The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)

[Brian Stoffregen]

Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her.

Jesus' prayer in the garden indicates that he would have preferred not to die. Even so, he was not willing to do anything to stop it.


The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

[readselerttoo]

Those risks are the reason that concealed  carry permits are issued (or should only be issued) after people have passed firearm safety classes. But I was responding to Brian's suggestion that use of deadly force to prevent one person  killing another cannot be justified because they haven't killed anyone yet and afterwards would be revenge which isn't justified

I never said that it can't be justified. I asked questions. When does it become justifiable to kill someone who has only made threats?

Making threats create a fearful environment.  The threat-maker chooses to operate under the law of retribution by creating such an environment with their threats.  What is the appropriate response?

So, if you then enter into the law of retribution by threatening or killing him; he's brought you into his world.


A deputy sheriff told me that they are trained to be a calming presence when they are threats being made - most notably in a domestic dispute. They are trained to not enter into the world the threat-maker is creating; but to try and draw them into the calming world they are creating.

And it is our world too or are you exempt from life under the law?

We are not exempt from life under the law; but that's not all that there is for us. We also live under the gospel. We are to be witnesses of that gospel. That's what the world cannot get right. If we aren't living differently than the world's folks, we are no different than the pagans who only live under the law.

I never said that was all there is to it.  Yes, "Apart from law a righteousness of God has appeared..."  However when defense of others comes into play my choice to live without defense is to put others in danger by not coming to their assistance.  To live non-violently is to hide from the real world and forget that there are others who need protection.  W can't seek that protection for them outside the law but right where God has placed us with God's gift of the law as to help maintain relative peace...

[readselerttoo]

And if it falls upon us to kill a law-breaker, is that the “retribution” of God?
Maybe. Maybe not.
And so if that task appears to fall upon us, and should we choose  to accept it, we should do so with fear and trembling and a sense of our own sinfulness and of the darkness of the task we take upon ourselves.
But we live in a gun culture and the romance of the gun seems a part of our being. So sometimes I fear that we approach these situations with this sentence in our minds: “I’m ready for this!” - BANG! “Got you, you son of a bitch!”

It is not a "Maybe. Maybe not."  It is always God's retribution that occurs.  There is no "maybe or maybe not" about it.  You and Pr. Stoffregen seem to be living apart from reality with the "Maybe. Maybe not" stuff.

[Eileen Smith]

I know the running subject of the moment is guns.....

But something else appeared in my paper that impacts the broader topic of "the fate of the nation," at least in the sense of how we deal with our history.  We have already noted the dust up with the Nike shoe and the Betsy Ross flag.  Now we have a school in San Francisco that is going to paint over a mural recognizing the life and achievements of George Washington.  The project will cost $600,000. It was painted by Victor Arnautoff, one of the foremost muralists in the San Francisco area during the Depression.

See: https://www.apnews.com/9f3037c7ec9d48a286059ac8f9975afe

The south has been busy for sometime removing statues that are deemed offensive.  I realized it was only a matter of time before our founding fathers faced censure. 

So what art is now considered acceptable and non-offensive?  Obviously some artwork will offend some and inspire others.  How do we choose who to offend and who to 'protect' from offense? 

We were noting before the big parade in D.C. on the 4th.  Very prominent in the National Mall is the Washington Monument.  Do we need to rename it now that Washington, a slave-owning founding father, is guilty of an unforgivable sin?  Or what about the state of Washington or Washington, D.C.? Actually those ideas have been floated. 

https://pjmedia.com/blog/video-d-c-residents-say-take-down-jefferson-memorial-rename-washington-d-c/

At least with the saints of the church we are willing to admit they are sinners, but still saints by grace and acknowledge how God used them despite their sins.   

Except for those misogynistic Church Fathers who seem to offend some women.

[readselerttoo]

Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her.

Jesus' prayer in the garden indicates that he would have preferred not to die. Even so, he was not willing to do anything to stop it.


The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Well then seems to me you have discovered what God's real retribution is all about.  lesser of two evils...if there really is a lesser of the two.  Whose standard of measurement are you living with?

[readselerttoo]

Christian nonviolence (if there is such a thing) is Christian idealism at its worst. 


Then from afar I hear a voice:   "Apart from law a righteousness of God has appeared..."  (Hint: read Romans 3)

[Pilgrim]

And if it falls upon us to kill a law-breaker, is that the “retribution” of God?
Maybe. Maybe not.
And so if that task appears to fall upon us, and should we choose  to accept it, we should do so with fear and trembling and a sense of our own sinfulness and of the darkness of the task we take upon ourselves.
But we live in a gun culture and the romance of the gun seems a part of our being. So sometimes I fear that we approach these situations with this sentence in our minds: “I’m ready for this!” - BANG! “Got you, you son of a bitch!”

Me thinks you’re a product of watching too many of the “Dirty Harry” movies. Out here in the real world of gun ownership it really is quite different.

[George Erdner]

When taking my test to get my CCW permit, the issue of when lethal force is legal and when it is not was covered in some death. To legally use lethal force, the armed citizens needed to be reasonably sure (as determined afterwards by a jury), that either the shooter or an innocent bystander was in imminent risk of being killed. This reasonableness covered the facts as the shooter knew them at the time, even if subsequently they turned out to be in error. For example, if an armed perpetrator had fired his last bullet and his gun was therefore empty, but the armed citizen did not know that, then the armed citizen could legally use lethal force against the armed perpetrator. If an armed perpetrator has fired a shot, even if they missed, or threatened to shoot, then the armed citizen can legally believe the armed perpetrator is telling the truth, and may render the armed perpetrator incapable of taking offensive action. Dead armed perpetrators cannot take any offensive action.

If someone murders your child, but then drops their weapon and runs away, you cannot track them down to exact vengeance.  But if someone has murdered your child and is still standing there with a weapon in hand, you may legally use deadly force to make sure that the armed perpetrator harms no one else.

Using lethal force to end someone's life, even if the person needed to be killed in order to prevent even more deaths, is a violation of God's Law, and is therefore an act of sin. But, permitting someone to murder even more people when one has the means to prevent them is aiding and abetting murder. I do not wish to speculate on what God's reaction would be to someone choosing to end one life, or to aid and abet someone who is taking many lives. But, I have no doubt that God's mercy would prevail.

[Steven W Bohler]

Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her.

Jesus' prayer in the garden indicates that he would have preferred not to die. Even so, he was not willing to do anything to stop it.


The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Your second paragraph seems to argue for concealed carry as the better option, does it not? The armed teacher surely does not tell her class that she has a gun.  She does not brandish it or wear it openly.  But it is there, out of sight of the children, to protect them.  And they, God willing, never have to know about it.  The same of the concealed carry permit holders attending the worship service.  Or the concealed carry bus driver, or store clerk, or busboy.

[Charles Austin]

Pilgrim writes:
Me thinks you’re a product of watching too many of the “Dirty Harry” movies. Out here in the real world of gun ownership it really is quite different.
I comment:
No. It is what I am hearing in what gun enthusiasts say and write. If you were are not “that way,” then you need to understand that “that way” is how you come across.
George Rahn speaks of gun violence as “God’s real retribution,” and even questions the possibility of “Christian non-violence,” thereby insulting a significant segment of Christian history, including Mennonites, Quakers, some Lutherans and Dr. King.
What am I to think? You have not convinced me that the “romance of the gun,” is not a significant factor here.

[James S. Rustad]

Pilgrim writes:
Me thinks you’re a product of watching too many of the “Dirty Harry” movies. Out here in the real world of gun ownership it really is quite different.
I comment:
No. It is what I am hearing in what gun enthusiasts say and write. If you were are not “that way,” then you need to understand that “that way” is how you come across.
George Rahn speaks of gun violence as “God’s real retribution,” and even questions the possibility of “Christian non-violence,” thereby insulting a significant segment of Christian history, including Mennonites, Quakers, some Lutherans and Dr. King.
What am I to think? You have not convinced me that the “romance of the gun,” is not a significant factor here.

You've made it clear over the years that you believe guns are bad.  About the only change I've seen from you is a hardening of your position.  You've made it clear that your mind is closed on this subject and I suspect that the only reason anyone replies to your posts is for the benefit of newcomers.  We don't want them to think that your arguments are strong just because no one bothers to challenge them.

