America And Guns

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 05:30 PM' timestamp='1257892248' post='1999853']
Primarily, but maybe not ONLY lethal force. As I said in a previous post, we would probably have to define "violence" first, which might be a bit complicated. But I do mean primarily lethal force.


Our Lord and his Apostles did not use violence to defend their own lives, or to defend the Gospel. Who are we to follow any other example?
[/quote]

As someone already mentioned, Our Lord did use violence at the Temple (if you don't mean ONLY lethal force)... And we may have to define violence.

I forget the names of the man and wife who were struck down for lying to the apostles about money... was his name Simeon? Regardless, Peter definitely called the wrath of God upon him. Definitely violence.

[Apotheoun]

The Church has never embraced absolute pacificism. In the mid to late 2nd century the majority of the Roman XII Legion was composed of Christians, and even the heretic Tertullian, who was one of the early 3rd century authors influenced by Christian teaching, accepted the fact that Christians were often soldiers, and that - so long as they did not participate in the cult of the pagan gods - they did nothing wrong by serving in the military.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='10 November 2009 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1257892469' post='1999855']
As someone already mentioned, Our Lord did use violence at the Temple (if you don't mean ONLY lethal force)... And we may have to define violence.[/quote]
Our Lord was expressing anger. He was not using "violence" to accomplish some end. If Our Lord wanted to, he could have gotten a sword and beheaded everyone in the temple. But he did not use such violence.

The reason why I don't necessarily mean ONLY lethal force is because something like torture is not necessarily lethal, or even potentially lethal. Yet I believe that torture is never permissible, whether it is lethal or not.

[quote]I forget the names of the man and wife who were struck down for lying to the apostles about money... was his name Simeon? Regardless, Peter definitely called the wrath of God upon him. Definitely violence.
[/quote]
Well, I will respond to this argument with two verses:

[quote]When the days drew near for him to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him, who went and entered a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him; but the people would not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw it, they said, "Lord, do you want us to bid fire come down from heaven and consume them?" But he turned and rebuked them.

--Luke 10:51-55[/quote]
[quote]Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

--Romans 12:19-20[/quote]
Vengeance belongs to God, so if God chooses to strike someone dead, then he will do so. But St. Peter himself would not have dealt out lethal vengeance.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1257892913' post='1999858']
Vengeance belongs to God, so if God chooses to strike someone dead, then he will do so. But St. Peter himself would not have dealt out lethal vengeance.
[/quote]
Self-defense is not vengeance. And one can - depending upon the circumstances - be morally obligated to defend himself against an unjust agressor.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 November 2009 - 05:43 PM' timestamp='1257893013' post='1999859']
Self-defense is not vengeance. And one can - depending upon the circumstances - be morally obligated to defend himself against an unjust agressor.
[/quote]
I was not discussing self-defense in my previous post. I was responding to aalpha's point about God striking someone dead.

That being said, I do not believe that St. Peter or the other Apostles would have killed someone even in self-defense.

[quote]And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest, and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?"

--Matthew 26:51-55[/quote]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1257893481' post='1999866']
That being said, I do not believe that St. Peter or the other Apostles would have killed someone even in self-defense.
[/quote]
That is a wonderful pious opinion, but I do not share it.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 November 2009 - 05:54 PM' timestamp='1257893673' post='1999871']
That is a wonderful pious opinion, but I do not share it.
[/quote]
Then we will have to agree to disagree. The Apostles could have resisted their martyrdoms, in the name of self-defense. But they didn't.

[elizabeth09]

Off-Topic

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1257893481' post='1999866']
I was not discussing self-defense in my previous post. I was responding to aalpha's point about God striking someone dead.
[/quote]
St. Peter would - at minimum - be complicit in the deaths of Anani'as and Sapphi'ra, because had he not questioned them about the sale of their property it follows that they would not have lied to him and the Holy Spirit.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Era Might' date='10 November 2009 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1257893758' post='1999873']
Then we will have to agree to disagree. The Apostles could have resisted their martyrdoms, in the name of self-defense. But they didn't.
[/quote]
I do not believe that the Apostles would have allowed those in their care to be harmed without attempting to defend them, which means that they would have had to use force in defense of the innocent. To fail to do that is a sin of omission.

Era, be careful that you do not embrace a form of absolute pacificism, because to do so involves the sin of heresy.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 November 2009 - 05:57 PM' timestamp='1257893870' post='1999875']
St. Peter would - at minimum - be complicit in the deaths of Anani'as and Sapphi'ra, because had he not questioned them about the sale of their property it follows that they would not have lied to him and the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]
As I said, we will have to agree to disagree. I think it's silly to speak of "complicity" in their deaths. God struck them dead. Vengeance belongs to God, and he can certainly strike someone dead. Had God not struck them dead, St. Peter certainly would not have killed them.

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 November 2009 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1257894010' post='1999878']
Era, be careful that you do not embrace a form of absolute pacificism, because to do so involves the sin of heresy.
[/quote]
I'm not sure what you mean by "absolute pacifism."

[OraProMe]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 November 2009 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1257884887' post='1999740']
Tell that to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
[/quote]

The Islamists only won in Afghanistan because the CIA and America were backing them up and used them to fight a proxy war. If a civillian militia were to turn against the US army then I doubt the US army will be training them.

This is unbelievable. Thinking you have a right to own guns for defence against other civillians, invading armies and your own government. Plenty of countries that have gun restrictions have a much lower crime rate than America (if anything selling guns over the counter only increases the need for defense...how circular). If a foreign army is powerful enough to defeat the US military then a bunch of civillians with guns aren't going to do anything. Realistically you wont even get a chance to fire, they'll be dropping bombs on you from planes. Protection from your own government? Would there be a consensus among the entire population about political matters and the need to over throw the government? Your government is chosen by the people. If you give up your guns it's not automatically going to turn into a military regime. You don't need weapons to ensure that a country stays democratic, the rest of the Western world is proof of that.

Owning guns isn't going to be effective in any of those areas. All it's going to do is make it easier for one person to harm another. Did Virginia Tech (not to mention all the other shootings, including the most recent) teach you guys nothing?

Edited November 10, 2009 by OraProMe

[Apotheoun]

Certainly a man may forgo, again depending upon the circumstances, defending himself from aggression, but a man may never legitimately refrain from defending those who have been placed in his care.

Edited November 10, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Era Might]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='10 November 2009 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1257894154' post='1999883']
Certainly a man may forego, again depending upon the circumstances, defending himself from aggression, but a man may never legitimately refrain from defending those who have been placed in his care.
[/quote]
There were many martyrs in the early Church who were martyred along with their families. They could have used violence in self-defense, but they didn't: not for themselves, and not for their families.