“Polls show that 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks for gun buyers,” filmmaker Abigail Disney writes at Reuters, “yet a bill mandating this died in the Senate. Evangelical Christians, however, may well be the key to shifting America’s broken political dynamic around gun rights.” So now you know: Abigail Disney’s Armor of Light is anti-gun rights. So that’s why Roy’s granddaughter offered free tickets to NRA members. Anyway, Abby would have us believe that Evangelicals are going to tip the balance towards gun control. Like this . . .
Right now, white evangelical Protestants are the group most likely to oppose stricter gun- control laws. They stand out as one of the few constituencies where a strong pro-life identity is tied to attitudes against any restrictions on gun ownership. Evangelicals are also one of the strongest constituencies of support for the National Rifle Association.
Yet the NRA, which has been vigilant in advancing expansive gun-ownership policies, including broader concealed-carry rights, has been accused by its critics of having a casual disregard for the sanctity of human life. A brief stroll through its direct mail and advertising, listening to the language of its most prominent spokespeople and seeing the laws it promotes could bear this assertion out. Meanwhile, the proliferation of “stand your ground” laws, which relieve citizens of the obligation to exhaust all options before shooting in self-defense, sounds like an inversion of basic Christian teachings about loving every human being, including, and most especially, those who would harm you.
That ought to convince them – if the film doesn’t. Which, I’m thinking, it won’t.
I’ve spent most of the past two years making a documentary about a leading evangelical Christian minister who is strongly questioning the close ties between his religion and the NRA. The Armor of Light shows how Rob Schenck [above], who operates an influential ministry on Capitol Hill in Washington, has begun asking whether pro-life Christians can also be pro-gun. In doing so, Schenck finds himself increasingly alone — way out on a political limb.
To paraphrase Dr. King, How long before the Evangelicals cut off that limb? Not long.
“I’m concerned about the NRA promoting the idea that the best way to solve the most vexing problems in our society is to be prepared to shoot people dead,” Schenck said at a meeting of the Evangelical Church Alliance. “That doesn’t sit well with me as a Christian moral vision.” He continued: “When we champion the Second Amendment over and above the word of God, then we must be very careful that in respecting the Second Amendment we don’t violate the Second Commandment.”
When the call of conscience trumps habit and history, surprising things can happen. From Jim Crow to women’s suffrage, it is only when men and women have brought their higher selves into the political realm that we have seen systems radically change.
It might not be as hard as we fear.
I pray that she’s right. That it’s not as hard as we fear to restore Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. [SS]
How does someone’s imaginary friend affect my gun rights? It shouldn’t affect marriage, or any laws being made, etc, but the anti gunners love to leverage it when they can
…because insulting Christians (and other people of faith) is really a great way to build unity.
Heh, i understand what he’s saying, but I’d say that instead of counting the bible out, it would be better to take a closer look at what it actually says on the matter. The bible makes it very clear that people have a clear duty to protect themselves and their families. God himself, looking at the Old Testament, has a wonderful habit of wiping out entire civilizations who mistreat his children. That, of course, is a tad extreme for the common man, but there are multiple points in both the Old Testament and the new that state that any person who either causes harm to himself or his family or fails to prevent others from doing the same when it’s within their power to do so is less than worthless and more than evil, which even people who don’t follow the faith would be hard pressed to disagree with.
Got a few references?
Book, Chapter and verse, please.
Luke, Ch. 22, verse 36.
“And he that does not have a sword, sell his cloak to buy one.”
The point is, actions speak louder than words. There were two swords within arms reach during the last supper.
A disciple cut off the ear of a centurion when they came to arrest Jesus. Jesus told the disciple to put the sword back in the sheath, not to put the sword down.
So during the time of the Christ’s spreading of the word, at least two disciples carried swords.
It would as if two disciples were carrying a pistol if the Christ was teaching today.
The Christ was a man of peace, not a pacifist.
That “imaginary friend” has motivated people to build hospitals and perform charitable work worldwide. While atheists non-imaginary lack of friends have caused them to do nothing except b!tch about peoples’ faith.
Please let me know when you build the first Atheist Children’s Hospital. I’d like to buy a plaque.
Once again people who have a named system of strange beliefs can’t see beyond that paradigm. It is nonsensical that someone would name a hospital after atheism (small ‘a’) just like if I give my wife a gift for no occasion I don’t call it a “non-birthday gift.”
But there are plenty of non-religious people who have built hospitals. Doesn’t make the idea of a zombie walking on water based on some guys writing a story to back their power play any more ridiculous, but nor does it make it any less ridiculous…
But there are plenty of non-religious people who have built hospitals.
Non-religious and anti-religious are two separate and distinct breeds. Non-religious people don’t make a habit of ridiculing people’s beliefs.
And when atheists build a children’s hospital, I don’t care what they call it — I’ll call it a miracle. ‘Cause it ain’t ever gonna happen.
Isn’t it great how we all can just put our differences aside and work together towards a common goal?
Atheists generally don’t see promoting their belief system by branding and advertising random acts of charity as useful and/or moral.
How many Hospitals are in China? Japan ? And Other NON Christian Countries ?
How many Religions were around Before The Bible ?
What other man was around before Jesus who was also Enlightened ?
So before you attack a person that does Not believe as you do- you might want to do some home work;
Even your own God (who has a name) God is a generic name for all Gods that Humans and even Non Humans have thought up.
Non Humans such as Neanderthals in which every single White person that has been tested has Neanderthal DNA in him and the lighter the complexion and redder the hair the more Neanderthal DNA they have – And all Humans and Humanoids have been around way longer than any religion or book.
I”ll stay a Agnostic – there may or may not be a God or Gods 😉
In the beginning he stood among the Gods and said (WE) did good.
Y’all were brought up in some religion so believe what you want – it’s your right.
It is not Any Religions right to push there religion on others.
If there’s anything you don’t think I say is right- feel free to do your own research 🙂
To each there own.
As far as guns go or other weapons– Every Single Animal on this Earth was born with some means of defense – Humans just have more mental capacity to use our higher intelligence to make things for defense considering we are weaker than most the other animals.
We have a Right to defense ! It is called survival and anyone alive with any sense will use the most expedient tools available – IE Guns.
Travis, “imaginary friend” intimates fiction. The bible and Jesus Christ are non-fiction accounts of history. Get a clue before providing juvenile comments. Apart from this, anytime anyone wants to give us insight into WWJD, just proves to me how little they know of the Son of God.
Well spoken brother
No one is disputing that Jesus of Nazareth historically walked the earth. However, many of us do not submit to the common idea that the 2,000 year-old shade of a messianic Jew has any power to dictate our individual ethics and daily actions.
many of us do not submit to the common idea that the 2,000 year-old shade of a messianic Jew has any power to dictate our individual ethics and daily actions.
The Jewish and Christian faiths have had a huge impact on all of Western Civilization. Like it or not.
At one time, I thought anyone that believed in a higher power were complete and utter fools.
Until I experienced that higher power directly. It one transcendent moment, I experienced where all time; past, present and future were happening in the now, and in that now was a complete connection to all things; stars, planets, animsls and humans as one complete oneness; and in that oness, was complete a total unconditional love.
I found out at that moment, that the Christ was correct. He said that he came to teach two things, Love God with all of your mind, body, soul and spirit; and to love your fellow humans, especially your enemies, as yourself.
Is that really such a horrible mandate?