Your portrayal of gun owners does not fit with those I've met.  But as long as you attempt to portray us as knuckle-dragging, violence-loving, war-like brutes, the more you set yourself up to lose.  Keep it up.  Meanwhile, those of us who own guns will keep behaving as the normal, peace-loving, law-abiding people we are.  Those who might initially buy your portrayal of us will eventually realize that you have led them into deception.  That bodes ill for the success of your arguments.

[Charles Austin]

James Rustad:
You've made it clear over the years that you believe guns are bad. 
Me:
No, I do not believe that guns are universally bad. I just set upStream that I do not disapprove of hunting or target shooting sports. I have cheered on my grandson as he shot with his high school team.
James Rustad:
About the only change I've seen from you is a hardening of your position.
Me:
Actually, I think it has softened a bit. I sort of, only sort of understand why people enjoy target shooting with high power weapons. I think it’s silly but…

James Rustad:
Your portrayal of gun owners does not fit with those I've met.  But as long as you attempt to portray us as knuckle-dragging, violence-loving, war-like brutes, the more you set yourself up to lose.
Me:
Where have I ever done that? Show me. I have said here that I think some enthusiasts are Romanced by the “gun culture,” And like enthusiasts of many things, are a bit too much in love with their weapons. And frankly, I think some people who believe they have guns for “protection,” are kidding themselves. I’m not sure the guns would really give them protection.

James Rustad:
 Keep it up.  Meanwhile, those of us who own guns will keep behaving as the normal, peace-loving, law-abiding people we are.  Those who might initially buy your portrayal of us will eventually realize that you have led them into deception.  That bodes ill for the success of your arguments.
Me:
I’m not looking for “success“ in any argument. I do not believe I will win over anyone here to my way of thinking. But I do feel obliged to let people know how some of us Christians look at the gun issue.

[DeHall1]

Pilgrim writes:
Me thinks you’re a product of watching too many of the “Dirty Harry” movies. Out here in the real world of gun ownership it really is quite different.
I comment:
No. It is what I am hearing in what gun enthusiasts say and write. If you were are not “that way,” then you need to understand that “that way” is how you come across.
George Rahn speaks of gun violence as “God’s real retribution,” and even questions the possibility of “Christian non-violence,” thereby insulting a significant segment of Christian history, including Mennonites, Quakers, some Lutherans and Dr. King.
What am I to think? You have not convinced me that the “romance of the gun,” is not a significant factor here.

“Dr. King”?  You mean Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr?  The gun-owning, applied for a concealed-carry license, Dr. King?  And you do know both Quakers and Mennonites can (and do) own guns, right? With regards to the Quakers and Mennonites, guns are primarily used for hunting, but also for sport.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her.

Jesus' prayer in the garden indicates that he would have preferred not to die. Even so, he was not willing to do anything to stop it.


The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Your second paragraph seems to argue for concealed carry as the better option, does it not? The armed teacher surely does not tell her class that she has a gun.  She does not brandish it or wear it openly.  But it is there, out of sight of the children, to protect them.  And they, God willing, never have to know about it.  The same of the concealed carry permit holders attending the worship service.  Or the concealed carry bus driver, or store clerk, or busboy.

Agreed. The policy my (old) congregation council decided was to have no policy. If someone were to carry a concealed weapon to church, we wouldn't know. We trusted those who might do that. The council president was an MP in Vietnam. The recording secretary had worked for the sheriff's department. Her husband had been a police officers for 33 years. Many members were retired Marines. (There's a Marine air station in town.)

[Steven Tibbetts]

Now we have a school in San Francisco that is going to paint over a mural recognizing the life and achievements of George Washington.  The project will cost $600,000. It was painted by Victor Arnautoff, one of the foremost muralists in the San Francisco area during the Depression.

See: https://www.apnews.com/9f3037c7ec9d48a286059ac8f9975afe

A couple of things worth noting:

1) The murals themselves are a rather subversive take on the "life and achievements" of George Washington, showing his participation in slavery and the Indian wars in a very negative light.  This covering up is one more example of today's Progressives rejection of Depression-era Progressives.

2) The $600,000 is being set aside for "a required environmental review and expected legal challenges."  Imagine what $600,000 could be used for to actually teach students at Washington High.

Perhaps our young Progressives ought to be reading Orwell's 1984, which I read in high school more than 40 years ago.

Christe eleison, Steven+