Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Presbyterian 101 - A General Guide to the Facts About the PCUSA - Gun Control

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-gun.htm

    Gun Control
    The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) has a thirty year history of support for gun control legislation. Beginning in the late 1960's, in response to the assassinations of public leaders, the General Assembly called for ". . . control [of] the sale and possession of fire arms of all kinds."1 In 1976, this statement was re-affirmed, but also specifically worded to ". . .not cover shotguns and rifles used legitimately by sportsmen. . .".2 In 1988, these and other statements supporting gun control were again reaffirmed.


    A fuller statement was approved in 1990. In it, the General Assembly went on record as:
    Support[ing] gun control at federal, state, and local levels as the most effective response to the present crisis of gun violence. . .
    Call[ing] upon the United States government to establish meaningful and effective federal legislation to regulate the importation, manufacture, sale, and possession of guns and ammunition by the general public. Such legislation should include provisions for the registration and licensing of gun purchasers and owners, appropriate background investigations and waiting periods prior to gun purchase, and regulation of subsequent sale.
    Urg[ing] the enactment of similar state and local laws, should such federal legislation be delayed.
    Call[ing] upon government agencies at all levels to provide significant assistance to victims of gun violence and their families.3
    In 1998, the General Assembly added to its policy by calling on all Presbyterians to:
    intentionally work toward removing handguns and assault weapons from our homes and our communities; and
    seek ways to develop community strategies and create sanctuaries of safety for our children, so that all of our children may come to identify and value themselves and others as the precious children of the family of God that they are, and that they may come to learn peace for their lives and peace for this generation.4

    Endnotes:
    1. Minutes of the 116th General Assembly (1976), Presbyterian Church in the United States, p. 103.
    2. Minutes of the 128th General Assembly (1988), Presbyterian Church in the United States, p. 209.
    3. Minutes of the 202nd General Assembly (1990), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), pp. 605-606.
    4. Commissioners’ Resolution 98-19, 210th General Assembly (1998), Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).


  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    I was once a very active member of the Presbyterian church. I was a delegate to the 126th General Assembly at which the gun issue finally passed in 1988 was debated. It was hotly debated by a handful of us and the the general membership essentially called us war mongering baby killers. Within 4 months of coming home I withdrew my membership from the church for that and other policitical, non-faith based positions into which the church was insinuating itself.

    Within a year my brother withdrew his membership and my parents finally did the same several years later as the leftist positions on non-faith related issues continued to pile up in the church. Sad. Lots of fond memories and good friends in that church. If church's could stick to God and faith and **** about things that do not involve the Church (individual members can do whatever the hell they want as individual citizens) I don't think we would have seen the great decline in church membership over the years.

    Cliff's Notes: Bunch of leftists in charge. I didn't leave the church it left me.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    I have researched the Catholic, Methodist, Lutherian, Episcopalian and many other of the denominational churches and there all anti-gun, pro UN and on the left side of many other social issues. Last year the Methodists agreed on a policy to encourage the US to do away with our military and give the money to poor people. The real estate agent I had last year was a devout Presbyterian. I tried several times to draw him out into political disscussions to no avail. He was a great agent, got me good deal on my house but I think we were polar opposites on a lot of issues.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    The real estate agent I had last year was a devout Presbyterian. I tried several times to draw him out into political disscussions to no avail. He was a great agent, got me good deal on my house but I think we were polar opposites on a lot of issues.
    IF you had managed to draw him out would you then have been mad at him for having opposite views?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    Nope.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    I have researched the Catholic, Methodist, Lutherian, Episcopalian and many other of the denominational churches and there all anti-gun, pro UN and on the left side of many other social issues. Last year the Methodists agreed on a policy to encourage the US to do away with our military and give the money to poor people. The real estate agent I had last year was a devout Presbyterian. I tried several times to draw him out into political disscussions to no avail. He was a great agent, got me good deal on my house but I think we were polar opposites on a lot of issues.
    I'll try to say this as gently as I can...

    But doesn't organized religion have the same goals as government? That is, exert the most power over the people, and get them to unquestioningly follow the leadership. So, a push for gun control seems only logical. Remove power (or the illusion of power) from the little man, and you reinforce the authority of the leadership. Thus... it doesn't surprise me that most organized religions are anti-gun.


