Summations Only

Police: Shooting at Phoenix-area school was a murder-suicideEarly reports are that two 15-year old girls are dead, one shooting the other and then herself. They were found with a suicide note and a gun nearby. Where did they get the gun?--Percy

Perhaps certain things about what Jesus said do appear to contradict conventional wisdom and earthly logic. But do you really consider that to be a strong argument that Jesus did not actually mean those things? According to the text, Jesus sent people out in twos to strange towns without money, food, or arms and told them not to worry about it. As best as we know, John is the only one of the original disciples to escape a violent death.If your point is to say that those examples don't apply to you, maybe you are correct. But I think those examples are enough to show that this particular argument you are advancing is total nonsense. Yes, this is advanced as a major argument. I am sure it is one that Bundy and his crew would heartily endorse. But its not an argument that is recognized legally as a legitimate aim of the second amendment. Historically, I don't recognize any armed attempts to oppose the US government with arms as legitimate. Those instances have invariably been despicable.

As often happens, I haven't the slightest idea where you are getting what you are saying, or even quite sure what you ARE saying. But I did not say I think He didn't mean them. You seem to have read me as saying the opposite of what I meant. I was behind everything I said about what is required of us as Christians. We ARE to die. I think there are different sides to this question about there ever being any justification for self-defense for a Christian, I think it certainly involves the fact that we are citizens of nations in which most people are not Christians, and the fact that Jesus did not address nations but individuals, for starters, but I have no doubt whatever that Christians are called to be ready to die for the gospel, and die in many different ways. The different levels make the conversation complicated but "the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" and I've never doubted that. It MAY mean we should not own any means of self-defense but that's part of the complications. But somehow the argument hasn't gone in the right direction to have this discussion, and maybe it shouldn't be had on this thread anyway.Athanasius (I think): The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Come to Christ and die. abe: actual quote is "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die. /abeFrancis of Assisi: It is by dying that we are born to eternal life (except I extend it to the effect of the gospel on others and not just on ourselves)Jesus: Unless a grain falls to the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies it bears much fruit.Etc. etc. etc. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Perhaps there are different sides.My point is that your chosen reference is not reasonably interpreted to back up the idea that Christians ought to be armed. In fact, I see Jesus saying the exact opposite of that. What you are citing as an interpretation that could be read that way is no more a recommendation that is Jesus 'recommendation' about divorce when he acknowledged that Moses had allowed it.

Jesus made a very clear opposition to what Moses said.But you seem to be completely missing my current emphasis. I'm not arguing about Luke 22, I've concluded that it's ambiguous, despite your opinion to the contrary, and gone on to the strong scriptural emphasis on NOT being armed, the points that can and should be taken as AGAINST self-defense by Christians.Willingness to die at the hands of ISIS so that some Islamic militants might be saved is not an argument for self-defense, but an argument that Christians are to die in order to achieve the spread of the gospel.I also wanted to make it clear that I'm not abandoning the idea that Christians may in some circumstances defend themselves, I'm just shelving it for now, and at this point I still don't see Luke 22 as you do.I am, however, quite ready to consider that self-defense should never be the Christian mindset. If that's where you are then perhaps you could answer the question I asked earlier whether you are prepared to die without any resistance or defense whatever, and that your family die as well, at the hands of unsaved people who want you dead, in order that they might be saved. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not an easy question is it? In the end it is about following the law that God has given us through Jesus. We are called to love God and neighbour. If we see somebody being mugged on the street who are we going to love? I say that we are to love both by doing what we can to stop the mugging, which may include violence against the mugger as an act of love in regards to the victim, but we can also pray, or maybe even buy a meal or something for the mugger, as our way of showing love for him.So yes I would agree that as a Christian there is a time to be armed but I don't believe that in the North American environment there is any reason for that. We aren't called to live a life in fear, and we are both blessed to live where there isn't a reason to live in constant fear. Yes there are evil people and bad things happen but I don't believe that there is a need to give evil the victory by giving into fear.Again, it is all about the heart.

I think the situation with the mugger is fairly straightforward, a matter of helping the victim if there's any way that can be done, and I agree that mercy to the mugger is also right as long as no real harm has been done. (He may not want a meal though, he may be desperate for drugs). There is still the question whether it would help to have been armed in such a situation or not, and particularly if the mugger was armed for instance, but that's sort of a side issue for me at the moment.Because that's not really the situation I have in mind. I need to ponder this more though to figure out just what I do have in mind.Maybe it would help if I say that not ever being armed is the ideal situation for a Christian in my mind. I consider prayer and Bible truth to be powerful weapons. I defend gun rights and the second amendment because we live in a fallen world and at least unbelievers might be better off armed.But I need to think about this more.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Really? How about that breast plate of truth? Is that real armor? How about those feet fittings made from the gospel, or that belt of truth? Helmet of salvation? Sword of the spirit? "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood", seems like literal, real, weapons to you being used in defense against earthly enemies?Just what words would have to go into the text before you recognized a metaphor or two? Is there any serious doubt that the text is talking about spiritual warfare? Nope.

quote:

---

against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms

---

How are you seeing all of the text and yet insisting on literal swords? What part of "how Luke was written" suggests any such thing.The alternative is that the verses means Jesus is sending Christians out on something like a crusade. Surely, not. If you are supposed to be armed with real swords it is not because of this text. Isn't the best example of a disciple being armed the incident when Peter or another disciple cut off the slave's ear? Are there any other examples at all? Did Jesus carry a sword?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There is no ambiguity about Luke 22. I agree that it does not answer the question about whether you can carry real weapons, but the text certainly does not talk about carrying real weapons at all?Besides that, I never cited Luke 22 before the previous message. I instead cited other portions which are closer to being on point, but which arguably do not eliminate the possibility that carrying weapons is ok. My objection is to claims that such verses actually recommend carrying weapons. None of them do.I gave you a thumbs up for recognizing that you need to think of it more.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

NN, I've probably misread some of your posts but that's only par for the course with you. I rarely understand what point you are trying to make -- or more accurately, why you are saying what you are saying, which often seems unrelated to anything I'm saying. I don't know if that's your fault or mine but it's a common experience that needs to be acknowledged. I have not been addressing anything to do with whether scripture either allows or recommends carrying weapons for the last half dozen posts or so (starting with Message 4755), although it's interesting that now you are saying it may allow them -- that's a big concession it seems to me though you probably think you've been saying it all along. In any case I am off that topic and trying to consider what I said is my view of the ideal scenario for Christians, which is that we always go unarmed and trust to God, to God's word, to prayer. You keep coming back to Luke 22 though apparently you think I'm the one doing that. This gets awfully confusing. So of course I have no idea what you think I think I need to think more about, for which you gave me a thumbs up, and I suspect you might have misread that too. Please let's not go on with this though, things are confusing enough -- for me anyway.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Given that I quote your statements in each of those posts, I don't see how there can be a lack of relation to what you are saying. You claim not to be talking about Luke and yet I quote your statements regarding Luke in the messages I respond to.In any event, I won't pursue this any further. I don't want to confuse you anymore.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

In the Kalamzoo shootings I was again struck by how many victims died, especially with a handgun fired from a car. Presumably he pulled to a stop near his victims, opened the window, extended his arm out the window (shell casings matching his handgun were found at each scene), and opened fire.The San Bernardino mass shooters killed 14 out of 36, and their weapons with .223 assault rifles and and 9mm (.354) handguns. But the Kalamazoo shooter, Jason Dalton, killed six out of eight victims. The police haven't released the caliber of Dalton's gun, but my guess is a larger caliber, say .35 or higher.Looking at the mass shooting lists at Mass Shootings, the lethality varies considerably between incidents, and I wonder if bullet caliber is a factor. How big a caliber of weapon is needed for home defense?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Modify Title

A pump-action 28-gauge shotgun with no shells is plenty big enough, if you pretent to chamber a shell in a dark room.

Caliber is just the diameter of the bullet, so it's not as much of a factor as how many grains the bullet weighs, and how many grains of propellant it contains.A 22 caliber gun is a pretty weak one, but a .223 is much stronger even though the .223 is only 1% bigger in diameter. Check out how much more gunpowder is in the .223: Same goes for a 9 mm versus a .357 magnum. It's not the diameter of the bullet that makes the difference...

What do you think would happen if a medium sized town made it so every home owner had a gun?Do you think deaths from guns would go up?Do you think it would have any impact on violent crime rates?If gun deaths did not go up, and violent crime rates did go down, would you consider that as making everyone "safer"?