>> The Jewish and Christian faiths have had a huge impact on all of Western Civilization. Like it or not.
It certainly does, and most of us atheists are also “cultural Christians” in that sense, though many are not willing to acknowledge it.
Still, there is a big difference between implicit and subtle influence through culture, and “we should do it because the Bible says so”. I would hope that the latter argument would not have any place in the law-making and governance process in this day and age, and in a country that had specifically and explicitly placed its laws outside of the influence of religion in its Constitution.
I would hope that the latter argument would not have any place in the law-making and governance process in this day and age, and in a country that had specifically and explicitly placed its laws outside of the influence of religion in its Constitution.
In the past, religion did play at least an indirect and sometimes direct role in the formation of laws, Constitution, Declaration of Independence. etcetera. The Enlightenment was a spin off of the Reformation.
I’m convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that evil exists in this world. I doubt anyone here is dim enough to argue against that. That’s a big part of why we carry. I’d also bet my eternal soul that a counterpoint to that evil exists (beyond a fine firearm). As C.S. Lewis noted, rape, cannibalism and murder are universally considered forbidden by reasonable people and societies.
Atheists are betting their soul that God doesn’t exist. If they’re wrong, that will go badly. God – if he’s not dead – is going to be pretty pissed off. If I’m wrong in believing there is a God, then I’ve donated, prayed and lived a few unnecessary honorable moments in vain. I’ll take that “risk.” As a Christian I worship the biggest, strongest God with a primary figure that is morally outstanding.
Yet atheists think I’m the one who has been duped. I’ll respectfully discuss with anyone who disagrees. Or nearasdamnit.
Ah, the good old Pascal’s Wager. Which completely ignores the fact that there are many different takes on God, and the one that you chose to adopt may not be the right one. And the fun thing about most of those takes, they describe a God that really doesn’t like people worshiping the wrong ones. It will really suck big time if you die, and the first thing you see after is angel Maalik coming to drag you off to Jahannam for eternal torture on account of refusing to recognize that there is only one God, and Muhammad is a prophet of God. 😉
Simply put, as a Christian, you believe in one god out of thousands humanity have created. As atheists, we simply take the next logical step, and move the sole remaining entry from the “definitely true” to the “probably false” list of ideas. Assuming any of those gods actually exists, when it comes to the afterlife, our chances may be nil, but yours are still pretty low.
Sir, you’re wrong, and I’ll explain why. Christianity is not a man made religion, as God created man, not the other way around. This would then disprove your next statement, which stated that atheism is the next obvious state. Because atheism denies the existence of God (which is false; see Roman’s 1:22-all know that God exists), atheism is illogical, and Christianity is the only answer.
Did you seriously just quote the Bible as proof that Bible is true?
In any case, I have no qualms with believers who plainly assert that their faith is true. Matters of faith are, by definition, not subject to rational analysis and argument – if they were, it would have not been faith. Credo quia absurdum and all that.
I was specifically addressing the argument that it’s better to believe in God than not believe in God on sheer utilitarian grounds – that if God exists, believing in him is beneficial since you get to reap the rewards in afterlife, and if he does not, then the minor inconvenience of pointless worship is still worth the bother to mitigate the risk of eternal damnation. It’s a very old logical fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager
Silly , just plain silly .
“Thousands of faces,of G-d?” Well, as of today, not entirely correct. G-d said he would send the word of G-d to tell his children the proper way of living within the laws of G-d. That was when he sent his son as a teacher and an example of the Word.
The last listing I saw, worldwide, there is 2.2 billion christians, 1.6 billion muslims, 1 billion Hindus, 400 million buddhists, and about 1 billion athiests, secularists.
and then a mix of various other spiritualism and religious beliefs.
Since Islam has roots in the old testament and their founders, 3.8 billion people out of over 6 billion people on this planet have spiritual roots in Yaweh, the G-d of the Old testament, of the new testament and of the Christ and of Muhammad and the Koran.
Regardless of whether you deny the existence of an intelligence that binds this universe together, the fact that almost 4 billion people on this planet see that the truth of the universe as expressed by the bible as the “truth”, even if that truth has been twisted and distorted by Muhammad. does not take away from that simple number.
Almost 4 billion people see the G-d of the Jewish people, the I Am, Yaweh, as their one source of spiritual truth.
You can deny the existence of a higher power. That is the gift of a loving parent. Freedom of choice.
But he has also given you the path to freely choose to live by those laws of G-d.
It is your choice, as it should be. The consequences of violating the laws of G-d is also your choice.
You can violate the laws of the universe, for a time,. Just as when someone steps off a tall building, as they free fall, they can claim the laws of gravity no longer apply to them, until the sudden stop at the end.
So can people violate the laws of Yaweh, for a time, until the sudden stop at the end.
The argument from numbers is really weak. Do you want to check how many people on this planet fervently believe in gun control?
Also, what does the fact that the number of religious people specifically in Christian countries is falling year over year tell you, then?
Int,
So, you’ve identified Pascal’s Wager. This does not, however, invalidate the concept. One could identify it as a logical fallacy if one only looked at a dichotomy. However, the “fallacy” itself cannot be proven. The truth does in fact exist amongst the following options:
1. There is a God.
2. There are many Gods.
3. There is no God.
One could also argue if God cares, doesn’t care, etc. None of which invalidates the possibility that God exists, and the consequences if he doesn’t. And if there are many tiny little gods, I’m frankly not afraid of them. If atheists are as smart as they tend to think of themselves, they’ve already worked that out.
Nope, I’m interest in an Intelligent Designer. Just like grand gun designers exist, so also do I believe that human beings were designed. Sure, others will argue against that. The magnificence of humanity has simply manifested itself through geologic time, random chance, and the selection thereof.
Yet macro evolution is not subject to the scientific method in and of itself. We cannot observe eons in a lab. We all have faith. Mine’s in God. I simply don’t see humanity solving the problems of violence with technology and “progress.”
I don’t really see any particular reason to distinguish between #1 and #2 – either there are gods (of which one god is a special case), or there are no gods.
In any case, the flaw remains the same. If your main reason to worship God is to increase your odds of doing better in the afterlife, you’re still facing one to several thousand odds, given all the varieties of gods that humanity has come up with, most of which aren’t really fond of each other. Even if you stick to monotheism only, you still have quite a few choices, with decidedly unpleasant consequences of making the wrong one.
I wouldn’t diss the “tiny little gods”, either. If they exist, they’re still way more powerful than a human being, and you don’t need an omnipresent and omnipotent tormentor to make your afterlife hell.
Again, I don’t have anything against your belief, per se. It’s just that you’ve chosen a really weak argument to preach it to the unconvinced.
@Int,
Really every argument, to a die hard atheist, takes them to the same point: there’s no god. The thousand / millions of gods thing is ridiculous on its face. Think about it. They’d be gods with competing agendas without any real dominion over each other. Salvation would be as rare as winning the lottery. Of course picking a god out of 100,000 would be a fool’s errand. Jesus is a legitimate historical figure. It would be irrational to dismiss him as a wise teacher – he claimed to be God and such a claim is still grounds for an involuntary mental hold today. Obviously you’re going to believe what you want.
My arguments were a highly condensed version of C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity,” which is frankly much better than anything you’ve come up with. The problem of evil within the human condition isn’t explained by Darwinian fitness. We all have to make a choice, even if that’s choosing not to make one. It isn’t possible for all religions to be true. That’s does in fact mean some people are going to be wrong.
>> The thousand / millions of gods thing is ridiculous on its face. Think about it. They’d be gods with competing agendas without any real dominion over each other. Salvation would be as rare as winning the lottery.
Your argument is based on two assumptions that are specific to your faith: namely, that gods have to have dominion over everything (i.e. that they’re omnipotent), and that gods provide salvation. For starters, salvation itself is a piece of Christian theology – it’s not something that even other Abrahamic religions consider necessary or even meaningful (lacking the concept of “ancestral sin”), much less polytheistic ones.
And then, of course, it’s entirely possible to believe in gods as supernatural entities that are extremely powerful (and even powerful enough to create the universe), but still limited in said power, by each other among other things.
>> Jesus is a legitimate historical figure. It would be irrational to dismiss him as a wise teacher – he claimed to be God and such a claim is still grounds for an involuntary mental hold today.
Amusingly enough, Jesus himself actually never claimed to be God. If you go through every single direct quote of him from the gospels, you will never find him say that, not a single time. What he called himself was “son of God”, which is a totally different thing, especially seeing how the gospels also don’t talk about all that Trinity business, either. Of course, there have been plenty of “sons of god” in human history even before Christ – Japanese emperors, say. I’m inclined to believe that Jesus, if he were truly a historical figure (this was never conclusively established, as far as I’m concerned), used this in a metaphorical sense – it would mesh very well with other things that he said. Basically, then, his message was that all humans are children of God, and therefore love each other etc.
I’ve read Lewis. Like most Christian apologists, his works are full of logical fallacies of presupposing what he’s trying to prove. Then again, I find the whole notion of rational apologetics for faith pointless. Again, if it could be fully rationalized, it would have been knowledge, not faith, but Christian theology itself insists that there’s an important distinction between the two, and that God requires faith.
As far as “problem of evil” goes, none exists as soon as you abandon pure moral absolutism, and acknowledge that morality is subjective. Note that, contrary to the popular misconception, moral relativism does not imply that you completely get rid of the notions of good and evil. You just recognize that what you define as such is not necessarily the same as someone else defines as such, and that neither definition has any inherent preference. It doesn’t preclude you from categorizing things as “good” and “evil” according to your definition, or from using that definition to judge other people and their actions, or from asserting that your definition is better than theirs, and should be preferentially accepted and shared by others.
@Int,
Reading further, I may have mismanaged my time. If you can’t distinguish between #1 – 1 God and #2 – Multiple gods, then there isn’t a point of argument. There’s a rather significant difference between the concepts of singular and plural. You point to a lethargic and prideful notion of logical fallacies – without naming them or disproving them. Further, you state that Jesus never claimed to be God. Wrong.
http://bugman123.com/Bible/JesusIsGod.html
To this day, claiming to be God can get you committed. I’ve detained a guy wandering about in active freeway lanes who claimed “I am the risen Lord.” He went to Los Angeles County Medical Center psychiatric ward for a 5150 W&I hold and was accepted forthwith.
You mentioned a lack of a universal moral code – that morality is relative. I disagree. I think most of us here are unusually prepared for an intruder ready to invade our home. I think virtually all of us as gun owners would agree that we aren’t going to allow an intruder to rape our wife or murder our kids. I don’t consider that morality relative in even the smallest bit. Maybe the intruder does, but we certainly hope either justice or force will prevail against him. I’ve encountered people with a truly broken moral compass, and it’s one of the reasons I carry. Similarly, I believe in God for a multitude of reasons:
-The personhood and historical accounts of Jesus
-The fact that we have desires to do evil things (lying, cheating, stealing, etc.)
-The fact that we sometimes succumb and sometimes overcome those desires
-The presence of evil in the world
-The presence of creation
-The design of the human body
-The consistent presence of war within the human condition
-The unusually rare likelihood of the earth and it proximity to the sun, with a climate conducive to life unique within the known universe
-The concept of infinity in a finite world
-The concepts of perfection
-The life of Muhammad (spoiler alert: I don’t consider it to be moral)
-A virtual consensus on the moral turpitude of murder, rape, cannibalism, etc.
-The presence of truth
-The presence of lies and their influence in society
-A righteously beautiful sunset
-Nature
-Being underwhelmed at the concept of thousands of gods with no particular hierarchy
-The presence of free will
-The fact that humanity strives for perfection – at least sometimes – and is categorically unable to achieve it for an extended length of time
Certainly all these things are not irrefutable proof in the eyes of someone who chooses a different faith than mine. We have the freedom (more or less) to choose our beliefs. Neither of us can prove atheism, monotheism, polytheism, etc. in a science lab. There’s a point that I can certainly agree upon: it is not scientifically possible to prove or to disprove the existence of God. Or gods. It is also not possible that all these beliefs mentioned previously can logically exist simultaneously. Hence I look at the concepts of the world and how it has been created and choose my faith in accordance with what I see. If you watch clouds gliding across a beautiful sunset and think nothing other than: water vapor and “the sun is a mass of incandescent gas, a gigantic nuclear furnace!” than frankly I have pity for you. I see the work of an Artist.
Yeah int19h. I was agnostic/athiest for much of my life. And I considered anyone that believed in a god or higher power delusional and foolish. As I had been taught to believe by my liberal/progressive parents.
Any argument for the existence of a “god” would have been completely …..unconvincing.
Until I experienced the presence of the I Am. The power of the presence of an all loving presence, of complete and unconditional love was soul shattering. My eyes were opened, and it was the beginning of my rebirth.
I had the same experience about carrying a gun. Until a human predator tried to mug me, I was raised in a liberal progressive environment where carrying a gun for self-defense was incomprehensible and unacceptable. Afterward, carrying a gun for self defense was obvious. My eyes were opened.
So I was also “mugged” by G-d, and my eyes were opened, for once I was blind.
I was blessed by both experiences. Both experiences allowed me to open my eyes to a lie I had been taught to believe by a culture I have come to see is dedicated to delusion, denial, helplessness and self-enslavement
Both experiences showed me the truth of how things actually are, and the truth set me free. At least, as I came to see it.
So that was my experience, and I will fight to the death to keep the right for you to disagree, as I would hope you would do the same for me.
You’ll see Him one day Travis , He loves you and if you really wanted to find out the truth of His purpose , you could do it , but it’s OK . Be a good boy and He’ll introduce Himself to you sometime .
JESUS DOESN’T NEED A GUN . APPLES AND ORANGES .
And I’d ask him why he allows all the suffering I have seen around the world. If he has some magnificent plan to watch men women and children starve, be murdered, raped, and all around have terrible lives around the world for no fault of their own, and then send them to hell for never hearing his Gospel then he’s no deity Ill bow to.
I’d rather gamble on my internal soul and be honest with myself instead of living in fear if a cosmic boogeyman who wants to save me from the very punishment he created in the first place.
TravisP,
Why does God allow suffering? To be totally blunt and somewhat inappropriate, because the people of the world told God to go *@#%* himself and God obliged.
God’s plan included love, pleasure, and free-will. With free-will comes the potential to choose unwisely. The suffering that you are seeing is the result of people choosing unwisely.
Don’t blame it on God. We all share in the blame. How many people have you seen struggling with how to raise their children and offered to help — REALLY help? Your help could mean the difference between a neighbor raising a mentally healthy, well adjusted adult or raising a future rapist or embezzler. How much of your money do you donate to feed hungry children? Of course it is hard to find money for hungry children when we are paying $400,000 mortgages on 3,000 square foot mansions with granite counter tops, go on $6,000 vacations, have brand new $35,000 vehicles in our garages, and spend $400 on tickets to professional sports games. How many young, unemployed adults have you mentored and helped train so that they can go find gainful work or business? How many orphans have you adopted to provide a loving, nurturing family and home? How many homes did you rebuild on the Gulf Coast after hurricane Katrina? How many people did you tell to NOT rebuild their home because it is foolish to have a wood construction home 400 yards from the beach where hurricanes routinely demolish everything?
The simple answer is that you and I hold the keys to greatly reduce human suffering. We simply choose not to use them because we are selfish.
Travis ,
I didn’t want to go here today but you asked the magic question .
Because there is a little bit more to your existence than flesh and bone .
My God sent His own Son to be ridiculed , tortured and murdered publically by his fellow kinsmen so you could live beyond this flesh and bone existence and in Spirit with Him prepare yourself for eternal life .
You can send all manner of suffering , pain and anguish on my physical existence but you cannot take away my place at my Lords side after you’re done murdering me .
I do not live for this life but in it , for His promotion .
Please read a small excerpt from a very large novel for me if you would , it should only take a couple of hours of your time and can be found in most library’s , book stores and even ‘ on line ‘.
The ‘ Grand Inquisitor ‘ , by Dostoyevsky , and taken from a very great work entitled ‘ The Brothers Karamazov ‘ is a must read for you .
The ‘ State ‘ or the ‘government ‘ and in this case , the ‘ Pope ‘ , wants to provide safety , security , food and protection from the elements for humanity . Each want to provide for our physical well being and to end our suffering , but always do and always will , miserably fail , because there is a greater force in this world than they , one that has one goal and one directive , out of envy and resentment , the dark force hates you and wants you to suffer and will enjoy all your misfortunes , but you can overcome this dark force , just as Jesus did and ‘ by His doing so ‘ , you can be free from the flesh and ready yourself for eternity , physical earthly flesh and bone , pain and suffering , is a by product , if you will , of Gods love for you and His insistence on you choosing His path from your free will . If He made you walk the path of righteousness in return for your safety and protection , He would be nothing more than government .
Government has been at war with God from the beginning of the ages .
It’s really amusing that you saw fit to cite Dostoyevsky of all people in support of this thesis. The guy was a strong government social conservative, supporter of absolute monarchy and of state-promoted and state-enforced religiosity. Pobedonostsev himself has called him one of the best writers who contributed to and promoted his policies – if you’re not familiar with them, have a read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Pobedonostsev#Doctrine
Int19h .
I wasn’t aware that someone would take my short comment as an attempt to dictate a thesis or be considered a thesis by someone but just to clarify , I had no intention in conveying my approval of or non approval of any of Dostoyevsky’s political leanings which were quite varied over his life and which I am well versed on , instead , I was attempting to relate the story of God the Sons , three temptations , by His ( and our ) adversary , found in the Christian gospels to the commentary conveyed in ‘ The Grand Inquisitor ‘ regarding human suffering before God .
I was hoping to aid Travis and the countless others who perplex at this ageless quandary and seaming contradiction .
It makes no difference what the politics of the author is in this discussion , in my humble opinion .
God bless .
Funny how much arguments are going on in here, yet nobody has switched/left religions.
Well, it doesn’t help that they’ve been going on about Pascal’s Wager, which is a giant exercise in question begging. It feels really convincing to believers because it always assumes God exists, and works forward from there. It’s really unconvincing to non-believers because it sounds more like a protection racket shakedown than a logical argument.
Frankly, there’s one thing that makes me more skeptical about the existence of any all-knowing, all-powerful being that cares what we think of him: the existence of more than one belief system. If such a being so desired, we could all believe the same thing. Free will is not an issue because a being such as this would know exactly what would be required for each individual to believe the truth of their own accord and being all-powerful, could cause it to happen if he wished. And he could do this for everyone, making it so that no one was left in the dark.
None of this is beyond the scope of the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of everything, and would work a lot better for the stated purposes than what currently exists. On the other hand, what currently exists is what you’d expect from cultural traditions passed on and developed over time.
CarlosT,
Or, our Creator did reveal the simple, plain truth to all of us and untold billions of people who reject that truth keep trying to “explain everything” themselves.
Suppose for a moment that an eternal, rational, holy, all powerful, all knowing, and loving Creator exists and created the universe and our world, including human beings as the object of the Creator’s love. Doesn’t it seem logical that such a Creator would provide free-will — for how can love exist without free-will? And doesn’t it seem logical that such a Creator would reveal basic truths about Himself to us as the object of the Creator’s love? Finally, isn’t it logical that, since free-will exists, some would reject God’s love and truth — and such people would attempt to explain everything themselves?
It really is that simple.
I should also mention that our Creator has some minimal standards of conduct as you would expect in any loving relationship. For example we cannot poison our spouse — that would be a violation of the loving relationship with our spouse. Similarly, our Creator has given us standards of conduct so that we don’t poison our relationship with our Creator and fellow human beings. Unfortunately, we often succumb to the allure of “forbidden fruit” which poisons our relationships and causes the suffering that we see in our world. And sometimes the allure of forbidden fruit even “poisons” our own minds, which is why so many people have so many different explanations for the same idea or event.
Having laid that groundwork, now to respond to your concern
At first blush, what you are describing sounds more like manipulation or coercion which is rapidly departing from the free-will concept. More importantly, what leads you to believe that our Creator does NOT provide for each individual to believe the truth of their own accord? If there is free-will, then countless people will reject our Creator and His truth. Similarly, countless people will embrace our Creator and His truth. Which is what we actually see in our world.
Don’t let differences in minutia or personal bias discredit basic truth. We are finite and fallible creatures attempting to grasp the infinite. People will describe the edges of the infinite truth differently. That doesn’t mean the main principles are wrong.
To expound just a little on the points made here by uncommon_sence , Carlos .
Would you be more likely to hire a plumber or electrician for a service that had only studied these skills from a book or one who had preformed the job you required done on multiple occasions before ?
God allows the free will of his children to test and confirm their knowledge of Him .
It is very often said and I believe completely confirmed time and again that the best way to meet God is when life has brought you to your knees before Him .
I was raised by Christian parents , brought up in a church environment , studied scripture and Biblical Hermeneutics , and various other religions for 30 years and still smoked , drank , cursed and lived on the fence until 2007 , when my daughter drowned in a tragedy and very rare flash flood . It was only after this that I can say , I truly introduced myself to God .
Let’s say that the 90% figure is true. Even if it was if there was a poll that said 90% of Americans supported slavery, or denying people the right to vote unless they can prove a valid reason to exercise that right or even a prohibition on alcohol again, does that mean that the law should be passed on mob rule alone?
Some things are not upto a vote.
You could not be anymore correct!
An overwhelming majority of people didn’t want Hussein to f**k with our healthcare but that got shoved down our throats / up our asses. Where are the anti-civil-rights folks touting those polls???
“Some things are not up to a vote.”
Exactly.
What if 90% of the population supported laws which required a background check before you could legally:
— join a church …
— purchase gasoline …
— post a comment on a website …
— hold a sign on the steps of City Hall …
— defend yourself from a violent attacker …
— be intimate with your spouse …
Which of those laws would be righteous?
Answer: none of them.
Which if those laws would be an abomination?
Answer: ALL of them.
But, but, but, the person joining a church could be joining a cult that is going to carry out a massive Jim Jones suicide event. The person purchasing gasoline could be using that gasoline to set a chemical factory on fire. The person posting on a website could be recruiting terrorists. The person taking a sign to the steps of City Hall could be planning to overthrow the local government. The person claiming to need the means to defend themselves from violent attackers could be preparing to carry out several armed robberies. And the person claiming that they want to be intimate with their spouse could be gearing up to rape several men/women. Doesn’t that justify requiring background checks before all of those activities? NO. If that wasn’t clear enough, NO. Period.
“I’m concerned about the NRA promoting the idea that the best way to solve the most vexing problems in our society is to be prepared to shoot people dead”
Tell the big lie. Tell it often. Tell it loud.
No gun owner that I’ve been able to find believes this.
Shooting bad people is a last resort.
Democrats are themost vexing problem we have. Only in part because they are anti-gun. Laregly because they promote entitlement and impossible pipe dreams, which result in violent frustration for those who are failed by the democrat concepts which will never work. They then try to leverage that hate and frustration for more power… That is the vexing problem and I’d love to see it solved so that there’d be far less likelihood that I’d have to shoot someone…
My disdain for the false church is greater than that of atheists…
Yeah…I’m not with you on that.
If you are in my house uninvited, I’m shooting you. No questions asked. Lay a hand on any member of my family in an attempt to do them harm, same outcome.
First option or last resort is a case by case basis.
Coincidentally Dean just posted this over at Gun Watch. Every gun owner should read it.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/11/review-inalienable-right-to-stand-your.html
I am taking care of me and mine at home or the street so if they don’t want to end up in a body bag they don’t mess with me and mine because I”m to friggin old to run.
And No shooting a turd is not my last thought — it is my first one because I”m to old to fight some thug as well as not that big so a firearm is my first and last choice even though I also carry pepper spray just for idiots that want to threaten me or mine – But if a weapon or i consider them an imminent threat – f@@k it they better be ready to meet whoever they think is there maker.
That’s a straw man that Obama would like to burn.
“If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;
Exodus 22:2 NIV
But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.
Matthew 24:43 NIV
seems like he Lord is about being prepared and ok with defending ourselves so maybe you shouldn’t take away the best means to defend oneself
“16 Saul and his son Jonathan and the men with them were staying in Gibeah in Benjamin, while the Philistines camped at Micmash. 17 Raiding parties went out from the Philistine camp in three detachments. One turned toward Ophrah in the vicinity of Shual, 18 another toward Beth Horon, and the third toward the borderland overlooking the Valley of Zeboim facing the desert. 19 Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” 20 So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened. 21 The price was two thirds of a shekel for sharpening plowshares and mattocks, and a third of a shekel for sharpening forks and axes and for repointing goads. 22 So on the day of the battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in his hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.”
1 Samuel 13:16-13:22, NIV
Yep Dustin-heretics,apostates and hypocrites reign. I am commanded to protect(provide) for my family. Even unto death. Turning the other cheek means not taking offense for minor insults-not letting evil lowlifes rob,rape or kill me or my loved ones. Does the “good” rev not understand protecting innocent life as he proclaims he does while opposing abortion? I guess not…
No our Lord ans savior Christ Jesus would not have joined the NRA. He was not a joiner, he was a leader.
I thought Jesus was the NRAs first member?
The lord may be my shepard, but I am charged with shepherding the people that count on me to protect and provide.
“He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” Luke 22:36
I like the reference to Jim Crow laws. Didn’t Jim Crow disarm blacks to make it easier to oppress them?
Oops.
You just have to understand the liberal left. They have a more creative way to prevent criminals from getting shot during the commission of a felony. Their solution is to prevent people from becoming felons by ending their life before they are born. Ask them if they think Jesus would approve of killing babies that would live if they were given the opportunity to be born.
“Their solution is to prevent people from becoming felons by ending their life before they are born.”
There’s actually some data that suggests widespread abortion may have been a factor in the decline of violent crime since 1990….
I wonder how many of them would have voted democrat if they had been allowed to live…
It’s ashamed there is no way of compiling the data that could show how many of the babies destroyed may have developed a cure for cancer or any other infliction humanity endures or the perpetual motion machine or the cure for progressivism or communism , and maybe even the solution the worlds # 1 problem . MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING .
Oh wait , I think that last one may be mother nature ( the Sun ) , not man made , but you may get the point , OR NOT .
Statistically, considering who does most of the abortions, much more felons are prevented from existence than Einsteins.
alexander ,
statistically speaking , that might be taken as a race bigoted remark to assume a correlation between brain function and economic status or because abortions are running nearly 50% in SOME black communities that chances are lower for achievements .
For those people that are still capable of logical thought processes, facts are facts, regardless of how they may be interpreted or misinterpreted with regard to race or any other phobia or afliction. The facts are very clear that most of the violent crime comes from low education, low income, welfare recepients. As a percentage, there are more blacks in that category than whites, although the total number is probably more whites. Regardless of color, they constitute a definite class; in fact, almost a caste, with movement out of that caste being rare. Most of the abortions happen within that class. There is nothing biggoted, unfair, or incorrect in stating statisics and facts. If anyone doesn’t like the facts, I suggest changing the actual facts, not the reporting of the facts.
alexander ,
I understand your synthesis of the relationship between economics and crime , i.e. violent crime , but I think you miss my point that economic conditions play no role in determining the potential of a babies mind functioning . A
large number of aborted babies could have h held the keys to any number of mankinds
Yes, I agree with you completely. The probability of a genius being born (or a moron) does not depend on the economic condition of the parents. However, the probability of a genius or a moron reaching his or her potential does depend on the economic and, more important, social condition of the parents.
It seems to me that the good minister hasn’t read the Old Testament or the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. The Old Testament contains many stories of genocidal wars after the Jews entered the Promised Lands, and the latter affirm that the right of self-defense is granted to us by our creator. So therefore, our founding fathers believed that these inalienable rights (to those of a religious bent) were God-given. So much for the minister’s claimed understanding of the Word of God.
no thanks. I will cling bitterly to my guns and my religion. . . .
I have this on a plaque in my front window.
Bumper sticker , right next to ‘ Nobama ‘ and ‘ The Renegade ‘.
Old Barry choose the word ‘ Renegade ‘ for his Secret Service code name .
Meaning of the word , ( Christian turned Muslim )
Of coarse , Barry couldn’t have known this fact when he chose it . He wouldn’t have been that brash .
I will cling bitterly to my guns and my religion. . . .
Obama seems to hate that about Christians, but doesn’t seem to mind that about Muslim extremists. I wonder why.
“Obama seems to hate that about Christians, but doesn’t seem to mind that about Muslim extremists. I wonder why.”
Hypocrisy is hard-wired into Progressives since birth…
Because Christians wont kill you if you disagree with their version of God, but Muslims will.
Kind of like Progressives- give up your guns or die.
Unless you live in upstate New York…
What does any of this have to do with lighting up a doobie? And then immediately deleting any posts about said doobies on TTAG? Ha. Delete away.
Somehow I think that Evangelicals who are NRA members are aware of both what their own religion and the NRA stand for. Certainly better than someone who is a member of neither.
Disney’s efforts are doomed to failure.
I’m still trying to decide which sword to trade my cloak for. Cold Steel has so many options!
Personally, I wouldn’t have the hubris to state what a deity would or would not do. It sounds like asking for a smiting.
“Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” – Matt. 4:7, Deut. 6:16
+1. Every time I hear somebody saying that Jesus would be a Democrat or a Republican, I always cringe because it strikes me as being blasphemous. At no point is it ever said in the bible that we are not allowed to defend ourselves, but it does have some fairly nasty things to say about what is in store for corrupters.
I have a feeling Jesus would have said that he was about his Father’s business and kingdom, not the politics of man.
+1
The wisest comment in this thread…
Why must I, a law bailing citizen exhaust all means before I defend myself or clan? Why pray tell should a criminal be afforded my charity, my labor, my possessions, my pride, my children, my wife?
What entitles a criminal Christian charity other than the dogma of faith?
Criminals exist because of Christianity.
FTA:
A bald-faced lie, and she knows it.
It only sounds like it, to someone who doesn’t understand Christian doctrine. Fortunately, I don’t require your understanding in order to practice the tenets of my faith – including defending innocent life (my own and others) against those who would do violent harm.
This
If Pastor Rob Schenck really does have an influential ministry in DC, why is DC still so corrupt?
Where are the sermons by Pastor Schenck when it comes to government funding of Planned Parenthood?
Or, how about Pastor Schenck speaking out against homosexual marriage?
Or, is Pastor Schenck more interested in being politically correct and joining with political winds?
Somehow, I suspect Pastor Schenck likes to hobnob with the people who make the rules, hence his anti-gun stance.
Consider the following from the good Pastors blog, which I found after I wrote the above:
“It’s wonderful to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed to the Attorney General of the United States and the White House Chief of Staff, along with hundreds of other top-level government officials. It’s also nice to see a Supreme Court justice kneel and pray.”
http://revrobschenck.com/blog/
This guys supposedly supports the sanctity of life, but he supports sending a SWAT team to your house if you own what he doesn’t like.
When will people realize that all laws, every single one, is carried out through violence or threat of violence? Sure, that’s reasonable in some circumstances like arresting murderers and rapists, but people who want to use the state to (try) to solve all problems are literally saying that violence solves everything. They are the least pacifistic people alive.
I am Christian and 100% pro-gun. This film does not represent me as a Christian and I find it highly offensive. This pastor is a minority in the Christian community, I honestly wonder who’s pocket he’s in?
I think that is obvious.
Christians have been arguing over whether they have a right to self-defense pretty much from the git-go. Clearly the Jews in Old Testament times had that right — for example, Mosaic law specifically okays killing a thief in your own home at night (Exodus 22:2), probably in part because anyone woken by a thief at night might be in fear of his life, but, since the verse goes on to say the thief has to make full restitution, it could also be argued that the homeowner has the right to defend his property when the thief also robs him of the ability to recognize who stole it.
In Luke 22, Jesus also told his followers to arm themselves before the soldiers came to haul him off to the cross; while he was willing to die, he did not want his followers harmed. More importantly, when he said they needed to buy some if necessary, they were already carrying two swords; if Jesus were opposed to any form of self-defense or all violence, why would they have those swords in the first place? If Christians are not allowed to defend themselves, Jesus would have taught the disciples to knock it off and get rid of those swords much earlier.
Gun rights are a big dividing point between Catholic and Evangelical pro-lifers, and of course gun rights are constantly in the news (with the Evangelical position being condemned), so I would guess most Evangelicals know where they stand on that issue — and why. That gives me considerable hope that Abigail Disney’s whiffing at air on this one.
Regarding the passage from Luke: This happened after Judas had left, there were eleven disciples in the group. It was discovered there were two swords among them, presumably owned by separate disciples.
This means that 18% of Jesus’ disciples were carrying the most effective self-defense tools known to exist at the time.
The movie is based on the beliefs that good Christians are non-violent (turn the other cheek) and guns cause violence.
Guns causing violence has been repeatedly found not to be true with reputable studies. Studies showing otherwise are not reputable.
As for non-violence, good Christians try to make sin hard to do by getting every one to be moral (do the right thing). Pro life and pro gun seek the same thing: protect life by preventing the taking of innocent life.
Pro abortion and anti gun permit two things that allow the innocent to be killed: Killing the young before they take a breath; and allowing a means of defense against those who seek to take a life.
Doesn’t take much of a study to demonstrate guns don’t cause violence. If guns caused violence, then murder rates would go up when the population gets more guns. Cross culturally, that doesn’t happen. I have yet to see a serious study argue that it does, but I suppose there could be one out there.
For that matter, the murder and violence rates don’t go up when gun laws are loosened in one of the states, despite regular predictions that it will. As a scientific hypothesis, “Guns Kill People, therefore More Guns Within a Population Equals a Higher Murder Rate” fails on the predictive front.
“Guns cause violence” easily debunked. Same as proving forks and spoons cause obesity. Good luck with that, skippy.
Except turning the other cheek relates to personal vengeance, particularly in response to ridicule or insult. It doesn’t mean tolerating whatever someone wants to dish out on you and/or your family and friends. Christ was espousing the virtue of meekness–strength that is under control–in the life of His followers, rather than promoting cowardice.
Jesus would not have joined the National Rifle Association because back then there were no rifles. And no associations. And not much of a nation.
And since evangelical Christians would seem to be targeted for extinction by Democrats, lunatics and ISIS (pardon my redundancies), I don’t expect evangelicals to turn away from the only organization in the country working to enable them to obtain and keep the tools to defend themselves.
Perhaps he could have tried looking up, or founded, the Judean Sword Association.
Perhaps the “Jews for the preservation of sword ownership” ?
Well, if you must know, I’m a life member of the JSA. It’s a good group, except that every couple of weeks they send me a stone tablet asking for more money. 🙂
They need to switch to high speed papyrus and pony express.
Since these folks are all about ” feels” and values.
I’m more than 90% sure that i value my family’s safety and well being and most certainly my country!
And i ” feel” sure that any evil doer will be met with opposition to their intentions.
Bad guys give up their rights when they try and abuse mine.plain and simple. But then again I’m preaching to the choir.
these folks are all about ” feels”
I’ve seen Abigail Disney and all I can say is that “feels” was the furthest thing from my mind.
In the Bible, death comes to those who deserve it again and again. I would only take a life to defend a life. Is one worth more than another? Yes. As decided by one’s actions. Another truth shown in the words of the Bible.
Who cares weather or not a fictional character would have joined the NRA? Does it really matter if Harry Potter or Gandalf or Jesus or Jack Reacher or Ender Wiggin or Han Solo would have joined the NRA?
For calling him a fictional character, you are going to get your ass kicked by Jack Reacher.
Spaceman, on judgment day, you’ll be bowing and confessing to His Lordship. There’s an empty grave as proof. How’s that for fiction?
Who cares whether or not a fictional character would have joined the NRA? It can be debated if Jesus was a supernatural character,
But secular records do indeed record that Jesus was at least a real person and was proclaiming himself as some sort of Messiah.
Gun owners are very non violent people. How do I know? Count how many anti gun types are regularly shot? If we were so bad; “you” would be so dead.
Someone needs to read a bit more of her OWN family history. Grandpappy would not be proud:
http://hollowverse.com/walt-disney/
“Evangelical” is so broad as to have practically no meaning, so broad that there are Conservative (socially, morally, and religiously) wings and Liberal wings, with the different wings in ascendance in different areas.
Rural and Conservative Evangelicals are neither opposed to guns nor in favor of the Liberal/progressive social and moral agenda.
This will go no farther than the “What would Jesus drive?” campaign did. They are appealing to a constituency that is diametrically opposed to their philosophy. (I always thought Jesus would drive a 15 passenger van since he had 12 disciples and all their junk to haul around.)
He’d drive a Yugo. Who else could keep one of those rattletraps running?
No, he was a Honda man. “For I did not speak of my own Accord…” John 12:49
As a Christian I firmly believe in stand your ground laws the best example I can give is the story of David and Goliath. David didn’t wait till Goliath struck the mere threat of Goliath and his army already proved there point. Now whether or not anybody else believes in it it doesn’t change what it says. I believe that we should love our enemies but that doesn’t mean our enemies shouldn’t be punished. There is a certain line you don’t cross and when someone does cross it I firmly believe that it is perfectly fine to use deadly force against them and if it results in death then the person who chose to step over that line in the first place already new what the possible consequences are which would leave me at peace.
If Christians as pro life should be anti gun, then they should also be anti spoon, twinky, soda, artificial sweeteners, Starbucks, microwave, cellphone, automobile, ect.
They should just live in the matrix based off that train of thought.
She needs to read Paul Markel’s book, Faith and the Patriot: A Belief Worth Fighting For. It would most certainly appear Jesus would join the NRA. In Luke, “And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one.” Swords then, guns now.
Maybe she needs to travel to one of those countries and do her good ministry work. You know, the kind of place where we read about them all being killed. Let’s see how her faith works then. You go girl. Trust in your faith!
South side of ChIraq on a saturday night and wait for the locals to ride a train on her. Then get back to us on her beliefs.
The ten commandments do not say “Do not kill.” It says “Do not murder”. Big difference. Also the bible states many times the necessity of defending oneself. I don’t have room here to cite each instance, but it is there in plain language for you to read. If you are not a believing person, it shouldn’t have a big impact on your views on self defense, you are alive, and regardless of how you came to be alive, you have a duty to keep yourself and your loved ones alive as long as possible, in the most moral and ethical way possible.
The Shwiggie translation of Luke 22:36,38 – “Then Jesus told His disciples, “But now (as opposed to earlier when you didn’t need to go prepared), take your wallet and carrying bag, and if you don’t have a gun, sell your coat if you have to to get one.” And they said, “Boss, look, we have a couple pistols right here!” So Jesus said, “okay, that’ll do.”
Jesus was warning them that they’d had it easy with Him there, but now they would have to fend for themselves as it became necessary since He wouldn’t be there to take the slings and arrows of those who opposed Him. Christianity has never been a faith for wimps, and Jesus was telling them to get ready to face difficulty. Even if the disciples might have taken Him a bit too literally in the immediate case, at least they got the drift. Be ready, so you don’t have to get ready. That’s a theme that runs common throughout the Christian life.
It’s a common thing for heathen to try taking a religious doctrine and apply it in a way that suits them. How can you be for the death penalty while being against abortion? Those are two totally unlike things, yet they are conflated by people trying to justify themselves. How can you say, “turn the other cheek,” and “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition”? People just don’t want to bother looking into it when they can kudgel the faithful with their nonsense.
BTW, for all of you claiming Jesus never existed, there is no serious scholar alive or dead who will support that. You can say He isn’t who He says He is and think Christians are nothing better than Keepers Of Odd Knowledge all you want to at your own risk, but don’t be fool.
Well said. It is an easy thing to mock what we don’t agree with or understand, but we do so at the expense of ourselves.
Christians believe in God and the biblical code of ethics, while gun grabbers believe in Marx and the supreme all powerful godless state which is of course a god unto itself.
The liberals sort of got the Armor Of Light correct in that the Knights Templars thought to put on the Armor of Christ before donning their worldly physical armor.
“I’m concerned about the NRA promoting the idea that the best way to solve the most vexing problems in our society is to be prepared to shoot people dead,” Schenck said at a meeting of the Evangelical Church Alliance. “That doesn’t sit well with me as a Christian moral vision.” He continued: “When we champion the Second Amendment over and above the word of God, then we must be very careful that in respecting the Second Amendment we don’t violate the Second Commandment.”
Pastor Schenk is doing the classic projecting of a strawman argument upon all 5 million Americans who are NRA members. Then he sets himself up as the moral champion. Another ideologue, another demogogue. A classic leftist totalitarian, in other words. Another community organizer con-man.
More damage being done by men in the name of God, to ruin an otherwise great idea.
A couple of points. First, RE: 90% of Americans want universal background checks. What if we assume Washington State is a reasonable representation of the US as a whole. When Initiative 594 was voted on, even though the pro-background checks side outspent the anti-checks side 8 or 10 to 1, the initiative was passed with only 59% approval. In a solidly blue state. So yeah, the “90% of Americans want universal background checks” is proven to be untrue.
Second, there are a couple of ways at looking at the idea of “turning the other cheek”. One way is as an act of meekness. But it can also be considered an act of defiance, the idea that “you may be able to hurt me, but you cannot conquer my spirit”. My personal belief is that it is one thing to die for my faith as a Christian, another thing entirely to die because some lowlife wanted my stuff. I may be willing to and expected to die for my faith, but I don’t believe that God expects me to die without a fight to defend my faith. Even less do I believe God expects me to be harmed to satisfy some scumbag’s desire for my stuff.
Luke 22:36, except the modern sword is the AR15. It’s what Jesus would recommend carrying
Jesus didn’t spend his time ministering to the elite in the government either. Jesus didn’t hobnob with the top leaders of other churches. Jesus didn’t minister as a business seeking donations, writing books, doing movies (whatever the equivalent was in the day). Jesus sought out the poor, the criminals, the hookers, and all those looked down on by society and tried to show them a way to a better life. This guy is just another evangelical fame and fortune seeking blowhard looking for the spotlight. Jesus wouldn’t have been a member of the NRA or any other group but I doubt he would be against it. Considering the weapons shown in the painting of the last supper were the equivalent of today’s AR15, I think Jesus would take the walk softly and carry a big stick approach today.
Runnin’ out of bs flags folks.
Look, unless you’re Hillary Clinton you can’t have it 12 different ways, or was that Bill Clinton? Whatever.
The media on the same day will tell you evangelization / evangelists / ‘religion’ / ‘church’ is reaching no one, and, as such, it’s circling the drain. The next ‘story’ they’ll tell you evangelists are hugely persuasive and supporting a blue (D)head cause enough to drag it over the finish line.
FUSTUPIDFUSTUPIDFUSTUPIDFUSTUPIDFUSTUPIDFUSTUPIDFUSTUPID
So here is my take on this: I have gotten Into many theological debates with hardcore Christians, and their argument is that God has been around since before he beginning and knows all things. And even if you somehow believe that God came before time, why is God a man? Because the bible was written by man. God who knows no time and who never ages is still a “man” by our own definition. Why? If this is a supreme being not of this world then how the hell is it a man? Can someone please answer that question. Amongst a universe with trillions of stars and galaxies we seriously think “God” is a “man”?
God created Adam in His own image. I believe this means He created Adam with free will, without blemish, without sin and with dominion over all Earth. I don’t necessarily take as God has to be a bipedal entity with 10 fingers/toes, two eyes and ears…though I understand that God can be anything He likes, anytime He likes for as long as He likes.