  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    SNIP I have researched the Catholic, Methodist...
    I'll try to say this as gently as I can...

    But doesn't organized religion have the same goals as government? That is, exert the most power over the people, and get them to unquestioningly follow the leadership. So, a push for gun control seems only logical. Remove power (or the illusion of power) from the little man, and you reinforce the authority of the leadership. Thus... it doesn't surprise me that most organized religions are anti-gun.
    Bingo!

    Pretty close I'd say. The only distinction I would make is that religious philosophy and doctrine wouldn't have control as a goal, so much as the memberswho can't receive the philosophy and doctrine into their heart.

    What's needed isa religious philosophy thatpromotes freedom and has doctrine supporting it, both internally and externally.

    In the meantime, just point out that they'd better support allthe Bill of Rights becausetheir religious freedom is already under steady assault. If #2 goes under the secular wheels, religion won't have a chance. Unless they want to do the whole emigration thing again---to Antartica.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    From the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod website (LCMS is generally thought to be one of the more conservative Lutheran denominations):

    Defending Ourselves
    Q. I am dealing with a non-Christian at work, he says he can't be a Christian because we aren't allowed to defend ourselves. Do you have anything I can use?
    A. Tell your friend that the Christian church (including the Lutheran church) has never held that the Bible teaches that Christians are not allowed to defend themselves. This view is based on a misunderstanding of passages such as Luke 6:29 and Matt. 5:39, which are speaking of the Christian's overall attitude toward enemies and persecutors, not giving practical advice for dealing with any and every specific situation in life.

    http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2164


    I did a rudimentary search for "gun control" and "guns" on the site, and while I found articles which decried violence, I did not personally see any which blamed the firearm itself (although I might have missed one). I believe some Lutheran groups are indeed "anti-," but I have never felt LCMS was (although that may be a function of locality as well). OMO, YMMV.
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , Colorado, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    I've asked my pastor about it before (I'm LCMS), and he's said the same thing. You're absolutely allowed to defend yourself, and if you feel comforatable using a firearm to do so, go for it. When this was first posted, I went for a search of the passage of selling your cloak to buy a sword. I came across this essay describing the passage, as well as the turn the other cheek, quite well:

    http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html


    Read the last passage as well. It can be considered a sin to actually NOT stop someone committing murder, rape, etc...

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    jcman wrote:
    I've asked my pastor about it before (I'm LCMS), and he's said the same thing. You're absolutely allowed to defend yourself, and if you feel comforatable using a firearm to do so, go for it. When this was first posted, I went for a search of the passage of selling your cloak to buy a sword. I came across this essay describing the passage, as well as the turn the other cheek, quite well:

    http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html


    Read the last passage as well. It can be considered a sin to actually NOT stop someone committing murder, rape, etc...
    Google, more truthfull then some pastors

    http://blogs.rep-am.com/matters_of_faith/?p=149

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    jcman wrote:
    I've asked my pastor about it before (I'm LCMS), and he's said the same thing. You're absolutely allowed to defend yourself, and if you feel comforatable using a firearm to do so, go for it. When this was first posted, I went for a search of the passage of selling your cloak to buy a sword. I came across this essay describing the passage, as well as the turn the other cheek, quite well:

    http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html


    Read the last passage as well. It can be considered a sin to actually NOT stop someone committing murder, rape, etc...
    Google, more truthfull then some pastors

    http://blogs.rep-am.com/matters_of_faith/?p=149
    The ELCA and the LC-MS are not the same groups. The ELCA was formed by the merger of ELIM, ALC, and LCA in the seventies or so. LC-MS is a distinct entity.
    If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.--Samuel Adams as Candidus, Boston Gazette 20 Jan. 1772

    Veteran--USA FA
    NRA Benefactor Life
    Tennessee Firearms Association Life

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    From the late Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae:
    ....Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes. 43 There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self....

    ....

    Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State". 44 Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason 45...
    When dealing with various bishops, of course, you may get a different story.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern lower & Keweenaw area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    667

    Post imported post

    The words written in red in Luke told me to sell my robe an buy swords.I bought an XD, a KEL TEC, and two Smith & Wesson "Swords".

  14. #14
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    springerdave wrote:
    The words written in red in Luke told me to sell my robe an buy swords.I bought an XD, a KEL TEC, and two Smith & Wesson "Swords".
    I like it!

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    I'll try to say this as gently as I can...

    But doesn't organized religion have the same goals as government? That is, exert the most power over the people, and get them to unquestioningly follow the leadership. So, a push for gun control seems only logical. Remove power (or the illusion of power) from the little man, and you reinforce the authority of the leadership. Thus... it doesn't surprise me that most organized religions are anti-gun.


    You are GROSSLY misinformed.

    Some religions are, but Christians are not like this at all.

    If you would like to learn more you can go here - p-o-o-p.org

    Otherwise this can get off topic quick.



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Yorktown VA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    I have researched the Catholic, [...]
    I'll try to say this as gently as I can...

    But doesn't organized religion have the same goals as government? That is, exert the most power over the people, and get them to unquestioningly follow the leadership. So, a push for gun control seems only logical. Remove power (or the illusion of power) from the little man, and you reinforce the authority of the leadership. Thus... it doesn't surprise me that most organized religions are anti-gun.
    Imperialism2024, I appreciate your caveat. However, “organized religion” and government do not have the same goals. The problem with regard to “gun control” and churches has to do with the power of corruption and the innate nature of man which is outwardly demonstrated in the manner in which he attempts to influence or control an object, individual or organization.

    As regards Christianity, true Christianity is not concerned with man’s opinion but truth. If one claims to be a Christian they must be able to demonstrate the soundness of their doctrine from an immutable truth – Scripture. Man has a moral right to defend himself as well as a wider obligation to defend those unable to defend themselves. In Paul’s first letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 5:8) the eminent Apostle said, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” In context Paul was instructing Timothy on provision (food and shelter) for parents, and widows in particular. But it is not unreasonable to apply the obligation for provision of the family to that of defense. Some might argue with me, but if one believes providing food and shelter for widows is of greater value over against providing for the defense of your loved one’s against evil, I’ll simply pass on responding to such senselessness.

    Though having said this, I recognize that many who identify themselves as Christian know little to nothing of Christ’s teachings… or Scripture in general for that matter. But that’s a different topic and well outside the purpose and intent of OpenCarry.org

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Yorktown VA
    Posts
    110

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    GLENGLOCKER wrote:
    SNIP I have researched the Catholic, Methodist [...]
    I'll try to say this as gently as I can...

    But doesn't organized religion have the same goals as government? [...]
    Bingo!

    Pretty close I'd say. The only distinction I would make is that religious philosophy and doctrine wouldn't have control as a goal, so much as the memberswho can't receive the philosophy and doctrine into their heart.

    What's needed isa religious philosophy thatpromotes freedom and has doctrine supporting it, both internally and externally.

    In the meantime, just point out that they'd better support allthe Bill of Rights becausetheir religious freedom is already under steady assault. If #2 goes under the secular wheels, religion won't have a chance. Unless they want to do the whole emigration thing again---to Antartica.
    Citizen,

    I certainly agree with you (if I’m reading your reply to Imperialism2024 correctly, see my other post). The history behind and purpose of our Nation’s founding has been abused and undermined by revisionist historians for decades. There are a number of sound published works based on primary source documents that demonstrate that, though in violation of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and some of his other letters which addressed submission to state authorities, our Nation was built upon an architecture of freedoms gleaned from the Bible and our founder’s understanding of God ordained rights.

    Two works I’d recommend that present this plainly and precisely are “Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion” by David Barton and “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of The United States” by Benjamin F. Morris. Mr. Morris’ work is a huge volume of 1060 pages originally published in 1864. Much of Mr. Morris’ work is comprised of transcribed letters, executive orders, and debates and such – some of which are no longer available but were when originally published – so it’s not simply a lengthy treatise of his opinion. Of Mr. Barton’s work, 184 pages of the 534 page book are committed to appendix (Declaration of Independence and Constitution), biographical sketches and end notes.

    I commend both works to anyone who wants a better understanding of how this great Nation came about without a revisionist’s hand at work. Both these authors rely on primary sources not some new interpretation of what happened 200+ years ago.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •