Cain’s Warning: Sandy Hook, Guns and Being Pro-Life

Cains Warning

If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Genesis 4:7

There’s a saying that life is 10% what happens and 90% how we react to it.

Our reactions express and define who we are. In fact, to put it simply, I would say ‘we are our reactions’.

Our national reaction to the murder of over twenty children at Sandy Hook Elementary School, just before Christmas, at least based on headlines, news clips and seemingly endless conversations have been revealing –perhaps too revealing – of our national character.

At first it seemed as if we were all sucked into the maelstrom of shock, horror, disbelief and a piercing sorrow and a quickly forming resolve to ensure that this would never happen again.

This was, literally, a sorrow leading to repentance.

But then an odd thing happened; our attention – and passion – again based on headlines and news services – seemed to focus, not on the dead or their grieving families, but to my astonishment, on the protection, even glorification of the weapons that killed them.

Related: You Can be Pro-Choice Politically and be a Pro-Life Advocate in your Community – by Romal Tune

You would think that a murder of that scale would stun us into self-recognition of who we have become – and, to be painfully obvious – how effective – or ineffective – our laws, policies and attitudes really are.

You’d think we would, at least for a respectful month or so, reflect and restrain ourselves from our communal bloodlust.

But no; research shows that we had, in the first few weeks after the shootings at Sandy Hook, 200 gun related deaths each week.

I know people who say, and the NRA affirms, that this is ‘acceptable’; this is ’the cost of freedom’.

The ‘cost’ of anything is the price we are willing to pay for it; this isn’t ’the cost of freedom’ – it’s the cost of lunacy. And I’m not willing to pay it.

How could anyone with a shred of humanity say that the wholesale slaughter of our children is ‘worth’ any abstraction?

My NRA friends assure me that 200 gun deaths a week is evidence that our gun policies ‘work’. This is unbelievable to me. This is the logic of a psychopath.

These are the people who own guns, insist on the right to own guns and tell me, in all seriousness, that more of us, many more of us, must die, must be sacrificed for their ‘rights’.

Also by Morf: And God Said, “Let There be Guns”

Many of them call themselves ‘pro-life’ – but it is all too obvious that it is not ‘life’ that is sacred, but their right to take it.

Cain was warned in Genesis that ‘sin’ (sometimes translated ‘violence’) lies ‘crouching at his door’ ready to seize him.

Violence crouches at our door as well, but we, unlike Cain, aren’t running from it. We seem eager to seize it.

We will have more horrifying headlines, more stunned and subdued conversations and like Cain,  we will hear the voice of our children’s blood crying out to us from the earth (Genesis 4:10) until we recognize and turn from our deadly folly and say, and really mean it this time, ‘Never again’.


Morf Morford considers himself a free-range Christian who is convinced that God expects far more of us than we can ever imagine, but somehow thinks God knows more than we do. To pay his bills, he’s been a teacher for adults (including those in his local county jail) in a variety of setting including Tribal colleges, vocational schools and at the university level in the People’s Republic of China. Within an academic context, he also writes an irreverent ESL blog and for the Burnside Writers Collective. As he’s getting older, he finds himself less tolerant of pettiness and dairy products.

Print Friendly

About the Author

Morf Morford

Morf MorfordMorf Morford considers himself a free-range Christian who is convinced that God expects far more of us than we can ever imagine, but somehow thinks God knows more than we do. To pay his bills, he’s been a teacher for adults (including those in his local county jail) in a variety of setting including Tribal colleges, vocational schools and at the university level in the People’s Republic of China. Within an academic context, he also writes an irreverent ESL blog and for the Burnside Writers Collective. As he’s getting older, he finds himself less tolerant of pettiness and dairy products.View all posts by Morf Morford →

  • Frank

    Speaking of the slaughter of children: over 21,000 innocent unborn children are killed each week mostly for reasons of convenience and comfort. And the focus is on gun restrictions that wouldn’t have even stopped the Sandy Hook tragedy?

    That’s not alright with Jesus and should not be alright for anyone calling themselves a follower?

    • Morf

      I saw a video clip of Walter Cronkite from 1965. His number of abortions was 3,000 per day when they were fully illegal. Now that they are mostly legal, the number is, at least according to some, the same, but the percentage is way down. Does anyone in their wildest fantasy really believe abortions will stop?

      • Frank

        Sadly no. There will always be those who selfishly will kill an unborn child. We shouldn’t enable that choice however and we should make sure that every woman knows exactly what they are choosing to do. State by state we can make Roe v Wade almost irrelevant.

      • http://www.facebook.com/DeepNarcosis William J. Green

        The problem was when abortions were illegal but occurred anyway the States did NOT properly enforce their own laws. Had a couple of pregnant women and their Hippocratic Oath-breaking Doctors been publicly TRIED, CONVICTED, and SENTENCED the deterrent effect would have kicked in for BOTH doctors and women. The later’s coitus would have been better Family Planned and protected and far fewer doctors would have been willing to break the law. Deterrence works; not absolutely but it absolutely does REDUCE the frequency of a behavior that is punishable by law.

    • http://www.facebook.com/philip.zylstra Philip Zylstra

      It’s not alright, but it’s also not alright to use it to detract from the issue at hand. Saying that someone else is a worse sinner is not a valid reason to ignore our own issues, so let’s keep the discussion on topic.

      • Frank

        The root issue is the slaughtering of children through violence. Abortion is very relevant. If we were serious about saving lives of children we would deal head on with abortion and focus on that instead of jumping on the flavor of the month political cause. 55 million unborn kids have been killed since Roe v Wade and you are asking our country to respect life by limiting guns. All well and good but it avoids the real issue. Guns are not the issue. A respect for all life is. And it starts with how we treat our unborn.

        So the discussion is perfectly on topic.

        • http://www.facebook.com/philip.zylstra Philip Zylstra

          How can we expect anyone to respect unborn life while at the same time Christians so fiercely defend their right to own a weapon of mass destruction specifically to kill people that they arbitrarily decide are bad? And you say we’re not allowed to discuss it?

    • bluecenterlight

      I do find it interesting that the pro life/ pro gun and the pro choice/ anti gun Christians really have similar beliefs. They believe legislation is the solution to the problem they think is important but would be completely ineffective against the problem they see as secondary.

      • Frank

        It is ironic but simply human nature I suspect. I am all for common sense gun regulations like background checks and closing loopholes in the system but it will not solve our violence problem.

        • bluecenterlight

          Very true, all of these things are essentially heart issues.

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003507967305 Neal Lindberg

          It doesn’t, but it’s a small victory. Delegalizing abortion will also not solve abortion because women will still do it backstreet anyway, but I’m sure that if the legislation is passed, it’s a small victory too. We want to minimize the ease of taking other people’s lives as much as possible, unborn or not. It’s not a zero-sum game. Legislation only treats the symptoms, not the root cause of the issue which stems from the sinful and wicked human hearts…only Jesus Christ is the ultimate solution. Let’s put legislation in its place….far secondary to the transforming love and power of our Lord Jesus Christ.

          • Frank

            Laws limiting abortion have a far greater impact than any gun control laws. Yes let’s do both but let’s make sure we do both and understand where the priority is.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003507967305 Neal Lindberg

            I see the irony of people who scream gun control and cool with abortion at the same time. It’s sickening. I also see the irony of certain NRA gun-obsessed members who, if I’m not mistaken, are largely pro-life, but blind to the big picture that the purpose of gun control is to keep people from fatally misusing firearms, wrongfully taking lives in the process. Plus, it doesn’t mean they can’t own any firearms AT ALL, anyway,….all for the sake of their so-called “rights”? Laughable. The two kinds of people are guilty of disrespecting life in their own ways.

            ” All well and good but it avoids the real issue. Guns are not the issue. A respect for all life is. And it starts with how we treat our unborn.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but I feel AS THOUGH you’re saying, if people respect the rights of the unborn, it will naturally lead to respect for the lives of those outside the womb? As I’ve said in the examples above, people can be ironic in two different ways with this “respect for all life” thing. So yes, in a way, your bringing up abortion is irrelevant in the context of this article’s topic. You wanna talk about the REAL ISSUE? Real issue is the sinful and wicked human heart in need of a new nature from God through faith in Jesus Christ and sanctification by the Holy Spirit.

          • Frank

            My point is that it’s disingenuous, misguided and hypocritical for a Christian to lament over gun control while ignoring abortion.

            We know for a fact that 55 million unborn children have been killed since Roe v Wade.

            The amount of gun related killings of children, while tragic, sad and unacceptable is about 3000 per year. We don’t know how many were the result of failure in our gun laws but I would suspect a fraction of that total number. We have no idea how many kids will be killed in the future by guns. Hopefully less and less.

            Based on this reality, yes we should work on both, but the priority and the greater tragedy is abortion and yet all attention is on gun control. The disconnect is truly astounding and terrifying.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003507967305 Neal Lindberg

            “…misguided and hypocritical for a Christian to lament over gun control while ignoring abortion….” I assume you’re talking about the author? He’s not ignoring abortion, this gun control legislation addresses the issue of how to respect life outside of the womb, I can see the connection with abortion, but for the most part it is still a different topic. It’s not just the deaths of these schoolchildren that are tragic, but we also have to take into account all the victims that die by the irresponsible use of firearms–Batman shooting, Virginia Tech, shooting in that Texas college last week or so, Columbine shooting, everyday gang violence. This website has written articles on abortion, 2 last week if I’m not mistaken. I understand that RLC and Tony Campolo appear to “soft-sell” the abortion issue somewhat by arguing it should not be a defining issue, but they are still pro-life and very much oppose abortion. No one is trying to distract one issue with the other…there is time and place to discuss each issue.

          • Frank

            No I wasn’t referring to the author specifically and I agree we have the capacity to multitask but the unborn need a strong voice and its our Christian duty to speak up for them. If anyone talks about justice tied to the Christian faith, abortion is relevant. If anyone talks about violence towards children abortion is relevant. If anyone talks about inequality or marginalization, abortion is relevant. If anyone talks about caring for those in need and those suffering, abortion is relevant. Its not about distraction, its about proper focus.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003507967305 Neal Lindberg

            OK, I can see how aborted babies are victims of injustice, inequality, marginalization, and they absolutely MUST be cared for to full term and delivered in a safe & healthy environment. I don’t like to be personal on the Internet with a bunch of strangers, but I was nearly aborted when I was in my mother’s womb (sorry, no gonna go into further details, too personal), so believe me I understand the gravity of the abortion issue. Nevertheless, you got to relax, man, Christians are not going to forget about the unborn just because they happen to be addressing other issues. I don’t think a discussion on gun control will distract from abortion, at least not for those of us who have already respected people in all stages of their lives anyway.

          • Frank

            Neal thanks for sharing your personal story. I am so glad that you were not aborted!

            Yes some Christians have not lost the focus on whats really important, except many who have contributed an article here. Yes we had two posts on abortion in the last months and one was how it was ok to allow abortions legally and be Christian. There have been far more posts on gun control.

            I will not relax nor should any of us on the issue of abortion. Each week 21,000 innocent children are killed mostly for reason of convenience and comfort. We have been “relaxed” too long and have allowed this to occur for too long.

            So you or anyone can ignore my comments but I will not cease in making them. The unborn deserve all of us to be vocally and materially active in our support for them and giving them the voice they deserve.

            Guns are not the problem. Its simply a distraction from the real issue: we as a culture do not value life enough!

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003507967305 Neal Lindberg

            I mean relax as in, not everyone is as distracted and unfocused as you think they are, not for you to slack on your anti-abortion internet activism. The unborn will never be forgotten by any Bible-believing Christians in their right minds just because we happen to be talking about something else. You’ve acknowledged earlier that we have the capacity to multitask, but the things that you’ve said basically undermined that capacity, ironically. I still hear “zero-sum game” from you in spite of your admittance that “yes, we can do both.”

            Mass shootings will eventually subside and the number of articles will drop. It’s natural for any websites to discuss frequently “what’s hot these days.” Even Christian Post, a website that I think better suits your view than RLC, also posts gun control articles a lot these days, though from a different perspective, obviously.

            “Guns are not the problem. Its simply a distraction from the real issue: we as a culture do not value life enough!” Guns are not the problem, just like cars are not the problem in traffic accidents, but the irresponsible drivers behind them are. So, dangerous drivers should be stripped of their privileges to own and drive a car. That also means, we can’t make it too easy for people in general to get their driver’s license and thus…make them go through “tough” driver’s ed programs and all that regulations. And no, the real issue goes beyond “not valuing life enough.” Here’s the real issue: Adam and Eve listened to the serpent, disobeyed God, ate the forbidden fruit, unleashed the damage of the original sin to all of us their descendants, all of us have wicked hearts and the solution is: a new nature from God through faith in Christ and sanctification by the power of the Spirit.

            Protesting is too easy, let us hear you, on top of proclaiming the horror of abortion: urge all of us here to volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers, donate our time and money to these charities, be a safe place for women with unwanted pregnancy to run to, be a friend who listen and encourage them to choose life because it’s worth it, help direct them to adoption agencies, or introduce to loving couples who can provide stable homes. Go all the way Frank, go all the way.

          • Guest

            I mean “relax” as in…not all of us are as distracted and unfocused as you claim we are by gun control.

            Again, the real issue goes way beyond not valuing life enough. Why do we not value life enough? Goes all the way back to Adam, Eve, original sin, and our dire need for Jesus Christ. That’s the true, real issue.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003507967305 Neal Lindberg

            Just to add…put what you do in this perspective: it is good to mention the irony of respecting life at certain stages and not others. Still, how does your mentioning the horror of abortion help AT ALL in the discussion to solve gun violence? It’s not like “accidental moms to be” who consider abortion use guns to terminate the unwanted pregnancy. If an RLC article addresses pro-life/pro-choice issues, bringing up gun control to point out a moral irony is also good, but does not contribute anything at all to how we can alleviate/solve the issue itself. There is a place where we can point out hypocrisy, but pointing out hypocrisy is no excuse to downplay the issue or pretend it’s irrelevant…the issue won’t address itself by you pointing out some hypocrisy, however true it may be.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003507967305 Neal Lindberg

      I understand that certain Christians have softened the “fervor” of their anti-abortion stance, although they are still pro-life. I can see why this is problematic, but the EXCESSIVE reliance on the law to resolve abortion is also troublesome. Being pro-life is not a zero-sum game, Frank. We have to fight for both the unborn AND those outside of the womb.

      You argue that if we don’t ban abortion legally, we enable abortion, but I say if we don’t impose gun restriction, we also further enable murder. I know you have issues with how the writers of this website argue that abortion should not be a defining issue. This article is focusing on the tragedies caused by irresponsible use of firearms and the stupidity of the gun-loving culture, not intended to deflect the abortion issue. There is a plethora of issues that Christians should be concerned about and Jesus will demand an answer from us on judgment day. You are no more likely to go to heaven because of your anti-abortion activism, though I know Jesus cares so much for these innocent babies.

  • SamHamilton

    Morf,

    When you quote “cost of freedom,” “acceptable” and other phrases, are you quoting these in context? Did someone with the NRA really say that 200 gun deaths per week are the cost of the freedom to own guns? If so, yikes! Who says that “200 gun deaths a week is evidence that our gun policies ‘work’?” What does that even mean? Who says “that more of us, many more of us, must die, must be sacrificed for their ‘rights’.” These sound like ridiculous things to say. It’s hard for me to imagine that someone you know uttered them.

  • http://www.facebook.com/philip.zylstra Philip Zylstra

    Gun advocacy seems to be based on two central beliefs:

    1) Jesus was wrong when he said to love our enemies and turn the other cheek; we should instead shoot them.

    2) Some people are innately good (us) and should have guns, thereby making the world safer from those who are innately bad.

    I side with Jesus on the first one, but as for the second – it ignores the fact that 3/4 gun homicides are by the “good guys” living in our own homes. That if we buy a gun thinking that our families will be safer from the bad people out there, the undisputed facts are that they are 2.7 times more likely to be killed by a gun.

    • http://www.facebook.com/DeepNarcosis William J. Green

      How do you account for the fact that in Jesus’ time there were no firearms, but the Assault Weapon of the Day: SWORDS, he told his disciples to buy AFTER selling their cloaks?

      Offer a response using the plain meaning of Jesus’ Words; not deflecting or spiritualizing away the obvious and well understood meaning to those in the 1st-century.

      Thanks in advance.

      • http://www.facebook.com/philip.zylstra Philip Zylstra

        William, I suspect that Jesus wasn’t actually taking back all of his teachings up until that point. I don’t think he was confused, so I understand that his instructions to love enemies still stood. This is demonstrated by the fact that when the disciples went to use those swords, he told them to put them away, that if they live by the sword they will die by the sword; then he healed the person Peter had injured. So we can rule out completely the idea that Jesus wanted us to amass weapons to hurt people that he had told us to love.

        What does make sense if we read the whole passage and don’t stop before the point of it is that Jesus then quoted the prophecy that said they would be “numbered with the transgressors”. They got those two swords not to defend the entire band of disciples against the Roman military when Jesus could have called a legion of angels, and not to maim or kill people that Jesus loved, but to look like bad guys and thereby be numbered with the transgressors.
        Now perhaps you could explain how you could show love to your enemy by shooting them. Offer a response using the plain meaning of Jesus’ Words; not deflecting or spiritualizing away the obvious and well understood meaning. Remember, Jesus said that love for enemies – turning the other cheek instead of hurting them in response is what identifies us as children of God.

  • BenM

    First of all, Jesus was pro-weapon, telling his apostles to arm themselves. Luke 22:36

    This didn’t mean Jesus was advocating “living by the sword” by any means, but it’s irrefutable evidence He thought they had an acceptable place and purpose even in Christian life.

    Second of all, an inanimate object (tool) does not have in and of itself, a capacity to convey a culture or ethic of death. The way those objects are used can (and should) be in defense of life, and thus promoting a culture of life. They can be used incorrectly, but the decision to do so lies within the person using it. And in that instance, the nature of the object is irrelevant (gun, sword, knife, golf club, baseball bat, ax, plastic bag, rope, propane tank, etc.) because the user will find any tool at their disposal to commit an act of violence. Britain is a perfect example of a society where gun control has been strictly enforced for a long time, but their rate of violent crime is 4 times higher than the U.S.

    Putting this in perspective, our current rate of gun deaths may be 200 per day, but if quadrupled to Britain’s crime level, we could be trading 200 gun deaths per day for 800 deaths by other weapons per day. I believe in this context, and that being the choice, 200 gun deaths per day means 600 saved lives per day, which is a step in the right direction. It’s still not perfect, nor by any means a goal, and in a healthy society living out a culture of life, I think all of those numbers would shrink. But eliminating guns will not eliminate violent attacks, it will only change the look of the tools used, and may lead to a greater number of successful attacks by lowering our defenses.

    • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

      Ben, please don’t take this the wrong way, because I don’t mean any offense, but I’ve dealt with people using that Luke verse on average about once a day for the past several weeks, and I’m starting to get a bit tired of it. As a stand-alone verse, it does indeed seem that Jesus is pro-weapon. However, that verse is in the context of a greater narrative, and the whole of that narrative reveals that those weapons served an extremely limited purpose, and outside of that one extremely limited purpose, Jesus had and has absolutely no place for weapons in the Kingdom. I would ask you to at least read it in the context of its pericope – read verse 36 in conversation with verses 35, 37 and 38; read it alongside 47-53. And then read it alongside the whole of Acts, and alongside other stories of the early Church. Apart from the one extremely limited purpose on the night in which He was betrayed, I can find nothing to suggest that He or the early Church thought that weapons “had an acceptable place and purpose” in Christian life.

      • BenM

        Snommelp, I actually have read it in all of the contexts you suggested.

        Let’s suppose, for a moment, that Jesus had not intended it to literally be a part of this (as I call it) “prepper” speech of His. What figurative meaning could it have? Could it be along the lines of Paul’s reference to the “sword of the Spirit” from Ephesians 6:17?

        I find that possibility very unlikely, because the Apostles took it literally, pointing out that they already had two swords. And when they pointed the actual swords out to Jesus, he didn’t correct them, as if they had misunderstood His meaning.

        Peter misunderstood the PURPOSE of the swords, to be sure, as he later drew one of the swords and cut off the servant’s ear in the garden of Gethsemane, only to be reprimanded by Christ not to live by the sword. They were not meant as weapons of offense or attack. That leaves, as the only other purpose Christ could have intended (which makes sense in the broader context of the “prepper” speech) that they are to be kept as a matter of defense. But if Christ had not intended for the Apostles to be prepared to even defend themselves with deadly weapons, he would not have told them to buy them, period.

        And “turning the other cheek” is not an act of capitulation and pacifism, but of subtle defiance or “provocative non-violence”. Owing to Jewish laws of cleanliness, to turn the other cheek would have required the aggressor to recall the laws of uncleanliness before striking again with the other hand, and also bringing to mind the unlawfulness of striking in the first place, thereby turning a mirror on the aggressor, and giving him a chance to re-assess his first act before acting again.

        • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

          You are ignoring the most obvious possibility – that which Jesus himself mentioned, that the Scripture might be fulfilled that he was counted among the lawless. After all, if Jesus had intended for the disciples to use weapons in self-defense, then none of the Apostles would have been martyred. Instead, we find that all but two of them were. Those two were Judas Iscariot (who hanged himself) and John the Apostle (who, according to tradition, was miraculously saved from martyrdom though he made no attempts to defend himself, and who was then exiled to Patmos).

          As for turning the other cheek, your interpretation again ignores the logic stated by Jesus himself – “But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Jesus explicitly states that turning the other cheek is in the context of not resisting an evil person, rather than being an act of defiance, as you claim.

          • BenM

            First of all, Jesus was quoting scripture, namely Isaiah 53:12, to let his Apostles know that he was about to die, about to “give himself up to death”. That is what was going to be fulfilled.

            And indeed, if we look at Mark 15:28, as Jesus is hanging between two thieves on crosses (being counted among the wicked), Mark makes a reference to the exact same verse from Isaiah, saying that the scripture was at that moment being fulfilled.

            So the “wicked” or “lawless” in Luke 22 is not referring to the Apostles as being wicked for bearing swords.

          • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

            (a) You’re disagreeing with Jesus here, not me. It’s Jesus who says to buy swords, “for this Scripture must be fulfilled.” Not “because the Scripture is about to be fulfilled,” but “for the Scripture must be fulfilled.” Read that again. That’s Jesus saying that the purpose of the swords is to fulfill that particular Scripture. Not so that the disciples can defend themselves after Jesus is gone.

            (b) Mark is not Luke. Both are Scripture, but to attempt to conflate the two is folly.

            (c) Yet again, the Apostles disagreed with your interpretation, else they would never have been martyred as they were.

          • BenM

            I’m not disagreeing at all. I’m saying that the reason he gave them ALL of the instructions (not just buying the swords, but also taking a money bag with them, as well as their sack) is because He is telling them to be prepared. “For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, namely, ‘He was counted among the wicked’: and indeed what is written about me is coming to fulfillment.”

            That doesn’t tell me that by owning swords, the Apostles were setting themselves up as “the wicked”. That tells me that Jesus was saying the scripture (“Because he surrendered himself to death, was counted among the transgressors, Bore the sins of many, and interceded for the transgressors.”) “MUST BE fulfilled”, and “IS COMING to fulfillment.”

            I was not attempting to conflate Mark and Luke. I only pointed out the verse in Mark, because it is a more obvious fulfillment of the scripture “counted among the wicked”, and Mark even goes so far as to quote it as being such. It is more obvious, because the thieves actually were “the wicked” whereas the Apostles were not. And because it takes place after the “prepper” speech, it makes the future tense of “must be” and “is coming” make more sense as well.

            By your argument, the only purpose for Jesus to tell them to grab a sword was to tie up some loose ends in Old Testament scripture prophecies. “Oh, yeah, you guys, go get some swords so that one line in Isaiah will make sense.”

            Was Jesus in the habit of making a hollow show of jumping through hoops to satisfy wording of scriptures? I doubt it. That shallows His motivations, which I’m not going to presume. You go ahead, if you like.

          • BenM

            OFFERING THE OTHER CHEEK IS NOT PASSIVITY

            Mt. 5:38* “You have heard that it was said,x ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39y But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. 40 If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.”

            “This can sound like passivity in the face of evil, but it’s not. It’s the proposal of a new and very effective means of resistance. Classically, there are two responses to violence, fight or flight. We can respond with counter-violence or we can acquiesce. We all know, in the long run, that neither of those is an effective method. You fight violence with more violence, you tend to make the situation worse. If you acquiesce to violence, you confirm the violent person in his tyranny and evil.

            What Jesus proposes is a third way and look at his example. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn and give him the other. Again it sounds like passivity, but look, in Jesus’ time you would have never used your left hand. It was considered unclean. So if someone was strikes you on the right cheek, it means they are striking you with the back of your hand. It was a gesture of contempt–the way you treat a slave or inferior.

            So what’s Jesus saying anyway, don’t fight back, but by God don’t flee, don’t acquiesce. Rather stand your ground and turn the other cheek. You’re saying in effect, you will not treat me that way again. I refuse to cooperate with the world you are living in. You’re mirroring back to the violent person his violence, hoping thereby to lure him into a different moral and spiritual space.” Fr. Robert Baron, Catholicism Series, episode 2.

          • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

            It’s a very pretty way to explain away Scripture that we don’t like, but in that case, we must once again wonder at the fact that the Apostles all were martyred – and moreso, there is no way to justify this interpretation alongside the Crucifixion itself! No, all you have come up with is a way to say that “do not resist an evil person” means “resist an evil person to the bitter end.”

            However, we do agree that turning the other cheek is a radical move and a refusal to abide by the rules of the violent – because it is a radical move to love even those who seem to deserve no love. It is a radical reorienting of priorities, changing your own heart to mirror the heart of God rather than letting your heart be molded by the world around you. It is not passive – it is active, radical, infuriating LOVE.

          • BenM

            Ok, so here’s my situation. I’m responsible for the health and well being of a wife and three young children. My wife, for her part, is of course capable of understanding and choosing a path of non-violence, submitting radically to turning the other cheek and giving her life, if she should choose to do so. My children, being 3 years, 2 years and 9 months old do not have this level of understanding, so we, as parents must make decisions for them. Do we have the moral right to choose martyrdom for them, without their consent? Would it even be considered martyrdom, if they have not chosen a pacifist approach to an aggressor? Or, do we have an obligation to defend their lives, as they have been given to us, by God, for safekeeping?

            Self defense is a case of the principle of double effect. The preservation of one’s own life is an intended effect, the loss of another’s life is an unintended effect. And if a person who means to harm my family of 5 were to be repelled by force, whether from a gun or another means, even if it is applied with deadly force, that is not evil. It is both a greater good, that the one life should be lost to spare 5 others, and it is not at all sinful, because it is an unintended effect. The intended effect is the preservation of lives.

