Bearing Arms

[A Cup of Maybe]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do you think it is right to bear arms?

I believe that it is great to keep a gun just in case. I would feel safer owning a gun and being trained in gun use. If someone breaks into your house, you need to make sure you can protect your family.

[A Cup of No]

:popcorn: Where are you, :rando:

[Teallaura]

Why is this in Biblical Ethics? :hrm:

From a Biblical perspective, I can't think of a single injunction against owning weapons. Using them improperly, yes; owning, no.

The Second Amendment really has nothing to do with the morality of gun ownership - it prevents infringement on that right. However, that is at present still limited to the Federal government - the states can regulate, even ban, personal firearms to their heart's content (political suicide, but they can do it). Even the Fed has some regulatory discretion under the Second Amendment - the SC has always viewed it in terms of militia, which Bubba and his huntin' rifles are not.

So, legally, as long as you comply with the regulations, there's no prob. Biblically, no issue. Morally? Hmm, you can make the case from a passivist POV, but I see little point to that.

The moral issue isn't owning the thing - it's using it.

[Telleriab2]

I am opposed to owning guns. From personal experience, I have seen that people may also have other intentions for using a gun rather than for the safety of their families. Screw the whole "guns don't kill people: people kill people" hogwash; guns only make it easier to kill people.

Which, of course, brings in a different scenario: why should those who do not have other intentions for gun use, the people who strictly have the idea of owning a gun for protecting themselves, be grouped into the melee of citizens who cannot use a gun wisely? I am certain that there are plenty of sensible persons out there who would indeed take the precaution to train themselves in properly executing a gun, but one must not forget that there are indeed some wackos out there.

And, yeah, that amendment, as I have read, really pertains to an army of the population protecting themselves from the government should it get out of hand. People just misinterpret the amendment to fit their own needs.

[Amazing Rando]

I would echo Teal's question- why is this in Biblical Ethics?

I would offer a clarifying question- by what standards are you asking about the morality of personal armament? Should the average joe on the street own a gun? Should we all walk down the street armed to the teeth with concealed (and not-so-concealed) weapons like in the days of the Old West?

Or are you trying to ascertain whether arming oneself is an acceptable course of action for the people of God?

[joey11806]

" Screw the whole "guns don't kill people: people kill people" hogwash; guns only make it easier to kill people."

You could also say the same for knifes, fire(matches-gas), etc. And for the sake of your argument maybe we should get rid of all these things. But in the end we still have that one factor, the originating factor-people. Guns can be a very good thing, as well as war, violence and amputation. Sometimes a doctor needs to remove a limb, cause a little pain to take away much pain later. I have a 10 month old daugther, I choose to discipline her now so that hopefully later she will be berieved of the consequences later of disobeying say, the law.
I feel for ya though on the gun issue, there are too many people out there with a trigger happy finger and no moral, but there are many who choose to use them lawfully.
God keep you,
Joey

[Telleriab2]

" Screw the whole "guns don't kill people: people kill people" hogwash; guns only make it easier to kill people."

You could also say the same for knifes, fire(matches-gas), etc. And for the sake of your argument maybe we should get rid of all these things. But in the end we still have that one factor, the originating factor-people. Guns can be a very good thing, as well as war, violence and amputation. Sometimes a doctor needs to remove a limb, cause a little pain to take away much pain later. I have a 10 month old daugther, I choose to discipline her now so that hopefully later she will be berieved of the consequences later of disobeying say, the law.
I feel for ya though on the gun issue, there are too many people out there with a trigger happy finger and no moral, but there are many who choose to use them lawfully.
God keep you,
Joey

Yes. The thing is, I do have a more emotional background to the whole guns issue. And, as I have mentioned before, you never know who might use a gun incorrectly.

[Amazing Rando]

Yes. The thing is, I do have a more emotional background to the whole guns issue. And, as I have mentioned before, you never know who might use a gun incorrectly.

More people are killed by their own guns (whether accidentally, or intentionally by a family member) than are killed by the guns of home invaders. :yes:

[A Cup of Maybe]

I would offer a clarifying question- by what standards are you asking about the morality of personal armament? Should the average joe on the street own a gun? Should we all walk down the street armed to the teeth with concealed (and not-so-concealed) weapons like in the days of the Old West?

