Armed Guards At Christian Churches?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/06/church.security/index.html

Institutionalized religion is totally screwed up when a Christian church needs armed guards. Hey, have a nice social and all, but you stopped being a Christian Church when you had the guys with guns at the door.

Of course, Christianity has screwed many things up and continues to do so; this is only the latest example of inanity within the organized Christian religion. Some day these clowns might actually follow the teachings of Jesus but I ain't holding my breath for it.

Originally posted by Badwater
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/06/church.security/index.html

Institutionalized religion is totally screwed up when a Christian church needs armed guards. Hey, have a nice social and all, but you stopped being a Christian Church when you had the guys with guns at the door.

Of course, Christianity has screwed many things up and continues to do so; thi ...[text shortened]... these clowns might actually follow the teachings of Jesus but I ain't holding my breath for it.

MONK FIGHT!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/11/09/israel.brawling.monks/index.html

Originally posted by Badwater
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/06/church.security/index.html

Institutionalized religion is totally screwed up when a Christian church needs armed guards. Hey, have a nice social and all, but you stopped being a Christian Church when you had the guys with guns at the door.

Of course, Christianity has screwed many things up and continues to do so; thi ...[text shortened]... these clowns might actually follow the teachings of Jesus but I ain't holding my breath for it.

Speakin of which, has anybody seen Pritybeta of late? I know she would want to comment on this. I am afraid with Obama's win she may have taken to the hills with her guns.

Originally posted by Badwater
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/06/church.security/index.html

Institutionalized religion is totally screwed up when a Christian church needs armed guards. Hey, have a nice social and all, but you stopped being a Christian Church when you had the guys with guns at the door.

Of course, Christianity has screwed many things up and continues to do so; thi ...[text shortened]... these clowns might actually follow the teachings of Jesus but I ain't holding my breath for it.

Firstly, it is difficult to understand why a few American churches should be regarded as representative of all organised religions, given that most religious people are not American and have no affiliation with their churches. Secondly, quite obviously security guards are a necessary measure against attacks. Given that one church has been help up by a crazed gunman, their fears are well-founded. Christians are entitled to self-defense.

Originally posted by Badwater
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/06/church.security/index.html

Institutionalized religion is totally screwed up when a Christian church needs armed guards. Hey, have a nice social and all, but you stopped being a Christian Church when you had the guys with guns at the door.

Of course, Christianity has screwed many things up and continues to do so; thi ...[text shortened]... these clowns might actually follow the teachings of Jesus but I ain't holding my breath for it.

It's not just Christianity. The society in the place where I currently live has a whole birth-cohort with guns to sustain their church social. There are also some people who come and spill the coffeepots now and again, so I can understand why they want guards, but nobody's really sure of cause and effect.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Firstly, it is difficult to understand why a few American churches should be regarded as representative of all organised religions, given that most religious people are not American and have no affiliation with their churches. Secondly, quite obviously security guards are a necessary measure against attacks. Given that one church has been help up by a crazed gunman, their fears are well-founded. Christians are entitled to self-defense.

Firstly, it is difficult to understand why a few American churches should be regarded as representative of all organised religions, given that most religious people are not American and have no affiliation with their churches.

This is an American Christian church and I did not state otherwise.

Secondly, quite obviously security guards are a necessary measure against attacks. Given that one church has been help up by a crazed gunman, their fears are well-founded. Christians are entitled to self-defense.

Obviously? I would beg to differ. Jesus of Nazareth taught and reacted differently; for example, in the garden of Gesthemane. Security is a state of mind - it does not exist. Will armed guards stop me if I choose to attack a church? Nope, they'll be the first victims. Christians may be entitled to self-defense but what good is that if you prostitute your religious faith? Being Christians does not mean that you have a pass against the evils of this existence. You're still going to encounter them. Christianity provides a means of dealing with the irrationality of evil in and of oneself. One does not turn the other cheek to the benefit of the perpetrator; one does it for oneself. One does not forgive for the benefit of the transgressor; one does it for oneself. To arrive at the inner understanding of the truth of this is to become a disciple of Christ and not a spiritual child crying because God doesn't help you or protect you or give you the things you petition for.

Originally posted by Badwater
Firstly, it is difficult to understand why a few American churches should be regarded as representative of all organised religions, given that most religious people are not American and have no affiliation with their churches.

This is an American Christian church and I did not state otherwise.

Secondly, quite obviously security guards are a d crying because God doesn't help you or protect you or give you the things you petition for.

I've often contemplated this while at church: if an armed man were to enter from the back of the church and start shooting people indiscriminately, what would I do?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I would attempt to disarm him, kill him if need be, at the risk of my own life, in order to protect others from harm. Having a concealed weapon on hand would make my job a bit easier, but I would attempt to subdue him regardless.

Fortunately, in my neighborhood there have been no threats of violence against churchgoers, neither in the present nor the past, so even the consideration of armed guards hasn't been necessary. If the threat of violence must be a consideration, however, I see absolutely no reason why it wouldn't be the responsibility of church leadership to keep worshipers safe from any imminent harm.

What if a certain church were discovered to have an asbestos problem and the church leadership in a public statement announced: "Taking steps to protect ourselves from the asbestos isn't the Christlike thing to do; after all, we don't have a pass against the evils of existence; we should take great care not to prevent any evils from occurring, which means we should passively accept any of the effects of asbestos poisoning which may or may not occur."

Would you accept their rationale? Why, or why not?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I've often contemplated this while at church: if an armed man were to enter from the back of the church and start shooting people indiscriminately, what would I do?

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I would attempt to disarm him, kill him if need be, at the risk of my own life, in order to protect others from harm. Having a concealed weapo ...[text shortened]... oning which may or may not occur."

Would you accept their rationale? Why, or why not?

[/ignore]The rationale is not to be accepted. The placement of asbestos is not a violent act.

How exactly is a church leadership supposed to keep its membership out of harm's way? You do not address my Christological point nor do you address my pragmatic point. I will not comment further if you continue to demonstrate a continued lack of understanding of what I'm addressing.[ignore]

Originally posted by Badwater
[b]Firstly, it is difficult to understand why a few American churches should be regarded as representative of all organised religions, given that most religious people are not American and have no affiliation with their churches.

This is an American Christian church and I did not state otherwise.

Secondly, quite obviously security guards are a ...[text shortened]... crying because God doesn't help you or protect you or give you the things you petition for.[/b]

This is an American Christian church and I did not state otherwise.

Perhaps then you should have avoided the generalisation that institutionalised religion is screwed up if you do not believe that this church is representative of instutional religon.

I really do not understand what the relevance of the rest of your post. Who is crying that Jesus will not protect them? The people of this church have, instead, maturely decided that God will not protect them. This was the comment of Dale Annis, founder of Church Security Services.

The pastor of this church (with good reason) believes that his church could be a target. If you accept self-defence as morally justified, what is the problem here? It does not appear that they want to use these guns, that they want to kill people, rather that these are a protective measure against violent intruders in an age of massacres and gun-
shootings. What is wrong with that?

Perhaps guns will not be effective. Accoriding to this article, there was an armed security guard at the attack at the Colorado church (where four were killed); it is suggested that this security guard was able to prevent further deaths.

Here's something to consider:

Christ said "whoever gives one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he will by no means lose his reward" (Matthew 10:42).

If a person is rewarded for giving even a cup of cold water to a Christian, then we should be able to conclude that saving the life of a Christian (or protecting the life of a Christian) is also worthy of a reward.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Secondly, quite obviously security guards are a necessary measure against attacks. Given that one church has been help up by a crazed gunman, their fears are well-founded. Christians are entitled to self-defense.

*pulls the ConrauK puppet's string*

"Firstly, it is difficult to understand why one church getting attacked should be regarded as representative of all communities, given that most community members are not crazed gunmen and have no affiliation with the same."

Originally posted by SwissGambit

"Firstly, it is difficult to understand why one church getting attacked should be regarded as representative of all communities, given that most community members are not crazed gunmen and have no affiliation with the same."

It is not regarded as representative of all churches. This particular church happens to be the largest Baptist church in Kentucky and therefore might be more vulnerable than any other church.

Kentucky, Kentucky. It's always Kentucky! I bet when Jesus come back to America, he'll turn up somewhere in Kentucky.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Kentucky, Kentucky. It's always Kentucky! I bet when Jesus come back to America, he'll turn up somewhere in Kentucky.

YouTube

Fo rizzle!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
MONK FIGHT!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/11/09/israel.brawling.monks/index.html

Jesus, I know times are gettin tough, but this is ridiculous. Maybe he was just wanting some "Jesus."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/ODD_COMMUNION_WAFERS_THEFT?SITE=KYLOU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT