jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (92 posts)

2nd Amendment Christianity

  1. 59
    illusive elusionposted 2 years ago

    Does anyone else find it ironic when America's 'Religious Right' (comprised largely of those identifying as Christian) sees fit to "stick to their guns" about the 2nd amendment right to bear arms?  It seems to me like this would be in 100% direct opposition to the charge that they "resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39). Scriptural passages don't influence my personal or political leanings, but I don't think that anyone claiming to be a follower of Christ has that sort of luxury.

    1. Doc Young profile image82
      Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      ... in context ... you would find the verse you quoted applies to "abuse" suffered for presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ ... Luke 22:36 speaks to personal self defense in times of trouble ... shortly after we find Peter does carry a sword but uses it improperly, both in purpose and aim ... John 18:10 ... personally I think he was going for the neck but needed more practice ...

      1. 59
        illusive elusionposted 2 years ago in reply to this



        Do you mean to imply that this is the only case in which the instruction to Christians was that they not respond to conflict with violent resistance?  I still find it difficult to agree that the original intent of this passage is to say that a believer should allow others to defame and persecute them for their religious convictions, but if a crook with a weapon shows up in their house then it is perfectly fine to kill 'em dead.

        1. Sed-me profile image81
          Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The Bible records the violence of man throughout the ages. I believe you'll find that there are many "righteous killings." Whether it be in wartime, or b/c man was following the laws of the land. Take for example the prophetess Deborah. God told her to drive a tent peg through the head of Jabin, while he slept, to deliver Israel from his hand. You may feign disbelief, but good must triumph over evil or evil will destroy like a cancer. She wiped out the cell before it spread through the whole country and destroyed it... and it was an act sanctioned by God.

          1. Doc Young profile image82
            Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            ... careful ... not aware of God speaking to her but the implication is God approved ... and her name was Jael ... she is in the Song of Deborah ...

            1. Sed-me profile image81
              Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I studied the story many years ago and remembered Deborah doing the deed, but she was leading the land at the time. She was the prophetess lead by God to take down Jabin, but you're right, it was Jael, the female who took the life and it was that of Jabin's high official Sissera. The story is found in Judges 4 and 5. My apologies.

              1. Doc Young profile image82
                Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                ... no need ... we all need to refresh once in a while ... just trying to keep you out of the crosshairs of the malcontents ...

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            If you heard God tell you to kill someone would you do it?

        2. Doc Young profile image82
          Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ... no, i am implying nothing ... i am stating that this is the only case i know of where we are to turn the other cheek as it were ... and i don't believe it means to stand there defenseless while you are pummeled ... on the contrary, one should be smart enough to move on (Mark 6:11) when there is an avenue of retreat ... should a malcontent continue their abuse or pursue you when you turn away then let them suffer the fury of self-defense ... and "love thy neighbor" has to do with doing that which is called for, in this case, maybe a lesson in manners so the foolish one will think twice the next time ...

          ... as to killing ... what do you mean by this ...

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Turning the other cheek and allowing someone to take your money goes against human nature. That's why it makes no sense.

            1. Doc Young profile image82
              Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ... you'll have to catch up ... you're understanding is incorrect ... read my previous ...

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, my understand of "turn the other cheek" is correct. It doesn't say to run away or fight back. You don't get to decide that "turn the other cheek" really means to run away. What a joke. You don't like conflicting information so you simply pretend it means something else. Can you really look at yourself in the mirror and say that to turn the other cheek means to run away?

                1. Doc Young profile image82
                  Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  ... i see comprehension is not one of your strong suits so i'll expand a bit for you ... here we have a man, we'll call him #1, talking to another man, we'll call him #2, about God ... #2 does not want to hear it ... so rather than him walking away #2 swats #1 ... #1, in this setting, is under a directive is not allow to strike back as this was, in essence, a response to the message not the messenger ... so the #1 is free to move on as indicated in Mark or stand there and take more abuse ... #1 decides to move on, as it says in Mark ... #2, for whatever reason decides to pursue the retreating #1 ... bad move ... cuz now the #1 is under no restrictions ... and as #2 pursuits #1, #1 might feel a physical assault is imminent, he has no reason to wait for the second swat or touching and goes into a proper counter offensive mind set ... so you see we have two varied confrontations ... one brought on by a spiritual comment for which #1 accepted the physical rebuff ... as is proper ... and one brought on by the purposeful assault, no touching required, by #2 which has no spiritual connotation ... self defense is therefore an accepted response ... but only to point which the prudent man would find necessary ... its really quite simple ...

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    And I have the comprehension problem? You however turned this...

                    “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.  If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.  Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

                    into that.

          2. Righteous Atheist profile image59
            Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            This passage you quoted (Mark 6:11) has absolutely nothing to do with turning the other cheek. Your passage is to do with sticking your religion at them and then when they say "no thanks," you are to walk away and God will kill them later.

            Why the need to lie about what the bible says?

            1. Doc Young profile image82
              Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              ... as usual you're understanding is incorrect and your comments are offensive ... read my previous ...

              1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
                Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Oh dear. Please stop bearing false witness against me.

                Mark 6.11 has absolutely nothing to do with turning the other cheek.

                And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.

                I wonder - have you read this book? Or is your understanding so poor? What did goddun to Sodom and Gomorrha again? sad

                1. Doc Young profile image82
                  Doc Youngposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  ... i just love the way you start most times with your whinnie, sniveling comments ... boo, boo, you're judging, you're bearing false witness ... wahhhh ...  it always makes me chuckle ... anyway ... without God, common courtesy and social graces, all of which you lack, you haven't snowballs chance in Hell of understanding ... much of anything ...

                  1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
                    Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh dear. The passage you quoted had absolutely nothing to do with the matter in hand. Keep bearing false witness against me then. No wonder your religion causes so many fights. sad

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    This I love.

                    You reply to someone that you think his comments are whinnie and snivelling and then you tell him that it's because he is without God they he has no common courtesy or social graces and hasn't a snowballs chance in Hell of understanding much anything.

                    He however has the excuse of not "having" God. What's your excuse?

    2. savvydating profile image85
      savvydatingposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Here is a link that may offer insight behind the real meaning of the phrase, for anyone who cares to know.
      http://www.reenactingtheway.com/blog/tu … -injustice
      As the title implies, "offering the left cheek" is a form of peaceful resistance, and a way of challenging the other person to think about their aggression. It's the same method used by Ghandi and Martin Luther King,Jr. for example. It is a way to effect positive change. Including in the link is the cultural context of that time, which discusses how Roman soldiers randomly slapped people all of the time.
      I've used this "left cheek" method in the workplace, and frankly, it makes a very strong statement. I may have to begin using it more on hubpages. (Lol)
      Long story short, the verse is highly misunderstood. It is not intended to say, "Be a doormat." It is a call to effect change in a more powerful way.

      1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
        Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        And if they slap your other cheek?

  2. Sed-me profile image81
    Sed-meposted 2 years ago

    Just curious what your stance is on Christians going into the armed forces such as the police force or the army. Is it your stance that Christians not be allowed to hunt for food? Or is it simply self defense that you take issue with? Thank you.

    1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
      Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You don't have a problem with killing human beings then? Not surprising - many self professed Christians are not fans of turning the other cheek. sad

      1. Sed-me profile image81
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Did I say I didn't have a problem with taking life? That was a moon jump you took there. I simply asked for clarification from the OP. I like the frowny face. Thanks. Here's a smiley face for you. smile

        1. 0
          SirDentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I think you may have a stalker.

          1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
            Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Says the pot. wink

          2. Sed-me profile image81
            Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I love stalkers. They are so silly. As long as they remain online... and live outside of the contiguous states.

        2. Righteous Atheist profile image59
          Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Ah - sorry - I assumed. I take it you are against Christians going in the armed forces then?

          1. Sed-me profile image81
            Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Not at all. I recall David wielding a sword and he was the apple of God's eye. Although few armies use a sword anymore.

            1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
              Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              So you don't have a problem with killing human beings then. Glad we got that cleared up. wink

              1. Sed-me profile image81
                Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If you are going to ask and answer every question, I really don't need to be here.
                I personally have not, nor do I plan to take a life.
                I can tell you if someone were to hurt someone I loved, I believe God would expect me to forgive, though it would be no easy task.
                However, were I called to defend the life of someone in danger, I would feel compelled to act bravely and do what was necessary to protect someone who was innocent. What would you do in that situation?

                1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
                  Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps you could try and be more clear? You are fine with Christians in the armed forces whose purpose is to kill people - yes? So you are OK with Christians killing?

                  1. Sed-me profile image81
                    Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    If a Christian were a police officer hired to uphold the law and he had to take a life b/c legally and morally it was required of him? Yes, I'm ok with that. Do you discriminate against the religious holding those posts? What other jobs should they not hold according to you?

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                To kill or not to kill, that is the question.

                The problem lies in the mountain of conflicting information. The bible says God says to not kill your neighbours, unless they are promiscuous girls or homosexuals. It says nothing about not killing people of other tribes. Rather conveniently written isn't it? So it appears Christians are asked to kill for Jesus.

                As it turns out people are people and most of what Jesus supposedly said is lost on us. When it's convenient they fall back on the laws of the OT, when that's not convenient they claim that the NT overrides the OT. So they can go to war and kill as many people of others tribes guilt free and when they come home they can eat pork and shellfish and work on Sundays all guilt free.

                1. Righteous Atheist profile image59
                  Righteous Atheistposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  As long as you profess "love" as you do it I suppose. wink

                2. Sed-me profile image81
                  Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Not to be condescending, but you don't have a good understanding of the Bible and should not try to dictate its meaning until you do.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Rather than simply showing me I'm wrong you throw insults. It appears everyone gets different meanings from the bible because of these contradictions. That's way baptists, catholics and all the other secs. You guys can't even agree, why should I take your advice about my opinions being invalid when you guys can't even decide who's opinions are valid?

                    If you don't like what I said prove me wrong.

    2. 59
      illusive elusionposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      For my own part, I am grateful to all of America's armed servicemen and women, regardless of their religion or beliefs.  I don't feel that Christians should keep out of the military any more than I feel that children really should leave out cookies and milk for Santa Claus. In fact, I would say that it is a morally superior decision to fight for others' freedom than to bury one's own moral conviction beneath dogmatic teachings of any creed.  However, in so doing, these same Christians make the unconscious assertion that their own moral compass can guide them more rightly than biblical doctrine!  And, I would argue, they are correct in this case.  But you can see the dilemma this causes for someone who wishes to say that they follow the teachings of Christ (who is supposed by most Christians to actually be the source of morality itself!)

      Regarding use of firearms for hunting, I don't recall any scripture specifically prohibiting the killing of animals for food, so I don't find it inconsistent for Christians to use guns in this way.  But how many of the "Religious Right" are really just out to preserve their means of hunting?

      1. Sed-me profile image81
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        So you are specifically talking about a group... sort of like the NRA. You're not saying that a Christian (who follows the Bible's code of not murdering someone) should not serve in the armed forces. You're saying that... who exactly are you saying cannot take up arms according to the bible?

        1. 59
          illusive elusionposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I'm saying that Christians who serve in the armed forces are either unaware of this passage, or are aware of it and have decided to put their own moral judgment above biblical teaching.  However, I don't see this as a bad thing.  Clearly just another example of human morality surpassing the supposedly inerrant word of god.  Or, at best, an illustration of how malleable scriptural doctrine must become in order to conform to what the average human would agree is the obvious right choice.  I am reminded in some way of Abraham's near-sacrifice of Isaac at God's command.

          1. Sed-me profile image81
            Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            What passage?

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Eye for Eye
              38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

              Mathhew 5 38:42

              1. Sed-me profile image81
                Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                When he says "you have heard it said"... where do you think they had heard it said before?

                They had heard it said b/c it was Levitical law. The difference between the OT and the NT is the former was about judgement and the latter was about mercy.
                Neither of these situations have to do with war time situations.

                OT
                Leviticus 24:19: "If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20. fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him.

                NT
                Matt 5:38: "You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' 39. But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

                As Ive tried to explain many times before, the bible must be taken as a whole, not dissected up into parts in order to make what ever point the poster is going for.

                The bible speaks of wartime. Many godly men have gone into battle. You cannot just ignore that b/c it suits the point you want to make.

                I have to go... see you later.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  More conflicting information. One says an eye for an eye and the other says to turn and give him the other eye.

                  While those were not about war, this one was.

                  Love for Enemies
                  43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

                  Love your enemy. You are told to love ISIS, even the one who is beheading innocent people.

    3. cjhunsinger profile image70
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Sed
      A very nice response. Well said.

    4. cjhunsinger profile image70
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Sed
      A very nice response. Well said.

      1. Sed-me profile image81
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        TY.

  3. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 2 years ago

    No, I don't find it ironic at all; only a minuscule minority will ever use that gun to shoot anyone.  It thus has nothing to do with turning the other cheek.

    1. 59
      illusive elusionposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I would argue that the small likelihood of opportunity does not diminish the relevance of intent in ownership of deadly weapons.  For the same reason, I think most people would agree that it is immoral to attempt to murder someone even if the attempt fails or the right opportunity never arises.

  4. lone77star profile image91
    lone77starposted 2 years ago

    illusive elusion, you've hit a powerful topic that many cannot resist flinching about.

    First, though, the left-right paradigm is a lie. That carefully constructed lie has been used to pigeonhole us into separate camps in order to control us. Those with $Trillion$ can spend their money on think tanks to come up with every conceivable way to gain more power -- like creating the lie of 9/11 and blaming it on Muslim patsies. It worked!

    Most Christians have no real idea of Christianity.

    Doc Young, for instance, waffled on the idea of turning the other cheek. He doesn't understand its true power. This is easy to understand, if you've ever experienced full-blown miracles and have know how loving your enemies enough to want them to achieve all that they desire is what turning the other cheek is all about.

    As spiritual beings, if we flinch when these temporary bodies of ours are threatened, then we are being too attached to them. This helps to keep us trapped in our "long sleep" of egoistic separateness.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You are most certainly right about Doc Young and his inability to understand the power of turning the other cheek. We all know who Gandhi was and what he achieved turning the other cheek. Everything else is nonsense unfortunately.

 
working