I am asking if it is morally right for someone to own a weapon intending to use it on an intruder. I would not expect to take it out of the home.

Or are you trying to ascertain whether arming oneself is an acceptable course of action for the people of God?

I am asking if arming oneself is an acceptable course of action.

When I finally have a family of my own I would like to buy a gun for their protection. I sincerely hope never to use it, but if it is necessary I will use it.

I have mentioned before, you never know who might use a gun incorrectly.

I expect to be trained in gun use before I accually purchase one. I also do not like to consider myself as someone who is trigger-happy and someone who likes to use guns. I have never been hunting nor intend to and, I do not plan on joining the NRA.

Why is this in Biblical Ethics? :hrm:

A Cup of No said I should post it here. Where should I have posted it? Sorry if I posted in the wrong place. :outtie:

[Amazing Rando]

I am asking if it is morally right for someone to own a weapon intending to use it on an intruder. I would not expect to take it out of the home.

Okay, morally right by what standards? You mean philosophically justified, constitutionally justified, or in conforming with Jesus' example? They're three very different sets of criteria by which to judge, and this forum is generally devoted to discussing issues related to the last one.

I am asking if arming oneself is an acceptable course of action.

For who? For the average Joe, for an 85 year old grandmother? Or for a Christian? :smile:


When I finally have a family of my own I would like to buy a gun for their protection. I sincerely hope never to use it, but if it is necessary I will use it.

I can certainly understand that fear. Just be wary-

Out of the 7,875 handgun homicides in 1998, only 1.2 percent were justifiable handgun killings of an assailant unknown to the person defending themselves. Most killings with handguns are by people who know each other, and often such guns are used against their owner.

From here. (http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0510/p10s02-comv.html)

Statistically, by choosing to own a gun, you're actually increasing rather than decreasing your risk of death. Check out this study from the well-respected New England Journal of Medicine:


Results During the study period, 1860 homicides occurred in the three counties, 444 of them (23.9 percent) in the home of the victim. After excluding 24 cases for various reasons, we interviewed proxy respondents for 93 percent of the victims. Controls were identified for 99 percent of these, yielding 388 matched pairs. As compared with the controls, the victims more often lived alone or rented their residence. Also, case households more commonly contained an illicit-drug user, a person with prior arrests, or someone who had been hit or hurt in a fight in the home. After controlling for these characteristics, we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.6 to 4.4). Virtually all of this risk involved homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Conclusions The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

From here. (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/329/15/1084)

To me at least, aside from finding the practice more than a bit biblically questionable, it also just seems like a dumb idea because homes without guns have dramatically lower homicide rates than do homes with guns.

[A Cup of Maybe]

Okay, morally right by what standards? You mean philosophically justified, constitutionally justified, or in conforming with Jesus' example? They're three very different sets of criteria by which to judge, and this forum is generally devoted to discussing issues related to the last one.

Yes, I am asking "Is it Biblically Ethical to own a gun intending to use it for self-defense"?

For who? For the average Joe, for an 85 year old grandmother? Or for a Christian? :smile:

For anyone who wants to use a gun for self-defense purposes.

I acknowledge the risk, but I think that a well-trained family can stay safe.

An accused group of thugs were thwarted by a 12-year old with a gun. It happened in Greenville when police say five masked men stormed into a house and started beating up the child's father. (http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=5134073&nav=2KPp2Qjt)

Sorry, I dont know how to cite how you did.

I am trying to say that there are times that a gun can save your family.

[Teallaura]

A Cup of No said I should post it here. Where should I have posted it? Sorry if I posted in the wrong place. :outtie:No, it's fine - it just wasn't clear in your OP what you were asking. As long as moral/Biblical questions are in view, this be the right place.

:thumb:

[A Cup of Maybe]

No, it's fine - it just wasn't clear in your OP what you were asking. As long as moral/Biblical questions are in view, this be the right place.

:thumb:

Sorry, lol, I'm new to this part of Twebb. In fact I got my first two anti-spam points today in this thread lol.

[A Cup of No]

blame it on a cup of no..:shifty:

[Iluvatar]

Lets clear up some misinformation:

It is not true that more people are harmed by their own firearms than by criminals. Gun control nuts twist statistics to make it appear so and manipulate polls to their own ends. See the flawed study cited above in this thread attempting to show that gun ownership makes it more likely that there will be a homicide. Far more likely that the determining factor was an "illicit drug user" or a CRIMINAL living in the household - duh? They continue to insist that many "children" are killed by firearms each year, when their definition of "child" includes inner city gang members and criminals up to the age of 18. Remove those from the population, and there is nothing to talk about.

In fact, between 1967 and 1991 the number of accidental firearm deaths in the US dropped from 2896 to 1400 annually. During the same time period, the number of firearms owned in the US increased dramatically. But the media sensationalize gun accidents, instead of putting it in perspective. Drowning accidents, bicycle accidents, skate board accidents, etc. result in far more deaths than firearms accidents.

As many as 2.45 million crimes are THWARTED each year in the United States by average citizens using firearms, and in the vast majority they never fire a shot. Just possessing the weapon and indicating a willingness to use it is usually enough to send the criminal running. Consider the effect of approximately 2.5 million more crimes each year if those citizens did not have the means to defend themselves. Demonizing the object is a misguided and emotional reaction. According to FBI crime statistics, more crimes are committed with "blunt objects" and knives than with firearms. Why aren't politicians calling for blunt object control and registration? Stupid, isn't it?

[KoE14408]

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Do you think it is right to bear arms?

I believe that it is great to keep a gun just in case. I would feel safer owning a gun and being trained in gun use. If someone breaks into your house, you need to make sure you can protect your family.

it is more than right to bear arms .that ammendment is to keep your family and friends safe from a tyrannical government.if we let it go we are just saying to our government
here take all my money,do what you want not what i ask and tell me how to live my life i dont want to be in charge of or responsible for myself anyway.in my opinoin if you dont like the ammendment and want gun control get the fuck outta this countryyou dont belong here if you dont believe in the freedom to make your own choices.go to russia.or england.idiots.

That word is not allowed on these fora in any way, shape or form.

[Ryokan]

More people are killed by their own guns (whether accidentally, or intentionally by a family member) than are killed by the guns of home invaders. :yes:
However, its hard to get statistics on thedeterrent power of firearm ownership. How manyhomes were not invaded because of guns possibly beingin them? Many, I'd wager. Probably not as many as were detterredby large dogs, but...

[KoE14408]

pleas excuse my last outburst thats a touchy subject ,government related,
i just realized some offensive words i used.i didnt mean to not block them out;was just typing furiously

[James Peter]

So basically the arguments are either:

(1) I have a gun so that I can defend myself (or my property/family) if I need to. I'd rather kill than be killed, causing suffering to suffer.

(2) In order to resist and be able to overthrow the government.

Both are, I think, very questionable on a 'Biblical Ethics' level. Is the Christian response to violence to fight back? Probably not. Is the Christian response to an oppressive government to overthrow it by force? Again, probably not.

Yes, the OT is full of fighting and weapon owning but the social situation in it is very, very different to both the NT period and today. I find gun ownership to be inconsistent with christian ethics. The only exception would be if it is purely as a deterant that you you do not intend to use but in reality threatening somebody with a gun often means that, if they have one too (and its on the basis that they do that you need one remember), one of you is likely to have to shoot. If you don't confront your attacker then you are much more likely to survive and not get hurt in probably 95% of cases.

[Jedidiah]

Lets clear up some misinformation:
Thanks for this post. I was about to make a similar post in response to AR.

[A-Man]

Yes, the OT is full of fighting and weapon owning but the social situation in it is very, very different to both the NT period and today. I find gun ownership to be inconsistent with christian ethics. The only exception would be if it is purely as a deterant that you you do not intend to use but in reality threatening somebody with a gun often means that, if they have one too (and its on the basis that they do that you need one remember), one of you is likely to have to shoot. If you don't confront your attacker then you are much more likely to survive and not get hurt in probably 95% of cases.


Hi JP
I have no qualms about defending my family at home. Would you really let a criminal do unspeakable acts against your loved ones? I wouldn't want to shoot over property or material goods, but how do you know the invaders intent? Where did you get the info for your last sentence?

[A-Man]

To me at least, aside from finding the practice more than a bit biblically questionable, it also just seems like a dumb idea because homes without guns have dramatically lower homicide rates than do homes with guns.

