Saturday, March 22, 2008

Was Christ A Pacifist?

Maybe not completely. I saw a bumper sticker on a car the other day saying, "Who Would Jesus Bomb?" Actually, that's not such a smart sentiment. Jesus wouldn't need to "bomb" anything. He could destroy it with a look, or a thought. But no matter how Christians read pacifism into his way, from his own words and actions, he was not a complete pacifist. "At the last supper, Luke 22: 36-38 --Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." When Peter cut off the ear of a Roman who would arrest him, he did not chastise him, although he did "heal" the ear. When he saw the "money-changers" in the Temple, what did he do? He "cleaned them out," using a whip." This is not to denigrate Jesus, only to bring out that there WERE times when He was not completely pacifist. And if you are a Christian, you don't need to be completely pacifist and be "easy prey" for criminals in order to be a "good Christian." The quote above shows that Jesus was fully cognizant of the need for self defense and condoned the use of weapons to do it. I have heard from Christians who feel otherwise, but a perusal of the scriptures shows Jesus would agree that we SHOULD be willing to use what is necessary for self defense, especially including disguised stun guns and pepper sprays, had they been in existence in His time. If this item "offends" some Christians, I'm sorry. If quoting scripture "offends" some Christians (or others), I'm sorry, too. But this is the "way it is." (Just common sense)

Sunday, March 2, 2008

Totally and Stupidly Wrong!

"A day after a gunman killed six people and wounded 18 others at Northern Illinois University, The New York Times criticized the U.S. Interior Department for preparing to rethink its ban on guns in national parks. The editorial board wants 'the 51 senators who like the thought of guns in the parks -- and everywhere else, it seems -- to realize that the innocence of Americans is better protected by carefully controlling guns than it is by arming everyone to the teeth.' ” How stupid is that? Suggesting that the way to self-defense is to DISARM OURSELVES? And the people at the Times think they know what's best for all of us. Even to the point of criticizing the U. S. Interior Department for thinking about allowing us to defend ourselves. I wonder what those at the Times would do if confronted by a gun-waving criminal? Besides lie down and die, I mean. You can't make criminals obey gun laws. they break laws for a living. Only honest people, who are usually the VICTIMS of those illegally-armed criminals because they are gullible enough to OBEY those same gun laws. Gun laws KILL innocent people and the blood of all those innocent dead is on the hands of the "anti-gun crazies." If a criminal points a gun at me, I want it to be the last thing he does in his miserable life. (John Stossel)