Evangelical Christian leaders in America have expressed their support for stricter gun regulations following December's tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where 26 people were fatally shot.
In a poll conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), 73 percent of church leaders agreed that there needs to be stricter gun regulations, in hopes that tragedies, such as the ones that occurred in Newtown, can be prevented or minimized in the future.
"Evangelicals are pro-life and deeply grieve when any weapons are used to take innocent lives," said Leith Anderson, President of the NAE. "The evangelical leaders who responded to the NAE survey support the Second Amendment right to bear arms but also want our laws to prevent the slaughter of children."...
jpw wrote: as for the UK, ... anyone who wants to feed, protect themselves is criminal. insane!
There's not much scope for feeding yourself in Britain. The wacko survivalist mentality is seen for what it is: a small minded American curiosity for those with the luxury of a big backyard.
Population density: USA 89 people per square mile. UK 673 people per square mile.
Only 5 countries, all in Asia (Bangladesh, India, Japan, Philippines and Vietnam), have both higher populations and higher population densities than the UK.
One advantage of a high population density: you are never far away from an extremely well trained and well equipped armed police rapid response unit. (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state - )
Neil wrote: Protecting life is a Christian duty, including one's own.
we cheer the gentleman, be it in uniform or not who is available during a crime to bring it to a swift end, to save the lives of the innocent. these stories exist and yet are not told enough. societies have armies and police for this, obviously the need to defend the innocent is part of legitimate gov, according to Romans 13 as well. the question, then, is if the individual saving his neighbor's life is also operating in legitimate gov. there are many honorable men in uniform that would say yes, and would much rather follow a call of that sort than the kind where no one was there to intervene. As far as I see, God gave Adam the physical strength to defend when necessary, who are we to take that from anyone? this is what creates a safer env in my opinion.
as for the UK, I hear a lot of violent stories there these days and then some who have defended themselves and their familiy sitting in prisons..... sounds like a step in the wrong direction to me. now some british doctors wanting to ban knives. guess we'll just go with the agenda 21 theme and have useless eaters on precooked box foods, helpless and anyone who wants to feed, protect themselves is criminal. insane!
John UK wrote: Ah but Neil, you are merely looking at concepts, rather than translating scripture into living reality. You are avoiding my "dilemma" and refuse to answer it.
That's putting the cart before the horse. Concepts (better, basic principles) must be established before secondary questions like application can be addressed. That's the problem with your posing a legal dilemma: you started out trying to show that Scripture forbids personal arms (a "concept"!), not that H.M. Gov't bans or licenses them, as you brought up later as an application. There's a *principle* we disagree on, so what's the use in discussing whether to obey the gov't or not?
Neil wrote: Sword licensing in the 1st century AD? I'm not interested in speculative historical fiction. You're just piling on more misrepresentation. What you're really saying is, not only weapons, but *all* physical force, is a state monopoly, am I right?
Ah but Neil, you are merely looking at concepts, rather than translating scripture into living reality. You are avoiding my "dilemma" and refuse to answer it. Yet if folks were to obey your suggestions, they may well find themselves disobeying God and going into a backslidden state needing repentance.
Your intelligence is a real stumbling block, but even that can be overcome by the grace of God. He will sanctify you, so long as you read his word, and great changes will take place. You may even be able to say one day, "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord."
I wonder how many things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. Any ideas? (clue, the answer isn't "some".)
John UK wrote: Ah....now you are trying to say that the swords which Jesus allowed his disciples to carry were licensed with the guv,
Sword licensing in the 1st century AD? I'm not interested in speculative historical fiction.
You're just piling on more misrepresentation. What you're really saying is, not only weapons, but *all* physical resistance to crime, even our bare hands, is a state monopoly, am I right? We should not even save a woman being raped before our eyes, but sit there & hope the cops show up in time.
Neil wrote: Where did I say "unlicensed?" That is clearly the sin of misrepresentation, as is also the uncharitable claim that I'm a dupe of propagandists.
Ah....now you are trying to say that the swords which Jesus allowed his disciples to carry were licensed with the guv, and they carried little pieces of paper stamped by the authorities.
Now then Neil, we are justified (declared righteous) by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. That is, his "good human life" was credited to us who believe. In fact, his life was the perfect life, and the example we are to follow. He kept the commandments perfectly, and so he never killed, wounded, or even hated another. This life was a life of love, and we are exhorted to follow it.
Now as I see scripture, there is an authority who have the right to make judgments and execute justice. This is law and order, and is instituted by God. The individual who goes against this, goes against God.
So if I carry a penknife down the street, even if it is to sharpen my pencils when I go out sketching (I use a 2B graphite pencil), and I am searched, I can be held guilty of carrying an offensive weapon.
John UK wrote: Ah but you do Neil. You put forward a case for carrying unlicensed arms for self-defence from scripture....But there is an escape from the propaganda you have subjected yourself to. ...you will shortly realise that Christianity is vastly different from that which is commonly put to us from pulpits.
Where did I say "unlicensed?" You added that adjective to my argument. That is clearly the sin of misrepresentation, as is also the uncharitable claim that I'm a dupe of propagandists.
As the above article says, what is commonly taught in pulpits on this subject is more likely *your* opinion, not mine.
Neil wrote: I do not need to solve your "hard case" dilemma to defend my view of Scripture.
Ah but you do Neil.
You put forward a case for carrying unlicensed arms for self-defence from scripture. You must either retract, or pay my fine.
Now I realise you are not interpreting scripture correctly. But that has come from being born in a country where culture has taken over from scriptural principles. So I am not blaming you at all. But there is an escape from the propaganda you have subjected yourself to.
If you read the New Testament with unblinkered eyes, you will shortly realise that Christianity is vastly different from that which is commonly put to us from pulpits.
John UK wrote: Who mentioned pacifism? Only you! Tell me now, in my country I am not permitted to carry either a gun or a sword or even a penknife. Are you saying that because Jesus authorised the carrying of (unlicensed, note!) swords, I ought to buy myself a gun for self defense?
If the shoe fits re pacifism, why not call it by its proper name? Don't like the sound of it?
I do not need to solve your "hard case" rabbit-trail to defend my view of Scripture.
Neil wrote: You just said that some verses were "local," which it's easy to see could apply to your Argument from Silence here. Evidently it was OK to have swords after this. I know why I'm here, but I don't know why I have to be a radical pacifist to be a Christian.
Who mentioned pacifism? Only you!
Tell me now, in my country I am not permitted to carry either a gun or a sword or even a penknife. Are you saying that because Jesus authorised the carrying of (unlicensed, note!) swords, I ought to buy myself a gun for self defense? Or should I obey the guv and the laws of the land?
If you say the former (obeying God not man), would you pay my fine or do my stretch in the nick please?
John UK wrote: Observe: Matthew 10:5-10 KJV Now you tell me, where were the swords? And if you are not living FOR HIM, and FOR THE GOSPEL, what on earth are you living for? Have you not worked out yet why you are here?
You just said that some verses were "local," which it's easy to see could apply to your Argument from Silence here. Evidently it was OK to have swords after this. The vital issue is, when to use swords, & when not to. I deny it is acceptable to use force for the Gospel's sake.
I know why I'm here, but I don't know why I have to be a radical pacifist to be a Christian.
Neil wrote: Well if Jesus's instructions to the disciples were "local," as you say, then how does that help your argument?
Observe:
Matthew 10:5-10 KJV 5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
Now you tell me, where were the swords?
And if you are not living FOR HIM, and FOR THE GOSPEL, what on earth are you living for?
John UK wrote: Neil, if you are not careful you will find yourself quoting some of the gospels to support your point, and other parts of the gospels you will say no longer apply to us today. You really need to sort out which commands were local and which commands were for all men.
Well if Jesus's instructions to the disciples were "local," as you say, then how does that help your argument? You offered no relevant proofs. Defending against crime is not a matter of martyrdom - notice how you qualified losing a life for *His sake & the Gospels*, which isn't my point here. How do we know that Paul had no duty to defend himself against highwaymen while on his journeys? Protecting life is a Christian duty, including one's own. Funny how you have no problem with that when it comes to diet, & presume to tell other people what they shouldn't eat.
Neil wrote: Strawman: What does anger have to do with protecting life? That the disciples were not permitted to defend Christ, so that His mission would be accomplished, does not logically imply they were forbidden to defend against common criminals uninterested in persecution as such, else why carry swords at all? To trim their fingernails? And how many examples must Scripture have before you take it seriously? In short you are jumping to conclusions not found in the context.
Neil, if you are not careful you will find yourself quoting some of the gospels to support your point, and other parts of the gospels you will say no longer apply to us today. You really need to sort out which commands were local and which commands were for all men.
Strawman: What does anger have to do with protecting life? That the disciples were not permitted to defend Christ, so that His mission would be accomplished, does not logically imply they were forbidden to defend against common criminals uninterested in persecution as such, else why carry swords at all? To trim their fingernails? And how many examples must Scripture have before you take it seriously?
In short you are jumping to conclusions not warranted from the context. Being completely defenseless is not our lot.
Neil wrote: You didn't respond directly to my post showing that Jesus's disciples were armed with swords, despite what you think of Matt. 10:16.
Ah yes Neil. It seems that although they had swords, they were not allowed to use them in anger, the Lord himself healing any wounds as soon as they were made, making the possession of the swords rather pointless.
Besides, you will be hard pressed to find any other example in the whole New Testament where disciples carried arms and used them. Rather, since Pentecost, the disciples of Jesus Christ were a persecuted people, rendering not evil for evil, but submitting to their fate as predetermined by their Lord, the apostles all dying the death, like their Saviour, as lambs to the slaughter, and later on, the followers were fed to the lions or crucified without uttering a word of hatred towards their persecutors, nor taking up weapons to defend themselves.
Neil, this is our lot.
If you desire to save your life, you will lose it. But if you lose your life for his sake, and the gospel's, you will save it.
Make flesh your arm if you will, but you will never thwart God's purposes. No-one has any power to do anything except it be given him from heaven.
John UK wrote: Oh well, I suppose the modern man's version says: Matthew 10:16 MMV 16 See, I send you forth as vigilantes in the midst of evil sinners: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmful as serpents.
...I tried to calm him down, and thankfully his girlfriend turned up and managed to drag him off home before he was arrested.
You didn't respond to my point that Jesus's disciples were armed with swords with His permission, despite what you think of Matt. 10:16 & the Tories.
I know John UK is a good & brave man; he told me so himself.
Neil wrote: Weapons also serve to protect other folks' hides, not merely our own. Application of "Love Your Neighbor As Yourself." And weapons do not need to be used to have a deterrent effect.
Matthew 10:16 KJV 16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
Oh well, I suppose the modern man's version says:
Matthew 10:16 MMV 16 See, I send you forth as vigilantes in the midst of evil sinners: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmful as serpents.
Sam Rye wrote: Trust God and keep a long organ pipe or a large crucifix, as Oliver Cromwell would say to us today. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/28/newsid_2527000/2527805.stm
I met a naked man in a public park in Devon, who claimed he was Almighty God. I tried to calm him down, and thankfully his girlfriend turned up and managed to drag him off home before he was arrested.
Jim Lincoln wrote: That's a weapon effect. It's not clear that guns cause violence, but it's absolutely clear that they change the outcome," said Wintemute.
And yet, there's that thorny Is-Ought Problem which spoils statistics-based lawmaking.
38
There are a total of 157 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
)
I'm not interested in speculative historical fiction.
