Guns: Stop trying to use CHRISTianity to Justify Guns

SERIOUSLY?!
SERIOUSLY?!

It makes you look Foolish

I just finished reading the most inane article in support of guns ever written. The author's principle theme was that Christianity taught that we should arm ourselves for self-defense. He argues that throughout the bible there is a God given mandate to protect ones family with arms. I agree that we should protect the ones we love. The problem is that the only verses he can find to defend his argument are in the Old Testament. His only foray into the New Testament is in the Book of Luke, chapter 22.

It is the chapter where Jesus and his disciples are having The Last Supper. Jesus tells Judas to go ahead and go through with his betrayal. He then tells his disciples that that those who would be great among them must be the least and that those who would be masters must serve.

Peter pipes up and says that he will go with Jesus to prison or death and Jesus' reply is that before the cock crows three times that night, Peter would betray him. It is then that he asks them if they needed anything when he sent them out to heal the preach and teach. They reply no. Context is a beautiful thing.

These are the following verses and what the author uses to try and justify guns:

  • "36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
  • 37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
  • 38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."

Later in the same chapter, they come to arrest Jesus and one of his disciples uses one of those swords to cut off a soldier's ear. Jesus rebukes him and heals the man. Now, I am no bible scholar but it seems that Jesus is telling his disciples that when he is arrested that they will lose faith and return to their old ways. Which is exactly what happened.

To say that Christianity is a mandate to protect themselves with arms is a bastardization of what Jesus taught throughout his ministry.

Neo-cons want to use the bible to justify their beliefs but they seem to want to skip the parts that do not agree with their ideologies. For instance, they seem to forget that Barabas and his followers were waiting on a Messiah who would lead them into armed conflict against the Romans. Their hope turned to anger and became deadly when Jesus refused to do so.

The Old Testament is the precursor for what we know as Christianity. It is an old covenant. Jesus came to give us a new covenant and that covenant has nothing to do with guns. That is why you do not find armed conflict in the New Testament.

Gun owners are so paranoid that someone wants to come into their homes and disarm them. They will use any argument to try and justify their position, but this one just does not walk on water. They have a constitution that supports their right, but saying it is a Christian idea just makes them look foolish. It is baseless and should be filed in the do not use ever again folder in the backs of their minds.


More by this Author


Comments 12 comments

Jean Bakula profile image

Jean Bakula 3 years ago from New Jersey

Hello Habueld,

You make a great point here. Gun advocates will use anything to justify their perceived need for guns. I have been trying to be more openminded on this issue, but don't hunt and never have had to shoot to protect myself, so still am feeling anti-gun. Too many innocent people are caught in the crossfire. I suppose a small gun with a little bit of ammo is OK, but would draw the line there. You don't need a semi automatic to kill a deer unless you want dear meatloaf.

I believe in Jesus's time the Romans carried swords and other weapons, so it was not uncommon that the Disciples had swords. I also wonder what people don"t get about "Thou shalt not kill." Also, that "those who live by the sword will die by the sword."


Cantuhearmescream profile image

Cantuhearmescream 3 years ago from New York

Gee, you're flirting with 2 controversial topics, which I happen to appreciate. But, without running the risk of offending people by talking religion, I will simply ask; why does protecting our families have to require guns? I am a 5'4", 120 pound single mother of 2. I usually have enough money to cover the bills but its close. I feel that I am responsible for protecting my kids and I feel like that responsibility falls 100% on me. I feel like I have protected my kids and I don't feel unprotected without owning or even having access to a gun.

The poor mother of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooter owned and registered the guns that were used in that horrific tragedy. Did her guns protect her family?

I am not saying that I am necessarily against guns; I am suggesting that it can be offensive to imply a parent can't protect her children adequately without guns.


Patriot Quest profile image

Patriot Quest 3 years ago from America

Here is a novel thought, how about leave law abiding citizens alone to decide if they want guns or not? last night the mayor of New York was asked if he would disarm his security detail and he refused to answer? Why is it OK for him to have guns for protection and not regular citizens? .....is his life worth more than mine?


Alberic O profile image

Alberic O 3 years ago from Any Clime, Any Place

The mother is an example of an irresponsible gun owner. She knows what is wrong with her son but still trains him on the use of weapons and allows him access to them. It's like me training a guy with a history of domestic violence in combat arts. Irresponsible to the fact that he will use it on his significant other and cause more harm. Irresponsible owners who don't secure their firearms give all legit gun owners a bad name.

Self defense doesn't necessarily require a weapon, or excessive combat skills. You can prevent most acts of violence by looking at the signs and controlling your emotions in a confrontation.

The article sort of reminds me of the term fear vs risk/danger management. Unfortunately, people can't tell the difference between the two. I'll give you a hint though, the 2nd one will help you. The other one purely relies on emotion such as fear, anger, pride, etc.

I can state for a fact both martial arts/combat arts courses and firearms industries (not all of them) do use fear for marketing purposes. As a matter of fact fear has been used on both sides of the gun control debate.

Not sure why you would use religion to debate gun control though.


Team Wiseman profile image

Team Wiseman 3 years ago

"You live by the sword then you die by the sword"

This is why I will not get myself a gun. My life & trust is fully in Christ and not a gun.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

H

Who is using religion for gun control?

What are your sources?


habueld profile image

habueld 3 years ago from Riverside, CA Author

Because that's what the article I cited used.


habueld profile image

habueld 3 years ago from Riverside, CA Author

Click the link.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 3 years ago from Southern California

Habueld

David French is a senior counsel for ACLJ

Of course he is talking about religion

The website didn't give any more info on him, just his articles.

The only one that had any depth to their background was Jay.

----------

Jay Sekulow is Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), one of the most prestigious law firms in the country. He is an accomplished Supreme Court advocate, renowned expert on religious liberty, and a respected broadcaster.

Jay Sekulow arguing a case at the Supreme Court Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow arguing a case at the Supreme Court

Jay Sekulow is an attorney with a passion for protecting religious liberty - freedom - democracy. For nearly a quarter of a century, he's been on the front lines - working to protect religious and constitutional freedoms in the courts, in Congress, and in the public arena.

At the Supreme Court of the United States, Jay Sekulow has argued 12 cases - including several landmark cases which have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation. In the Mergens case, Jay Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses. In the Lamb's Chapel case, he defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities. In McConnell v. FEC, Jay Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. Most recently, in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, he secured a unanimous First Amendment decision clearing the way for governments to accept permanent monuments of their choosing - including Ten Commandments monuments - in public parks.


ImKarn23 profile image

ImKarn23 3 years ago

Excellent post, sir - i commend you for your courage in writing it! Bravo!

As far as i'm concerned fear-mongering based on inaccuracies comes naturally to those who barter in control and power..

For instance - the Catholic Church...

for instance - the NRA..

for instance - Governments..

Fear is a wonderful tool as it disallows for common sense to seep in - it leaves the fearful huddling together focused on one thing - protection!

That's when the indoctrination begins..

Why? Because - we, the sheeple - turn to the exact same organizations that are terrifying us - FOR PROTECTION! How perfect is that..

So - the catholic church give the sheeple a false sense of security - while using the power of numbers to get what THEY want - CONTROL!(where i'm sure jesus would prefer the OPPOSITE..)..

After all - IS there any other religion on earth OTHER than christian? Not if you ask a 'christian' - or the pope - OR ANY WOMAN OF ANY RELIGIOUS BELIEF WHO NEEDS AN ABORTION..

And then - the NRA gives the sheeple guns - and makes damn sure they're easier to get than bubble-gum! Not to mention manipulating the playing field by spending zillions to further their agenda..

And then - the Government cowtows TO the NRA AND the CHURCH...

Follow the money - it's simple..

sharing forward most definitely


Greensleeves Hubs profile image

Greensleeves Hubs 3 years ago from Essex, UK

habueld; by coincidence I just published a hub in the past hour looking at the more extreme elements of the gun lobby, including some who claim it is their 'God given right to bear arms'. As such it is a pleasure to find so soon afterwards this article which addresses that particular point. Of course there can be no such pro-gun argument found in the Bible, but thank you for pointing this out and for analysing the relevent text. Voted up. Alun.


movingout profile image

movingout 3 years ago from Georgia

@habueld, enjoyed reading! voted up! Fear is a powerful and controlling emotion. I don't begrudge anyone to own a gun. But I don't see a reason to own guns with large clip capabilities. Just today, I read a story about 2 room mates. One was asleep and the other came home at 2AM. The one sleeping woke up, saw a shadow of a person, grabbed a gun and shot his room mate. Now his room mate is in criticle condition. Some say guns don't kill people? But had this responsible sleeping room mate hadn't shot out of fear, I wouldn't be telling this story. Had there been no gun, no one would have been hurt!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working