I'm thinking of buying a gun?

[Bravus]

Which takes me back to the point I made right at the start of the thread: I'm not making a moral judgement of anyone who chooses to do so. I have owned guns and fired guns myself - heck, I *like* guns. But just as a practical point, it's *much* safer to keep the gun outside your home, in the hands of a professional, than inside your home. Even with all the precautions in the world, things can go wrong: I know, I shot my best friend in the shoulder with a bb, just fooling around: I thank God it wasn't any other kind of gun, or that I didn't get him in the eye.

Not only accidents and foolishness: if an unarmed burglar is in your house, and you come at him with a gun, what happens if he wrests it out of your hands? You just made a bad situation much worse. And are you really willing to shoot to kill a terrified 15 year old kid who broke into your house for drug cash, when there's every chance that kid could later find redemption?

My point here is not that having a gun for protection is morally wrong in any absolute sense, I'm just not sure it makes sense. Better maybe to go to some effort and train in karate: that can't be taken away from you and used against you, and you'll get fitter and more flexible in the process.

How common are armed home invasions where you live? As opposed to maybe that scared kid, or a burglar who thought the house was empty and got it wrong? I still maintain that bringing the gun in makes your family less safe rather than more. And that is avoided by calling 911 and bringing in the armed professionals.

If lazarus decides to buy a gun to protect his family, more power to him. He needs a gun safe, trigger locks and a separate ammo safe, so it's not a cheap proposition, but if he thinks it's worthwhile, I'm not going to say he's morally wrong. But if you store it right, like that, then how much help is it if someone's in your house? Tiptoing around in your jammies to different rooms, finding keys, loading the gun? Karate, I tells ya!

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Karate, I tells ya!

---

Most martial arts are nothing more than dance routines that give a false sense of security to the practitioner. I learned that early on....After going through all the styles I opted for an unorthodox approach. I learned this by reading Bruce Lee's book, Tao of Jeet Kune do.

I can remember going to different dojos and acting as if I was starting out. In a matter of moments I would be sparing brown and black belts. Because their styles were based on Katas [prearranged fight patterns] I could easily outmaneuver them. The aim was simple: Feint high, kick low...Feint low, punch to the head. So much for, What would Jesus do?

What did I learn from all that training [from 12 to 23 years old]? Styles are worthless in real combat....They will get you killed!

I like what Bruce use to say: “Belts (as in black belts) are good to hold up your pants.” And as to breaking boards: “Boards don’t hit back”!….

Anyway, I gave that stuff up.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

If it is wrong for you, (general term) to own a gun to protect your family it is just as wrong to call those that have guns to protect your family and do things you, yourself think a sin. If your family is threatened, do not call 911.

---

I don't think anyone said it's wrong to protect one's family....What is technically wrong is the eye for an eye approach. Loving your enemy isn't placing a bullet between his eyes....

Christ had every right to protect Himself when the Romans beat, mocked and crucified Him. In human terms He had the absolute right to "bear arms" and destroy His enemies, but instead He was willing to said goodbye to life forever so His murders could have everlasting life.

So, I guess the question you need to ask is what would Jesus do? Then again, "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." Think God Jesus defeated "the flesh."

Rob

[Bravus]

Any good school will have you sparring early and often, with increasing degrees of contact, and that'll break you of the idea that katas are about anything but impressing certain movements in your muscles very quickly. In a fight you don't even so much *use* the karate as the confidence, awareness of how to get maximum power into kicks and punches and awareness of balance that karate gives you. I suggest it as an alternative to guns mostly because you have to *really* want to kill someone with karate (or any other martial art) to do so, and any decent dojo will work hard at training you in how not to, and because as I said above, it's the one 'weapon' that can be taken away from you and used against you or your family. Even nunchaku have the problem, whereas fists and feet don't.

[bonnie]

1. But just as a practical point, it's *much* safer to keep the gun outside your home, in the hands of a professional, than inside your home.

One would hope that people feeling the need to buy a gun for protection would first take the required training. As for keeping a gun in the hands of a trained professional, anyone that is oppossed to harming another in self-defense must also be oppossed to that remedy.

2. if an unarmed burglar is in your house, and you come at him with a gun, what happens if he wrests it out of your hands?

I am not responsible for the safety of an unarmed burgler. Hopefully he would have brains enough to understand what it was I held in my hands and what it could do to him. The object of having the gun of course would be to use it if it fact it appeared he would do be bodily harm. That would be his choice. Not something I would be hoping for, but his chooice in any event

3. And are you really willing to shoot to kill a terrified 15 year old kid who broke into your house for drug cash, when there's every chance that kid could later find redemption?

I wouldn't shoot a terrified kid. I wouldn't shoot anyone unless I felt he intended to physically harm me or mine. Material possesions can be replaced. No where did I indicate that was my intent.

4.My point here is not that having a gun for protection is morally wrong in any absolute sense, I'm just not sure it makes sense. Better maybe to go to some effort and train in karate: that can't be taken away from you and used against you, and you'll get fitter and more flexible in the process.

Learning karate places you very close to the very ones that may be trying to harm you. Maybe more than one in number. It may be a viable choice for some but not all.

5. How common are armed home invasions where you live?

In my small town? Some,not many yet. A couple of murders, a inordinate amount of level 3 sex offenders, but the MPLS area has many. One of the last ones did get a little to close to a gun. I imagine he is still running. The home owner was alerted by his dog to someone breaking into his garage. He opened the back door a crack, said "I have a gun, I will use it, shot it in the air, and all he heard was footsteps going as fast as possible the other direction

6. As opposed to maybe that scared kid, or a burglar who thought the house was empty and got it wrong?

These scared kids you speak of are not nearly so scared anymore. They know under a certain age little can be done. Example, a young lady rifling mailboxes for checks on our street. Federal offense, Right?? "She says,So What you can't touch me, I am not old enough." I am not long on sympathy for a burglar that happens to "get it wrong". He doesn't belong in my house anyway and sometimes there are consequences for your actions.

7.I still maintain that bringing the gun in makes your family less safe rather than more. And that is avoided by calling 911 and bringing in the armed professionals.

It can, if you don't take the responsibility of education and training your children. But for those that are oppossed to using a gun, armed professionals are not an options, or shouldn't be.

8. I'm not going to say he's morally wrong. But if you store it right, like that, then how much help is it if someone's in your house? Tiptoing around in your jammies to different rooms, finding keys, loading the gun? Karate, I tells ya!

We always had guns and would not have needed to tiptoe to every room in the house. They were kept safely out of reach of our children and when old enough, our children knew better than to touch them.Our their consequences would have been extremely severe.

I personally don't care who has or who doesn't own a gun. But for those that believe it to be morally wrong, or feel to take the life of another in self defense of your family or yourself is wrong, it is hypocrital to call 911 or rely on any armed professional. Some have mighty big guns, they know how to use them and will on your behalf, by your request, which makes you just as responsible as if you pulled the trigger.. As you stated, what if there was every chance for redemption of the person shot by that armed professional. Can't have it both ways

Bonnie

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

I still maintain that bringing the gun in makes your family less safe rather than more.

---

This is human advice:

Get pepper spray and/or an electrical stun gun....Use it only if you really, really feel threatened.

Also…a loud sound (such as alarm activated) will thwart most would be burglars. They don't like being on the evening news.

You see if your gun is locked up (as it should be) the intruder is not going to wait for you to take the safety off.

Rob

[bonnie]

Quote:

---

Robert said:

---

I don't think anyone said it's wrong to protect one's family....What is technically wrong is the eye for an eye approach. Loving your enemy isn't placing a bullet between his eyes....

Rob

---

Rob,

Please try to not interject something I did not say. I said nothing about an eye for an eye or getting even. I believe I was talking about protecting one's family. And as you have said, protecting one's family is not wrong, so at last we agree. We also agree it should not be about "an eye for an eye"

[Robert]

Never mind....

[bonnie]

Sorry Robert, I do mind sometimes when you like to project your own thinking onto me. When I said any that call and ask those with the guns to come and protect and sometimes use guns in a lethal way are as guilty as if they had done the deed themselves, it had nothing to do with emotion and I do believe it is biblically based. Reminds me a little of Pilate in a way. Pilate didn't want to do the deed, but had no problem with others doing it.

A true pacifist I have a little trouble understanding, but I do have respect for them. There are some religious sects that congregate near my hometown. They would not call the authorities no matter what for just the issues I raised. They will not physically harm or bear any responsibility for harm to another, no matter what the reason. While I don't understand how they can be that way, I can respect them for their consistency in belief.

For those that claim owning/using a gun for self defense of family is wrong, yet will pick up the phone if they can and call 911, the guys with the big guns is to put it kindly, inconsistent. If necessary, let them kill the guy, my hands are clean. Not emotion Robert, I think there is biblical basis for that.

[cricket]

There's 6 pages here, and I'm a lazy reader.

Has anyone suggested all the other means of securing one's home? Daily prayer, trimming back bushes around doors and windows, providing adequate lighting that is out of normal arms-length, knowing your neighbors well, posting emergency numbers near the telephone in plain view, installing a home security system, carrying a cell phone, routinely practiced escape routes, training children thoroughly with phone etiquette and safety, awareness of all escape routes, and any other common sense measures one might take are all invaluable.

I first queried Pastor "Lazarus" on whether or not he had a home security system already in place. Instead of jumping to the felt-need of owning a gun, there are so many other measures one should take before resorting to gun use.

Calling on the police for personal safety makes sense as well. They are trained professionals: they are trained to deal with all sorts of crimes on a daily basis. Unless one wants to be in that constant state of readiness, calling the police for protection is wise.

[there buster]

Quote:

---

You may not believe this, but If lived alone I wouldn't even think about havinga weapon. If it were me alone facing an intruder I would try my best to be non-violent. That fact that I have a wife and two young children makes all the difference. I have to defend them!

---

Seems eminently sensible to me. I've never owned or shot a gun, but I live in a pretty safe area. In the Seminary, in Christian Ethics class, we addressed this very question. And Lazarus has stated it pretty clearly. It's one thing to say, "I love you in Christ, do what you will to me." It's quite another to say, "I love you in Christ, do what you will to my wife and children."

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

As for those texts that some are implying that Jesus used whips ON people,

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Jesus clensed the temple twice. He used a whip the first time (John 2:12-22) "Jesus does not smite them with the whip of cords, but in His hand that simple scourge seems terrible as a flaming sword." DA 158

The second time He clensed the temple He did not use a whip. "Divinty flashed through humanity, investing Christ with dignity and glory He had never manifested before. Those standing near Him drew as far away as the crowd would permit... they were now more terrified than before, and in greater haste to obey His command. There were none who dared quastion His authority. Priests and traders fled from His presence, driving their cattle before them." DA 591, 592

[Amelia]

Sorry Rob, I know you are making a point but it seems to have gone flying over my head. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/oops.gif" alt="" />

[Bravus]

Of course, I sleep nekkid. Seeing a large, hairy, muscular naked guy come into the room screaming in a karate pose may well be enough all by itself: I'll try to avoid dispensing lethal heart attacks, but I can't promise. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Amelia]

OH MY GOODNESS!

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Bravus said:

Of course, I sleep nekkid. Seeing a large, hairy, muscular naked guy come into the room screaming in a karate pose may well be enough all by itself: I'll try to avoid dispensing lethal heart attacks, but I can't promise.

---

It might just work, although the coroner might put down that the cause of death would be death by respiratory insufficency, brought on by laughter.....

Nevertheless, Bravus, we love you man!

[lazarus]

Robert said:

Quote:

---

Deep stuff here....I'll quote Paul:

---

I pray that this was not sarcasm. We are all already aware that we are not as learned as you!

[David_McQueen]

I have never understood why a Christian would want to arm themselves for self defense. Surely if you have a gun, there is the highest possibility one day you will end up using it. Then what?

(Just talking aloud, and at no one in particular)

[Robert]

Quote:

---

lazarus said:

Robert said:

Quote:

---

Deep stuff here....I'll quote Paul:

---

I pray that this was not sarcasm. We are all already aware that we are not as learned as you!

---

No sarcasm...and no I don't know it all.

[Dr. Shane]

One shouldn't have a gun unless they are willing to use it. The issue really comes down to defending one's family. Would you rather kill someone or watch them rape and brutally murder your wife and children? That is easy for me to answer.

However, in today's society we have many options that can reduce the chance of us ever being in such a sistuation where we have to make that choice. Have a security alarm. They make them for apartments too. If one lives in an apartment, set the alarm not only to call the police but to call your neighbors too. If one lives in a house with a yard, get a dog and a security alarm. Have an evacuation plan. If the alrm goes off, everyone knows how to quickly get out of the house (i.e. bedroom window) and meet at a neighbor's house.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Ed Dickerson said:

It's one thing to say, "I love you in Christ, do what you will to me." It's quite another to say, "I love you in Christ, do what you will to my wife and children."

---

Okay Ed...I'm just thinking out loud here...no attacks. It seems we always get into it. So I'm being careful in my reply.

All of us (bad & good) are God's children. After all when God says, I love you...that love is more than empty words...God's unconditional love was demonstrated when the human race murdered His Son and yet God still loved us.

But unlike your point - "It's quite another to say, 'I love you in Christ, do what you will to my wife and children'" - it seems that God allows bad things to happen to His children.

To me this isn't because God is callous, but rather I see it as greater evidence that He doesn't react with violence as we do.

:2cents:

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Amelia said:

Sorry Rob, I know you are making a point but it seems to have gone flying over my head.

---

Upon examining the context involving the sword, I believe Christ allowed it because, if you will, the hardness of the disciples' hearts.

Just like Moses gave the Jews a decree of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts, Jesus allowed the disciples to learn that all who live by the sword die by the sword.

Apparently up to that point in time God had been taking care of them [see Luke 22:35], but they wanted more indepency as demonstarted by their bragging and pride.

So in order for them to learn Jesus said, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one."

Does that makes sense....Anyone?

[there buster]

Quote:

---

To me this isn't because God is callous, but rather I see it as greater evidence that He doesn't react with violence as we do.

---

Who said anything about callous?

As far as "react[ing] with violence," God doesn't "react" at all, since He knows the end from the beginning.

God gave His creatures real, radical freedom, because only free creatures can truly love.

If we take the Bible seriously, then God used the waters of the flood, fire and brimstone against Sodom and Gommorrah, and again at the end of time to destroy the wicked.

God doesn't intervene in every single human interaction. That doesn't mean we shouldn't stand up against abuse, or deception--or violence.

Since we're talking about weapons, we should realize that two Centurions figure prominently in the NT. In neither case are they told to abandon their profession. Any blanket condemnation of soldiering and warfare should deal honestly with those cases.

[jasd]

>>John 7:30 So they sought to arrest him; but no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come.<<

John 7? shouldn’t one date the 7th chapter as coinciding with the earlier or beginning of Christ’s ministry? Whoa! that’s like, what? a whole ministerial lifetime before Gethsemane, isn’t it? different times, different circumstances, different lessons to be taught; whereas,

>>>[:"red"]the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?[/]<<<

was the fruition of that lifetime -- the midst of the Passion, the eve of Crucifixion.

Ought we not to allow that the two following passages…

Lu 10:4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.

Lu 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it] , and likewise [his] scrip:

also speak to change? there is a record of fluidity in Writ.

Why the change? what event(s) would inspire the change?

Is one justified to assign ‘limitless or undefined logic’ to a peremptory imperative of Jesus Gd? Hasn’t that wishy-wash already been labeled ‘traditions of man’ and eschewed by certain .Orgs? Surely,

one does not remit an externalization of a legitimate concern of the shepherd St Peter for his charge the Jews -- to conflict with or negate the words of Jesus Gd…, does one?

St Peter’s epistles (65 AD) coincided the Jewish Wars (66 AD onward) and Nero’s persecutions (died 68 AD) and were framed at approximately a half-decade before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, the annihilation of a million Jews, and the Diaspora ( 70 AD) of those remaining alive -- a time of incessant ferment and rebellion against the ensigns, fasces, and eagles of Roman rule.

As St Paul’s epistles were subject specific -- depending upon his target audiences among the Gentiles, it seems St Peter bore a subject specific or burden for those to whom he was sent, that is, the Jews.

St Peter wrote not of sacraments and doctrines but of the practical matter of staying alive during the most disastrous and turbulent events to have overtaken the Jews (exceeding even that of the Babylonian Captivity) according to most chroniclers. The ‘practical matter of staying out of harm's way and alive’ counseled patience and longsuffering in the face of reality -- imposed by the incredible milieu of the day. His exhortative mission appealed to the example of Christ. It was a redux of Christ’s

admonition to St Peter in Gethsemane, ‘one who is too readily caught up in a resort to sword, rather than employing discretion in its use -- will die from that indiscretion. Jesus seems, by His statement,

to be advancing measured and well-tempered judgement in contrast to recklessness; whereas, similarly, St Peter in his epistles advised that discretion was the better part of valor.

Luke wrote his Gospel about 10 years earlier (58-60 AD) with St John writing his Gospel some 20 years after (85-95 AD) the epistles of St Peter.

>>According to your limited logic I should assume that Christ and/or His disciples had a right to use deadly force to keep Him from being arrested since "His hour had not yet come"! But I can't find where that happened.<<

First, it must be kept in mind that that which prevailed where the Redeemer of mankind and the mission He needed to perform/fulfill was concerned, was a bit removed from any similitude that might obtain regards ourselves. To maintain crispness,

the chips and dip must be kept separate.

Second, >>limited logic<<

Oh, yeah, sometimes I tend to the parochial in my arguments… as do we all, n’cest pas?

Of course, there is in the relating of the Gethsemane event much that must be inferred…, the arresting host had arrived armed with torch, sword, and staves against Christ and His eleven disciples -- with their two swords. What would that imply? My quote was constrained by that which was immediately Writ and succinct, ipso…, the disregard for the dissertation.

>>Sorry, you are adding to scripture.<<

Uhh, I’d assumed Christ’s example meant Christ’s example however applied; if one appealed to example in the one instance, one must accede to example in the other. So, no, …am not adding to scripture… off-track, more’n likely -- as is that below…

>>My quote from Peter didn't state this....

Let's review that quote once again:

"20 ...if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. 21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example [i.e., of non-violence] for you to follow in His steps, 22 who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; 23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously.....<< [ed.]

Yes, let’s, …following:

“Jesus didn't kill anyone; He didn't touch anyone, so far as the record states. He is our example.” --quote by Rob #192424 - Sun Oct 23 2005 06:30 PM page 1

No text supplied ...and it was "He is our exmple" that I addressed.

Otherwise, am enjoying your point of view. Though I suspect that ideal you envision will, in small part, be realized before the Advent, I am more inclined to think that it will be an accomplished ideal during the millennium on earth -- I submit, for reasons undesignated, that it must occur or what’s the point of the Melchisedec order.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

---

lazarus said:

The Power and protection of God. (last but not least)

---

From men, only suggestions can be offered. From God, promises are definate. Each individual needs to live with what they put there trust in. The variables are different for every individual. After the fact , there is no way we will be able to remove the consequences by pleading, "But you told me this is the way I should do it."

[:"red"] "In God, whose word I praise,In God I have put my trust;I shall not be afraid What can mere man do to me?" [/] Psalm 56:4 NASB

[:"red"] "Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation." [/]

Isaiah 12:2 KJV

Keep looking up!!