Guns in Church?

Nan Gun Control, ,

pistolHave you seen the following headline?

Mississippi Governor Signs Law Allowing
Armed Church Members

It’s called “The Church Protection Act” and the NRA called it a “big win” for gun rights in Mississippi.

Also see this article, which approaches the issue slightly differently.

As I read the articles, I couldn’t help but wonder … What would “God” say about this law?

42 thoughts on “Guns in Church?”

  1. God, as we all know is a rabid Republican. So he/she would obviously say “load them up and bring em to church!”

    After all you never know when those damned Pentecostals may try something! 😉

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • Susan, I know you’re a believer and I don’t mean to offend you, but I can’t help but wonder … do they not trust their god to take care of them? Of course, considering the incident in the So. Carolina church, maybe not. .

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • It’s not offensive at all, Nan.
        Plainly stated, some people who call themselves “Christians” aren’t.
        Jesus preached love; those who base their lives on hate and fear don’t follow Jesus at all. And frankly, it gives those of us who do a bad name.

        Some days it’s quite depressing.

        Like

        Reply

        • Yes, I agree that many are Christians in name only. But here’s what I’m asking — True Christians (TM) claim their god is all-powerful. Yet, in passing this law, it seems to me they’re essentially denying this and saying they need to take things into their own hands. Doesn’t this smack of hypocrisy?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          • Yes. I agree with you completely. Although they would probably twist around the free will argument to say they are simply “helping God” erase the world of evil. And of course it’s hypocritical. You’re not saying anything I disagree with, Nan.

            But that’s what I meant about basing their lives on hate and fear. When you do that, you always find a need to defend your self against some enemy.

            The opposite is true when you base your life on love, as Jesus did and commanded us to do. In this case, you see more deeply, understand the needs of people, and desire to find common ground. You don’t see with the same eyes, perceive with the same world view, or place God inside a box of rules and judgments.

            Liked by 2 people

          • ““Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
            –= Matthew 10:34 —

            Liked by 1 person

  6. God is concerned with our hearts not what we wear to church. It is our heart’s intent that makes wearing a gun to church a good or a bad thing. I grew up with guns used for hunting so I’m reasonably comfortable around them. With all of the public violence today, I’m all for good people wearing guns to protect themselves and those around them. Unfortunate for us, however, we don’t have that glimpse into others’ hearts that God does, so I fully appreciate someone being uncomfortable with this idea.

    Like

    Reply

    • Hmmm, I would have never thought as a gun being something one would “wear.” In any case …

      You (and others) talk about today’s violence and believe that carrying (wearing) a gun is sensible for protection. My question is this: If you truly believe your god is capable of all things, isn’t his power enough to protect those that rely on him? And yes, I’m familiar with Jeremiah 17:9. But surely god will take care of his own …

      So many believers tout the powers and abilities of their god, yet time and again we see killings, rapings, beatings, and even global disasters that god could have stopped. Yet he doesn’t. What’s the point of having an all-powerful god in your corner if you can’t rely on him to take care of you and your loved ones?

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      • You won’t like my answer and I stopped debating faith years ago. I don’t know your Bible verse without looking it up nor would I be inclined to use any. Please don’t presume to know my relationship with our God. You’re also not in the position to know everyone else’s heart so you cannot possibly say whether He does or does not “take care of His own;” or why things are what they seem to be to you. Just because someone goes to church, for example, is no reliable indicator of who they really are. Truthfully, if I had a reservation about someone wearing a gun to church that would be mine. Bad people often camouflage as good to perpetrate their ruses.

        Suffice it to say, God gave mankind free will to make their choices. He does take care of me and I cannot speak for others. I only know what I know. Granted, how He does that is often not as I anticipate should be or as comfortable as I may wish, but He always brings me out the other side in better form than when I went in. I’m not proud to say there’ve been times when I’ve seriously questioned my faith, because events were so painful and (what I deemed) “unjust” that I couldn’t imagine Him letting me suffer them. When I finally did come out the other side I ‘got it.’ If others don’t have the faith to endure they aren’t going to see that for themselves. That’s their choice … their free will. Blaming God when we’ve chosen not to keep faith in Him is an easy cop-out. Just sayin’ … .

        Like

        Reply

        • “Please don’t presume to know my relationship with our God.”

          It would seem you’re making a bit of a presumption yourself – “our” god –?

          Like

          Reply

          • You may not adhere to belief in yourself or the sun or the air or the moon & stars or the universe, either, but those are still there for each of us to believe. Yes, “our God.”

            Like

          • I don’t have to ‘believe’ in any of those things, as the evidence is clearly there before me and can each be scientifically proven to exist.

            As for evidence of YOUR god —

            “The invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike.”
            — Delos B. McGowan —

            Liked by 1 person

  7. Here in Texas — as I imagine most everyone here knows — teachers are allowed to carry weapons into elementary, middle school, and high school classrooms. We’ve passed laws to allow 4-year college students to carry weapons on campus and into classrooms, and in 2017 the 2-year junior-college students will be able to bring weapons onto their campuses and into classrooms. Church congregations are probably next as well. If this “Right to bear arms” freedom-trend continues, then we might as well allow anyone to carry guns/weapons into all music concerts, sporting events, political pep-rallies, state and county courthouses… as well as into all banks, airports, and airline flights too. This way individual U.S. states can cut budget deficits AND federal deficits drastically by reducing any need for trained law-enforcement. Don’t Republicans LOVE cutting taxes/deficits?

    And here’s the real confusing part…

    Since each state and all its citizens obviously have a firm grip on WHO QUALIFIES as psychologically unstable or stable, no matter the age, we can “trust every individual” to make split-second decisions on who is a perceived or certain threat just before shooting them once or multiple times — resolve mistakes later! After all, it’s a proven clinical method of de-escalation of an armed insane person/persons being approached with equal or greater trigger-readied force and weapons; it’s very calming. By the way, what qualifies again as a weapon-of-mass-destruction?

    Yeah, I TOTALLY see this counter-lethality trend working perfectly!

    (please excuse my wild ridiculous sarcasm Nan) 😦

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    • As usual, you make perfect sense. I especially agree with the part about that “split-second” decision. In fact, I commented on this very thing in a post I wrote sometime back:

      The NRA argument that the number of deaths at a mass shooting would be less if someone had a gun, carries little to no weight … UNLESS that person knows how to remove the gun from the holster, release the safety, point the gun, and shoot the perpetrator WITHOUT missing (because every stray bullet can kill).

      I’m not “anti-gun,” but I do think far too many people are being convinced by gun organizations that guns are necessary for “protection.”

      It’s getting to the point where people will need a gun to protect themselves from other people who have guns. Makes perfect sense. Right?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      • I got rid of my gun and now carry a small, thermonuclear explosive device for protection. Anyone even looks at me funny, and BANG! 10 city blocks will be incinerated in seconds. Can’t get much safer than that. The 2nd amendment says I’ve a right to keep and bare arms. It doesn’t specify which arms, so I’m keeping and using this one. .

        Liked by 3 people

        Reply

      • When I was a teenager in High School, this little ditty was floating around, sung to the tune of ‘My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean‘:
        “My mother, she sells prophylactics,
        She punches a hole in the end,
        My daddy gets rich off abortions,
        My god, how the money rolls in!
        Rolls in, rolls in, my god how the money rolls in!”

        My goal was not to get that little ditty stuck in your heads, that would be only a side benefit, but rather to show, by analogy, the way the gun manufacturers are creating a problem, fanned by the exhortations by the NRA that “THEY” (whoever ‘they’ are) are out to take away everyone’s 2nd Amendment gun rights – to which they’re more than glad to provide a solution.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        • Recently I read some correspondence that my “other-half” got from the NRA … and saw firsthand how talented they are at twisting words so the reader thinks it’s all about those Second Amendment rights. Example … they inferred the government was going to stop Social Security recipients from obtaining guns.

          This sounded a bit suspicious to me, so I did some research and found the statement is only partially true — it’s the recipients who have mental health issues, not the average retiree receiving SS benefits. But of course they left that part out.

          Like

          Reply

      • That is a good comment Nan. In actual combat soldiers, commanders, etc, call those insane split-seconds “the Fog of War.” Once stabilized containment is compromised, history has proven an infinite amount of times that adrenaline in those situations is COMPLETELY unpredictable. Discerning WHO is really “Friend or Foe” in a matter of seconds becomes totally blurred, even unrealistic!

        I’m not anti-gun either. I AM HOWEVER, pro-gun with a highly trained, licensed, weapons-bearer — that is, trained in combat tactics, weapons, and psychological warfare preferably WITH experience. In the public non-combat sector, superb psychological management and training is first and critically foremost for the reason(s) you cite and implied Nan! Does everyone have any clue how much education/training is involved done under many high-stress scenarious? How much training does our regular infantry receive? Often THAT training length and depth is insufficient for certain volitile situations, so how long and in-depth are our Special Forces training regiments… WITH their psychological education and training on top of that!? Yet, today it is HARDER for a citizen to obtain a Driver’s License than it is to acquire a gun-permit and purchase weapons. Wow. 😮

        On a sidenote, David Koresh and his Branch Davidians thought storing an arsenal in their church was God’s will and method. How did that work out? How did it work out for those children?

        It’s getting to the point where people will need a gun to protect themselves from other people who have guns. Makes perfect sense. Right?

        Nan, I was formerly in the Psych/A&D therapy/counseling field with many years experience — sadly doesn’t pay well for most anyone in that field — and I have de-escalated psychotic, hyper anxiety-panic attack admissions, and while off-duty some domestic violence disputes many times. On one occasion I talked a man out of walking into our Psych/A&D hospital with his semi-automatic rifle (he couldn’t wait 20-minutes for his admission) and on another occasion I had a loaded Glock pushed to my temple by a temporarily-snapped agitated ex-boyfriend… and I talked him down and to put his gun away… both those times and then many other violent, escalating times I NEVER HAD or carried a weapon.

        I do know this beyond any doubt… if I had been with a weapon, especially a drawn-ready-to-fire weapon and position, those outcomes would have been VERY different and I probably would not be making these comments today.

        My point is… further escalating a mentally deranged person’s or group’s already extreme paranoias, 90% of the time achieves the WRONG or less-than pleasant outcome; especially if the “help”, the de-escalator is poorly trained/educated OR worse, not at all.

        If I’m STILL not making sense, then go live in an African country in civil war where practically every man and boy carries an assortment of weapons (concealed and seen) and figure out who’s a real threat. I did in Sierra Leone, West Africa in early 1991 and got out as fast as possible. That’s the reality of EVERYONE carrying weapons.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply

        • My “other-half,” who served in Vietnam (and who most definitely is a Second Amendment supporter), recently commented about the adrenaline issue, saying it plays a major role in crisis situations. Yet he still believes it’s better for people to carry guns so they will be “prepared” to defend themselves (and their loved ones) if such a situation arose.

          Somehow I find the correlation lacking …

          Truly, I don’t know the answer. I understand the “protection” angle, but the proliferation of guns in the hands of untrained (and often mentally unstable) individuals worries me greatly.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          • Nan, I would imagine that your “other-half” has received AND experienced enough to safely and sanely carry a weapon(s). What he has gone through is in a sense exactly what I’m saying every citizen should go through prior to being permitted/licensed to carry. In fact, your “other-half” probably at least has an idea of the psychological side to a crisis — he/she has been in it, right?

            I’m not sure there is a silver bullet — if I can make a poor-taste pun — for every single crisis and insane shooter(s) or bomber(s), BUT I do know without a doubt much much more must be done about the psychological psychiatric side of violence with deadly weapons. For starters, the unfounded and ill-informed social stigmas about psych disorders by the general public needs to be overhauled — that most definitely includes the David Koreshes and Jim Jones of the world/nation.

            Liked by 1 person

  9. archaeopteryx1 – (From Above):

    Exactly. Thank you for stating it so well.

    I know solid evidence of faith, as well, but I also know the futility of sharing it with someone of your inclination.

    As I’ve already said indirectly, our perception of “evidence” is how we choose to interpret & view our interpretations of the world around us. You are no exception. There are plenty who do not ‘believe in’ the sun as a planet of specific dimension or temperature or place in the galaxy or earth’s rotation around it; or who have no concept of the universe therefore do not believe in it. I could go on and on. That does make any less real the world they live in as it exists to them.

    As I also said, more directly, I don’t do faith debates for just such circular, nonsensical reasons as these. You’ll believe what you choose and you’re not going to change mine. So be it.

    Like

    Reply

    • “There are plenty who do not ‘believe in’ the sun as a planet of specific dimension or temperature or place in the galaxy or earth’s rotation around it”

      I’d have to say there’s a really good reason for that – the sun is not a planet, it’s a star. And by as late as 1615, the Catholic Church – the only organized Christian religion at the time – refused to accept Galileo’s findings that the earth did in fact revolve (not rotate) around it, and subjected him to a lifetime of house arrest until he retracted his statement. The Church, in its infinite god-given wisdom, didn’t see fit to apologize to Galileo until 1999.

      Maybe you should consider balancing your knowledge with a little less Bible and a little more science, considering how little you seem to know regarding the latter subject.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    • “I don’t do faith debates”

      I don’t find that in the least surprising, as the very definition of debate involves the discussion of evidence, and I’ve never seen that religion of any brand has much of that to offer.

      Of all of the books of the OT, all were written, at least totally or partially, by anonymous authors whose credentials can never be established, except for the tiny book of Micah. As for the NT, all of those authors as well were anonymous with the exception of Paul, and he wrote only 7 of the 13 books allegedly ascribed to him. So yes, the Bible is somewhat evidence-free.

      Like

      Reply

      • [Hahahaha] Nice try. How old are you? You insist there is no debate yet you persist in trying to engage it with someone you also cite as unworthy. Insecurity breeds a need to demonstrate self supremacy. As I said, so be it. You know it all. Be comfortable with that – or not. Pride is the downfall of many a man.

        Like

        Reply

  10. SITR: You wrote: Please don’t presume to know my relationship with our God. First, I have to agree with Arch. It’s not “our” God. Secondly, I didn’t presume anything about you. I said “IF you truly believe your god is capable of all things … ”

    You also wrote: … you cannot possibly say whether He does or does not “take care of His own” Well, yes, I can. If you put any kind of faith in the bible, there is a scripture that says, Look at the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?

    And finally, just to widen your knowledge base, Jeremiah 17:9 talks about the condition of the heart (which you had mentioned) in this scripture: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (AKJV)

    Thanks for stopping by. Sorry you aren’t up to more discussion.

    Like

    Reply

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.