i don't understand ...
Church Security Guard Shoots Gunman
Do we need security in Church?
Must a temple guard be posted?
Should we first kill those
who might kill us?
What is better - to have a killer kill me and I go to heaven -
or for him to be killed and go to judgement?
What is worse- to have the blood of a child spilled in Sunday School -
or to have the carpet soiled with the blood of a gunman?
... i just don't understand ...
peace,
dane
Do we need a temple gaurd?
-
_featheredprop
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 4:41 pm
- Location: PA
Do we need a temple gaurd?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"God - He'll bloody your nose and then give you a ride home on his bicycle..." Rich Mullins 1955-1997
it is better to have a gunman killed than innocent children.
if Jesus would disagree, then I guess i dont understand Jesus yet.
TK
if Jesus would disagree, then I guess i dont understand Jesus yet.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
-
_darin-houston
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:07 am
- Location: Houston, TX
I have heard Steve speak on this subject (from some personal experience). I believe the idea is that the gunman is quite clearly not saved and his death would be a final death sentence while a child (or believer) would likely be moving on to be with the Lord, so it's better for us who are prepared to die to save the most vile sinner who may still yet be saved.
I'm not sure I have that level of spiritual maturity, but I agree with it in principle.
I'm not sure I have that level of spiritual maturity, but I agree with it in principle.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Dane,
I had the same thoughts that you articulated as I read about this story. In fact, I had never heard of a church with an armed guard before. Is this common? I confess that I haven't been to church since March...have things changed that much in the past half year?
TK,
The death of innocents is hard to deal with, yet it happens all the tiime.
Darrin,
I agree completely with what you wrote, especially the last sentence.
I had the same thoughts that you articulated as I read about this story. In fact, I had never heard of a church with an armed guard before. Is this common? I confess that I haven't been to church since March...have things changed that much in the past half year?
TK,
The death of innocents is hard to deal with, yet it happens all the tiime.
Darrin,
I agree completely with what you wrote, especially the last sentence.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
The death of innocents do happen all the time. That is different than allowing it to happen right in front of your face.
what should the christians have done- usher around the shooter to the various classrooms until he had enough? Jesus probably could have made the gun dematerialize so the guy could be tackled. but if He didnt do that, I do not believe he would allow the shooter full reign because someday the guy might get saved. also- what about all the people who lost loved ones who would be angry at God because He allowed such a thing to happen, and therefore never come to Him?
something is getting twisted here.
TK
what should the christians have done- usher around the shooter to the various classrooms until he had enough? Jesus probably could have made the gun dematerialize so the guy could be tackled. but if He didnt do that, I do not believe he would allow the shooter full reign because someday the guy might get saved. also- what about all the people who lost loved ones who would be angry at God because He allowed such a thing to happen, and therefore never come to Him?
something is getting twisted here.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
Re: Do we need a temple gaurd?
Sorry, but the only thing I don't understand is how that question could even come up. Really, the death of an innocent child or the gunman who would kill that child? Seriously?featheredprop wrote:What is worse- to have the blood of a child spilled in Sunday School -
or to have the carpet soiled with the blood of a gunman?
... i just don't understand ...
I think the actions of the security guard (volunteer, ex-police security guard) fall under "Defend the [innocent]" so often spoken of in the prophets.
Sorry...a little hot under the collar here. The idea that the gunman's life should be as precious to us as his victims is very troubling to me. Call me judgmental. Fine. I judge him as less worthy of life than the pair of sisters (18 & 16) he killed. I favor the cause of the innocent.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
You are right that he was less worthy of life than were his innocent victims, because, as a murderer, he forfeited his "right to live" (Gen.9:6). However, we all hope to receive from God and man better than what we could demand as our rights. This young man's life was precious—if not in our sight, at least in the sight of his Christian parents—just as his victims' lives were precious to their parents.
The question for me would not be whether to defend the innocent, if at all possible. I would be more concerned about finding ways to stop the attack (violently, if necessary) in such a way as to preseve all the lives involved, including the attacker's. If I were an armed security guard, I would probably shoot the young man, but I would do all I could to avoid killing him. It is possible that this lady with the gun actually did wish to wound him, rather than kill him, which might not have been possible, given her level of skill with a gun. I do not fault her for stopping the attack. I just know that, if the boy was my son, I would appreciate anyone who could do so by disabling or suppressing him non-lethally. This can not always be done.
If he had been wounded, and stopped in that manner, he would quite probably face the death penalty anyway, but he would possibly have more opportunity to contemplate the state of his soul after the crimes as he awaited judgment.
I am not an idealist. I do think it is no tragedy to die in obedience to Christ, while it is indeed a tragedy to die in the commission of sin. I have a son about his age, and have had many troubled students his age in my schools over the years, by whom I would sooner be shot and killed than to shoot and kill them myself. I grieve for his parents, as well as the parents of the victims.
The question for me would not be whether to defend the innocent, if at all possible. I would be more concerned about finding ways to stop the attack (violently, if necessary) in such a way as to preseve all the lives involved, including the attacker's. If I were an armed security guard, I would probably shoot the young man, but I would do all I could to avoid killing him. It is possible that this lady with the gun actually did wish to wound him, rather than kill him, which might not have been possible, given her level of skill with a gun. I do not fault her for stopping the attack. I just know that, if the boy was my son, I would appreciate anyone who could do so by disabling or suppressing him non-lethally. This can not always be done.
If he had been wounded, and stopped in that manner, he would quite probably face the death penalty anyway, but he would possibly have more opportunity to contemplate the state of his soul after the crimes as he awaited judgment.
I am not an idealist. I do think it is no tragedy to die in obedience to Christ, while it is indeed a tragedy to die in the commission of sin. I have a son about his age, and have had many troubled students his age in my schools over the years, by whom I would sooner be shot and killed than to shoot and kill them myself. I grieve for his parents, as well as the parents of the victims.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
I've spent a lot of time pondering this over the last two days.
When churches have to hire armed guards, it is one more sign that our culture here in the US of A has become very sick. There is no single cause or simple solution.
Many years ago I was surprised to learn that the pastors of the 4,000 member Vineyard church I attended were carrying concealed handguns due to the number of threats they constantly received.
Do we not resist evil and leave ourselves vulnerable as the Amish do?
Or do we protect the helpless, as the security guard in Colorado Springs did?
In Luke 22:35-38, Jesus told the disciples it was time to buy some swords. As I understand it, the type of sword He was referring to was more of a dagger that one would use to defend themselves against wild animals and robbers while traveling.
This is the conclusion I've come to that works for me. I think we have a right and obligation to defend ourselves and others, but we should try if at all possible to do so in a non-lethal manner. This is very difficult to do with handguns. One is trained, when firing a handgun at an opponent, to aim for "center mass". Intentionally wounding people in the arms and legs is the stuff of TV and movies.
There are alternatives, such as pepperball guns, tasers, etc., which will temporarily incapacitate an attacker - long enough to subdue them or get away from them.
When churches have to hire armed guards, it is one more sign that our culture here in the US of A has become very sick. There is no single cause or simple solution.
Many years ago I was surprised to learn that the pastors of the 4,000 member Vineyard church I attended were carrying concealed handguns due to the number of threats they constantly received.
Do we not resist evil and leave ourselves vulnerable as the Amish do?
Or do we protect the helpless, as the security guard in Colorado Springs did?
In Luke 22:35-38, Jesus told the disciples it was time to buy some swords. As I understand it, the type of sword He was referring to was more of a dagger that one would use to defend themselves against wild animals and robbers while traveling.
This is the conclusion I've come to that works for me. I think we have a right and obligation to defend ourselves and others, but we should try if at all possible to do so in a non-lethal manner. This is very difficult to do with handguns. One is trained, when firing a handgun at an opponent, to aim for "center mass". Intentionally wounding people in the arms and legs is the stuff of TV and movies.
There are alternatives, such as pepperball guns, tasers, etc., which will temporarily incapacitate an attacker - long enough to subdue them or get away from them.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
well, i certainly agree that non-lethal force should be used if at all possible. but i dont think police officers are trained to use non-lethal force. a gunman shot in the leg can still shoot.
the glamourized western hero might be able to "wing" the guy so he drops the gun, but when guns are blazing and people are dying, there is no time to try to take a fine enough shot to be able to wing the guy. tackling him may have been an option, and probably would have ultimately occurred if there was not an armed guard standing nearby.
TK
the glamourized western hero might be able to "wing" the guy so he drops the gun, but when guns are blazing and people are dying, there is no time to try to take a fine enough shot to be able to wing the guy. tackling him may have been an option, and probably would have ultimately occurred if there was not an armed guard standing nearby.
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
More and more police departments are incorporating non-lethal (or less-lethal) weapons such as pepperball guns, bean-bag guns, tasers, etc., which are designed to incapacitate but not kill. Private citizens can also arm themselves with these types of non-lethal weapons.
A handgun should always be considered a lethal weapon.
A handgun should always be considered a lethal weapon.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: