With the number of attacks on citizens and recent murders in mind, I thought that I'd have a look at what the major Christian church has to say on self defence.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor.... The one is intended, the other is not."[65]

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.[65]

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.[66

Y'know, you're right. I bet Jesus wanted us all to have handguns.

...And which institution would not turn off the lights of the Vatican in WWII, allowing bombers to line-up their runs?

I also find it convenient the Churches allow for self-defense to be extended to nations and authorities. The other convenience is that clerics are exempted, as not to take them away from their contemplation of god.

TRTL,
He did let His disciples have swords, the major defensive weapon of the day.
He even advised them to go and buy one if they weren't already armed.

Oliver,
Which places were the bombers going to bomb? (a bit off topic but interesting none the less).
Not all countries exemp the clergy from war service, generally in the English speaking world they are; but then some volunteer as Padres and not a few have been decorated for bravery and others have lost their lives.

"Not all countries exempt the clergy from war service."

-- I did not know that. Interesting. What about volunteering? Did any priest carry a gun in WWII, Korean or Vietnam and actively fight? Do you feel they should/should not?

--- Vatican in WWII. I have seen references to the Vacican having its lights on on TV war documentaries. I will have quick look, to see if I can come up with some more specific information. [The point was the consequences of the alleged [for now] actions.

re WW2 and Vatican--Can't remember the precise details from a non-fiction book re the relationship between the Vatican and Germany while Italy was under German Occupation-- Apparently, there was an understanding with Germany that the Vatican Area/property would be off-bounds to the occupying forces which indeed happened. This gave speculation that Pope Pius was silent about rumoured? atrocities due to the Vatican's situation??!! From memory??Rome was bombed by the Allies. The fact that the Vatican survived means that the Allies must have also left the the Vatican alone-- however, can't recall those details. The Allies made several attempts to 'liberate' Italy, which eventually happened. I seem to recall that at times, resistance people, patriots etc accessed refuge in the Vatican, as their fate was woeful if captured. Altho a little off-topic it was a serious and relevant complex politico-religio wartime situation, which still attracts debate.Someone can correct any wrong details, please.

TRTL... I doubt Jesus wants us to own handguns, but I think he would be ok with the representatives of the State owning/using them. (Police/Military) refer Romans 13:1-5

Is Mise.. when Jesus said to get a sword, it was (If I remember correctly) specifically to fulfill a prophecy "He (the messiah) was numbered among sinners".. there are a number of such incidents, and the cleansing of the temple was another. "Zeal for thy house will consume me"

Jesus refused Peter the opportunity to vent his spleen on those coming to Arrest Jesus, and healed the man who was wounded by Peters first blow.

Personally, I struggle with exactly how to interpret Jesus words "do not resist one who is evil, but if he strikes you on the left cheek, offer also to him the right" (well I kind of did that at Kickboxing last night, when I allowed a girl to take a few pokes at me in our sparring turn :) she is like 40kg and I'm 105kg) but I don't think that is what our Lord meant.

I am currently of the view that he wants us to avoid conflict at all costs, and even within it, to seek for the well being of our enemy/attacker.

But there is a deeper aspect to the idea of turning the other cheek. It is to point to a spiritual dimension and to underline that we are governed not by our own carnal passions, but by our relationship with God in whom we have supreme confidence that He is the master of our fate.

Peter having a go at the servant of the High Priest etc., was to fulfill prophesy "...do you not think that I could pray to the Father and he would send...legions of angels..." however "...But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a sack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" (Luke 22:36,). is different.
This is not in fulfillment of prophesy but a clear cut instruction.

Were Christ on earth today he would probably tell Peter and the others to buy Israeli 'Desert Eagle' pistols although I suspect that Peter, as a practical man, would get a Colt 1911 Model in .45 ACP.

The Catholic Church's instructions to its own members is clear cut.
Defence of the self and others is a religious obligation even if it becomes necessary to kill when unlawfully attacked, for not to do so is tantamount to suicide and allowing murder.

"Were Christ on earth today he would probably tell Peter and the others to buy Israeli 'Desert Eagle' pistols although I suspect that Peter, as a practical man, would get a Colt 1911 Model in .45 ACP"

And they would be promptly rounded up and shipped off to Guantanamo.

For all the faults of a much flawed organisation the Catholic church at least defends the lives of the unborn. These little ones are unable to defend themselves.

Dear Is Mise
lets look at the full version of that quote to gain a context.

...if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors'[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."

38The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.

Lets break it down.

1/ Get Swords.
2/ For it is written....(he was numbered with the transgressors)
3/ This must be fulfilled in me.
4/ Is reaching it's fulfillment.
5/ A couple of swords were enough to fulfill the prophecy.

A look at Luke 24:44-49 will reveal these words.

44He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

Not much more I can or need to say.
Cheers
BD

BD,
That is certainly one way of looking at it.
However there are others, I prefer the one that fits my personal preferences and it goes like this:
According to Catholic and therefore majority Christian theological thought, Jesus as the Second Person of the Trinity was God and therefore knew all things: past, present and to come.

Therefore in His duality as God and man he knew that the Apostles already had two swords, which ,as you rightly point out, were more than enough to fulfill the prophecy.
So it was unnecessary, in this context, to tell those who didn't have a sword to go and buy one and there was no necessity to tell those who didn't have the 'ready' to sell their gear to raise some money.

For those that accept the majority Christian teaching on the Divinity of the Christ, I think that the only interpretation which can be placed upon this part of the episode in the New Testament is that He was telling them to have personal protection..

Thats what I love about scripture, with just a couple of assumptions one can interpret it to mean whatever one has a personal preference for it to mean.

Is this Is Mise dude a desperado or what?

Last thread he raised on the Greens was an obvious, covert attempt to promote the increased use of guns and the Shooters' Party.

Now, with his "hidden" agenda, he's resorted to the bible to influence readers.

This kill for thrills, gun totin' dude won't give up, will he?

Is Mise...
I don't reject the idea of personal protection. I don't think we can base it on that verse though because such an interpretation ignores the fact that 2 proved sufficient for the fulfillment of prophecy which was clearly alluded to.

I'd use an interpretation of Romans 13 plus the sermon on the mount.


When I say "an interpretation" I have to confess it's a work in progress for me. I am currently of the view that Jesus words are intended to alert us to the need to be so concerned about the well being of our enemy that we go to extraordinary lengths to protect both us and them from harm.

With this in mind, I have recently been shown an amazing 'submission' hold by a martial arts master, which rather blew my mind. I've tried it out in a few street fights.... :) (gotcha..kidding)-just seeing if ur awake there 0_-

But seriously.. the most common method of attack in a pub or the such like is an attacker grabbing your shirt to hold you, while he pumbles you with his other hand. Before he hangs a big fist on your nose, use your corresponding hand to the one grabbing, and thrust UP very hard, to break his grip on your shirt front. Then.. suddenly move your head under his armpit, and put your other arm around his neck and grab your wrist of that hand with your other hand, applying a bit of pressure against the neck with your forearm. Then hold on for grim death because there is NOTHING he can do except yell *OUCH* and if he refuses to submit, you just apply more pressure to his neck.

That way.. neither you nor your attacker is hurt, and he is both disabled and given an opportunity to cool down.

When Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers" I somehow doubt he was talking about the Colt .45

"He did let His disciples have swords, the major defensive weapon of the day.
He even advised them to go and buy one if they weren't already armed."

Y'know Is Mise... you're lucky you're a christian talking about Jesus.
I'd wager if you were a muslim talking about mohammed you'd be publicly condemned as advocating terrorism.

Good one , Bugsy, about the 'Peacemaker'. I'm going to tell that one on a few other forums.

Now how about you all stickin' to the theological issues as BOAZ_David is and not wandering off and making assumptions that I'm making assumptions.
If you listen carefully and learn to stick to the topic (although I admit that it's hard and I include myself) then you might learn something.

I not only study the Bible but also the Qur'an and the life of Muhammad, I'm also a fan of Gandhijii, who incidentally backs up the self protection idea even though he taught the efficacy of non-vioence.
The Qur'an is well worth reading especially for the beauty of its prose, the Penguin translation is very good and is left to right whereas copies with the text in Arabic and English are usually 'back to front' to a Westerner and can take some getting used to.

"Man's an amazing animal. He kills wildlife, birds, kangaroos, deer, cats, dogs, beavers, mice and foxes by the millions in order to protect his animals and their feed.

"Then he kills his animals by the billions and eats them.

"This in turn kills men by the millions because eating all those animals leads to degenerative and fatal health conditions like heart diseases, kidney failure and cancers.

"So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for a cure.

"Elsewhere millions of other humans are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten farmed animals.

"Meanwhile some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of men who kill so easily and violently and then send out cards once a year praying for peace on earth."

If you want to "stick to topic" Is Mise, what is the topic? That the Catholic Church allows self-defence? Thats not news man. What is the purpose of starting this thread? I think would be a good question. It's supposed to be about firearms isn't it? Or is it about nuclear weapons? Personally, I don't think Iran should have them for "self-defence" even if the Catholic Church allows it.

The purpose of this thread was not to point out that the Catholic Church allowed self defence but that it REQUIRES self defence from its adherents and also their lawful defence of others.

Oliver,
The references that you saw about neutral states leaving their lights on probably refered to Dublin and London. It was a ridiculous piece of British propaganda that German pilots used the lights of Dublin to home in on London.

digiwigi,
The position of Pius XII in WW II was as one 'walking on a tight rope'.
Since then there has been condemnation and praise for him from Jewish people. Certainly over 4,000 Allied PsOW escaped the Germans due to a Vatican approved escape organization headed by Mons. Hugh O'Flaherty,
based in the Vatican.
The story of Hugh O'Flaherty was made into a film "The Scarlet Pimpernel of the Vatican" and stared Gregory Peck.

So, the Vatican requires that people protect each other? Wow, that IS a modern and relevant topic, gee I'm glad you brought this to our attention. I would never have known, thanks again.

Well, at least the Vatican doesn't play favourites, they also smuggled out hundreds of Nazis after the war to escape prosecution for war crimes.

More than the Allied servicemen that they helped escape from the Germans?