U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning throws clerk in jail

[Legacy Fan]

Stereotyping and bigotry is cool, as long as it's .......

[DieHardBrownsFan]

When the left does it, its cool.

[calfoxwc]

self-defense is not unBiblical. Read up on it, Tiam and a few others

***************************************************************************

http://www.biblicalselfdefense.com/

The Biblical View of Self-Defense Introduction

This study examines the Biblical view of self-defense. We're looking at questions such as, Is it right to employ lethal force to protect the life of yourself and others? Is it right to take measures that might kill an attacker who is wrongfully threatening your life or the life of another?

Self-defense here is defined as "protecting oneself from injury at the hand of others." Self-defense is not about taking vengeance. Self-defense is not about punishing criminals. Self-defense involves preserving one's own health and life when it is threatened by the actions of others. When we speak about using potentially lethal force in self-defense, we're talking about using weapons to protect ourselves and others, even if the weapons used could kill the attacker.

Now why in the world would we take time to look at this subject? First, as Christians, we want to know how to apply the Bible to current issues in society. We live in a country with approximately 250 million guns and approximately 300 million people. Furthermore, in our country, it is estimated that law abiding citizens defend themselves using guns approximately one million to two million times a year. Almost 200,000 people in this state alone have a legal permit to carry a concealed handgun. What does the Bible have to say about that many guns actively being used for self-protection?

We live in a time where the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, current possibilities of economic and societal collapse, and crime have people buying guns and ammunition in large quantities for self protection. What does the Bible say about that? What does the Bible say about so-called "assault weapons"?

As always, we want our hearts and minds to be ruled and informed by Scripture--not by our emotions, not by our experiences, and certainly not by the World. And because the Scriptures have much to say about this topic, it is relevant and worth examining in the Church.

The focus of this study is specific. I am not dealing with whether lethal force can legitimately be used in wartime. I am not dealing with capital punishment. I am not dealing with Biblical principles involved in the American Revolution or the War Between the States.

This study is organized in five sections. First, we will look at the Biblical obligation to preserve life. Secondly, we will look at the Biblical view of bloodshed. Thirdly, we will look at passages dealing with the application of lethal force in self-defense. Fourth, we will look at what the Bible says about possession of weapons and skill in using weapons. Finally, we look at limitations and warnings about self-defense.

The Biblical Obligation to Preserve Life

We begin by first looking at the Biblical obligation to preserve life. The Bible clearly teaches that we must preserve life--our own lives and the lives of other people. 1 Corinthians 6:19f teaches that our bodies are not our own. Rather, our bodies belong to God. Our bodies are His property and so we are not permitted to treat or destroy them as we please:

19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; 20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body. (1Co 6:19-20 ASV)

Not only are we to take care of our bodies and the life contained. We have an obligation to preserve the body and life of other people. Psalm 82:4 even cites an obligation to protect those who are in danger:

Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.

Consider also Proverbs 24:11, which indicates we have a duty to preserve the lives of those who are harming themselves:

Proverbs 24:11 Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.

Ezekiel 33 is a well-known passage:

Ezekiel 33 "... 6 'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand.'

If you know danger is coming to others, and you deliberately fail to warn the others of the danger, you are guilty of harming the victims. This is not to say that you can make people heed your warning. The surrounding verses also say that if the people refuse to heed the warning of the watchmen, the watchman is not guilty if they are harmed.

We also see principles in Mosaic law teaching that if we fail to guard the lives of others, we are guilty. In Deuteronomy 22:8, if someone falls from your roof, and you failed to install a safety fence around the edge, you would be held liable for the death of that person. Likewise, in Exodus 21:29-31, if a man has an ox which is prone to harm people, the owner is held liable if he fails to confine it and the ox harms or kills others. If the ox harms someone, the negligent owner is fined. If the ox kills someone, the negligent owner is to be put to death.

The principle could hardly be stated more forcefully: you must protect your life and the lives of others.

[calfoxwc]

another excerpt, from the New Testament:

********************************

New Testament Passages on Lethal Force and Self-defense

At this point, you may be thinking this is all relegated to Old Testament principles and thinking. Let's turn to some passages in the New Testament dealing with lethal force and self-defense.

Buying and carrying a sword

Luke 22:35-39 And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." 36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 39Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.

Here's the context. Picture this. Jesus and his disciples have just had communion. They are about to go to a time of prayer in the garden. Jesus says these words to His disciples, and it's as if they are saying, "Look what we have with us, Lord. Two guns!" Jesus responds, "It is enough."

If you read commentaries on this passage, there are a number of questions which are not clearly answered. There are questions about the applicability of this passage, of the intent of Jesus, of the meaning of His response.

Whatever your interpretation of this passage, there are a few broad-stroke observations we can make about this passage.

1. Jesus expected them to have swords and anticipated a time when those without swords would need to acquire them.
2. Among eleven disciples, they did have two swords--in almost a 1:5 ratio.
3. Jesus expected them to carry the swords on their person as they traveled from the city to the garden prayer meeting.

It is difficult to make absolute claims beyond these observations, but the observations themselves have significance. Namely, among those closest to Jesus, some carried personal weapons in His presence with His consent to communion and to prayer meetings. We cannot make absolute claims as to the reasons, right or, wrong, for the carriage of these weapons. Perhaps it was in anticipation of trouble from the Jewish leadership. Perhaps it was protection against mere robbers. Paul in 2 Cor. 11:26 cites the "perils of robbers". Though there are questions we can't answer, we do know they possessed these weapons, that they carried these weapons, and that Jesus knew and consented. Furthermore, Jesus spoke of some time, present or future, when disciples would need to acquire personal weapons, even more urgently than garments.

The Garden of Gethsemane

Now, the next passage we come to follows these events. Jesus and the disciples are in the garden, and the men come to arrest Jesus. At least two of the disciples are armed, with the knowledge and consent of Jesus. Here is the question: Will they use the sword against the armed multitude which has come against Him? Let's look at the three passages which recount this event.

Luke 22:49-53 (NAS) 49 And when those who were around Him saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, shall we strike with the sword?" 50 And a certain one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him. 52 And Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, "Have you come out with swords and clubs as against a robber? 53 "While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours."

Matthew 26:51-56 51 And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. 52 But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 "Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? 54 "How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?" 55 In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. 56 "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."

John 18:10-11 10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11 So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup which My Father has given Me?"

In these three passages, you get a sense that Jesus is saying, "Though we have a right to employ our swords in defense of this unrighteous arrest, we are intentionally putting aside our lawful right, and I am allowing myself to be taken without resistance." See how this is expressed: "Lord shall we strike with the sword?" "No more of this." "This is your hour, and the power of darkness." "Put up your sword... or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father... all this was done that the Scriptures...might be fulfilled." "Put your sword into the sheath. Shall I not drink the cup...?"

Why Christ tells Peter to put up the sword:

1. Christ is willingly laying down His life, though He has the right to use sword and angelic legions to deliver Himself from this unjust arrest (Luke 22:51, John 18:11).
2. Those who are quick to resort to violence will die by violence (Matt 26:52). The Lord hates the one who "loves violence" (Psalm 11:5).

The sword is not always the appropriate response, especially in persecution for Christ.

There is greater protection than swords.

 

Possession of weapons and skills with weapons a good and useful thing

Having looked at a number of passages that deal with weapons and self-defense, let's spend a little time discussing Scripture's view of owning weapons and being skilled in their use. The imagery of weapon use and skill at weapons use is often employed in Scripture, and it is often portrayed as a positive or desirable thing. The Lord's might is something good, and it is often depicted using martial terms (Zec. 9:14, Psa. 7:13, 18:14, 21:12, 64:7, Hab. 3:11, Deu 32:42, 2 Sam 22:15). The Scriptures are a sword (Eph. 6:17; Heb 4:12). A sword comes out of the mouth of Christ (Rev. 1:16, 2:16, 19:15).

Possession of weapons is never discouraged in Scripture. In fact, in 1Sam 13:19ff, it is negatively reported that no spears or swords were found in Israel because of the Philistines:

1 Samuel 13:19-22 9 Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, "Lest the Hebrews make swords or spears."... 22 So it came about, on the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people who were with Saul and Jonathan. But they were found with Saul and Jonathan his son.

Let's look at two verses from the Psalms:

Psalm 144:1 Blessed be the LORD my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight:

Psalm 18:34 He teaches my hands to make war, So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze

Skill and ability to use weapons here, whether literal and/or metaphorical, is positively portrayed in these verses.

Further, we have accounts of David, not a soldier, not a law enforcement officer, but a youth, employing ranged weapons skillfully (with God's help) against bears and lions. This is domestic use of lethal weaponry, non-military use, with non-military training. The weapons used by young David are not "kiddie" slingshots. They are powerful enough to kill a bear and lion--in today's market, we're talking about a .44 magnum, not a .22, in the hands of someone too young to be in the army.

We might be tempted to think that was just for dealing with animals that could threaten sheep. But aren't humans worth even more protection than sheep?

We understand that according to Scripture, in matters not of worship or church government, whatever is not forbidden is permitted. I'm not making a claim that ownership of weaponry for the purpose of self-defense is requiredof the believer. It is not required, but it is permitted by Scripture.

[The Cysko Kid]

Is this the longest running thread in political board history? I think so.

[The Cysko Kid]

Similar to how many Christians cherry pick their values. It's ok to stock up on AR-15's and ammo while glossing over the teachings of Jesus about nonviolence, but let's not let homosexuals marry. Why, those fags are perverts! They bible tells me so!

With all the horrific violence and terrorism in the world today it takes a truly re-tarded individual to still back gun control no matter how half-assedly your comment supports it. Having an ar or a carbine or a handgun isn't violent it's the only sane thing I could imagine in today's world. When the religion of pieces comes knocking at your door a cuppa tea and and reasoning ain't gonna cut it, bud.

[calfoxwc]

Sorry about the long excerpts, but a detailed answer was needed to

resolve the dumb assumptions about hypocrisy where there was none.

[tiamat63]

Sorry about the long excerpts, but a detailed answer was needed to

resolve the dumb assumptions about hypocrisy where there was none.

They werent even necessary. We know self defense is in the bible (Shepard must tend to his flock). My example goes well beyond that.

[calfoxwc]

then you should have not included "self-defense" into it.

[tiamat63]

then you should have not included "self-defense" into it.

 

I have a feeling you've mis-understood what I meant by self defense, the quotes were to indicate sarcasm.

 

My bad, didn't use the sarcasm font.

[jbluhm86]

 

I believe he isn't referring to people who shoot for sport. I'd venture a guess the religious nuts that stock pile weapons for 'self defense' yet in truth, want nothing more than to feel provocated enough to use those weapons to act on God's behalf.

I'm glad somebody finally got it. You mention guns on this board and people go ape shit.

 

Case in point, the 'OathKeepers' who have now shown up, armed, threatening to 'intervene' if Ms Davis is arrested again. I'd be willing to bet those boys vote a certain way and line the pews Sunday Morn'.

 

The Oath Keepers are bad, but they are choir boys compared to such upstanding religious organizations and individuals such as the Provisional IRA, the Army of God, the Phineas Priesthood, the Lords Resistance Army and Kony, Robart Doggart, etc. The list goes on. All individuals who use religion as justification for their committing of unspeakable acts of violence.

[Clevfan4life]

So your an educated fag who likes to suck cock, we got it.

 

least he's not trolling truck stop glory holes on the weekends like you, you weekend cumbucket warrior.

[tiamat63]

 

least he's not trolling truck stop glory holes on the weekends like you, you weekend cumbucket warrior.

 

He also knows the difference between the possessive and non possessive versions of 'your'.

 

Damn that edumacation.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

 

He also knows the difference between the possessive and non possessive versions of 'your'.

 

Damn that edumacation.

You're an asshole. How's that?

[tiamat63]

You're an asshole. How's that?

 

Accurate and spelled correctly; much better.

[jbluhm86]

And here we are again with Kim Davis and her fundamentalist nonsense, it seems:

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-again-asks-delay-marriage-licenses

 

So much for compromising with this woman, I guess. She hasn't learned a damn thing.

 

[LogicIsForSquares]

She is just an attention seeking asshole at this point. Her deputies can sign the licenses she is morally opposed to signing. Now Davis just wants to impose her religious views on her staff and the tax payers of the county.

[Legacy Fan]

I'm glad somebody finally got it. You mention guns on this board and people go ape shit.

Nobody went apeshit. And everybody "got it." You were merely called out for mis-characterizing gun owners in some sad attempt to elicit a laugh from the Daily Show audience (Psssst: You're not on the Daily Show).

In doing so, you made it painfully obvious you're completely uneducated concerning guns, people who own them, etc. I know, I know you said "I own guns." Right. Just like Walter "has a black friend".

 

"Emptying a clip" is a line lifted right from any of the staunch gun control proponents any time they choose to slap gums and breach the subject. Is "jbluhm86" short for Bloomberg? It's called a magazine, not a clip. At least appropriately identifying significant parts and pieces of the gun might help your chances at engaging in a debate with those inbred, bible-thumping, dumbass gun owners in the future.

 

Until then, maybe a basic firearms safety course?

[calfoxwc]

well, so much for the liberal stupid emotional knee-jerk false accusation of "homophobia"

 

https://gma.yahoo.com/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-denied-marriage-licenses-her-113024833--abc-news-topstories.html#

[gftChris]

well, so much for the liberal stupid emotional knee-jerk false accusation of "homophobia"

 

https://gma.yahoo.com/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-denied-marriage-licenses-her-113024833--abc-news-topstories.html#

Another way of looking at it is her homophobia is so rampant that she doesn't even approve of her friends being gay.

</steveimpression>

[Pumpkin Eater]

Given that kids and Lassie can't agree to being in a relationship with an adult, I don't think that would pass muster with the SCOTUS. Giving a basic rights to a group where no one is harmed is a fair bit different than raping kids.

 

Also, if they let Kim Davis get by with this they are opening a Pandora's box of any civil servant of any religion being able to refuse service based on their own personal religious beliefs. Just trying to deal with government under normal circumstances is a shit show. Having to tip toe through a mine field of personal preferences would make it non-functioning.

The mentally ill (faggots) can't consent to binding contracts either...

[calfoxwc]

Now think about that.

 

If that were true, she would have them as friends.

 

That, Chris, is the point. Take your time......

[gftChris]

Now think about that.

 

If that were true, she would have them as friends.

 

That, Chris, is the point. Take your time......

Sure. Just being a bit steve for a change. I see the point, but how do her (now ex?) friends feel about that? How can she remain friends with people who are committing such a cardinal sin?

[gftChris]

I'm also looking for the part of that article that actually has any quotes about her and her friends. No success yet.

[gftChris]

OK tracked it down elsewhere (not sure why ABC/yahoo decided to leave it out).

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/kim-davis-i-have-friends-who-are-gay-who-i-denied-marriage-licenses/

[calfoxwc]

British tendency to miss points? But good job on the quick

research, Sir Reginald.

 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/1XWo4ufMkG4?rel=0

[gftChris]

I love how anytime I do something it's a british trait.

 

Anyway, no, I didn't miss the point, just flipped it round to give another perspective. This is a useful tool in understanding how other people see an issue and why there might be disagreements. I do this with my left leaning friends as well, you just won't see that as much here because the things that are perceived as left wing here (abortion, climate change, equal rights etc) aren't really left wing for me.

[Westside Steve]

Sure. Just being a bit steve for a change. I see the point, but how do her (now ex?) friends feel about that? How can she remain friends with people who are committing such a cardinal sin?

Well you're not quite being me since if you were you would make more sense but I think you're pretty aware of the way Christianity works for at least many people or at least many that I know. I think Christians want their friends who are sinners to repent those sins, to realize they're doing something wrong and try hard to quit.

 

I'd be surprised if you didn't actually know that but...

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

ah, so it was an intentional emotional knee jerk. That's better than involuntary.

 

There's hope for you yet, London fog.

[LogicIsForSquares]

So she isn't homophobic, just an asshole trying to make everyone in the county adapt to her religious beliefs on marriage. Good thing she didn't convert to Islam. Headwraps would be distributed to women at the door of the courthouse.