Or maybe it's a question of criminals having guns vs. law abiding citizens having guns. Criminals will always have guns. Look at the crime/murder statistics in DC, where all guns are illegal.

[Sheepdog]

I'm not aware of any passages in the Bible that disallow self-defense in whatever form. the closest you get is the turn the other cheek passage, but even turning the other cheek is a form of self defense. (makes it so they can't slap you again without hitting you straight in the face, which would have been deeply shameful in that culture.)

those who don't provide for their own family (which by implication includes some sort of protection) are worse than nonbelievers.

[Amazing Rando]

However, its hard to get statistics on thedeterrent power of firearm ownership.

Indeed, as evidenced by Iluvatar's failure to produce any statistics to back up the claim of 2.45 million crimes "thwarted" annually by gun ownership.

It's near impossible to get reliable statistics on things such as this that don't happen. The studies I generally look at are based on records of crimes and accidents that actually happen, rather than hypothetical projections of what might occur.

How manyhomes were not invaded because of guns possibly beingin them? Many, I'd wager. Probably not as many as were detterredby large dogs, but...

I don't think that's the case. What seems to prevent breakins in my area is people taking pride in their communities. When the areas and homes are well-maintained and the residents obviously enjoy their homes and communities, breakins are much less frequent. I live now in a fairly affluent suburb of Philadelphia, an area where gun ownership is dramatically lower than in the city (not because of strict gun control, but because people here just don't feel the need for guns), and yet despite the fact that people out here generally have significantly more money than the average city resident, and the values of property are much higher, breakins are remarkably less frequent here than they are in the city.

[Sheepdog]

by the way, 4000 unborn babies die every day in the US. how many people die because of guns? this doesn't mean guns are good or bad, (edit) but if we are going to go to statistics to decide what's Biblically ethical, i think our priorities are way out of whack if we are even thinking about gun ownership.

[James Peter]

Except of course:

(1) Abortion isn't being discussed here. It has been discussed to death and ultimately comes down to whether an 'unborn baby' is actually that or not. I'm inclined to say that they are but Scripture certainly doesn't say that they are.

(2) Just because there are worse things doesn't mean that we shouln't talk about other issues as well.

As for TAM's question. I honestly don't know. The NT certainly does advocate the principle that the righteous suffer and if we are to follow Christ's example that would involve suffering without whining about it. More than that though it does say that if somebody tries to steal from us we should give them more rather than trying to stop them. Early Christianity was strongly passivist so I'm certainly not alone in thinking that Christianity is not about resisting evil with force. With words and prayer, certainly, but not with force.

Would I defend my family if they were attacked? Probably. But guess what, if Natalie Portman walked into my room around midnight and started to get naked in a rather seductive manner my behaviour would probably be 'not very christian' then too. Just because it is our natural, human, reaction to fight to protect that which is 'ours' doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. I'm not sure I could live with myself if I just stood by and let my sister be raped but I think that is more my human side speaking than me conforming myself to what is seen of God in Scripture.

[Amazing Rando]

Except of course:

(1) Abortion isn't being discussed here. It has been discussed to death and ultimately comes down to whether an 'unborn baby' is actually that or not. I'm inclined to say that they are but Scripture certainly doesn't say that they are.


For very early Christian views of abortion, see the Didache (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html), chapter 2. :yes:

[Ryokan]

Indeed, as evidenced by Iluvatar's failure to produce any statistics to back up the claim of 2.45 million crimes "thwarted" annually by gun ownership.

It's near impossible to get reliable statistics on things such as this that don't happen. The studies I generally look at are based on records of crimes and accidents that actually happen, rather than hypothetical projections of what might occur. Too true.



I don't think that's the case. What seems to prevent breakins in my area is people taking pride in their communities. When the areas and homes are well-maintained and the residents obviously enjoy their homes and communities, breakins are much less frequent. I live now in a fairly affluent suburb of Philadelphia, an area where gun ownership is dramatically lower than in the city (not because of strict gun control, but because people here just don't feel the need for guns), and yet despite the fact that people out here generally have significantly more money than the average city resident, and the values of property are much higher, breakins are remarkably less frequent here than they are in the city.
See, that is the reason break ins are common in my parents area. Forinstance, my car has was broken into twice in my parents affluent neighborhood, never in my cityone now. The police explained itto me that people break in to place that have money and don't have guys sitting around with loaded shotguns. That is the burbs, not downtown. So I think dismissing the deterrent power of firearms is baseless, just from personal experience.

[Rusty T]

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. Catholic Catechism

[Amazing Rando]

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66 2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility. Catholic Catechism

That certainly is modern Catholic doctrine. But did you know that such sentiments would have been unthinkable for the church prior to the middle of the 4th century?

[Amazing Rando]

See, that is the reason break ins are common in my parents area. Forinstance, my car has was broken into twice in my parents affluent neighborhood, never in my cityone now. The police explained itto me that people break in to place that have money and don't have guys sitting around with loaded shotguns. That is the burbs, not downtown. So I think dismissing the deterrent power of firearms is baseless, just from personal experience.

:nsm: All I can say from personal experience is that I've never been the victim of a crime, don't own a gun, and don't feel the need for one. I can't say for sure of course, but highly doubt there's more than a gun or two in the hundreds of homes in my neighborhood.

[Ryokan]

:nsm: All I can say from personal experience is that I've never been the victim of a crime, don't own a gun, and don't feel the need for one. I can't say for sure of course, but highly doubt there's more than a gun or two in the hundreds of homes in my neighborhood.
I think its probably geographic. My parents live in affluent neighborhood, but its 15 minutes from the city center.

[Amazing Rando]

I think its probably geographic. My parents live in affluent neighborhood, but its 15 minutes from the city center.

Yeah, I'm like 30 minutes from center city Philly. That could have something to do with it.

[Ryokan]

Yeah, I'm like 30 minutes from center city Philly. That could have something to do with it.
Also, cincinnati has alot more crime than philadelphia per capita.

[Rusty T]

I highly doubt that that there's a home without a gun or two in my neighborhood.

[Rusty T]

But did you know that such sentiments would have been unthinkable for the church prior to the middle of the 4th century?

The church of the 4th century probably never officially addressed the issue of self-defense and defense of the innocent (unless you count the Didache's testimony to the right of the innocent for defense); yet you can claim that the church had no such sentiment? Based on which authoritative statement?

[Amazing Rando]

Also, cincinnati has alot more crime than philadelphia per capita.

Not sure about Cincinnati, but here's how Philadelphia stacks up against Cleveland-

According to the 2003 U.S. Census Report (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/06statab/law.pdf),

Philadelphia had 23.3 murders, 67.1 rapes, 643 robberies, 712 burglaries, and 931 stolen cars per 100,000 people.

Cleveland had 15.6 murders, 137.9 rapes, 676 robberies, 1718 burglaries, and 1110 stolen cars per 100,000 people. Is Cincinnati a lot like Cleveland?

[Amazing Rando]

The church of the 4th century probably never officially addressed the issue of self-defense and defense of the innocent (unless you count the Didache's testimony to the right of the innocent for defense); yet you can claim that the church had no such sentiment?

Yep! Based on my own survey of church history and studies into early Christian attitudes toward violence (and particularly, military service). Surprisingly, it turns out that every major Pre-Nicean Church Father was unequivocably opposed to Christians employing violence for any reason. They felt it was incompatible with the type of Christian community Christ had established.

This is currently a subject of the research I'm doing for my master's thesis.

Based on which authoritative statement?

Who are you interested in? Justin Martyr? Origen? St. Irenaeus? St. Cyprian? Tertullian? St. Hippolytus?

[Ryokan]

Not sure about Cincinnati, but here's how Philadelphia stacks up against Cleveland-

According to the 2003 U.S. Census Report (http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/06statab/law.pdf),

Philadelphia had 23.3 murders, 67.1 rapes, 643 robberies, 712 burglaries, and 931 stolen cars per 100,000 people.

Cleveland had 15.6 murders, 137.9 rapes, 676 robberies, 1718 burglaries, and 1110 stolen cars per 100,000 people. Is Cincinnati a lot like Cleveland?
looking for numbers. But I knowI recently saw this in the paper. Fun, no? http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm#25

[Rusty T]

Who are you interested in? Justin Martyr? Origen? St. Irenaeus? St. Cyprian? Tertullian? St. Hippolytus?

I said authoritative. Perhaps a council of the church. And we're talking about self-defense here.

rusty

[Amazing Rando]

I said authoritative. Perhaps a council of the church. And we're talking about self-defense here.

rusty

Yes, I'm talking about self-defense too.

I'm not sure what you'd consider "authoritative," since there were no ecumenical church councils prior to Nicea.

The closest thing we can get to an "authoritative," church-wide decree would be the 3rd century Apostilic Tradition, probably composed by Hippolytus of Rome, yet even that in no way represents the conclusions of the whole church because the churches of that era were so geographically isolated and marginalized. What I can show you however, is that every bit of extant Christian tradition originating from before Constantine (and plenty afterwards) point to the inescapable conclusion that the early church condemned the use of violence by the people of God- including for self defense. They saw in their nonviolent communities the fulfillment (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=55399) of the prophecy in Isaiah 2:1-5, and the foretaste of the peaceable reign of God on earth.

[Rusty T]

How did they view the defense of say, your family?

[Darth Executor]

That certainly is modern Catholic doctrine. But did you know that such sentiments would have been unthinkable for the church prior to the middle of the 4th century?

Like Paul in Romans 13:4? :teeth:

[James Peter]

What has Romans 13:4 got to do with self-defence? It is about submitting to authority (thus supporting my critique of the 'tyrannical government that needs removing' scenario).

[Darth Executor]

What has Romans 13:4 got to do with self-defence?

Nothing. Read the sequence of posts that I replied to.

It is about submitting to authority (thus supporting my critique of the 'tyrannical government that needs removing' scenario).

Strangely enough, you won't find an argument from me, as I think that people who believe they can rebel against a western government turned tyrannical and not become fertilizer (some redneck with a shotgun vs bomber, do the math) are a few fries short of a happy meal. However, I think that like most commands in the bible, it is not a strict absolute. If it was, Christians would have submitted to authority and worshipped pagan gods. The Christian is expected to use some judgement.

[James Peter]

You replied to Rando's post where he was replying to tizzi's post which gave an official RCC statement to the effect that self-defence is our duty. Defence of self and of the innocent by an individual is the subject of the last page or so of posts (excluding those that dealt with relative crime rates in modern US cities)...

What am I missing? What were you responding to?

[Darth Executor]

You replied to Rando's post where he was replying to tizzi's post which gave an official RCC statement to the effect that self-defence is our duty. Defence of self and of the innocent by an individual is the subject of the last page or so of posts (excluding those that dealt with relative crime rates in modern US cities)...

What am I missing? What were you responding to?

Tizzi's post wasn't exclusively about self defense. I had this part in mind:

For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

[Amazing Rando]

How did they view the defense of say, your family?

Which family? Your biological family, or your real family in the reconstituted people of God?

See that's the incredible thing- just as Jesus in the gospels declared that traditional family lines don't cut it in God's kingdom, the church, following his lead, redefined family in a very concrete way. Total strangers became brothers and sisters in the Lord in more than just name only... Being a part of a traditional human family (and consequently, defending that family through violence) took a distant back seat to being a faithful, loving part of the only Family that really mattered- God's family.

Thus, when we inquire of the church fathers about how consistent employing violence to defend our biological family is with the normative claims of the gospel, if they were alive in body today, the church fathers would have looked at us like we were nuts. These were men and women who lived in times when just breathing the name of Christ in public was enough to have you crucified or beheaded. They knew what it was to fear for their lives and for the lives of their families. Yet what did they do? They frequently took their children with them to martyrdom rather than have them be raised pagan. Death held no sway and no fear over them, so confident were they in the resurrection.

There's a well-known story about Origen that when he was young, his father (who was also a confessing Christian) was captured and was sentenced to be killed. Origen was understandably deeply distraught by this, so he got ready to rush off to do something about it. He wasn't planning on rescuing his father or attacking his father's guards; he intended to join his father in martyrdom as a testimony to his faith. He was only thwarted in this plan at the last moment by his mother, who hid all of his clothes so that he couldn't go out in public, until the danger had passed and his father had been killed. Origen's story illustrates the robust confidence Christians of his era had in their Lord, and their unwillingness to raise a hand to destroy those who sought to destroy them. Following the Lord's example, they would not inflict suffering on others, but only endure it from others as a witness to God's kingdom. This went for all matters, including defending one's family with violence.

I've been very general in my comments here, trying to give a flavor of how incredibly different the outlook of the ancient church was compared to that of modern Western Christianity on the issue of violence. If you'd like any particulars about what a particular saint, Church Father, or local church body had to say on the subject of violence, I can help- and if I don't know the answer, I can look it up for you.

Yet this outlook has not entirely disappeared. The Catechism passage you quoted certainly represents the view of the majority of Roman Catholics, but check out this link for an alternative perspective from within the RCC communion- http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/. The views expressed there on this subject are, quite frankly, more in line with the earliest Church tradition and with the biblical, apostolic witness than are those of the Catechism.

[Amazing Rando]

Like Paul in Romans 13:4? :teeth:

Yes, exactly like that. :yes: However based on your comments to James Peter about strict submission to government necessarily entailing involvment in idol worship and the imperial cult, I have a feeling you don't exactly grasp the nuances of Paul's argument.

I've written a lengthy piece on a more contextual understanding of Romans 12-13 this fall as part of my as yet uncompleted master's thesis. If you're really interested, I guess I could drop it to you in email.

[Darth Executor]

Yes, exactly like that. :yes:

Then I take it you approve of government sanctioned violence.

However based on your comments to James Peter about strict submission to government necessarily entailing involvment in idol worship and the imperial cult, I have a feeling you don't exactly grasp the nuances of Paul's argument.

Can you be more specific?

[James Peter]

Then I take it you approve of government sanctioned violence.


I'd say that Paul does. He sees a violent, oppressive government as serving God's purposes and in persecuting the church they purify it and make it more Christlike.

I'm not sure I'd agree with him that all governments are ordained by God (and without that the argument collapses) but I think it is quite clear that Paul believed that the Roman authorities (a pretty decent example of oppressive, tyrannical government I think) served a God-ordained purpose.

[Darth Executor]

I'd say that Paul does. He sees a violent, oppressive government as serving God's purposes and in persecuting the church they purify it and make it more Christlike.

I'm not sure how you managed to get that from Romans 13.

[Amazing Rando]

Then I take it you approve of government sanctioned violence.

Up to a point. I dealt pretty extensively with that in my paper just a few weeks ago, and I'm not exactly up for retyping my whole conclusion right now since I'm still writing my thesis in my spare time- hence the diminished frequency of my Twebbing lately.




Can you be more specific?

First off, the command is ὑποτασσέσθω in Romans 13:1. It comes from the verb tassw which has more of a connotation of "order." Thus when combined with the prefix, the word literally means, "order under," or more fluidly, "be subordinated" since it's in the passive voice.

The difference between "submit" and "be subordinated" are subtle, but critical. All throughout the passage, Paul uses cognates of that same verb, tassw, particularly to denote the fact that all is under God's good order. Romans 13:1 says, in effect, "be subordinated to the authorities, because the authorities are ordered by God." The text does not say that the authorities are established, ordained, or otherwise set up by God. It says that God "orders" them; that is he keeps them in line, keeps them in check, prevents them from overstepping the boundaries he sets for them, etc. Thus according to the logic of the passage, anyone who does not allow himself or herself to "be subordinated" to the authorities is rejecting God as the sovereign ruler of the world.

Secondly, to "be subordinated" does not mean to obey the authorities in whatever they do, for certainly the authorities (i.e. Nero, in this case) do many things that are clearly anti-God. What it means to willingly, voluntarily live under the order of the governing authorities is to (1.) either obey what they tell you to do, if it does not conflict with Christian convictions (cf. Romans 13:7), or (2.) willingly accept the punishments the authorities impose upon you for not following their commands in cases where their commands conflict with Christian convictions.

This second sense is precisely what the early Christians did in accepting their martyrdom at the hands of the Roman authorities. They were subordinated to Rome's authority, even while refusing to comply with the Roman authorities' commands. See the difference? To offer another, more trivial example, if I disregard the posted speed limit on a given road, I am not necessarily rebelling against the authorities. As long as I am willing to accept the authorities' consequences for speeding (i.e. willingly paying the fine) I have allowed myself to be subordinated to the authorities which God has himself ordered.

[Darth Executor]

Ok, fair enough.

[Amazing Rando]

Ok, fair enough.

:thumb: