Being that I am a Christian, I get asked by other Christians my reasoning for carrying a gun since the Bible talks about "turning the other cheek"...I don't have a good argument for the "turning the cheek" quote, but I do put it to them like this:

Being that you're a Christian with Judeo Christian beliefs, you view life as a gift from God, right? (Pro-life)

So, for you to not to protect that gift from God would be making a mockery of said gift.

I think that covers it pretty well. I once read a good arguement for the "turn the other cheek" quote, but I can't remember what it was. Something to the fact that Jesus wasn't talking about civilians, but those that worked for the government at that time....

What say ye?

Look at Luke 22:36-38

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise his scrip(money);  and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

Obviously, Jesus wanted his disciples to be armed to allow them to protect themselves from robbers and other evil men.

And regarding the "turn the other cheek" issue, I believe that if you read it in context, you will find that Jesus was talking about relations between Christians or persons that will treat us by Biblical standards.

For instance, if my Christian brother got so angry with me that he struck me, I should "turn the other cheek" to embarrass him into realizing the gravity of his mistake and repenting.

But, on the other hand, I should "give unto Caesar" and treat people that do [u]not[/u] abide by Biblical standards with the standards set up by the government.  So, if a non-Christian hits me and turning the other cheek will only cause him to hit me again, I may then defend myself or involve the magistrates (cops).

And don't let anyone try to sell you the bull about how the other cheek had something to do with which hand he hit you with, etc.  That is a modern "urban legend" and had nothing to do with the original story.

Get ahold of the essay entitled "A Nation of Cowards".  This is one of the better "moral" arguments for personal protection that I have read.  I can't remember specifically if Bible references are used, but if I remember correctly, it definately discusses God.


Edited to add:  Author is Jeffrey R. Snyder.
I have the article in a Word document if you want me to email as an attachment.  I'm sure it can also be found on the net.

May I suggest that you check out [url=http://www.gabesuarez.com/]Suarez International[/url]. Gabe is a nice guy and a Christian. He writes a column in his Tactical Operator newsletter called The Christian Warrior. You can read it online.

And this from the Catechism:

[b]Legitimate defense[/b]

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.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

[url]http://www.macro-inc.com/ChristiansAndGuns.htm[/url]


C4

Thanks Grant for posting, I was going to ask you to if you had not.

The way I've always responded to 'turn the other cheek' is this.  You SHOULD turn your other cheek, in the face of INSULT.  I.E., stuff that's NOT threatening your life, because it's like water off a duck's back.  No big deal, you're still alive.

But when your life IS in danger, it is your duty to protect it.  After all, your life is the most precious gift God will ever give to you, and He would not wish you to surrender it to someone who has no authority to take it.  If you kill in self defense, the sin for the intruder's death is on HIS soul, for you would not have killed him if he were not perpetrating wrong against you.   That's how the pope feels.  And the Dalai Lama...

Thou shalt not be unarmed.

[b]Can I get an AMEN out of the choir!!![/b]

C4

From "A Natiobn of Cowards"

The Gift of Life

Although difficult for modern man to fathom, it was once widely believed that life was a gift from God, that to not defend that life when offered violence was to hold God's gift in contempt, to be a coward and to breach one's duty to one's community. A sermon given in Philadelphia in 1747 unequivocally equated the failure to defend oneself with suicide:


He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder since God hath enjoined him to seek the continuance of his life, and Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.

Tagging this so I can find it later.

Not a religious man myself - recovering Catholic, actually - but I'd recommend the following approach: The whole Old Testament consisted of more folks getting whacked left, right and sideways than the entire Quentin Tarantino collection, as I recall, and even Jesus told his disciples to arm themselves with swords.

Obviously, turning the other cheek simply meant to practice weak-hand shooting.

he-he.

Even if I cracked open a bible and it had the following words in big, bold, red letters on the very first page:

[b][red][size=6]Yea, verily, TIS A SIN TO PACK A ROSCOE!!![/b][/red][/size=6]

I still would, without one iota of guilt.

And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits in Thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin

The following is aprt of a larger document called "Why COncealed Carry, Why at church??" that I authored for my church. Email me if you would like a copy.

___________________________________



Such are the facts and figures relating to concealed carry.  But what saith the Scriptures??

· We know that Peter carried a sword – the type of ordinary military usage.  When he cut off the high priests servant ear, Christ instructed Peter to re-sheathe his sword, NOT to get rid of it. Christ’s objection was NOT to Peter’s possession of a sword, but rather in Peters timing in this particular instance.
· We also realize God has promised to provide all our needs, including food and protection from evil. Just as the Bible commands us to work so that we may eat, it follows we ALSO have a role in protecting ourselves, just as we have a role in feeding ourselves. Legalized concealed carry may well be God’s provision for His people to protect themselves. And as we are commanded to bear one another’s burdens, it follows that one of those burdens is protection from evil.
· Ephesians 6 speaks of taking the “whole armor of God.” While we know these to be spiritual, intangible items, the larger point is found in v. 13  - “that you will be able to resist in the evil day, having done everything, to stand.” It would be easy to see these days as mankinds most evil days yet, as evidenced by even children shooting children. Many regard their state and Federal right to carry a firearm as their God-given empowerment to do their God-given duty – to resist evil, and to have done everything they can to stand against the evil one.
· In Christ’s final instructions to His disciples, He states “…he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” (Luke 22:36) While theologians can debate the specific application of this text, one thing is certain: there is no possible way, whatever our Lord meant, that He would use an illustration (“go buy a sword”) of something He considered unscriptural or ungodly. Rather, the Lord seems to be indicating weapons have their place even in a believer’s life. And certainly Christ was not of the position that there is anything immoral in an inanimate object.
· Many may argue “God is in control” or “my life is in God’s hands.” But we would not use this to justify crossing  a busy street without looking both ways. Mattherw 4:7 commands us “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” We are not to live our lives in a fashion to dare the Lord to take care of us. We are to use the physical means of protection God has allowed in the world around us to take care of ourselves. Are we CERTAIN this doesn’t include firearms and concealed carry? It is only BEYOND that point, where we utilize those physical means God has already provided, that we are to trust in Him.
· John 15:13 tells us that there is no greater love, than when a man would lay his life down for his friend. It is that kind of love that Christ exhibited, and wanted us to emulate, when He gave Himself on the cross. Many regard the duty and priviledge of carrying a concealed firearm in defense of others to be, as Eph 6:13 says “…to resist in the evil day (moment), having done everything to stand…” Everything.
· Ephesians 5:25 commands husbands to love their wives, even as Christ loved the church.  The illustration given of HOW to love their wives is most interesting – “He gave Himself up for her” (speaking of Christ and the church.) Husbands are similarly to give themselves up for their wives- to the point of physical death. If protecting the wife is that important, where the husbands physical life becomes a secondary consideration, would not God have us have “done everything to stand…in the evil day?” Would not “everything” include using a simple tool that even unbelievers in state and Federal government have made available to us to protect our spouses with? Might NOT using these simple tools cause even those unbelievers to mock our Christ?
· Romans 12:18 indicates peace may not be possible at certain times. “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” The clause “so far as it depends on you” indicates we are not to give offense But it is also a caveat indicating that it doesn’t always depend on you.  It is at those times that the “peace” is to be breached, and violence done in self-defense, for the purpose of restoring peace, until it can depend solely on you again.

(cont.)

· Matthew 25 speaks of the talents God gave for men to invest for him. Scripturally, “talents” were a monetary unit, but  in a Divine sense of irony, application can also be made to our  inclinations and abilities. There are, within the body of Christ, those with the inclination and ability to stand armed, in defense of God’s people, certain of whom may themselves not be of the ability to defend themselves. Those of that inclination and ability should be allowed to use their God-given talents.  Luke 17: 2 indicates it would be better for a man to have a millstone tied about his neck, than to offend one of these little ones. If harming one of the defenseless children is that despicable in God’s sight, can allowing them to be harmed be much better?
· I Timothy 5: 8 tells us that those who don’t provide for their own household are worse than an infidel. We’ve always taken that to mean food and shelter. But God can provide food and shelter – He did so with David, and Elijah, and Noah and countless other Scriptural examples. What makes us think I Timothy 5 excludes physical protection, and excludes firearms as a tool of that protection? God can provide any of our needs, including food and safety,  but He commands husbands and fathers to do the work to make them available to their family.

Obviously, Scripture doesn’t speak either of firearms or concealed carry of firearms. But it does speak of weapons, and never in a negative light. Actions and motives, not objects, are to be judged as to their measuring up to God’s standards. Scripture never comes right out and says we’re to build a huge bunker around our homes, mount machine guns on the corner turrets, or be or be weighted down with ordnance when we go to town. But Scripture does make the following points:  we are to resist evil (I believe murder qualifies as “evil”) we are to care for those in our God given chain of responsibility, we are to use the inclinations and abilities God has given us for the advancement of His kingdom, and we are to emulate Christ’s love in a willingness to lay down our lives, to save that of our friend. Others may disagree, and in Christ we love them as they do us, but some among us take that to mean the utilization of a simple tool called a firearm. Lastly, Scripture tells us we are not to tempt God in requiring He do for us what He has already Divinely provided us the ability to do for ourselves.

In summary, no single Scripture can be used to make the case for legal concealed carry. But the greater weight of the whole of Scripture certainly does not prohibit self-defense, and rather indicates some among us take the steps necessary to protect the weak, and stand against the evil.

What the hell are you worried about either the bible or some church nit saying?

You say to them I carry because my life depends on it and your might as well!

Turning the other cheek crap is what victims say.

kinda like that simpsons episode when ned has the hot Girl friend and he finds 10 bible passeges for doin it with her and 5 for not.

Why not have a gun the world would all be bad people if no one stopped them.

I believe that it is your responsabilty to carry a weapon, you have been given commen sense, use it......

Now as for a Biblical stand, well lets look and see, if you read the old testiment, many times the Isrealites had to fend off foes, and at times go on the offense, when they finally entered the promised land, they had to fight to take it....

Now as we know they sinned and what not and many years later were carried off into capitivity many time...

But read the book of Nehemiah, here we see that as the Isrealites return to rebuild Jerusalem they are meet with conflict, so the prophet Nehemiah commands in Capter 4 that each man take up his arms, this is in response to threrats of those who would stop the work going in rebuilding the walls, read it it is good...

I believe it is a GOD given right to arm oneself and defend oneself, and at times go on the offensive and do what has to be done....

Can't speak for others, but in South Carolina, the law indicates I MUST have the approval of the "nits" in church leadership.

I happen to be a deacon, and prepared that document to aquaint them with the issues, and make the case for CCW in church.

[ROFL2]

My faith's seminary staff run a FAQ for the members where they state firearms possession is fine.

I, myself, pack in church every Sunday. I am in charge of  counting and depositing the funds, a few hundred (more on the special weeks) of which is cash. No one is jacking me on the way to or at the lock box at the bank.

Well then that makes total sense.
Whever i am in Church i always worry about some Muslim not coming in and shooting or blowing up the place.

Thats why i awlays sit in the back with my little "Rosco" at the ready.

For not carrying or using a gun...I hear the "thou shall not kill" school of thought alot.  
However in the original text the word "murder" is closer to what they are describing than kill.
The simple fact that Peter(a former fisherman)was packing leads me to believe that being armed is acceptable.

BTW I was in church one Sunday and would have bet a million dollars that I heard someone "rack one".  That got me to thinking what easy targets we would make if some nut job came in thru the back of church and opened up on all of us.  This was before the whole terrorist thing and I am only for it more.  Deacons and Elders stand up and get the OK for CC in your church.

does this count?
[img]http://www.southpark.dsl.pipex.com/images/epiimgs/epi617/617-7.jpg[/img]

What, you didnt get the memo?

The Holy Ghost is packing now.

I recomend reading The Westminster Confession of Faith. The chapter on murder. It clearly states that taking a life to defend you and yours is ok. It also has Bible passages to back it up.

Some where back in the earily 70's I bought some slogan pins.

On one was written; "Make love not War."

On another was; "Kill a Commie for Christ."

Well I did that so I know I'm going to Heaven.
[8D]