The next question, I suppose is why is he a “He”? How does the concept of gender even make sense for such an entity?
Perhaps you meant why is He a “he”?
Genesis 1:26 – And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
The “us” in verse 26 refers to the Trinity – God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Bible refers to God by His name(s) or by using male pronouns. God the Son is Jesus who walked the Earth 2000 years ago. David’s comment below sums that part up well enough.
Understand these philosophical debates can be interesting and informative, however the significance of it pales in comparison to knowing and understanding who Jesus was/is, and why Jesus lived and died as flesh and blood, then arose 2000 years ago.
I have observed religious scholars state that in the original Hebrew that the male gender for references to the divine is not exactly the same as for a mortal man. Since I know very little Hebrew, I really cannot verify this. Any devout Jews who can?
I will say that the English translation of the Greek is not really spot on and some of the sentence structure and words do not have direct translations.
http://lawandliberty.org/defense.htm
Mark, Jesus came to Earth as a man to be an example for us and to pay the penalty for our sin. God created the universe and time and it was perfect in the beginning. Adam sinned and there is a penalty for sin. Since no regular man could pay that penalty because only a sinless man could God sent His Son to be born as a man. Jesus was and is both God and man. Our condition is fatal and beyond our abilities to fix. Jesus left the splendor and comfort of heaven to live in the dirt with us so that we would have a way to reconnect with God. All we have to do is confess our sin and ask Jesus to save us. The Holy Spirit will come to live in us to help us live as we should and resist sin. To answer your question: God is a man in Jesus because it was te only way to communicate our lost condition and provide a way for us to get to heaven. God is so far above us that we cannot comprehend Him or His thoughts. And yes, the Bible was written by men who were led by the Holy Spirit. Many of them wrote things that they didn’t understand or prophecies that weren’t fulfilled until they were long gone. God wrote the Bible like you or I would dictate a letter. I hope this helps.
This was good , David ,and may I add one additional comment . There is also a VERY powerful opposing force to God , so powerful , that Jesus was a requirement to prevent humanities total separation from God and God needed to become three to save his creation from the wrath of the envy and jealousy of Lucifer who roams the earth seeking whom he may devour .
In the final episode of this great conflict , when all powers , kingdoms , principalities , both in heaven and on earth are given unto Christ and firmly under His authority , He offers it all back to His Father so that God can be One .
King David describes man as a fallen God and through the simple acceptance of our fallen condition and our acknowledged need for an intercessor ( Jesus Christ ) , we can be in good standing before Him and share the blood birthright of eternal companionship with Him .
Whether you believe you need God for eternal companionship is not your choice any more than if you were to decide you didn’t need water to physically survive , you will die physiologically without water .
UBC is an idea, an unenforceable idea. It still survives on the premise a law-abiding person is a criminal in wait.
The UBC misleads people to believe an unlawful firearm owner will be unable or dissuaded from selling to another criminal because the law says they are supposed to march down to the local FFL and be found out? Who in the samuel heck believes this?
WA ST saw anti-gun law passed on this false pretense. To date it has proven unenforceable.
I’m not Jesus, so I don’t care. I don’t use the bible (or what people tell me what they believe the bible says) to live my life, so I don’t care.
NRA member because I believe in the fight to preserve my 2nd Amendment-recognized rights.
Jesus’s kingdom was and is not of this world. He would not join the NRA.
However, He was not against self-protection.
Luke 22:35-38
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you out to preach the Good News and you did not have money, a traveler’s bag, or an extra pair of sandals, did you need anything?” “No,” they replied. “But now,” he said, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! For the time has come for this prophecy about me to be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the rebels.’d Yes, everything written about me by the prophets will come true.” “Look, Lord,” they replied, “we have two swords among us.” “That’s enough,” he said.
killthemallletgodsortthemoutlater
(Abbot Arnaud Amalric, 1209 A.D.)
This gentleman should study and understand what Jesus said about weapons, the Disciples were instructed to buy & carry the close assault weapon of the day {sword} matter of fact one of them cut a dudes ear off who was arresting Jesus, granted the disciple was told to put it away! Jesus Healed the dude’s ear and the rest is history! I am no preacher but I cannot find any passages in the Bible stating arms are not permitted for self defense, neither am I aware of any passages in the Koran!
this Pastor is a Political hack out for power and glory for self not for the General Peons!
I would like this Schenck-person to elaborate on how many “options” you have wit and time to try when someone has broken in to your home and is actively engaged in trying to kill you or your spouse and children so they can take your stuff and get away leaving “no witnesses”.
Reality has a nasty habit of trumping our most sublime thoughts, ideas and beliefs. To my knowledge verifiable reports of God’s direct interdiction when even the most righteous of ordinary Christians are being attacked and murdered by evil people are so few and far between as to be non-existent.
Although I enjoyed reading through a large percentage of the discussions above, the problem with Schenck’s proposal is not Biblical or spiritual or philosophical. His “message” is fundamentally illogical and in denial of reality.
Schenck and Disney are working for the Progressive Left trying to get closer to disarming the American People so the Marxists can finish destroying the USA. Their “message”, their film and their motivations are unscrupulous deceptions.
Wow, the way folks are abusing Luke 22:36 on this thread you’d think it owed them money. Verse 37 explains why they need swords. It is to fulfill a prophecy. Context 22:36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”
Here is Isaiah 53:12 talking of the suffering servant to come “Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.”
A bible isn’t that hard to find. There’s no excuse for not reading it.
Good luck with that. I’ve tried it before and they only cherry-pick what they want to support their opinion.
It is very likely that Jesus would not have joined the NRA; he wouldn’t have to. Aside from all the love that he professes, he seems to carry the biggest gun, strike that, stick – eternal punishment, burning in hell and torture that’s worse than death – to anyone who not only opposes him, but simply chooses not to follow. I don’t think the NRA either has that power or ever desires it. So, Jesus simply wouldn’t bother to waste time and effort on even the largest concealed carry pistol. Why bother when you can have thunderbolts and lightning?!
For fracks sakes – the only time gun grabber bring up religion is when they want to take something away from mainly Christians. Whether it’s more money in taxes or guns, “Jesus would do this” is their rallying cry. Well, I’m immune because I’ve heard it so often, kind of like being called a racist or whatever.
When they try to take your money because Jesus said to take care of everybody, kindly point out he never once said that it should involve government in any way, and for that matter the only interaction he seems to have had with government was his execution.
When they try to take your gun kindly remind them that he “came not to bring peace, but a sword.” And his second arrival is prophesied to be rather swordy, as His enemies are simply wiped out in the most lopsided anti-climatic battle the word has ever seen. And then remind them that American gun owners can always give them a preview if they’d like.
“When they try to take your money because Jesus said to take care of everybody, kindly point out he never once said that it should involve government in any way, and for that matter the only interaction he seems to have had with government was his execution.”
— Excellent!
“Father” represented the qualities of mother and father in ancient Hebrew.
Jesus never spoke about other religions. He was surrounded by believers of many faiths.
As soon as Christians can grasp to the fullest depth that each of us chooses what we want they will experience a grace that they haven’t imagined. It is hypocritical to tell someone they can’t do something because your religion says so, then want full 2A rights. Pray on it.
Gandhi and Dr. King believed and practiced nonviolent protest. They believed strongly in self-defense.
Comments are closed.