            Now if the forceful defense of life is applied in an intentionally and/or unnecessarily deadly manner to the aggressor, the exemption of double effect would not apply, and one would be guilty of a grave moral offense.

          • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

            So, have you given up on the words of Jesus, then? Because at this point, the Scripture has gone completely out of it.

            The short answer is that nobody ever claimed this was an easy path. In fact, Jesus said many times that it’s a hard path, and that many would not be able to follow it.

          • BenM

            No, I’m not giving up on the words of Jesus. In my mind, faith and reason go hand in hand. I am making a rational case, because reason and faith cannot be at odds with one another. And the principle of double effect is a rational case for self defense. Reason would say Jesus’ teachings all point to defending the defenseless, towards justice. Justice is nothing more than an extension, or manifestation, of charity.

            As for myself, I am willing to give up my life for Christ, for another person, or for the preservation of a soul (mine or another’s) from the death of sin. But I am not at liberty to make that choice on behalf of someone else whom God gave me to care for.

          • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

            When my friends take me shooting, they remind me of the two rules of firing a gun:
            (1) Do not put your finger near the trigger unless you intend to fire the weapon
            (2) Do not point the weapon at anything you do not intend to destroy.

            And yet you claim that death by way of deadly weapon is an unintended effect – that firing a loaded weapon at a living target does not have the intended effect of killing that target. Your reasoning in unreasonable. Small wonder, then, that it is at odds with Scripture.

          • http://www.facebook.com/DeepNarcosis William J. Green

            As if being counted among lawless Judas Iscariot and the Jewish sinning Chief Priests, Elders, Sadducees, Pharisees, etc., didn’t fulfill that Scripture. There were plenty of sinners to be accounted among while they were shouting “Jesus Bar-Abbas” rather than “Jesus Bar-Joseph!”

            Scripture interprets Scripture so there must be a harmonized theology that takes into account Jesus’ pacifist admonitions and his instruction to buy swords, together with the fact He prophesied that families will turn against one another: mother against daughter, son against father, Paul against Peter, and that some will in fact die by the sword. There is nothing ignoble about dying by the sword. It is thought that the most ignoble death is crucifixion!

          • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

            William, when you have to ignore the words of Jesus to make your point, you should reconsider it.

          • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

            The fact that death by the sword is a noble death and crucifixion is an ignoble death might clue you in on what Jesus thought of our ideas of nobility and glory.

      • http://www.facebook.com/DeepNarcosis William J. Green

        WRONG again., Jesus NEVER retracted his admonishment to SELL their cloaks and buy SWORDS after your putative “extremely limited purpose” conjectured event.

        Jesus had ample opportunity — and the Biblical authors had ample opportunities to record — after His resurrection during His appearances to RETRACT His statement about swords. There is NOTHING in Scripture or in extra-biblical materials that any disciple Heard Jesus say something to the effect of, “OK, go back and sell your swords for those cloaks you sold to buy them in the first place.” NONE!

        It’s making up an entire theology from silence and any theology made up ex nihilo from silence that does NOT dovetail with what’s WRITTEN is by definition anathema.

        Swords the apostles and disciples bought and swords they kept; whether or not, or how many or few times they used them. Some chose voluntary pacifism and kept their swords in their sheaths, others removed their swords from their sheaths and defensively fought off Christian Mass Murderers.

        The FACT that Jesus prophesied that “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword” came true. EVERYONE DIED, EVERYONE DIES; barring the Parousia everyone now alive SHALL DIE, it is only a question of means. Jesus knew — and HISTORY proved HIM TRUE — that some men will choose to DIE defending Jesus’ honor and the faith, and among them some will die by the sword, others by the knife, and still others by Islamic Jihadi Suicide bombers; still others by old age or disease.

        If you’re constantly tiring from defending your conjecture perhaps you should understand your fatigue as a sign of how utterly indefensible it is and how you should abandon it and stick instead with WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.

        • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

          “Some chose voluntary pacifism and kept their swords in their sheaths, others removed their swords from their sheaths and defensively fought off Christian Mass Murderers.” I’d appreciate some evidence of that, since as I’ve mentioned before, every single Apostle save two were martyred – the remaining two were Judas Iscariot, who hanged himself, and John the Apostle, who was imprisoned and then exiled. I know of no recorded instance of anyone in the early Church who “fought off Christian Mass Murderers.” Nobody until after Constantine came in the fourth century. Please, educate me on the matter.

          • http://www.facebook.com/DeepNarcosis William J. Green

            Have you never heard of Constantine and the Crusades? You refer only to 1st-century apostles but Jesus’ disciples have been walking the earth for the last 2,000 years and many have carried swords and some died by them.

          • http://snommelp.tumblr.com/ Snommelp

            I mentioned Constantine, so odds are I’ve heard of him. If the closest you can get to someone who heard the actual words of Jesus is the fourth century, then there’s a bit of a problem there. You can give me no examples of the people who actually heard the words of Jesus as they came from his mouth that agree with your interpretation, and yet you insist that it is in the Scripture. How do you not see the issue there? And you aren’t exactly consistent, William – you insist that the only ones who can interpret the Constitution are the ones who were there, yet Crusaders knew the words of Jesus better than the Apostles?

  • keith

    Your article deals with the lunacy of people who have done “NOTHING” wrong. It deals with those of us who protect our families and our property by any means possible. It deals with the ‘wrongly’ attributed idea that guns have anything to do with killing. This is the problem with liberals. You ignore the facts, statistics and the fact that weaponry makes us safer….not the other way around. Two thirds of all gun deaths are suicide….let that sink in. That leaves about 10K deaths by guns which is the same as drunk driving attributed deaths…So I asked a liberal why ban guns when they dont do anything without a willing shooter? I compared the deaths via gun vs. Drunks and he said…”We have studied that” “we havents studied this”…..so I asked him exactly what was studied about deaths from drunk drivers??? The CARS? What pray tell do you need to know about a vehicle that killed people due to a drunk driver?? He couldnt answer me because if he did he would have to say “PEOPLE” AHAAA and thats why we dont ban certain vehicles that may be more involved in accidents than others.This is not a gun problem….Its a Society probelm. All of the sob story you just posted is over 26 people…..What of the other thousands? Most of the shooters in situations like this one are mentally il and have already been identified but nothing is done. The rest of them have a reason behind them….Cheating wives, gang violence, job related etc….. Jumping on the band wagon only makes the problem worse. If you ban magazines you will realize that its not the problem. If you ban “dressed up” guns you call assault weapons you will find thats not the problem…actually the percentage used in these statistics is 1%. You will continue until you ban everything and find you still have the same problem…People. The press lied about the assault weapon at Sandy Hook which should bother you but alas a lie is ok if it fits your soapbox. You have absolutely NO statistics that any of this will save even ONE person yet you persist on shouting insults at those of us who refuse to give up our right to be able to protect ourselves and our families. Would I shoot you if you broke into my home….You darn skippy. Would I shoot you if you hurt one of my children….You darn skippy and would I shoot someone who had a knife to your throat threatening to decapitate you…..You darn skippy. Calling someone hames and saying they are insane only goes to prove you look at the results of the problem and not the cause. Typical for a liberal but there is a cure. Walk through the gates of hell in an inner city with your children…through the places you avoid and let them show you ‘why’ you need to be able to protect yourself if you so choose. If your arent willing to protect them why dont you give them to a family that has a man that will? Your assertion that my unwillingness to lay down my guns is non christian is absurd. Your unwillingness to protect your family is not only unchristian, Its criminal.

  • http://www.facebook.com/DeepNarcosis William J. Green

    “My NRA friends assure me that 200 gun deaths a week is evidence that our gun policies ‘work’. This is unbelievable to me. This is the logic of a psychopath.”

    Psychopathy is a personality disorder that has been variously characterized by shallow emotions (including reduced fear, a lack of empathy, and stress tolerance), coldheartedness, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, CRIMINALITY, ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR, a lack of remorse, and a PARASITIC LIFESTYLE. (ALL CAPS mine for emphasis – taken from enDOTwikipediaDOTorg/wiki/Psychopathy

    Proving once again the author does NOT do his Due Diligence and attributes no importance to factuality and truthfulness in favor of Far Left Hysterics.

    I don’t know NRA members or proud, Constitution-adhering, Bill of Rights loving people who fit that description; but I think it quite closely fits the descriptions of Adam Lanza, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, among others, who JUSTLY served as their own Judge, Jury, and Executioner, and pronounced and carried out Death Sentences upon themselves, forever eliminating the threat to society they posed. God have mercy upon their souls. James Holmes just sat and smiled and waited for the police to show up and turned himself in, and Jared Lee Loughner was taken down at the scene and turned over to police. Neither of them will ever again present a threat to society, however truly psychopathic they are.

    BUT let’s examine the author’s hyper-hyperbole. Our author is quite apparently trying to manifest, as best he can with his finite literary skills, that he is in high dudgeon, and takes great umbrage at the fact that about 200 people out of 315,000,000 Americans are killed weekly by firearms. If this ratio of 1:1,575,000 every week or 1:30,288 annually, is so “psychopathic” to him how is he NOT himself in a psychiatric institution presently going absolutely bonkers given the fact that Filicide by curette, forceps and tire tete occurs at the rate of nearly 1:4 pregnancies (23%) annually, resulting in the unGodly slaughter of 1,211,000 precious babies under the age of 1, made in the Imago Dei, every single year for the last 40 years. Said another way, of the 5,265,200 pregnancies that occur annually in the U.S. as a result of Bill of Rights protected coitus, 1,211,000 of them result in the horrific deaths of precious baby boys and girls, for which even a simple funeral or wake is NOT held. No priest or minister or rabbi presides over and blesses that precious child on her way to heaven. If this fact does not drive someone clinically insane and violently manic then nothing can or should.

    Our author does NOT manifest clinical insanity over Filicide with legal impunity but over Homicide by guns ONLY (never mentioning screw drivers, bats, knives, sticks, pipes, glass vases, lamps, trophies, crowbars, car jacks, rocks, rolling pins, bottles, curettes, forceps, tire-tetes, bare fists, bare hands, legs and feet, etc., which account for far, far more homicides than do firearms), and which are punishable by 20 or more years in a penitentiary or even Capital Punishment.

    Why, oh author, do you audibly Ignore the Bill of Rights but remain silent about Filicide and Infanticide?

    Implicit within our author’s hyperbolic and incensed prose is the idea that “guns have the ability to ‘take on a life of their own,’” and even against the wishes of their owners, as inanimate as they are, leap up off a table, swivel around, aim themselves at people’s vitals, and squeeze their own triggers — even if owned by the over 150,000,000 law-abiding, gun-owning public which has never shot and never will shoot a single soul except in Constitutionally-protected Self-Defense. For those who can NOT comprehend this in the abstract I direct your attention to the attached cartoon below at right. I daresay many of our author’s ilk treat inanimate firearms as MORE ALIVE than precious baby boys and girls living in their mothers’ uteri for the first nine months of their lives.

