Why I don't own a gun

[Hans Deventer]

Correct, however the choice is already made, thus the actionable party is already identified. It really takes very little thought to come to the best conclusion.

Unless you speak only about yourself, I find this rather insulting.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, I argued about choice versus cause. You agree with me, I understand. Indeed we are forced to make a CHOICE. That is my very point.

No problem there, yes I agree with you it is a choice and it's not that difficult. But you have switched horses in the middle of the stream here. I was responding to Ryan's post regarding blame, where I have said that I disagree with his assessment.

Yes it's a choice, and I believe it's the correct one, hence no blame here, the blame correctly is lodged against the attacker. He "caused" the action.

Interestingly enough this is often framed within the context of loving ones enemies, loving ones attacker etc... And that's understandable as a consideration. However the insistence that killing ones attacker is not showing love is quite possibly faulty. After all God loves all of us and He has killed plenty of people in His day, I won't say that He didn't and I won't say that He didn't love those whom He killed.

And then there's that old Nazarene problem that has plagued us from the getgo. The thought that we can be perfect, and the associated guilt resulting from so many failed attempts. Long, long ago, I recognized that guilt for what it really is. None other than the voice of "the accuser of the brethren", that old serpent, the devil himself. Since then I have deliberately focused my thoughts upon seeking to do that which is pleasing to God and completely ignoring the negative side where I examine my failings while the fellow with the red cloak and pitchfork encourages me.

So for me, I look to do good and leave the worry and guilt about not doing good enough right where it belongs. Loud and clear I see the opportunity to protect those who need it and I see this as an obligation of love. The attacker? Sorry, it's not something that I should be focusing my thoughts on.

I realize that this may not be entirely responsive to your post, but it gets me back on track with my thoughts regarding Ryan's misapplication of blame.

[Jim Chabot]

Unless you speak only about yourself, I find this rather insulting.

No insult intended, sorry if I came across that way.

Yes I'm speaking about myself and I'll gladly stand with those who think similarly. While at the same time, I don't mean to diminish those who think differently. Again I'm sorry if it appears this way, I fully respect your heart and I fully realize that this is something that you take seriously as well.

I should be more sensitive to this. I've been through the church guilt trip meatgrinder and yes there was no shortage of pain. This is why I will grant the church zero authority over my life.

Please accept my apology, I know how it feels to be "guilted" and I know so well how subliminal the "guilters" can be. I'll try to do better, and keep reminding me that I should.

[Hans Deventer]

No problem there, yes I agree with you it is a choice and it's not that difficult. But you have switched horses in the middle of the stream here. I was responding to Ryan's post regarding blame, where I have said that I disagree with his assessment.

my apologies! I wrote to Dwayne but used your name.

[Jim Chabot]

my apologies! I wrote to Dwayne but used your name.

None needed, I was glad to find a point of agreement. Well worth it!

And I'm back from a couple of weeks vacation and stuck behind a desk for a few days, this is a good distraction from the tedium of CAD drawing. A few more sheets to go and I can get back outdoors where I belong!

[Paul DeBaufer]

This may be a great opportunity to understand the rationale a bit better. I am not denying the 'direct consequence' of a shooting death. FOR ME, the moral onus of that consequence is on the one that chose to initiate violent deadly force on me or an innocent under my protection. If a violent attacker uses deadly force (the only scenario that justifies an armed response) against me or mine, THEY (not me) are risking their safety because I choose not to sacrifice my life or the lives of my family to the violent capricious intentions of such a person.

I am not trying to kill them, only to stop their assault. I fully recognize that the attacker may die, but not due to my murderous intent. It would be due to their actions and my justified defense against those actions. Believe me, this is a subject that gets lots of examination from those that choose to be legally armed.

And to attempt some clarity regarding deadly force, let me state it another way. Defensive force stops the moment there is no more threat. Often all that is required is an assertive stance and a command. Maybe the weapon is drawn. Maybe it must be fired. But the defense stops when the threat ends. We are trained to aim center mass and fire until the threat ends. Whether that is one round or the entire magazine depends on the bad guy.

This is exactly why I'm against people walking around with guns. You're blaming someone else for something you do. That's scary and irresponsible. It's exactly why I would never have a gun - because its a rationale that makes sense in the moment, but doesn't hold up to logical examination.

When he enters your home and points a gun at your daughter or wife or even yourself? Yes indeed, that fellow made you shoot him, no question in my mind.

Now if you go outside and find this guy and point a gun at him and he shoots you. Would you agree that you caused this?

Ok let me see if I am getting this, and I think I am.

A criminal, someone you believe is bent on causing great physical harm to you, someone in your care, or both. This person creates a violent situation and draws you into it. Now you have a choice to make, a choice only you can make, not one make for you by another. This choice, for some, is to use a weapon with that provides deadly force, although death in not always the result, with the intention of stopping the violence.

The perpetrator created a violent atmosphere, situation, he begins the violence. Your violence is in return/response/reaction to the violence already underway. If he is killed he in a very real sense brought it upon himself. However, you could have chosen to not respond in kind, you are still responsible for your decision. Someone else has kind of place you in a no win scenario: to inflict great bodily harm of have great bodily harm inflicted upon you or another in your care.

So I think I can see both sides of this. Just because you are placed in a violent situation does not negate you freely chose or responsibility for that choice. However, should the initiator of the violence suffer great physical harm or death he bears a great deal of the responsibility for his own injuries because he began a chain of events that had his demise as a reasonably expected outcome of he choice.

[Monte Butts]

Despite many "liberal" leanings, I've been pro-gun my whole life. Grew up in a law enforcement family, and gun safety and handling was a part of growing up.

At one point, I had a CC permit in Oklahoma. I felt I "needed" it at the time due to my musician gigs putting me often walking back to my car in the wee hours in the morning, in the days before the fringes of Bricktown were as gentrified.

I even successfully stopped what at the time I believed was a car jacking filling up at a truck stop on the edge of Amarillo. I don't like to dwell on it as I've recently come to terms with the thought that the guy was probably just mentally disturbed and his way of asking for a ride scared me, and I thank God I didn't shoot.

I find myself more conflicted this days. I didn't renew my permit, and when I moved to Mississippi I never got it renewed. I have carried illegally while working in Memphis, but these days I just find myself leaving it at home. My home is out of town a ways, and I always considered it pretty safe, but I do sleep with a handgun in a safe on my nightstand within easy reach, and I've taught my wife to shoot and am glad of it after the coach's wife was murdered right down the road from me in a random botched robbery.

My conflict comes with the laws being loosened to much. I realize this puts me at odds with fellow NRA members.

When the laws designed to protect you from using deadly force inside the home were loosened, I think laws like the Florida Stand Your Ground laws go too far.

For those not familiar with it, look up the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. In a nutshell an unarmed black kid walking through his neighborhood on the way back from getting candy and iced tea at the store. Zimmerman, the block captain, thought he was suspicious, followed him against the advice of 911 operators, and when the kid got scared and ran he chased him and ended up shooting and killing him. Under the Florida law, Zimmerman has still not been arrested although the FBI is starting to investigate.

That he is allowed to walk free speaks to the flaws in the law.

I'm still pretty conflicted.

[James Diggs]

It might not make much sense to you, but intent makes much difference in law. I didn't say I would be 'surprised' if a criminal dies after getting shot, I said it would be an 'unintended consequence'. A regretful but acceptable consequence. And that consequence isn't on me - it is on the assailant. A defender's hands are clean.

The reason I don't own a gun is because, by faith, I do my best to value mine, my neighbor's and my enemies identity as human beings created in God's image more than I value just making sure I can assert myself by force and still claim my own personal hands are somehow clean. To me, it's not about what right I have to "defend myself" it is about what best enables me to live into our redeemed identity in Jesus Christ. I am not counting on my innocence- I am counting on my identity I have in Christ through faith.

The reason I don't own a gun is because owning a gun predetermines certain outcomes in bad situations to a great degree. Both David and Jim have repeatedly said the "choice" is already made when a particular kind of situation meets those prepared for them with a gun. It is just too easy to pull a trigger with one figure without "having a choice" once a gun is drawn (or possessed). It is not worth the risk of losing the opportunity to choose something else, perhaps more redemptive, than the narrow possibilities of what can happen when a gun is drawn in self defense.

The reason I don't own a gun is because the gospel is better than that and I want to live into something better than what the world has to offer.

(This applies to my reasoning for having a gun for self defense- not hunting or sport- I have other reasons for not owning a gun for those things, and under different circumstances might consider owning a gun for hunting if it were necessary.)

[David Parker]

Wow...coming back to this thread after a few hours gone and...oh my...

I sometimes forget that what with the theologians, the pacifists, and others, things that seem completely self evident to me are apparently foreign or carnal concepts to some of you. No problem though...that is part of why we are all here. To try to understand each other... (btw, good effort Paul DeBaufer!)

Let me try to clarify. I accept complete responsibility for my choices. The moral, legal, emotional and financial consequences of any shooting involving me will be my consequences because it is my decision to utilize a firearm as ONE OF the options at my disposal if confronted with a deadly assault. BUT, for ME, I hold the one that INITIATED deadly force against me as the one ultimately responsible for any negative outcome to his personal safety.

I have written in these forums before about the circumstances of my work as well as the reality of living in the country where 'professional' armed people (cops) are not readily available. We tend to be a bit more self reliant where I live. We have to be. For those of you that think that a 911 call is going to get you an armed surrogate within 3 minutes, God bless you, but that isn't my reality.

For me, and for every CCW holder I know (and I know more than a few) nothing is more important than avoiding trouble, deescalating hostility, and avoiding violence. Robert Heinlein was right. "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." It is my armed friends that are the biggest 'pacifists' I know in terms of interpersonal relations. Slow to argue, quick to retreat, and looking to avoid trouble if at all possible. A defensive firearm is a tool for peace and a tool for protection. It is not an aggressive instrument or symbol of supremacy. It is simply a very effective tool for defense and protection IF NEEDED when there is no better option.

The idea that forfeiting the ability (not to mention the legal right) of effective defense is somehow more spiritual or that not doing everything in your power to prevent a violent attack is somehow more 'loving' is not a value I embrace. For those that feel otherwise, that is between you and God, but for me, I don't ever want to be responsible for not doing everything in my power to prevent harm to those that look to me for provision.

I've posted it before, but this is a pretty good summary of my thoughts:

[Steven Martinez]

Ummm, Jimmy Carter's second term must have fell out, cause it's out on public display right now.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I knew you would take the bait. Sadly there are term limits because Obama's second term will not be Carter's third.

[Jim Chabot]

I knew you would take the bait. Sadly there are term limits because Obama's second term will not be Carter's third.

Touché

[James Diggs]

I sometimes forget that what with the theologians, the pacifists, and others, things that seem completely self evident to me are apparently foreign or carnal concepts to some of you. No problem though...that is part of why we are all here. To try to understand each other...

I wonder how well you understand the view of others so far by the arguments you believe counter them.

The idea that forfeiting the ability (not to mention the legal right) of effective defense is somehow more spiritual or that not doing everything in your power to prevent a violent attack is somehow more 'loving' is not a value I embrace.

What other values do you think the "pacifists" have here on Naznet that differ from your own that might lead them to having a different idea about what is "loving" and "spiritual"?

I've posted it before, but this is a pretty good summary of my thoughts:

(From the back of the woman's shirt in the picture)Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

What do you think I would say about "moral superiority" (not pejorative as in "false piety" but rather in the ranking of one moral choice over another) as the point as it relates to the gospel? How does it relate to this issue?

Bonus question about the shirt- what does the argument have to do with "gun control" which often advocates not a ban on guns but a process to help in accountability?

David, your views have a logic to them, and I think you have explained them well. Perhaps the "pacifists" here have not done as good of a job because the rebuttals rarely ever engage in what is actually behind the "pacifists" position.

I am just curious how well the "pacifist" position is being communicated, heard and understood. By the way "pacifist" is in quotes because I don't value "pacifism". Here is another question, what do you think I value that makes me look life a "pacifist"(one who simply values non-violence)?

[Jim Chabot]

I am just curious how well the "pacifist" position is being communicated, heard and understood. By the way "pacifist" is in quotes because I don't value "pacifism". Here is another question, what do you think I value that makes me look life a "pacifist"(one who simply values non-violence)?

Sadly the pacifism discussions around here generally seem to end badly. It has been said that the pacifists are very aggressive and intolerant, but I don't see that as necessarily true. There does appear to be a great deal of frustration that neither side understands the other.

Part of the problem is that folks get called as pacifists and yet they don't wish to be defined as such. Another is that the definition appears to be elusive and there isn't unanimity on it. Hopefully no one will throw rocks at me, but I've come to realize that the only one who I would safely call a pacifist here is Steve Martinez, and while I don't agree with him, I do highly respect the stand that he has taken and the testing that he has been through.

That said, I would say that every one here values non-violence to great degree. Not once have I seen advocacy for violence for any reason other than to stop violence. My logic tells me that when it is certain that violence will occur, then I must do whatever I can to try to stop it. I do this because I value non-violence.

I hope never to be in the situation, partly because I don't own a gun. I'll need to resort to swinging a pipe or something equally dangerous and stupid when faced with an armed assailant.

As an aside, I agree with the moral position posited by the tee shirt message. I believe strongly that there is moral superiority when the innocent live. In the first scenario the innocent person is killed which is a shame, the person who killed her committed a sin. In the second scenario the innocent person has survived, that is worthy or joyous praise, and the would be assailant was prevented from committing sin. The remaining question is whether the woman sinned by killing him to which I would be bold enough to say that she has not sinned nor failed to love him.

[Billy Cox]

The reason I don't own a gun is because, by faith, I do my best to value mine, my neighbor's and my enemies identity as human beings created in God's image more than I value just making sure I can assert myself by force and still claim my own personal hands are somehow clean. To me, it's not about what right I have to "defend myself" it is about what best enables me to live into our redeemed identity in Jesus Christ. I am not counting on my innocence- I am counting on my identity I have in Christ through faith.

The reason I don't own a gun is because owning a gun predetermines certain outcomes in bad situations to a great degree. Both David and Jim have repeatedly said the "choice" is already made when a particular kind of situation meets those prepared for them with a gun. It is just too easy to pull a trigger with one figure without "having a choice" once a gun is drawn (or possessed). It is not worth the risk of losing the opportunity to choose something else, perhaps more redemptive, than the narrow possibilities of what can happen when a gun is drawn in self defense.

The reason I don't own a gun is because the gospel is better than that and I want to live into something better than what the world has to offer.

I have heard a wise person say that you should only point a gun at someone if you are willing to kill that person. Pointing a gun raises the stakes considerably, compelling the person on the other either end to make a fight-flight-surrender decision. Proponents of handguns for home defense probably underestimate scenarios in which the person chooses 'fight'. Again, it's their risk to take and the likelihood that they will face such a situation is very small.

[James Diggs]

Sadly the pacifism discussions around here generally seem to end badly. It has been said that the pacifists are very aggressive and intolerant, but I don't see that as necessarily true. There does appear to be a great deal of frustration that neither side understands the other.

Thanks for getting involved with the question I asked Jim. I think we do have to own what comes across as "aggressive and intolerant" on our part- I am sure I and others can sound rather dogmatic sometimes too. That is why I asked David what I asked and how I asked. I am trying something different- hopefully to get a different result (not changed minds- I'd be happy with greater understanding).

... I would say that every one here values non-violence to great degree. Not once have I seen advocacy for violence for any reason other than to stop violence. My logic tells me that when it is certain that violence will occur, then I must do whatever I can to try to stop it. I do this because I value non-violence.

To ask a similar question I asked of David, what do you think I and others might value more than non violence to lead us to a different conclusion than you do? I say this because non-violence isn't the value the issue turns on here- i think it is built on something deeper- so I can agree "that every one here values non-violence to great degree." So what's the difference in how we arrived at our conclusion and you arrive at yours?

As an aside, I agree with the moral position posited by the tee shirt message. I believe strongly that there is moral superiority when the innocent live. In the first scenario the innocent person is killed which is a shame, the person who killed her committed a sin. In the second scenario the innocent person has survived, that is worthy or joyous praise, and the would be assailant was prevented from committing sin. The remaining question is whether the woman sinned by killing him to which I would be bold enough to say that she has not sinned nor failed to love him.

Thanks Jim, I believe I understand that and the logic you build it on. But again, let me ask you a question as an effort to better gauge how well an alternative view is communicated, heard, or understood.

You build this argument on your understanding of morality- Based on what I have said about this issue and similar ones before in our discussions, what do you think I would say about our view of morality and how it is built upon? What different considerations might I have in exploring the issue that you do not?

Again, I am just curious about how I am heard, because I think the difference in our position is more in the underling framework of how we think rather than arguments constructed based on it.

[Ryan Pugh]

Not once have I seen advocacy for violence for any reason other than to stop violence.

Not trying to take away from any good dialogue you have going on with James, but this logic makes no sense to me at all. We commit violence in order to stop violence? Doesn't violence simply perpetuate more violence? Hasn't that been revealed throughout history? At what point do we seek another "solution"?

My logic tells me that when it is certain that violence will occur, then I must do whatever I can to try to stop it. I do this because I value non-violence.

I whole-heartedly agree with this. Except I believe I must do everything I can to stop violence besides resort to violence myself, including giving up my life. Otherwise there is no love.

[Jim Chabot]

We commit violence in order to stop violence? Doesn't violence simply perpetuate more violence? Hasn't that been revealed throughout history?

Nope. Other than hearing this repeated over and over again, I have no idea where you would come up with this.

At what point do we seek another "solution"?

"We"? That's ok. If you don't mind, I'll follow the advice of my God the best I can. I'll say this as kindly as I can, and I'm not going to debate it with those who will inevitably pile on. It is my belief, and mine alone, that the particular theology which you seem to embrace is thin and narrow. For that reason we aren't going to agree, lets not fight over it.

I whole-heartedly agree with this. Except I believe I must do everything I can to stop violence besides resort to violence myself, including giving up my life. Otherwise there is no love.

Ok, but I say unequivocally that you are mistaken. To say that love is impossible is most assuredly error. Now if you firmly believe that you can best protect someone by giving up your own life, then ok, I'm good with that. of course I don't believe that to be the best protection, so I would be failing to love if I did not protect.

To say that it is impossible to kill someone and love them at the same time is a statement that I'm not going to accept. The more I think on it, the more it makes no sense at all. Sounds good, I'll give you that, but not thought through.

[James Diggs]

It is my belief, and mine alone, that the particular theology which you (you= Ryan, but it could be me too) seem to embrace is thin and narrow.

And what is this particular kind of theology? How do you think it informs our opinion on this subject?

[Jim Chabot]

Thanks for getting involved with the question I asked Jim. I think we do have to own what comes across as "aggressive and intolerant" on our part- I am sure I and others can sound rather dogmatic sometimes too. That is why I asked David what I asked and how I asked. I am trying something different- hopefully to get a different result (not changed minds- I'd be happy with greater understanding).

I agree, this is good. I've apologized many times for my aggression and intolerance, so I know I have a good supply. I would like to get rid of it, and maybe if I apologize enough, well maybe there's hope.

I'm kind of dialoging on this for the same reasons. I'm glad to hear and understand those who see things differently than me, although I must admit that I'm rather intolerant of shallow responses, or positions held because they are the current rage. But yes, I do like to understand when I can. On the other side of the coin, I'm not really looking to change anyone else's mind, I'm happy to point out how I've come to my views if I can.

If we really need to change someone else's mind, then maybe we have to think on our own "control issues."

So thanks for this intro.

To ask a similar question I asked of David, what do you think I and others might value more than non violence to lead us to a different conclusion than you do? I say this because non-violence isn't the value the issue turns on here- i think it is built on something deeper- so I can agree "that every one here values non-violence to great degree." So what's the difference in how we arrived at our conclusion and you arrive at yours?

Oh, I don't think that there is another value that would lead you to a different conclusion. I have no doubts that the cessation of violence is right there front and center for all who are in this conversation. Yes the difference must lie elsewhere. While I can't quite see it with my minds eye, I can imagine this analogy. Two folks are intent on reaching the North Pole, one decides that the best method is by ship, while the other is convinced that air travel is the answer. The both possess the same goal, yet both can point out why their method seems "right", and of course both can point out where the other is mis thinking.

Honestly, and I know this sounds like a cop out. I think that a lot of this is just in who we are, we are different.

Some folks will resolve a situation with incredible patience and kindness at the risk that time may either run out or worsen the situation, while another will value directness and quick resolution even if this quick approach brings recalcitrance, retribution or danger.

But why? I'm thinking that we are a few courses of Psych 101, but hey I took 102 and Abnormal, I'm willing to try a bit.

Thanks Jim, I believe I understand that and the logic you build it on. But again, let me ask you a question as an effort to better gauge how well an alternative view is communicated, heard, or understood.

You build this argument on your understanding of morality- Based on what I have said about this issue and similar ones before in our discussions, what do you think I would say about our view of morality and how it is built upon? What different considerations might I have in exploring the issue that you do not?

I'm not sure how far we could explore this before coming to an impasse, but I think that there are theological differences that come into play here. Thoughts?

Again, I am just curious about how I am heard, because I think the difference in our position is more in the underling framework of how we think rather than arguments constructed based on it.

Yes I would agree, we do think very differently in some area. I wonder if we would be better off if we learned to appreciate each other more. I know that I need to try.

And just an aside. I realize that your form of textual communication tends to be rather wordy and that's ok. And you tend to interject lots of questions into your conversation, and that's ok as well. I just want to say that sometimes I'm sitting at a desk most of the day and have no problem taking the time to respond. But more often, I'm either on vacation where I need to post from my phone, or I'm out in the field and in a different mode altogether. So if I don't keep up and don't fully respond, please understand.

[Jim Chabot]

And what is this particular kind of theology? How do you think it informs our opinion on this subject?

Haha! I knew that I should have responded to you first!

The temptation to respond to the shorter post is great though.

I think that you would agree in large part with Ryan's theology. Not to be unkind but I would like to conserve words and read some other threads, and I believe that you have an inkling already? The short answer would be "red letter fanboy" theology, to which I'm not impressed nor inclined. To be honest, I'm not sure how far down this road we can go without coming to a point of angst. Maybe dancing around the edges would be a better way to respect each other?

[Hans Deventer]

And what is this particular kind of theology? How do you think it informs our opinion on this subject?

I think you are guilty of putting Jesus' message above the killings in the OT. Which of course is very narrow minded.

[Hans Deventer]

Found this cartoon today.

[Wes Smith]

I find this thread amusing!

Being raised in rural South Dakota and Iowa, our lives depended to some degree on harvesting the annual supply of birds (quail, pheasants), rabbits and squirrels. It was a rite of passage to first accompany a parent or older sibling on a hunt and then to be trusted with a gun. In my adult life I've harvested a couple deer.

We've never had a child killed by a gun in our family, but have had children die in lots of other situations in our communities over the years. Though I do not have the statistics, I'm guessing that way more children are killed annually by bee stings, bicycle accidents and swimming related accidents than by gun accidents.

Until making the move to Costa Rica, we always had guns in our home. I would have used the gun to stop an intruder, but never had one! Fact of the matter is that I would have had to go from our bedroom to where the guns were kept, find the ammunition, load the gun and then confront the intruder. Have a feeling that the intruder would have had the upper hand.

This issue is SO related to the patriotic Christian thread and my response is quite the same. Fundamentalism is a clear and present danger in just about any subject we can raise!!!

Friend,

Wes

[Hans Deventer]

Fundamentalism is a clear and present danger in just about any subject we can raise!!!

Hardly.

Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their religious culture. The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time. The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs. "Fundamentalism" is sometimes used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "right-wing fundamentalists").

Main article: Christian Fundamentalism

Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910-1920. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism.

The term "fundamentalism" has its roots in the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897), which defined those tenets it considered fundamental to Christian belief. The term was popularized by the "The Fundamentals", a collection of twelve books on five subjects published in 1910 and funded by the brothers Milton and Lyman Stewart. This series of essays came to be representative of the "Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy", which appeared late in the 19th century within some Protestant denominations in the United States, and continued in earnest through the 1920s. The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals":

The inspiration of the Bible and the inerrancy of Scripture as a result of this.
The virgin birth of Christ.
The belief that Christ's death was the atonement for sin.
The bodily resurrection of Christ.
The historical reality of Christ's miracles.

By the late 1910s, theological conservatives rallying around the Five Fundamentals came to be known as "fundamentalists." In practice, the first point regarding the Bible was the focus of most of the controversy.

It is important to distinguish between "Fundamentalism" as the name of a militant style and "fundamentalism" as a theology.

Fundamentalist groups generally refuse to participate in events with any group that does not share its essential doctrines. In contrast, Evangelical groups, while they typically agree on the theology "fundamentals" as expressed in The Fundamentals, often are willing to participate in events with religious groups who do not hold to the essential doctrines.

Since we are talking about Christian fundamentalism, the main issue is the inspiration of the Scriptures. Which for any Nazarene means that one cannot be a fundamentalist, since we do not adhere to the fundamentalist view of inerrancy.

So contrary what you seem to like to suggest, I would argue no true Nazarene can be a fundamentalist in the classical meaning.

Now if you would use the definition: "The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs", it would be different. In that case we ALL are fundamentalists and the meaning of the word in these kinds of discussions is irrelevant, because our faith by definition includes a "set of irreducible beliefs". Which means it is not a danger, but a good thing.

[Dennis M. Scott]

This thread illustrates how different perspectives make it difficult to come to consensus.

Two thoughts came to me. If I were going to choose from among discussion participants whose house to burglarize, Dave Parker's would be the absolute last: his gun has already deterred me. Secondly, if I want to steal ice cream, I won't go to Ryan's. Many of the rest of you are fair game, however. You've now been warned.

[Bob Hunter]

Just a few thoughts, I find this thread and others like it very interesting. I am usually on one side of an issue or another, but I find it so hard to get in the middle of this debate. I mentioned earlier in the thread, I do own guns. Both my sons (and my daughter) know how to use them. We drive out in the woods in my 4WD and find an old stump to fill with bullets. Or we shred some paper tacked on a tree. Just a lot of fun if you ask me.

The old intruder scenario tossed around in these discussions confounds me a great deal. There is always another "what if" or "maybe this". I have guns in the closet, usually hidden from the kids, but I don't know if I would use them in that scenario. I'm pretty athletic, heck I might just apprehend a suspected intruder with my bare hands. But then, I'm not a violent person. On the other hand, it is pretty obvious some people are hell bent on taking a life for their own personal gain and I would not stand by and let them have their way with my family. I guess if I had to I would load up the DBL shotgun as a deterrent and wave it around. Although, I might be inclined to use it.

I'm glad you all have resolute positions. I am officially undecided. I see valid arguments on both sides. I find myself somewhere in the middle. But maybe there is hope, if we devote a few more dozen threads to the issue, you never know, I might go one way or the other. Until then, I am not convinced I can dig my heals in on either side and I plan on keeping my guns. If I have to kill a rattle snake in the desert or fend off a coyote on a camping trip, I'll be prepared.

[Ryan Pugh]

I think that you would agree in large part with Ryan's theology. Not to be unkind but I would like to conserve words and read some other threads, and I believe that you have an inkling already? The short answer would be "red letter fanboy" theology, to which I'm not impressed nor inclined.

Jim, if by "red letter fanboy" you mean I ignore the non-red-letter portions of scripture, you're wrong.

If you mean that I read and interpret all of scripture through the lens of Jesus Christ, the exact representation of God, you're correct. I can't think of a better interpretive lens.

[David Parker]

I wonder how well you understand the view of others so far by the arguments you believe counter them.

What other values do you think the "pacifists" have here on Naznet that differ from your own that might lead them to having a different idea about what is "loving" and "spiritual"?

What do you think I would say about "moral superiority" (not pejorative as in "false piety" but rather in the ranking of one moral choice over another) as the point as it relates to the gospel? How does it relate to this issue?

Bonus question about the shirt- what does the argument have to do with "gun control" which often advocates not a ban on guns but a process to help in accountability?

David, your views have a logic to them, and I think you have explained them well. Perhaps the "pacifists" here have not done as good of a job because the rebuttals rarely ever engage in what is actually behind the "pacifists" position.

I am just curious how well the "pacifist" position is being communicated, heard and understood. By the way "pacifist" is in quotes because I don't value "pacifism". Here is another question, what do you think I value that makes me look life a "pacifist"(one who simply values non-violence)?

James, I am sorry, but I started a new business this past year and I am working very long hours. I just don't currently have the time to post long item by item responses to all your questions. Wish I did as I do enjoy such discussion.

Rather than try to project what I might think you or others would say, it might be more productive for you or others to just tell me your views. But we have done this 'pacifist - nonviolence' discussion in the past and it rarely ends well. My perception is that is has ended with questioning the Christianity of those that disagree. Not a good result.

All I can do is speak for myself, not others. For me, I just can't understand or appreciate a position that seems to say that the 'Christian' thing to do in the event of a violent assault is to abdicate the protective provision of my family and sacrifice not only myself, but by logical consequence, surrender my family to the whims of a crack addled psychopath or a sexual deviant because I was unwilling to be prepared and willing to actively and effectively defend my family. TO ME, that is an unloving irresponsible shallow minded indefensible position. I don't question the Christianity of one that insists on doing such a thing, but it makes no sense to me.

Without the force multiplier of a modern weapon, victory would always go to the young and the strong. A gun is what allows a 55 year old man to be effective against a drugged 20 year old, or multiple drugged 20 year olds. Or a single woman against stronger male assailants. It is my view that we should be celebrating a tool by which the weak can be protected from the strong and the violent, not treating it as a curse.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

The Gun is Civilization

[Wes Smith]

How about "neo-fundamentalism"? A type of fundamentalism that looks down on and spiritualizes, diminishes, and ridicules alternate beliefs about peripheral issues that are not related to the...fundamentals of the faith.

Friend,

Wes

[David Parker]

Found this cartoon today.

Attachment 3505

If the news reports of this incident are correct, (a very big if), the shooter should be arrested and tried as the Stand Your Ground law does not cover his actions. So says the authors of the law.

Stand Your Ground authors: Trayvon Martin’s shooter should likely be charged, avoid immunity

The authors of Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law say the killer of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin probably should be arrested and doesn’t deserve immunity under the statute.

The comments from the Republican lawmakers came the same day state Sen. Oscar Braynon, D-Miami Gardens, urged the Florida Conference of Black State Legislators to call for the law to be repealed, amended or subject to legislative hearings. Trayvon’s mother lives in Braynon’s district.

But the lawmakers who crafted the legislation in 2005 — former Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley — said the law doesn’t need to be changed. They believe it has been misapplied in the shooting death of Trayvon by a Sanford crime-watch captain, George Zimmerman.

Zimmerman has not been charged because, police said, it appears he acted in self-defense. The Seminole County state attorney’s office decided Tuesday to take the case before a grand jury.

“They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,” said Peaden, a Crestview Republican who sponsored the deadly force law in 2005. “He has no protection under my law.”

[Jim Chabot]

I think you are guilty of putting Jesus' message above the killings in the OT. Which of course is very narrow minded.

Especially when one considers that Jesus Himself did not do this. It takes a thick pair of glasses to read Jesus as contrasting His and our Father.

But we have had that debate a few times. Perhaps a little tolerance and respect would better serve us.

[Jim Chabot]

Jim, if by "red letter fanboy" you mean I ignore the non-red-letter portions of scripture, you're wrong.

If you mean that I read and interpret all of scripture through the lens of Jesus Christ, the exact representation of God, you're correct. I can't think of a better interpretive lens.

Wrong approach Ryan. I have no problem understanding.

The key is not in the descriptor, I've already indicated that it may be inadequate. The key is that I am neither impressed nor inclined. I have examined the evidence and I have reached different conclusions. Could I be wrong, why yes absolutely. Could you be wrong, no doubt about it.

[Dwayne Petry]

I think I know what I would do. I would defend me and my family by whatever means necessary. However, until faced with the situation, I don"t know what I would really do! I believe I would have difficulty knowing I sent someone to eternity, even in self defence. I pray for GOD's protection daily, but know that HE does not always answer the way we ask. I believe I have a GOD given right defend my family and my life. Life is GOD's creation, and must be honored. If I "lay down" my life and my family gets killed because I did not "defend" them, how is GOD honored?

I sound like Paul in Romans 7:14-24!

[Bob Hunter]

How about "neo-fundamentalism"? A type of fundamentalism that looks down on and spiritualizes, diminishes, and ridicules alternate beliefs about peripheral issues that are not related to the...fundamentals of the faith.

Friend,

Wes

Sorta like the Concerned Nazarenes?

[Hans Deventer]

How about "neo-fundamentalism"? A type of fundamentalism that looks down on and spiritualizes, diminishes, and ridicules alternate beliefs about peripheral issues that are not related to the...fundamentals of the faith.

Friend,

Wes

Well, again, then we are all neo fundamentalists and the word has lost meaning.

[Paul DeBaufer]

If the news reports of this incident are correct, (a very big if), the shooter should be arrested and tried as the Stand Your Ground law does not cover his actions. So says the authors of the law.

Stand Your Ground authors: Trayvon Martin’s shooter should likely be charged, avoid immunity

The authors of Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground law say the killer of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin probably should be arrested and doesn’t deserve immunity under the statute.

The comments from the Republican lawmakers came the same day state Sen. Oscar Braynon, D-Miami Gardens, urged the Florida Conference of Black State Legislators to call for the law to be repealed, amended or subject to legislative hearings. Trayvon’s mother lives in Braynon’s district.

But the lawmakers who crafted the legislation in 2005 — former Sen. Durell Peaden and current state Rep. Dennis Baxley — said the law doesn’t need to be changed. They believe it has been misapplied in the shooting death of Trayvon by a Sanford crime-watch captain, George Zimmerman.

Zimmerman has not been charged because, police said, it appears he acted in self-defense. The Seminole County state attorney’s office decided Tuesday to take the case before a grand jury.

“They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid,” said Peaden, a Crestview Republican who sponsored the deadly force law in 2005. “He has no protection under my law.”

So glad to hear that the authors have spoken against this murder of a child. The law needs to be amended so that there will be no ambiguity in future cases.

The State's Attorney for Seminole County and the Police Chief have stepped down: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-...on-Martin-case

[Jim Chabot]

Actually, people only have to put them off to see it, Jim. Together with the glasses of American civil religion, the prosperity gospel, and the worshipping of freedom as the ultimate value. Seems impossible, but it can be done.

Yes I've heard the latest talking points said over and over again, doesn't make it true and to be honest this makes no sense whatsoever.

Let's remember the basic premise is that of reading Jesus in such a way that He is in contrast to the Father.

Nonsensical, "I and the Father are one." Not even probable, "I say unto you that the son can do nothing of Himself but what He seeth the Father do." No intention, "I come not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."

We all wear glasses, I don't doubt that you can see mine at times, lets not pretend that I cannot see yours. Or Ryan's. A lot of you guys read the same books and you come to the same conclusions, it's not so hard to see.

Tolerance and respect? The very moment people start to write about non violence, the wolves gather to attack.

Depends upon ones perspective, I view the pacifists as the attackers. Do I believe that it can be seen both ways? Yes most assuredly. If you or anyone perceives that I am attacking, please cal me on it for it is not my desire. I'm only looking to share my opinion and insight and learn from others. Am I willing to change my mind? Yes of course, but I must be persuaded. I will not change my mind so that I will be accepted, it is very important to me that my opinions be honest opinions.

Reminds me of a Dutch band who had a song about tolerance. Roughly translated, it goes like this:

With a little bit of tolerance
you're always on vacation
You never need an opinion anymore
You 're done with all that *****
Everybody is your friend
'cause everybody is right.

Rather a bad definition of tolerance I would say. To be tolerant is to be able to love someone and still maintain your own opinion. To be tolerant is to be able to say that I love you and I disagree with you. No vacation at all, it's hard work.

Easy to agree, easy to disagree, tolerance takes effort.

[Jim Chabot]

So glad to hear that the authors have spoken against this murder of a child. The law needs to be amended so that there will be no ambiguity in future cases.

No ambiguity in the present law, that's the point.

The State's Attorney for Seminole County and the Police Chief have stepped down: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-...on-Martin-case

Glad to hear the the real problems have gotten out of the way. Let's step back and watch to see if thee is a successful prosecution under the current law before we go off half cocked on this one.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Jim - tell Hans that you affirm his freedom to oppose gun ownership, that he can be a Christian in your eyes and hold that view.

Hans - tell Jim that you affirm his freedom to favor gun ownership, that he can be a Christian in your eyes and hold that view.

There - all better!

[Bill Morrison]

Jim - tell Hans that you affirm his freedom to oppose gun ownership, that he can be a Christian in your eyes and hold that view.

Hans - tell Jim that you affirm his freedom to favor gun ownership, that he can be a Christian in your eyes and hold that view.

There - all better!

And someone tell Monte (post #87) and me and probably many others that we can be "conflicted" on this issue and still be Christians too!

BILL