christian to takes up arms is just as hypocritical as a Jew who eats pork or a Buddhist who lives in a mansion in Malibu.
 
One last note. Jesus is recorded as taking a whip and beating the shit out of the folks he believed defiled the temple. Jesus got angry. Jesus hit people. Jesus was not a pink pantied preacher who walked dirt roads with a pie in the sky mentality. I don't think he meant for people to see themselves at doormats.

So then why would such an angry person who was the all powerful son of God allow the Roman soldiers to humiliate him and finally crucify him? And rather than smite them, he allowed to go on. And when he died he said "Forgive them for they do not know what they do?"

This doesn't sound like someone who would endore the use of weapons.
 
Jesus never "whipped the shit" out of anyone, based on the Scriptural record. Tables overturned and driving people out of the Temple does not equal acts of personal violence against humans.

Jesus said many things that relate to the the use of weapons, in which Jesus drew on much of the Common Covenant (Old Testament) teaching which is very specific that the people of God are not to put their trust in weapons.

Jesus' last command pre-crucifixion was "put away your sword" rebuking Peter for using a weapon.

The Christian Church was a pacifist church from Pentecost right up until 325, when Constantine had his convenient "vision" and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire, the worst thing to happen in Christian Church history. The cross, a sign of pacifism, was now used as a military emblem.

What any one individual Christian might do - and I am a pacifist who is the father of a Marine - is rooted in their conscience before God, which must take great note of the Biblical and Church norms (norms prior to Constantine) and what the Church has taught since. I am proud of my Marine son; he made a decision that I would not make but he made it in good conscience after he wrestled with the issue and that as all I can ask.

A question such as what titles this thread is never asked in isolation and I wonder what the intent, what the motive, what the context is of this question.
 
^ Are you sure Constantine just didn't get a "fuller revelation of god's word"?

God's been doing that every generation or so since apparently.

Yes, I am sure that Constantine did not get a "fuller revelation of G[g]od's word." Constantine pulled a power play, which is far more common to human experience.

What you see apparently happening appears to be pejorative and I don't accept your premise at all.

I love you, Maestro P, but the slams at my faith do get tiresome. If that is not what you meant I apologize but the sarcasm seems to keep on coming as if no one possibly understands that people - people - use and twist things for purposes that are wrong and wrongly claim divine sanction for their misdeeds.

And yet faith, and the understandings of it, evolve. Music does, life does, culture does, of course faith does.

A revelation that I do have and can share is that you are a wonderful and blessed person of great talent and wonderful human caring and we are the better for knowing you in this forum, and would be ever better served if in real life your acquaintance was made.
 
One last note. Jesus is recorded as taking a whip and beating the shit out of the folks he believed defiled the temple. Jesus got angry. Jesus hit people. Jesus was not a pink pantied preacher who walked dirt roads with a pie in the sky mentality. I don't think he meant for people to see themselves at doormats.

I think "beating the shit out of" is seriously stretching the meaning of the text. It does entail striking people with the whip, or at the very least flicking them with it.

Should ANYONE "bear arms"?

No. Life is the only truly sacred thing. Instruments of death are enemies of Creation. It's hard for something to be objectively evil... but guns most certainly are.

That life is truly sacred is the reason why people should bear arms: to protect against those who don't think so. Guns are the best tool for that, that has ever been invented.

If you believe guns are evil, then you favor disarming the police, and military -- right?
 
Sixth commandment
'thou shalt not kill'

'Thou shalt not kill any living thing,' for life is given to all by God, and that which God has given, let not man taketh it away. ~Jesus, Gospel of the Holy Twelve, (earliest known recorded words of Jesus)

"Thou shalt not kill." ~Exodus 20:13 Authorized version of King James
 
To be a Christian and bear arms is the biggest hypocrisy and the greatest disrespect to the teachings of Christ. It shows a person who follows Jesus only to pay lip service rather than put actual practise into what they preach.

One of the fundamental teachings of Jesus was that of forgiveness. And also that of judgement. Jesus talks about the number of times we should all forgive. To bear a weapon is not to even consider forgiveness. If one cannot even forgive then they missed the point completely.

Jesus said that the person who calls their brother a fool has already committed a crime against God.

This is why the road to salvation is the hardest, because to walk with vengeance and carry a weapon is easy. It's primitive. To be of the highest kind of being is to be able to forgive. That is hard for anyone to do, and that's what makes the act so sacred.

A Christian to takes up arms is just as hypocritical as a Jew who eats pork or a Buddhist who lives in a mansion in Malibu.

Remember that we're talking about the guy who instructed his disciples to go get swords? and who was the author behind the scriptures that set forth that there is no guilt in using violence against an intruder or attacker, but there is guilt for not fighting off an attacker?

So then why would such an angry person who was the all powerful son of God allow the Roman soldiers to humiliate him and finally crucify him? And rather than smite them, he allowed to go on. And when he died he said "Forgive them for they do not know what they do?"

This doesn't sound like someone who would endore the use of weapons.

Well, as I pointed out, this is the guy who instructed his disciples to acquire swords. It's also the guy who used a hand-made whip to drive trespassers from his dad's place -- and a whip is a weapon.

The Bible says "Though shalt not kill" and "Turn the other cheek".. these statements don't seen open for much interpretation.

Actually the Bible says, "Don't murder!" Defense of tribe, home, family, and self are exempted if you read on.
"Turn the other cheek" has to be taken in context; there's nothing to suggest he meant attacks intended to do bodily harm or murder.
 
'Thou shalt not kill any living thing,' for life is given to all by God, and that which God has given, let not man taketh it away. ~Jesus, Gospel of the Holy Twelve, (earliest known recorded words of Jesus)

That thing is a fraud. There's no document in existence, and no evidence whatsoever that there ever was one. The "editors" said as much straight out -- and on of those editors was Emmanuel Swedenborg, which says a few things about the whole deal.

"Thou shalt not kill." ~Exodus 20:13 Authorized version of King James

More accurate: "Don't murder". I already noted the given exceptions.
 
Of course I need to be armed. I am God's avenging Angel!
 
That life is truly sacred is the reason why people should bear arms: to protect against those who don't think so. Guns are the best tool for that, that has ever been invented.

If you believe guns are evil, then you favor disarming the police, and military -- right?

The only way to protect yourself from people who don't think life is truly sacred, is to help them realize that life is truly sacred. Toting around a gun will do the opposite. Nothing is more contrary to life than an instrument of death.

The police, the military? By all means, disarm them.

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

John Lennon died because some loony had access to a gun. Had John carried a gun on that day, he would still have died. A bulletproof vest might have saved him, but a gun wouldn't have.

The fear and testosterone motivated urge for you to buy a gun is no different than Iran's urge to develop nuclear weaponry. No-one in their right mind would start a nuclear war... but Ahmadinejad doesn't seem, to me at least, like he's in his right mind. You should ask yourself if you are... not saying that you're crazy, but if you own a gun, you should definitely be sure you're sane.

No matter how right you think you are, the person who's shooting at you- the person you're killing, thinks (s)he is just as right. There's practically no difference between you, and some homophobe that buys a gun so that the gays wont rape him. There WOULD be, if you hadn't armed yourself against him. But there isn't.
 
That life is truly sacred is the reason why people should bear arms: to protect against those who don't think so. Guns are the best tool for that, that has ever been invented.

No they aren't. Guns are in the least signs of aggression. They loudly state what their intent is. A gun doesn't say 'Hello' at you. And anyone who has ever had a gun held to their face or pointed at them felt threatened. Whether the person held it with a malicious intent or not, the person having a gun pointed at them felt fear.
If a person carries a weapon in order to make others see their point of view, then they are attempting to coerce another into a way of thinking. Rather than using words, compassion as a method of example, you're using force. That it itself is a disrespect to life and an infringement of autonomy.

If the gun is the greatest tool in making everyone come around to the appreciation of the sanctity of life, and the recognition of life as sacred, and creation as holy, then why after all these years after the creation of the gun, we still have endless, senseless violence? Violence that is only propagated by gun. My gun wasn't big enough to kill you, so I will make a bigger one.

If indeed it was the case that gun would ultimatly make others come to our point of view then wars would have no longer been fought after the first war between peoples.

If you believe guns are evil, then you favor disarming the police, and military -- right?

In her book "The Ethics of Ambiguity" Simone De Beauvoir refers to the police force as 'lazy brutality'. And I agree with this. A gun doesn't stop ask what the motivations behind a person's act is. It doesn't analyze that perhaps oppression and marginalization, and depravation is the cause behind criminology. A gun is also prejudiced. A gun is never held at the head of a corporate king pin that was ripped of society and exploits children in the third world, or sexually harasses its employees.
So I do believe firmly believe that guns should be banned everywhere. Violence has only bred violence. The police force doesn't have much respect from societies; rather they instil fear, especially now given the situations that we're living in which there is so much mistrust and aggression in the name of 'security'. I can guarantee this to you: A terrorist will most likely never harm me. I somehow doubt that I'm the guy Osama is after. And therefore I do not want anyone imposing their security upon me. Much less with a weapon in order to make me feel degraded and at another's mercy. It is my right as a human being.

Now, I recognize that that to ask forces to give up their weapons is unrealistic and impractical now. There's no way this could happen. There is too much hatred, mistrust and prejudice in order to be able to put down a weapon. But the reason societies cannot put down weapons is because they have come to rely on them as their means of as you stated above
to protect against those who don't think so

And hence the reason why human kind will kill it's brethren with the same guns meant to make us all come around to a uniform way of thinking and once devastated completely kill himself.
 
Remember that we're talking about the guy who instructed his disciples to go get swords? and who was the author behind the scriptures that set forth that there is no guilt in using violence against an intruder or attacker, but there is guilt for not fighting off an attacker?

You'll have to provide me with the passages for this. My memory escapes me now. I don't think I'm familiar with these instances, so just give me the chapters, etc so I can look them up in my bible.
I do know that he said he was not here to bring peace but rather a sword. And he would turn fathers against sons and mother against daughters. But then this shows the inconsistency of his teachings.

Actually you seem very intent on that. What you would like us to see is a violent trigger happy Jesus who uses force in order to bring about peace. This contradicts wholly the Jesus I read about. The one who split one fish and one bread and fed everyone to their heart's content, the one who when the adulteress was to be stoned to death, he asked the congregation who was free of sin cast the first stone no one did and he said "Who here judges you?" and she said "No one" and HE SAID 'THEN NEITHER DO I'. The son of God. The one without sin. The one who could've thrown the stone. He said "I DO NOT JUDGE YOU". The Jesus I read about also kept his disciples from striking at the Roman soldiers when the Roman soldiers came in to get him. The Jesus I read about did not lash out violently against Judas knowing what Judas would do...

If this is the case, that this same shepherd of his flock is also endorsing violence, then it tells me something about the conflict of his doctrine. Such polarized contradicting views from one who was supposed to be the son of God? Something isn't working in the masterplan then. If a perfect being is that inept and inconsistent in what they believe then should be followed in the first place? But I suppose then this shows the state of Christianity doesn't it? A faith who has dismissed everything about feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, housing the homeless, not looking for the spec of dust in your brother's eye while there's a plank of wood in yours, FORGIVENESS... somehow it has dismissed that and has opted for gun lovin' Jesus! The one who goes to Iraq to kill because they don't they don't think the same as he and he has to convert them as means of salvation.

If this is the deity that sets the example, then it's not really all relevant whether or not Christians bear arms. It’s not like their feeding the third world while gorging in the first, right? Or forgiven those that has trespassed against them. If Christianity is a faith in which you can pick and choose whether or not you will kill today and forgive tomorrow, then I don't think it should be utilized as something valid and worth discussing because either way you're wrong I'm right. As per the teachings Jesus who as per you it seems was a very confused man.
 
Remember that we're talking about the guy who instructed his disciples to go get swords? and who was the author behind the scriptures that set forth that there is no guilt in using violence against an intruder or attacker, but there is guilt for not fighting off an attacker?



Well, as I pointed out, this is the guy who instructed his disciples to acquire swords. It's also the guy who used a hand-made whip to drive trespassers from his dad's place -- and a whip is a weapon.



Actually the Bible says, "Don't murder!" Defense of tribe, home, family, and self are exempted if you read on.
"Turn the other cheek" has to be taken in context; there's nothing to suggest he meant attacks intended to do bodily harm or murder.


You see, here is where your ideology takes over and we start with the wild abuse of the Scriptures.

The disciples/sword thing is metaphor but if you wish to argue it is not, then Jesus' last word on that was "put away your sword." Read the whole Bible, not the parts you like.

That last paragraph (or, two sentences) is (are) sheer falsehood (utter bullshit would be a good phrase for your claims, but it is a holiday after all). And I dislike when people make stuff up and say that is what the Bible says; no, it does not.

You want to justify your gun lust, go ahead, but don't do violence to the Scriptures to proof-text at best and fabricate as practice some sort of justifications for your lust for things that go "boom" in your hand.
 
Back
Top