    “Never again.” There is no greater hyperbole in this temporal life than the use of the absolute in prose. “NEVER” will not occur. If something is mathematically probable, no matter how small, given enough time and attempts, it will occur (think of lottery winners who beat odds of 1:175,000,000 and win hundreds of millions of dollars).

    The odds of another Mass Murder or single gun homicide in the city with some of the most strict, stringent, and strident anti-Bill of Rights Gun Control Laws in the nation: Chicago (already with 44 homicides in less than 31 days of the New Year), are much, much higher than winning the lottery, not primarily because of all the guns, but because of wo/man’s sin, the fact too many of us do NOT “preserve, protect, and defend our Constitution, so help us God,” predicated as it is upon religion and morality, and because we give to and/or surround with guns those who have the greatest power to take them away:from We The People: the Barack Hussein Obamas, the Mayor Mikey Bloombergs, the Rahm Rahmbo Emanuels, the Governor Cuomo’s, Congresswo/men, Judges, celebrities, sports figures, banks, government office buildings, sports arenas and stadiums, factories, jewelry stores, etc. Just not our schools where our precious children attend (interestingly) 9 months out of the year, and just like when they were in the womb, remain defenseless and unprotected from those, including their own mothers, who would do them lethal harm.

  • http://www.facebook.com/peter.fodera.1 Peter Fodera

    Now we’re getting serious about keeping our children safe and protected from maniacal armed assailants!

    In fact, just yesterday an ARMED Special Resource Officer (SRO) disarmed a High School boy who managed to sneak his gun past his school’s metal detector and shoot and wound another boy — but did NOT kill him. The shooting victim was expected to be released Thursday night.

    BEFORE the shooter could shoot anyone else the ARMED SRO aimed his gun at the shooter, confiscated the shooter’s weapon and turned him over to police.

    Shots fired; ZERO dead. Gunman disarmed and turned over to the police by . . .

    . . . An Armed Special Resource Officer. Lives Saved because the only thing that STOPS a bad guy with a gun is a GOOD GUY WITH A GUN!

    All the teachers and students had sharp scissors — as recommended by the Obama regime’s BIG SIS but none of them were brave enough to charge at the shooter and stab him. I’m glad they did not. That would have been suicide!

  • http://www.facebook.com/DeepNarcosis William J. Green

    To all the nay-sayers, Truth-deniers, and those who live in a world where their brains can’t wrap around comparisons, analogies, and juxtapositions, I forgive you in Jesus’ Name.

    Your hatred and blind-eyed denial of the FACTS which I always include in my posts with references available upon request — which RLC recently began prohibiting unfortunately but which none of you ask for anyway because you don’t want to be burdened with FACTS while you’re narcissistically overcome by your subjective opinions — bears witness against you much better than I ever could.

    For those who do not understand or again, can’t wrap their brains around the fact that our elected leaders SWEAR A SOLEMN OATH TO GOD WITH THEIR HANDS UPON GOD’S WORD, HIS BIBLE (in Obama’s case for some superstitious reason upon not one but TWO Bibles), to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, so HELP ME GOD,” you have both my sincere pity and my rebuke in Jesus’ Name. Failing to give due weight to this solemn oath is entirely consistent with your biases and preference for unsupported opinions over weighty facts and God-invoked oaths and behests.

    For those of you who cannot see the hypocritical and mendacious absurdity of rising in high dudgeon, taking great umbrage, and being hoisted on your own petard by voicing outrage bolstered by a specious claim that 150,000,000 law-abiding gun-owners are “psychopaths,” over the tragedy of one crazed young man killing 20 children and then doing society a great and just service by eliminating his own threat for temporal perpetuity, but not the exponentially greater horror and sin of slaughtering 165 times more, precious children under the age of 1 every single day of every single year for the last 40 years WITH FULL LEGAL IMMUNITY, you again have my pity and severe rebuke. God forgive you; I have in Jesus’ Name.

    Your biases, discriminations, relativistic morality, and prejudices support your opinions but not the Truth, the WHOLE Truth and NOTHING BUT the TRUTH, so help you God, nor the FACTS, Biblical ethics, and empirical data.

    Again, I shower you with mercy and forgive you in Jesus’ Name, praying the same for you from God, en el Nombre de Jesu Cristo..

    Xaris kai eiraynay humin!

  • http://www.facebook.com/DeepNarcosis William J. Green

    EVEN A COUPLE WEEKS AGO WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT IT . . .

    ONCE AGAIN THE CONSTITUTION PREVAILS!

    “The Newtown Board of Education wants more armed police officers in the town’s four elementary schools after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.

    “Last night, they decided to ask the town to approve the request to include one additional full-time Newtown police at each of the elementary schools in next year’s budget.”

    URL AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST — RLC STILL BANNING IMBEDDED LINKS!

    HINT: SEE THE DRUDGE REPORT

    GOD BLESS AMERICA! AND GOD BLESS OUR PRECIOUS CHILDREN IN AND OUT OF SCHOOL; KEEP THEM SAFE, SHELTERED UNDER THE PROTECTION OF YOUR WINGS, AND SAFE FROM ALL WHO WOULD HARM THEM IN OR OUT OF THE WOMB. AMEN!

  • celloprof

    And the point of this article is….?

    This was so vague as to meaningless. Come on, take a stand. If you would like all guns to be outlawed, just say it. Draw some conclusion from the general principles stated. Where’s your spine?

×

TRENDING: The Biblical Definition of Marriage and its Relevance to Marriage Equality>>