Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Why bother with concealment? If one isn't ashamed of showing his gun, why would he be ashamed of showing his pistol? My concern in that case, if it were me, would be my gunbelt chafing...
Christians Bearing Arms
- Thread starter marshall3
- Start date
- Status
Why bother with concealment? If one isn't ashamed of showing his gun, why would he be ashamed of showing his pistol? My concern in that case, if it were me, would be my gunbelt chafing...
Hokkmike
Member
"As another example, we have a Christian who stops at the ATM to get some cash late in the evening. As he is walking back to his parked car, he is surrounded by members of a vicious local gang. Our Christian is an alert fellow, and he senses the predators before he sees them. Out of the corner of his eye, he sees one of the gang members reaching into the front of his pants for a gun. The Christian has his own firearm concealed on his person, and he has trained for exactly this type of situation (and has already chided himself for getting into it). Our protagonist knows that if he doesn't defend himself, he will almost certainly die. He also knows that if he does defend himself, some gang members will almost certainly die. While the Christian can't help but feel that it would be just to defend himself from a group of people intent on his murder, he also knows that "thou shalt not kill," and that Jesus was meek and sacrificial in everything he did. Could God forgive him for taking someone's life to preserve his own? In this moment of indecision, the Christian is gunned down. His money, gun, and car are stolen and he is left to die."....Wordsmith
I believe the truest act of a Christian in this situation would be to GIVE his money to the perpetrators. The Bible says (to the effect) that "if somebody demands your cloak give them also your coat". That is pretty clear. "Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of one of his Saints!" The Bible goes on to say "Don't fear him who can harm the body but fear Him, who can kill the soul." I know that these things are EASY to say but HARD to do. I think our own unbelief and mortal weakness, as well as tendency toward sin, are our biggest justifications to be so ready to send a soul to Hell.
That being said I am no better than anyone else. I can see in my mind's eye a "bad guy" climbing my stairs at night intending to do harm to me or my loved ones and simply blowing him away. But, I am sure that that act would haunt me for the rest of my life. I DO NOT believe this applies to our brave soldiers in combat and harms way. Nor do I, according to scripture, think that it negates the responsibility of the state, though I am personally opposed to it, to carry out capital punshiment.
The Bible does say that "a strong man is not easily robbed", so maybe the principle of deterrent is key to avoiding being victimized by violent predators. (maybe this is an argument for open carry?)
Lots of good stuff (reading) you guys!
I believe the truest act of a Christian in this situation would be to GIVE his money to the perpetrators. The Bible says (to the effect) that "if somebody demands your cloak give them also your coat". That is pretty clear. "Precious in the eyes of the Lord is the death of one of his Saints!" The Bible goes on to say "Don't fear him who can harm the body but fear Him, who can kill the soul." I know that these things are EASY to say but HARD to do. I think our own unbelief and mortal weakness, as well as tendency toward sin, are our biggest justifications to be so ready to send a soul to Hell.
That being said I am no better than anyone else. I can see in my mind's eye a "bad guy" climbing my stairs at night intending to do harm to me or my loved ones and simply blowing him away. But, I am sure that that act would haunt me for the rest of my life. I DO NOT believe this applies to our brave soldiers in combat and harms way. Nor do I, according to scripture, think that it negates the responsibility of the state, though I am personally opposed to it, to carry out capital punshiment.
The Bible does say that "a strong man is not easily robbed", so maybe the principle of deterrent is key to avoiding being victimized by violent predators. (maybe this is an argument for open carry?)
Lots of good stuff (reading) you guys!
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Alright. You are that Christian surrounded by criminals. You hand over your money.
They kill you anyway. Now what? Is the net effect any different than what Wordsmith is trying to demonstrate?
Wordsmith
Member
I couldn't agree with you more. I recently had a conversation on this issue with another member of my church, and we both came to the conclusion that the potential loss of a wallet or a vehicle could not justify the taking of life. If someone wants to rob you of your cash, make sure they get your loose change, too. That is probably what Jesus would do.
For my example to work, you would have to assume that the "vicious gang" doesn't leave any witnesses, or that the Christian wasn't given a chance to hand over his money. While some criminals would prefer not to have blood on their hands, that isn't always the case, and trying to judge what type of person is confronting you is almost like a game of Russian roulette. In fact, the biggest difficulty in knowing how to deal with a situation like this is that some criminals are only interested in violence or the threat of it as a form of intimidation, while other truly depraved individuals find great satisfaction in the act of injuring or killing their victims.
I don't claim to know exactly how I would respond if I was confronted with a potentially violent situation, because I can never account for all the variables. For better or worse, our faith and our knowledge are more likely to inform our actions than dictate them.
Actually, maybe that is for the better. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much point in having a Holy Spirit, would there?
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Guilt
I've had to consider this at some length, especially as I contemplate self defense situations and consequences.
I can't promise you that I wouldn't be "haunted" by such an event but, in my considered opinion, I don't believe that I would.
If I am to be tested against evil, and I prevail, I can't see any point in second-guessing the test. It could be argued (and is by some) that "God" has nothing to do with it, and this is an entirely "human" matter. Whatever that means.
If they mean "there is no God" then there is no guilt, either, since it's survival of the fittest. Otherwise the rules are pretty clear.
If your cause is just, there is little to be gained in trying to pass judgement on yourself. If your faith has any meaning, leave the judgement to Him whose province it is.
I hear this a lot.
I've had to consider this at some length, especially as I contemplate self defense situations and consequences.
I can't promise you that I wouldn't be "haunted" by such an event but, in my considered opinion, I don't believe that I would.
If I am to be tested against evil, and I prevail, I can't see any point in second-guessing the test. It could be argued (and is by some) that "God" has nothing to do with it, and this is an entirely "human" matter. Whatever that means.
If they mean "there is no God" then there is no guilt, either, since it's survival of the fittest. Otherwise the rules are pretty clear.
If your cause is just, there is little to be gained in trying to pass judgement on yourself. If your faith has any meaning, leave the judgement to Him whose province it is.
MarshallDodge
Member
Very well said!
Hokkmike
Member
They kill you anyway. Now what? Is the net effect any different than what Wordsmith is trying to demonstrate?....Sage of Seattle
That's easy. There is no blood on your hands.
BTW, I am a Tacoma native.
That's easy. There is no blood on your hands.
BTW, I am a Tacoma native.
Hokkmike
Member
If your cause is just, there is little to be gained in trying to pass judgement on yourself. If your faith has any meaning, leave the judgement to Him whose province it is.....from our Beloved Moderator...
True enough that the (self) haunting won't change anything. Let me think about this.
True enough that the (self) haunting won't change anything. Let me think about this.
It may be that the "haunting" is the Inward Christ - Fox often talked about being "judged" but the Inward Christ. The notion that the judgement will happen on after death, or at distant day in the future is not a part of (classic) Quaker theology - although you have pointed out the Quaker theology has developed into at least fiver branches in modern time.
I think that in this thread I have seen the common issue I have with appraoches to scripture (whether it is that of my own faith or not). It seems to me that there are two broad approaches to Scripture: read Scripture to justify what you really want to do, or read Scripture to find out what you should do.
It appears to me that a lot of people who want to defend themselves and their property are trying to read that into the teachngs of Jesus of Nazareth that just isn't there. His essential method was far more revolutionary than "keep dong what you're doing". Can you twist the logic of Jesus's teaching to support what you really want to do? Sure. Is that his authentic message? No way.
For another example, when the Church (after Constantine) began to assume temporal power, it began to evolve notions of a "just war" because as a temporal power, the Church wanted to be able to wage war. The Church had something it wanted to do - wage war - and it built an elaborate facade to justify that. Jesus and early Chrisitians spoke of a spiritual war, but one of the key differences between the temporal war and spiritual is that there is no collateral damage in a spiritual war. There is no way to justify killing innocents with the words of Jesus of Nazareth - but there is no way to wage temporal war without killing innocents. So the Church had to solve the dilemma. The Church did so, but not beacuse it's in Jesus's words.
Mike
And is your life your own
to throw away? Are there not children and wife depending on you, and loving you? By letting the criminals kill you, are you not sentencing your loved ones to orphanhood and grief......just to satisfy your spiritual vanity? I'm sure your widow will take great comfort in knowing you would not soil your hands to keep her from losing husband and father.
to throw away? Are there not children and wife depending on you, and loving you? By letting the criminals kill you, are you not sentencing your loved ones to orphanhood and grief......just to satisfy your spiritual vanity? I'm sure your widow will take great comfort in knowing you would not soil your hands to keep her from losing husband and father.
Sage of Seattle
Member
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 773
Hokkmike said:
I was going to answer in a similar vein, but Khornet beat me to it.
Good thread, everyone. I feel that I've been challenged and motivated to further study my own beliefs.
Nice! I was born in Michigan, yet never lived there long. I do love the Pacific Northwest though even if I don't live there right now.
Roswell 1847
member
Or you can look deeply into the context and supporting scripture so as to reveal that there is really no conflict with what you must do and what you should do.
Also Just War as described in modern philosophy actually goes back to the establishment of the first city states thousands of years before Christ. You'll find its roots in the remaining records of just about any civilization.
The Justinian Code was not pulled out of thin air, it was a compilation of existing Roman Law and all available works on Law and Justice, most predating Christian influence in Roman society much less government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandects
Just War is based on the Laws of Nations because these are held in common by all Human Civilizations with little variation. You will find that Laws of Nations is one of the oldest concepts in the history of Civilization. Without these understandings between vastly different cultures there could be no trade between nations, no international laws or treaties, and no effective protection of human rights.
PS
Last edited:
NASCAR_MAN
member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 179
Hokkmike
Member
"I think that in this thread I have seen the common issue I have with appraoches to scripture (whether it is that of my own faith or not). It seems to me that there are two broad approaches to Scripture: read Scripture to justify what you really want to do, or read Scripture to find out what you should do....RPCVYemen"
I think it has been this way a long time. People gain beliefs that favor their life style or decision making processes and then find scriptures which they interpret to give credence to their actions. You are right.
"And is your life your own to throw away? Are there not children and wife depending on you, and loving you? By letting the criminals kill you, are you not sentencing your loved ones to orphanhood and grief......just to satisfy your spiritual vanity? I'm sure your widow will take great comfort in knowing you would not soil your hands to keep her from losing husband and father....KHornet"
I think a more appropriate definition of "spiritual vanity", I have heard this referred to as "holier than thou" in other contexts, would be to presume that I was equal to God and could take another's life at my discretion. But to answer your question directly, no, my life is not my own to throw away. It is His to do what he wishes with or through me. I am not saying that I personally would not defend myself but rather I merely expressed it as a Christian ideal not to. If it did come to me getting killed because of unwillingness to take a life (and as I said, no ones knows until circumstances force the issue) my wife would indeed take comfort in that. We think the same and have discussed this many times.
There is more to a "throwing away life" than living or dieing. This is only a small part of (life on earth) the reason we were created. Many a man I have met has already thrown his life away and doesn't know it. But I understand your point.
The essential question of this whole thread and all these post is to ask whether a Christian is justified to use deadly force excluding acts of war and capital punishment which I believe are separate issues. As I look to the New Testament I just don't see it.
I think it has been this way a long time. People gain beliefs that favor their life style or decision making processes and then find scriptures which they interpret to give credence to their actions. You are right.
"And is your life your own to throw away? Are there not children and wife depending on you, and loving you? By letting the criminals kill you, are you not sentencing your loved ones to orphanhood and grief......just to satisfy your spiritual vanity? I'm sure your widow will take great comfort in knowing you would not soil your hands to keep her from losing husband and father....KHornet"
I think a more appropriate definition of "spiritual vanity", I have heard this referred to as "holier than thou" in other contexts, would be to presume that I was equal to God and could take another's life at my discretion. But to answer your question directly, no, my life is not my own to throw away. It is His to do what he wishes with or through me. I am not saying that I personally would not defend myself but rather I merely expressed it as a Christian ideal not to. If it did come to me getting killed because of unwillingness to take a life (and as I said, no ones knows until circumstances force the issue) my wife would indeed take comfort in that. We think the same and have discussed this many times.
There is more to a "throwing away life" than living or dieing. This is only a small part of (life on earth) the reason we were created. Many a man I have met has already thrown his life away and doesn't know it. But I understand your point.
The essential question of this whole thread and all these post is to ask whether a Christian is justified to use deadly force excluding acts of war and capital punishment which I believe are separate issues. As I look to the New Testament I just don't see it.
Sage of Seattle,
that was a response worthy of one who seeks the truth, not just confirmation of his views. Good on you.
Hokkmike, I really don't care what you and your wife have discussed. No offense, but do YOU have the right to widow her? I think not. And if you have children, what about them? Whatever they and your wife may think, your decision will orphan them--by your choice. They need both mom and dad.
And what of the other innocents you will condemn to death by allowing the murderer to walk away? Have you talked it over with the killer's next victim? Will his widow and orphans be consoled by your purity?
We have a duty to stand up to evil. It's one thing to allow yourself to be crucified to save mankind, and another to let the wolves survive to prey on the flock as long as you can say you have clean hands. You don't.
I apologize in advance for the heat of my words. I don't mean personal criticism. I just can't get over the fact that Jesus surrendered everything He had--including his personal honor--and allowed His Personal spiritual purity to be besmirched, executed as He was as a common criminal--to save His flock. And let's not forget: He actually descended into Hell as part of His sacrifice. He accepted the sentence of sinners, though He was without sin, because that's what it took. Likewise, I would accept blood on my hands if that's what it took to save good people.
that was a response worthy of one who seeks the truth, not just confirmation of his views. Good on you.
Hokkmike, I really don't care what you and your wife have discussed. No offense, but do YOU have the right to widow her? I think not. And if you have children, what about them? Whatever they and your wife may think, your decision will orphan them--by your choice. They need both mom and dad.
And what of the other innocents you will condemn to death by allowing the murderer to walk away? Have you talked it over with the killer's next victim? Will his widow and orphans be consoled by your purity?
We have a duty to stand up to evil. It's one thing to allow yourself to be crucified to save mankind, and another to let the wolves survive to prey on the flock as long as you can say you have clean hands. You don't.
I apologize in advance for the heat of my words. I don't mean personal criticism. I just can't get over the fact that Jesus surrendered everything He had--including his personal honor--and allowed His Personal spiritual purity to be besmirched, executed as He was as a common criminal--to save His flock. And let's not forget: He actually descended into Hell as part of His sacrifice. He accepted the sentence of sinners, though He was without sin, because that's what it took. Likewise, I would accept blood on my hands if that's what it took to save good people.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
IMHO, Jesus taught turning the other cheek is taught as a response to an insult or minor injury (a slap in the face), not someone trying to kill you or those you have a responsibility to protect. Giving your cloak to someone who sues you for it is again a response to a less-than-lethal situation; nowhere is there any indication that if someone comes to rape and murder your, give them your child also. To the contrary, "if anyone fails to provide for his own, in particular those of his own household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."
There is no command anywhere that says if someone comes to murder you, you are supposed let them, although those who are murdered by those who hate them for their faith are commended.
I do believe that parents have a responsibility to protect their children and each other from harm, and that lethal threats can be countered with lethal force in good conscience. My daughter explicitly trusts my wife and I to protect her, and we will not violate that trust. Nor do I think it would have been more "spiritual" for Jeanne Assam to put down her gun and let a murderer kill 20 innocent people, rather than what she did.
I respect the views of pacifists, but I do not believe that the New Testament demands pacifism in the face of lethal threat any more than the Old Testament does (and if you have any questions about how self-defense is viewed in the OT, read the Talmud). I think the New Testament definitely teaches forbearance in the case of insults and personal conflicts, but not necessarily in the case of extreme criminal violence.
There is no command anywhere that says if someone comes to murder you, you are supposed let them, although those who are murdered by those who hate them for their faith are commended.
I do believe that parents have a responsibility to protect their children and each other from harm, and that lethal threats can be countered with lethal force in good conscience. My daughter explicitly trusts my wife and I to protect her, and we will not violate that trust. Nor do I think it would have been more "spiritual" for Jeanne Assam to put down her gun and let a murderer kill 20 innocent people, rather than what she did.
I respect the views of pacifists, but I do not believe that the New Testament demands pacifism in the face of lethal threat any more than the Old Testament does (and if you have any questions about how self-defense is viewed in the OT, read the Talmud). I think the New Testament definitely teaches forbearance in the case of insults and personal conflicts, but not necessarily in the case of extreme criminal violence.
No reason it should. I have no remorse for the folks I killed while in uniform (other than the fact that it can be seen as sad that humans haven't evolved past the need to kill each other), and I plan on having none if I defend myself or others while not wearing a uniform adorned with a flag.
Often, what happens, is what people expect to happen. I don't enjoy taking out the trash on Sunday and Wednesday nights, but I don't lie awake after the fact reliving it.
Peace,
John
I've seen much conflict in good people over this issue and it concerns and pains me. I, personally, have made my decision that God has armed me with knowledge and what I would humbly call talent to defend my family, myself and possibly others (in that order). I have mulled over the consequences of lethal self defense and come to the conclusion that it is that person's choice, not mine, that would cause their downfall. I do not go out looking to cause violence on others. I believe the "live by the sword, die by the sword" would apply to that type of person, not those who arm themselves for their family's defense.
Now, Hokkmike is one that I see conflict in. I can tell that defense of one's family is something you would do with regret. I can't tell you that's wrong, only that I can see that you know it's not really completely right. As benEzra pointed out in Matthew 5:40 the bible says "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also." It says nothing about giving up everything at the point of a sword. I am not going to attempt to read the mind of someone that has chosen to pull a gun on me or my family. This is cut and dry to me.
If you want real internal conflict with Jesus' teachings, read Luke 22:35-38. I, personally, don't believe this is a contradiction to anything that was taught by him. Jesus spoke much of kindness in the face of bitterness with quotes such as, to paraphrase "turn the other cheek". I might be wrong, but I doubt you will find anywhere that Jesus says to allow someone to violently threaten your life and you must allow that. Now, I've referenced Luke, and here's the most important part:
Here, he is warning the disciples of coming conflict relating to his crucifixion and he says "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
Sounds like he was telling them to put together a "go" bag.
This is a reference to potential violence directed at the disciples and Jesus told them to arm themselves. I think this is as close to a situation as you can find that is directly related to defending oneself and it is pretty clear what Jesus was telling the disciples. Do not muddle this with Jesus stopping them from attacking the servant of the high priest and healing the ear. He did not want them coming to his defense, remember that was the whole point of his existence. I've referenced the verses so that you can read them yourself and draw your own conclusion. Pay special attention to Luke 22:38. Enough for what? I don't think for digging a garden...
Now, Hokkmike is one that I see conflict in. I can tell that defense of one's family is something you would do with regret. I can't tell you that's wrong, only that I can see that you know it's not really completely right. As benEzra pointed out in Matthew 5:40 the bible says "If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also." It says nothing about giving up everything at the point of a sword. I am not going to attempt to read the mind of someone that has chosen to pull a gun on me or my family. This is cut and dry to me.
If you want real internal conflict with Jesus' teachings, read Luke 22:35-38. I, personally, don't believe this is a contradiction to anything that was taught by him. Jesus spoke much of kindness in the face of bitterness with quotes such as, to paraphrase "turn the other cheek". I might be wrong, but I doubt you will find anywhere that Jesus says to allow someone to violently threaten your life and you must allow that. Now, I've referenced Luke, and here's the most important part:
Here, he is warning the disciples of coming conflict relating to his crucifixion and he says "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
Sounds like he was telling them to put together a "go" bag.
This is a reference to potential violence directed at the disciples and Jesus told them to arm themselves. I think this is as close to a situation as you can find that is directly related to defending oneself and it is pretty clear what Jesus was telling the disciples. Do not muddle this with Jesus stopping them from attacking the servant of the high priest and healing the ear. He did not want them coming to his defense, remember that was the whole point of his existence. I've referenced the verses so that you can read them yourself and draw your own conclusion. Pay special attention to Luke 22:38. Enough for what? I don't think for digging a garden...
Hokkmike
Member
KHornet....We have a duty to stand up to evil.
While I appreciate your sentiment I don't know what authority would justify the above statement. Other than your opinion, which is borne of your experience and intellect and is certainly worth considering, I would ask you to quote some other Christian "authority" that supports your statement.
I know that we are called to avoid and resist evil, and to live righteously (you have got me thinking out loud here) as well as to be salt and light. The latter coming about as a result of the efforts to achieve the former.
But I don't know of any verses, laws, commandments, or suggestions that we MUST destroy those that oppose or threaten us. Would it be OK, acceptable, alright, a forgivable offense, sin, transgression to use deadly force? I THINK so. I am just not sure.
I am NOT saying that people who choose to use arms for self-defense are bad or even wrong. They certainly would be among my friends. All I AM saying is that I am not sure we can use Christian beliefs or practices to justify it. It seems to be more of an imperfect necessity to react in a very imperfect world by shooting somebody. NOT GOD'S WAY.
Thank you for your comments. It has been good to be able to engage in a thoughtful discussion among friends. As my wife always tells me, "We may disagree, but you'll come around". LOL
While I appreciate your sentiment I don't know what authority would justify the above statement. Other than your opinion, which is borne of your experience and intellect and is certainly worth considering, I would ask you to quote some other Christian "authority" that supports your statement.
I know that we are called to avoid and resist evil, and to live righteously (you have got me thinking out loud here) as well as to be salt and light. The latter coming about as a result of the efforts to achieve the former.
But I don't know of any verses, laws, commandments, or suggestions that we MUST destroy those that oppose or threaten us. Would it be OK, acceptable, alright, a forgivable offense, sin, transgression to use deadly force? I THINK so. I am just not sure.
I am NOT saying that people who choose to use arms for self-defense are bad or even wrong. They certainly would be among my friends. All I AM saying is that I am not sure we can use Christian beliefs or practices to justify it. It seems to be more of an imperfect necessity to react in a very imperfect world by shooting somebody. NOT GOD'S WAY.
Thank you for your comments. It has been good to be able to engage in a thoughtful discussion among friends. As my wife always tells me, "We may disagree, but you'll come around". LOL
Hokkmike
Member
Cobrian45....."Here, he is warning the disciples of coming conflict relating to his crucifixion and he says "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."
True enough, but what happened when later in the account part of an ear of one of those who came to arrest Jesus was cut off? Do you remember what Jesus said and did?
There is also a verse that says to turn swords into plows.... But I need to investigate the context.
Please know that I do NOT condemn or pass judgment on those who are ready to use lethal force in self defense. Given the circumstances it is an option I will have to consider as well. A few are too eager, it seems, and I just hope people give as much thought to the consequences as they give to the time they practice with their pistols.
Thank you for your thoughtful arguments.
True enough, but what happened when later in the account part of an ear of one of those who came to arrest Jesus was cut off? Do you remember what Jesus said and did?
There is also a verse that says to turn swords into plows.... But I need to investigate the context.
Please know that I do NOT condemn or pass judgment on those who are ready to use lethal force in self defense. Given the circumstances it is an option I will have to consider as well. A few are too eager, it seems, and I just hope people give as much thought to the consequences as they give to the time they practice with their pistols.
Thank you for your thoughtful arguments.
Roswell 1847
member
At last someone admits that context is important.
When the time comes to pass Nations will beat their swords into plowshares, but it does not suggest that beating swords into plowshares is the causation but rather the end result.
Other places where the same message is found.
Now the message is quiet different in Joel 3
For everything there is a season.
Theres a time when battle must be joined
Here it reveals that the necessities sometimes outweigh the desires.
We wish to live in peace, and should wish to live in peace, but its not always possible to do so.
Remember also that Christ did not come to overturn the Law but to perfect and Complete the Law.
Fred Thompson
Member
Ok, have to throw my 2 cents in... I don't think there's anyone here that would try to argue that life isn't sacred. But we were al given the means to defend ourselves. Some won't acknowlede it. And the rest of us will use anything we can...
Johnnybgood
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 206
Also I believe if you talk to some bible scholars I do believe the commandment is "thou shalt not commit murder". Our later (english) versions changed it to kill.
Superpsy
Member
A recent article I liked.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/jos...y-shoot-up-set-ital-your-end-ital-church.html
http://www.creators.com/opinion/jos...y-shoot-up-set-ital-your-end-ital-church.html
- Status
Similar threads
