.
RosieG
I am a Christian who believes in the call of Jesus to love even my enemies and not to engage in carnal combat (war) so i am a pacifist pure and simple.. The distinction between Killing and Murder is that Killing can be legal but murder is unlawful killing.. The death sentence for a crime is considered legal killing. In the OT times the death penalty was ascribed for some transgressions in the Torah.. So these lawful executions where legal killings... Now as a Christian i believe i should never carry out or take part in any such killings. Legal or otherwise because i do not believe in carrying out Judgements upon law breakers.. That is the call of the earthly authorities i live under,, It is their decision if they have a death penalty for any given crime or not.. So i do not take part in it nor do i seek to change any laws of the earthly authority.. Currently as an Australian i live under Australian legal Authority which does not have a death penalty.. I am happy about that personally..
Since I'm not a Christian, perhaps I'm not qualified to answer.
However, I have read the whole of the Old and New Testaments, so I can answer from the text.
Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. King James Bible (KJV.)
The phrase originates from the "Sermon on the Mount" in the Gospel of Mathew ( Mathew 5:38 - 5:42 KJV,) when Jesus advises the preferable alternative for the Old Testament ethic of "an eye for and eye:"
"38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away."
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
In the "Sermon on the Plain" in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 6: 27-1) as part of his command to "love your enemies," Jesus says:
"27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
These passages could reasonably be understood to command nonresistance, Christian pacifism or nonviolence on the part of the victim.
There are no passages in his teaching which advise causing harm to others for any reason.
The parable of the Good Samaritan goes further in advising that we should help our neighbours even if they are of the nation of our enemies.
Taking all these together, I think it would be safe to assume that Jesus would not have condoned the use of guns against humans. Perhaps, as he did not object to fishing (killing fish,) he might not have objected to shooting an animal for the purpose of putting it out of pain.
Why do simple minded people think that if you own a gun you are going to kill someone?
If that idiotic mindset were true there would be no anti-gun people left.
Adam, your belief in that sounds similar to my belief. See if you agree with this:
Owning a gun does not indicate an intent to kill, but it increases the probability that one could kill far more easily than by any other means should you need to defend yourself.
It may increase the possibility of being sued for unreasonable use of force if you use a gun against someone attacking with a knife. You might not succeed in frightening someone into leaving but might succeed in wounding, maiming or killing. If the intruder was merely an unarmed thief, that too would probably be judged an unreasonable use of force.
Further, a gun may or may not work as a defense, depending on how good you are as a shot, and how much time you have to get out your gun and load it.
A more effective defense is the use of appropriate precautions and shields according to time and place.
Tex it is like this.. I agree with a lot of different denominations and religions on certain parts of their doctrines.. For example i am very much against abortion. And we all know that the catholic church is strongly against abortion too.. Does that make me a catholic??? Nope.. I am also against Adultery and we know that islam is very much against adultery too.. Does that mean i am a muslim??? No way i am a Christian.. Now i know the JW's believe in non-resistance / against taking part in warfare.. So i agree with the JW's on that doctrine, But as you know i do not agree with the JW's on some doctrines of core salvational impotence so i am not a JW either..
I don't believe the question is ridiculous.
It is designed to provoke people into thinking about a particular absurdity and hypocrisy which is common.
Even if Christians who own guns (and are willing to use them to wound, maim or kill humans in self-defense) do not answer this question, they might read some of the answers and perhaps re-think the premises of their beliefs or practises.
I can accept that, Adam, even though I am vegetarian and dislike the killing of animals for meat or sport. My hope is that such hunters would be diligent in training to be accurate shots, and not shoot except to strike the brain in an instant kill shot. I also accept that having a gun to put an injured or sick animal out of its misery is an absolutely legitimate reason. Australia's law's on gun ownership are much tighter and make massacres with semi's and auto's much less likely.
Reading your site..
I agree with point One
I believe we should obey the laws of the wordily authorities up until the point where obeying the authority would cause us to disobey the Word of God..
Point 2:
I believe we can talk to worldly authorities and make requests as to the laws that they impose.. Indeed we should inform an authority that is in the process of enacting a law that would call upon us to break the Word of God. That we would not be able to conform to that law.. This would be seen as a form of Lobbying by your JW's but i would see it as letting a worldly Authority know the possible consequences of enacting that law and as such this may cause them to modify their proposed law to accommodate our wishes.. This is not trying to force the authority or trying to take hold of earthy power.. I believe i should never take part in any worldly authority as government official.
Point 3.. I agree we should remain neutral in terms of taking part in combat.. But again i believe i can share with the authority a Christian P.O.V and approve and disprove of actions or policies of either or both sides in a conflict... Indeed if we take neutrality to such a point that we cease sharing the Message of Jesus by stating what is right and wrong in the actions being done between the two Waring worldly authorities then we are failing to share the message of Jesus at the very time where the message is most needed by the worldly.. Even in times of war a government official might be open to the message of God and be saved by hearing the message..
Nice! Thank you for reading that AdamAPAD.
You likely agree with the response to WWII as well?
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/KING%20CHRISTINE%20IJLPS%202011%20Leadership%20lessons%20from%20history%20J%20(27).pdf
Excellent Bible based reply from a non-believer :D I am impressed ...
Can you explain why the shot to the brain is unethical? It kills instantly.
A broadside or quartering shot is a slow way to die. The heart can give out fairly quickly, but I've had a punctured lung and did not collapse for three days. If you're a hunter who has wounded the animal, you would have to follow it until it died, or until it was weak enough to kill. This slow death does not seem ethical or kind to me.
There's also a numbers problem in the argument favouring guns for hunting for food. There are millions more guns and people in the states than there are wild animals. Only a minute proportion of people could hunt for their food without endangering the survival of the species they eat.
It isn't. A real genuine Christian will never own a firearm.
((hugs)) That is my thinking too my friend. You know that I respect your views a great deal and also respect how you present them. Having you agree with me on this means a lot to me
Autumn. Thank you for supporting a position I hold most definitely. :)
Thank you for your answer pearl
! :)
Killing someone is self defense and murdering someone is not the same thing. The only thing the two actions have in common in that two people are dead. The difference is one is a vicious thug who got what they deserved and one is a victim of murder.
Killing someone in self defense is not the same thing as murdering someone and only people who are not capable of logical thought processes thinks that the two actions are the same.
I understand body shots are easier shots and preferred when it comes to putting food on the table but I too wonder how a head shot would be 'least ethical'?
I've only just seen this reply. Happy Wednesday, Rosie. :)
"Whatever happened with thou shall not kill ?"
You hit the nail on the head there, Underconstruction!.
Thank you for your answer hartfire! :)
