News-Record.com

people conceal a lot of other things while they are in church - why should guns be any different?

LOL, Buz. But they can't conceal anything from God, right?
How bizarre! Has that pastor never read that he who l;ives by the gun shall die by the gun? What are they afraid of, that God will not protect them? Or that He needs a little help? O ye of little faith! If God is for you, as Paul says in Romans, who can be against you?

yes it was tongue in cheek kuranes. can't speak for others but if God chooses not to protect me then i am at His mercy. i'm neither for or against those who wish to carry firearms into our churches. if anyone if gullible enough to think a law like that will stop people from arming themselves, then they are mistaken. it isn't gun which we need to worry about in our churches, it is lack of love for our fellow man and all that love encompasses. a six shooter can kill six (hypothetically) but an untamed tongue can kill a generation.
kuranes i believe quotes from resources other that the bible would be better received from you. your recitation of scripture is hollow and empty.
i sure wish they would make a blog for atheist ( or maybe this is that blog), it would be interesting to see the differences among that community. yes you once were lost and you still are but i'm certain you feel the same about me.

The instance of attacks on church families by the mentally deranged would seem to indicate that such a proposition is logical.
Kuranes- are you saying that a person who carrys a weapon to protect others "lives by the sword"? Doesn't seem to square with Jesus' point.
BTW, Jesus advised his followers to be prepared for the worst after his return to Heaven. In today's parlance, he told them to sell their unnecessary goods and buy a Glock(sword- a weapon of self-defense).
I have heard those who believe they can deconstruct Jesus' word to mean he was talking about the spiritual sword of the Word, but if you read his words carefully, you cannot mistake his meaning.

I seem to recall George Carlin saying that he didn't think it would be too long before the news started containing stories about disgruntled believers "going postal" in churches. I think of that every tie I hear of a shooting in a church. It's a sad thing to see, really, but the irony is worth looking at. To think that these people claim to follow a leader who said "turn the other cheek" and "love thy neighbor" would feel it necessary to pack heat when going to church. Really, it is amazing.

namtac,
Christians aren 't supernatural as you seem to think they should be - we are subject to each emotion and subsequent response that non believers are. you really don't have too much to be amazed about imo, i gotta believe the percentage of pistol packin' pew toads are few and far between.
being saved means saved from eternal separation from God - it does not mean we are better than you or even necessarily able to handle crisis better than you - so don't be sooooo amazed when a Christian falls on his face. what is amazing is God's grace and particularly His mercy, for without it neither you nor i would be here today.

I have not read anywhere in the Bible that
self-defense is not permitted. But I
realize that unpopular opinions do not
carry the day. Religion has always depended
on others to defend it.

Ronald Newton wrote: "I have not read anywhere in the Bible that
self-defense is not permitted." Ronald, you must have a different Bible from mine. My Bible contains these words of Jesus:
"But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your coat also; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Mat. 5:39-41, ESV. If these words do not mean that self-defense is not permitted, what on earth do they mean?

Bananamous: The quote was spoken by Jesus after Peter, trying to protect Jesus, cut off someone's ear; seems to fit the situation pretty well to me.

Buz says, "Kuranes i believe quotes from resources other that the bible would be better received from you. your recitation of scripture is hollow and empty." If I understand this rather garbled syntax correctly, you would rather I quoted from some other book than the Bible. Such as what? Is there another book full of contradictions and absurdities which you consider inerrant? I rather wish a lot of people on this blog could quote from a book other than the Bible once in a while; a lot of the Bible would be vastly improved by rising even to the level of being "hollow and empty". And no, I don't think you are "lost." I no longer presume to judge the spiritual standing of others, and according to your God, you shouldn't either (Mat. 7:1-5; Luke 6:37; 18:10-14).

Bananamous: The quote was spoken by Jesus after Peter, trying to protect Jesus, cut off someone's ear; seems to fit the situation pretty well to me.

Wrong- I too understand the concept that Jesus was putting forth. Let me distill it so you won't have to be confused. Jesus knew that his followers would be put upon by non-belivers- hence he advised them to arm themselves. Later, when Judas gave up Jesus, he prevented an armed confrontation with the police who were there to arrest him.
(The next part is hard for non-believers to understand).

Jesus did not want anything to interfere with His crucifixion. Therefore he "patched up" the policeman's ear and went willingly to his death (John 18:36).

Prior, when He asked his disciples how many swords they had, and the reply was two, He stated "that is enough".

No self defense for believers?
Exodus 22:2-4
Luke 11:21-22
Luke 22:36 and 38

""But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your coat also; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Mat. 5:39-41, ESV. If these words do not mean that self-defense is not permitted, what on earth do they mean?"

To the believer, they mean that attacks on your beliefs should be responded to in a way that the attacker will see that Jesus lives within your heart. Otherwise, all Christians would have gone the way of the dinosaurs (which I'm sure would please many non believers). It is illogical to think that allowing unbelievers to use our uncontrolled anger to escalate violence would in any benefit Jesus' ultimate act of love.

We are taught to submit to our leaders in such a way that they will recognize that there is more to us than appears on the surface. We pray for our leaders, even as we suffer under their misguided principles, secure in the knowledge that God is in charge.
I believe (no biblical references here) that God raised up America to show the world that He is great, and from this country thousands of missionaries have carried His word throughout the world. But, I fear, our usefulness is fading, and quickly.

But none of this has any meaning for you, does it? After all, I'm a backwards, knuckle-dragging, gun toting moron. why would I have anything to say that would interest you?

" If I understand this rather garbled syntax correctly".....i believe your self righteousness is showing. forgive me kuranes if my syntax is not up to your standard. but i do understand your need to attack me on such an issue.
"I rather wish a lot of people on this blog could quote from a book other than the Bible"........you seem to be one of the most prolific bible quoters here (oops,probably a syntax error).
kuranes you are a hater and that is apparent - and believers in your eyes cannot think rationally or come to solid conclusions based on their bible studies. i gotta go put some band aids on my knuckles, they been draggin' the ground :-)

Anonymous wrote: "No self defense for believers?
Exodus 22:2-4
Luke 11:21-22
Luke 22:36 and 38"

Sorry, Anon, but Luke 11 is from a parable referring to Jesus' casting out demons; it is not intended as an instruction on how Christians are to behave, unless you really believe Jesus wants us to break into the houses of those weaker than ourselves and steal their goods. Luke 22 is an instruction to the disciples only, in a particular and unique situation,unless you think God wants all His people everywhere to sell their clothes right now and buy swords. As for Exodus, I'm sure Nikos can think of several reasons why these rules do not apply to Christians today. Otherwise, why select this one law to apply today and ignore a hundred others just as relevant? The most it can prove is that self-defense is appropriate for Israelites when a thief is breaking into their house. It says nothing about personal assault, or for followers of Jesus, who mandated a stricter standard.
The passage about turning the other cheek does not refer to someone "attacking your beliefs." This is an all-too-typical example of the way supposedly literalist Bible interpreters change the plain meaning of Scripture. The text clearly says, "when someone strikes you on one cheek." No metaphor or poetic symbolism here. But you don't want to follow this command, so you change it into something it doesn't say.
As for "knuckle-dragging, gun-toting moron," thiose are not my words; I believe debate is not dignified or advanced by gratuitous insult. But if you think the shoe fits that well...

Buz: I do not hate Bible believers, nor do I think them irrational, except when their arguments prove it, as they too frequently do. But I have to quote from the Bible prolifically to illustrate my contention that it is full of contradictions and absurdities. I do find it odd that two Bible believers have referred to themselves as "knuckle-draggers." I thought you guys didn't believe we are descended from ape-like ancestors. If I'm wrong about this -- and I hope I am -- I applaud your scientific accuracy. Now if you would only apply it to the Bible...

"I do find it odd that two Bible believers have referred to themselves as "knuckle-draggers." I thought you guys didn't believe we are descended from ape-like ancestors".............................
kuranes it is quite a stretch by anyone's standards to make my comment about knuckle dragging (i would have thought you might get the tongue in cheek comment) akin to me believing in evolution.
i pointed out your constant use of scripture to show you your own contradiction.
you know what they say about a reformed smoker, just how big a critic they are - the same stands true for an one time believer turned atheist. many atheist who have blogged here are extremely critical of evangelical Christians wanting to spread the gospel - yet at every turn they would try to convince believers that here is no God - i would call that proselytizing. Mat.16:6 addresses this, but of course you knew that. off to work for me..........

Evidently you did not realize that my comment also was tongue in cheek. And the remark about converts applies also to atheists who convert to Christianity. How many of them have a good word to say about atheism or atheists afterward? But why should that be surprising? Look at Paul, so consumed with guilt as his persecuting the church that he went out of his way to be more Christian than anybody else.
Nor is my quoting scripture a "contradiction." I expressed a wish that the Biblical literalists on this blog would occasionally quote from some other book. Since I am not a Biblical literalist, I am not bound by that wish. However, just to show that I can be a good sport, I will quote from a non-Biblical source:

"What is the most rigorous law of our being? Growth. No smallest atom of our moral, mental, or physical structure can stand still a year. It grows -- it must grow; nothing can prevent it. It must grow downward or upward; it must grow smaller or larger, better or worse -- it cannot stand still. In other words, we change -- and must change, constantly, and keep on changing, as long as we live. What then is the true gospel of consistency? Change. Who is the really consistent man? The one who changes. Since change is the law of his being, he cannot change if he is stuck in a rut...The same men who enthusiastically preach loyalty to church...are always ready to persuade a Chinaman or an Indian or a Kanaka to desert *his* church...The man who deserts to them is all that is high and pure and beautiful -- apparently; the man who deserts from them is all that is foul and despicable... Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world -- and never will."
Mark Twain, "Consistency," 1887. Lib. of America, Tales, Sketches, Speeches, and Essays 1852-1890, p.909,916.

kuranes,
i now know where obama got his idea :-)

LOL, buz. He could do worse than Twain for a guide. And probably will.