Peace Be With You...

[Townhallsavoy]

Nothing in the Bible preaches against defense of self, your loved ones, or property.  NOTHING.  In fact there are verses condoning it.

Still not sure how Coffee "put himself ABOVE football" or on a pedistal, by leaving it for his stated reasons of believing God had other plans for him or that it wasn't where he was supposed to be.

And, don't know how anyone can say WHAT Coffee should have done with his Christian calling, other than God and Coffee, or why anyone would feel the need to question his Christianity or his calling because he didn't choose to stay in or around football becaue THEY thought he should.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence that Paul and Timothy both preached that one who follows Christ should not be quick to respond to persecutors with violence.

The story of Saul having Stephen stoned to death is a good example.  In Acts, Stephen lays down his life for Jesus and even praises God's name during the, if you think about it, rather morbid and horrific way he died. 

Also in Acts, Peter and the apostles are flogged by the government for attempting to spread the news of Jesus.  They rejoiced for being worthy of physical suffering for the sake of God's glory.  This is around chapter 4 or 5 if you'd like to look it up. 

Paul teaches to bless those who persecute you in Romans. 

I think in 1 Peter, Peter teaches that Christians should not feel any fear when threatened by other people. 

Further, Paul teaches that while the laws of the first few covenants are no longer necessary to follow due to the Jesus's sacrifice, it's still important to follow them as close as possible because Christians should not cause other Christians or non-believers to stumble. 

And finally, we see numerous times throughout the letters in the new testament that Christians should encourage other Christians to act in a manner that portrays Christ in a good way.  While this could be influenced by subjective interpretations of the old covenant laws, it's still important for us to try and take notice of faults in our peers in the attempt to help them correct their wrongdoings. 

However none of us (me especially) are perfect, and perhaps it was wrong to even start this thread as a Christian.  But as we said already, he is a Bammer and it's funny.  So the hypocrisy makes most of what we all say null and void. 

[JR4AU]

Actually, there's plenty of evidence that Paul and Timothy both preached that one who follows Christ should not be quick to respond to persecutors with violence.

The story of Saul having Stephen stoned to death is a good example.  In Acts, Stephen lays down his life for Jesus and even praises God's name during the, if you think about it, rather morbid and horrific way he died. 

Also in Acts, Peter and the apostles are flogged by the government for attempting to spread the news of Jesus.  They rejoiced for being worthy of physical suffering for the sake of God's glory.  This is around chapter 4 or 5 if you'd like to look it up. 

Paul teaches to bless those who persecute you in Romans. 

I think in 1 Peter, Peter teaches that Christians should not feel any fear when threatened by other people. 

Further, Paul teaches that while the laws of the first few covenants are no longer necessary to follow due to the Jesus's sacrifice, it's still important to follow them as close as possible because Christians should not cause other Christians or non-believers to stumble. 

And finally, we see numerous times throughout the letters in the new testament that Christians should encourage other Christians to act in a manner that portrays Christ in a good way.  While this could be influenced by subjective interpretations of the old covenant laws, it's still important for us to try and take notice of faults in our peers in the attempt to help them correct their wrongdoings. 

However none of us (me especially) are perfect, and perhaps it was wrong to even start this thread as a Christian.  But as we said already, he is a Bammer and it's funny.  So the hypocrisy makes most of what we all say null and void.

"Don't be quick to respond to persecutors with violence"? Hmmm  He was talking persecution of Christianity, not criminals. 

Then there's: Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

And: "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace." (Luke 11:21 RSV).

Quit confusing religious persecution with defense of self from criminals.

[Townhallsavoy]

"Don't be quick to respond to persecutors with violence"? Hmmm  He was talking persecution of Christianity, not criminals. 

Then there's: Luke 22:36: "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

And: "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace." (Luke 11:21 RSV).

Quit confusing religious persecution with defense of self from criminals.

You've chosen one of the most hotly debated verses from the new testament to support your claim. 

There's also the subsequent verse where Jesus then goes on to discuss how they are surrounded by transgressors and how it's important that Jesus make it through this area so that the prophecy could be fulfilled.  Some have said this meant Jesus was ordering his disciples to make themselves ready to defend Jesus so that he be arrested and crucified.

Also, when Peter used that sword, Jesus rebuked him strongly and said that those who use the sword die by the sword.  At the time, Peter did not understand that Jesus was being arrested for his devotion to God.  He just figured Jesus was being wrongly accused - an act, which if carried out, would be defined as criminal. 

There's is another view on the verse that argues against Jesus teaching the use of violence against transgressors.  Jesus often referred to God and his teachings as a sword.  Jesus consistently taught that God would provide and even in this scene, where the disciples are still questioning God's provision, Jesus could have been almost sarcastically answering them because Jesus knows that those without faith will need to procure those materials in order to remain in the sinful world. 

Then there's also the Greek word that was used multiple times in the new testament - machaira.  It's used in this verse in Luke and in Hebrews.  It's sometimes translated as the sword of the spirit.  But some translations do use the physical, sharp edged sword in its place. 

In the end, I can't justify condoning the use of violence towards transgressors because there's much evidence in the new testament that teaches the use of nonviolence towards people in hope that they will see Christ in your actions.  If you can show them Christ and they still kill you or hurt you, what's to lose? 

I doubt we're going to change each other's minds on this.  Let's just watch some football.

[JR4AU]

You've chosen one of the most hotly debated verses from the new testament to support your claim. 

There's also the subsequent verse where Jesus then goes on to discuss how they are surrounded by transgressors and how it's important that Jesus make it through this area so that the prophecy could be fulfilled.  Some have said this meant Jesus was ordering his disciples to make themselves ready to defend Jesus so that he be arrested and crucified.

Also, when Peter used that sword, Jesus rebuked him strongly and said that those who use the sword die by the sword.  At the time, Peter did not understand that Jesus was being arrested for his devotion to God.  He just figured Jesus was being wrongly accused - an act, which if carried out, would be defined as criminal. 

There's is another view on the verse that argues against Jesus teaching the use of violence against transgressors.  Jesus often referred to God and his teachings as a sword.  Jesus consistently taught that God would provide and even in this scene, where the disciples are still questioning God's provision, Jesus could have been almost sarcastically answering them because Jesus knows that those without faith will need to procure those materials in order to remain in the sinful world. 

Then there's also the Greek word that was used multiple times in the new testament - machaira.  It's used in this verse in Luke and in Hebrews.  It's sometimes translated as the sword of the spirit.  But some translations do use the physical, sharp edged sword in its place. 

In the end, I can't justify condoning the use of violence towards transgressors because there's much evidence in the new testament that teaches the use of nonviolence towards people in hope that they will see Christ in your actions.  If you can show them Christ and they still kill you or hurt you, what's to lose? 

I doubt we're going to change each other's minds on this.  Let's just watch some football.

This is an ABSOLUTE: There is a God given right to self preservation/protection.  You can't argue otherwise, or support any such argument with any Bible verse.  It's ABSOLUTE. 

Any of these fucking moronic arguments regarding morals and carrying arms for self protection, or "why does a preacher/Christian need a gun" are just the lowest level of stupidity.   The Constitution doesn't require a need be shown to carry a firearm.     

[RWS]

Any of these fucking moronic arguments regarding morals and carrying arms for self protection, or "why does a preacher/Christian need a gun" are just the lowest level of stupidity.   The Constitution doesn't require a need be shown to carry a firearm.   

Bingo. Some asshole trying to carjack you, rob you, break into your home, etc., doesn't care if you're the Pope. They don't care, and they obviously don't plan on playing by the rules either. I don't understand how somebody carrying a gun somehow makes them a bad person. It's all about what your intent, or what you are doing with the gun.

[Townhallsavoy]

This is an ABSOLUTE: There is a God given right to self preservation/protection.  You can't argue otherwise, or support any such argument with any Bible verse.  It's ABSOLUTE. 

Any of these fucking moronic arguments regarding morals and carrying arms for self protection, or "why does a preacher/Christian need a gun" are just the lowest level of stupidity.   The Constitution doesn't require a need be shown to carry a firearm.   

The lowest level? 

Methinks one has struck you the wrong way.  The fact that you are resorting to name calling and are, to be frank, throwing a hissy fit is a sign that you're not entirely sure how to argue against any counterarguments. 

An absolute?  Yeesh. 

[Townhallsavoy]

Bingo. Some asshole trying to carjack you, rob you, break into your home, etc., doesn't care if you're the Pope. They don't care, and they obviously don't plan on playing by the rules either. I don't understand how somebody carrying a gun somehow makes them a bad person. It's all about what your intent, or what you are doing with the gun.

But this hasn't been a discussion on the intent of the transgressor.  It's a discussion on the response of one who proclaims themselves to be a Christian.  What does the new testament say on this?  That's all I've been trying to talk about.  JR's been...well...I'm not sure what's happening on his end of the computer. 

[JR4AU]

The lowest level? 

Methinks one has struck you the wrong way.  The fact that you are resorting to name calling and are, to be frank, throwing a hissy fit is a sign that you're not entirely sure how to argue against any counterarguments. 

An absolute?  Yeesh.

Big difference in "name calling" and calling a point of view/opinion moronic.  Resorting to whining about "name calling" when I'm pointing out the folly of your arguments shows you may not be sure how to deal with counterarguments. 

The God given right to self protection is absolute. 

[JR4AU]

But this hasn't been a discussion on the intent of the transgressor.  It's a discussion on the response of one who proclaims themselves to be a Christian.  What does the new testament say on this?  That's all I've been trying to talk about.  JR's been...well...I'm not sure what's happening on his end of the computer.

Real simple.  Bash bammer, bammers, former bammer players...say he broke the law on carrying an unlicensed firearm....I'm with you.  Start assailing his Christianity, or asking stupid questions like "why does he need a gun, to fend off those that would persecute him?"  Or "Why doesn't he move from the neighborhood?"   "If he was really a Christian he'd do what I think he should do and stay in football" or "he put himself above football by proclaiming his faith".  All really, REALLY A: Anti Christian, and B: Anit gun arguments to what is otherwise a simple violation of an administrative law on having a license to carry a pistol.   I mean if you want to put that crap out there, expect a response. 

[Townhallsavoy]

Big difference in "name calling" and calling a point of view/opinion moronic.  Resorting to whining about "name calling" when I'm pointing out the folly of your arguments shows you may not be sure how to deal with counterarguments. 

The God given right to self protection is absolute.

You haven't proven that in any way, shape or form.  But continue on with the childish banter if you'd like.

[Townhallsavoy]

Real simple.  Bash bammer, bammers, former bammer players...say he broke the law on carrying an unlicensed firearm....I'm with you.  Start assailing his Christianity, or asking stupid questions like "why does he need a gun, to fend off those that would persecute him?"  Or "Why doesn't he move from the neighborhood?"   "If he was really a Christian he'd do what I think he should do and stay in football" or "he put himself above football by proclaiming his faith".  All really, REALLY A: Anti Christian, and B: Anit gun arguments to what is otherwise a simple violation of an administrative law on having a license to carry a pistol.   I mean if you want to put that crap out there, expect a response.

I started the post and was the one to pose the question.  Is that not an indication that I expected a response and hoped for a discussion (civil - look it up) on the topic? 

And how would it be anti-Christian to discuss this? 

[280TIGER]

I'm all for having a gun for self-defense.  But, only for mature adults, because if you pull a gun, you have to bank on the fact it is either going to be used on who you pull it on or they will use it on you. 
That being said, not having the proper license to have a gun on you probably means you are not mature enough to handle one.  Go thru the proper channels and this is a non-issue.

All kidding aside, this guys seems mentally unstable (bi-polar) and who knows how that night/day (or week) ends up if he doesn't get pulled over. 

[JR4AU]

You haven't proven that in any way, shape or form.  But continue on with the childish banter if you'd like.

You prove it's not! 

Childish banter is: "Why does he need a gun?"

 

I started the post and was the one to pose the question.  Is that not an indication that I expected a response and hoped for a discussion (civil - look it up) on the topic? 

And how would it be anti-Christian to discuss this? 

Then don't call someone questioning your allegation and question childish, or unable to argue.  Discussing it isn't anti Christian, some of your questioning of Coffee's faith based him possessing a firearm, are, if characterized as Anit Christian, certainly greatly misguided.    You want to say "A Christian would have done what he was supposed to do to comply with man's law", then I'm with you.  You start down the path you've travelled, I'm going to call it like I see it.  Real stupid questions, and arguments, and mostly completely off target.  Your assault on Coffee's morals, Christian walk, reason for leaving football, and "why" he carries a gun, are all really, really quite incomprehensible to tell the truth.  But not uncommon...any mistake by a Christian, as another pointed out, results in complete questioning of them being what they claim to be at all.  Then there's the complete lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment, and what I believe most of the world believes as an absolute right to self protection.  It's a law of nature for certain, and I believe sanctioned by God, though many pacifist might not choose to, it doesn't mean it's not their absolute right.

[JR4AU]

I'm all for having a gun for self-defense.  But, only for mature adults, because if you pull a gun, you have to bank on the fact it is either going to be used on who you pull it on or they will use it on you. 
That being said, not having the proper license to have a gun on you probably means you are not mature enough to handle one.  Go thru the proper channels and this is a non-issue.

All kidding aside, this guys seems mentally unstable (bi-polar) and who knows how that night/day (or week) ends up if he doesn't get pulled over.

You are apparently aware of something about him besides hi publicly announcing his faith, quitting football, and this traffic stop.

[Townhallsavoy]

You prove it's not! 

Childish banter is: "Why does he need a gun?"

 
Then don't call someone questioning your allegation and question childish, or unable to argue.  Discussing it isn't anti Christian, some of your questioning of Coffee's faith based him possessing a firearm, are, if characterized as Anit Christian, certainly greatly misguided.    You want to say "A Christian would have done what he was supposed to do to comply with man's law", then I'm with you.  You start down the path you've travelled, I'm going to call it like I see it.  Real stupid questions, and arguments, and mostly completely off target.  Your assault on Coffee's morals, Christian walk, reason for leaving football, and "why" he carries a gun, are all really, really quite incomprehensible to tell the truth.  But not uncommon...any mistake by a Christian, as another pointed out, results in complete questioning of them being what they claim to be at all.  Then there's the complete lack of understanding of the 2nd Amendment, and what I believe most of the world believes as an absolute right to self protection.  It's a law of nature for certain, and I believe sanctioned by God, though many pacifist might not choose to, it doesn't mean it's not their absolute right.

Dude...bro.  I've provided plenty of examples that show where there are times when the Christian should abstain from violence.  You provided one verse where Jesus mentions purchasing a sword, and the verse is a topic that is often debated. 

Also, I never questioned his faith.  In fact, I even pointed out that by no means am I questioning his salvation as it's not our place to judge.  However, Paul teaches that Christians should admonish and praise each other for our behavior as it's our duty to exemplify Christ's teachings so that others may see what salvation is truly about.  I'm simply discussing whether or not a publicly proclaimed Christian who strives to be an evangelist should or should not be carrying a firearm based on the words of the new testament. 

I'm done with this argument as you have lost track of what I'm trying to say and do.  It's become reminiscent of a Kaos thread.

[JR4AU]

Why would an evangelist need a firearm? 

To instill fear?  That's not what Jesus taught.  To protect oneself from persecutors?  To experience persecution is to experience gain - at least, that's what taught in the new testament. 

Granted, we can't by any meritable means judge his salvation or his commitment to Christianity.  However, when Glen Coffee elevated himself as being above football due to his faith, he put himself on a pedastal, which is also something the new testament discusses.

I wondered after his announcement why he didn't stay in football to be a witness to those guys.  My team chaplain in high school played in the NFL and got out because the guys around him were sinners.  Why not stay in to show them that Jesus is the way to true happiness as opposed to women, money, pride, etc?

THS...

I generally enjoy your posts, and your weekly thoughts blogs.  The above, to my way of thinking, is completely off base based on the facts surrounding Coffee leaving football, guns, a traffic stop, and Christianity.  It's misguided on many levels, and fraught with judgment on Coffee.   All completely wrong headed.  Coffee fucked up, didn't get a permit, and got caught.  As far as I'm concerned...that's all there is to it.  JMHO.  That is all.

War Eagle. 

[Townhallsavoy]

THS...

I generally enjoy your posts, and your weekly thoughts blogs.  The above, to my way of thinking, is completely off base based on the facts surrounding Coffee leaving football, guns, a traffic stop, and Christianity.  It's misguided on many levels, and fraught with judgment on Coffee.   All completely wrong headed.  Coffee fucked up, didn't get a permit, and got caught.  As far as I'm concerned...that's all there is to it.  JMHO.  That is all.

War Eagle.

I'm not offended at all.  I enjoy debates from time to time.  This is a heated topic.  Anything faith based is because when you're talking about a spiritual topic that determines what happens for eternity, people want to make damn sure they're correct in what they believe. 

And I 100% believe that this entire discussion occurred because Tennessee, Indiana, and Minnesota (along with Penn State) all suck at football.  Because back in this thread I said, "Let's go watch some football," but the crap that's on TV right now is horrible.

[AuburnChopper 3.0]

I'm not offended at all.  I enjoy debates from time to time.  This is a heated topic.  Anything faith based is because when you're talking about a spiritual topic that determines what happens for eternity, people want to make damn sure they're correct in what they believe. 

And I 100% believe that this entire discussion occurred because Tennessee, Indiana, and Minnesota (along with Penn State) all suck at football.  Because back in this thread I said, "Let's go watch some football," but the crap that's on TV right now is horrible.

Why does Jesus have to hate Tennessee, Indiana and Michigan? 
 

[jmar]

Why does Jesus have to hate Tennessee, Indiana and Michigan? 
 

All must be infidels, I don't know, but suck they do.

[djsimp]

All must be infidels, I don't know, but suck they do.

Now jmar, you know good and well that this was a discussion about Coffee, Christ and pistols not Coffee, Yoda and lifesabers.