Irrational Christian Bias Against Guns, Violence And Self Defense

BY Herschel Smith
11 months ago

Several examples of Christians opposing all violence and means of self defense have been in the news lately, and I can’t deal with all such examples.  But three particular examples come to mind, and I first want to show you one example from Mr. Robert Schenck in a ridiculously titled article, Christ or a Glock.

“Well, first of all you’re making an immediate decision that if someone invades your home, they are going to die,” Rev. Schenck replied. “So you are ready to kill another human being in your home. That brings about a big ethical question for the Christian. And we’re told in the Bible, we’re even to love our enemies.”

“Even a potential intruder? Someone who’s been coming into your home to hurt you?”

“Absolutely. Is it always God’s will that I survive a violent confrontation with another human being? I’m not sure that’s always God’s will.”

Before we address this tangled web of confusion, let’s bring up another example from Mr. Benjamin Corey who has a commentary up at Patheos entitled The Serious Problems With Using Ecclesiastes 3 To Justify Christian Support Of War & Violence.

thought I had addressed all of the counter arguments over the years, but a new one is emerging and being used more and more frequently: the use of Ecclesiastes chapter 3 to justify the Christian’s support of war and violence.

[ … ]

So, here’s how this is starting to be used in Christian discussions about guns, war, and violence: When Christian A puts forth the nonviolent teachings of Jesus, Christian B retorts by posting this passage in reply. The inferred argument is, “Jesus couldn’t have really meant that, because Ecclesiastes says there’s a time to kill and a time for war.”

First, it ignores Jesus! The act of rebutting Jesus using other passages of Scripture should be a major red flag in the mind of any believer. If Jesus is the living Word of God and the Wisdom of God, then we begin with what Jesus taught us. This is what makes us Christians instead of Biblicists– we follow the teachings of our Lord and Savior. When one rejects the face value teaching and example of Christ in favor of other passages or people in Scripture, it’s a good indication that such a person may like Jesus the Savior but not Jesus the Lord– and unfortunately, this thing is a package deal.

Let’s expand on Benjamin’s views on guns in a previous commentary entitled Some Serious Questions I Have For All Those Good Guys With Guns.

So, you’re a good guy with a gun. I get it. I’ve seen the bumper sticker, heard the slogan a million times, and I even used to be one of you. I’m retired military, was an expert marksman, and was even awarded the Bronze Schützenschnur by the German army.

I was a bonafide good guy with a gun for most of my adult life thus far. But even in my most pro-gun days, the entire American motif of a good guy with a gun made me ask some hard questions– and left me feeling less and less comfortable with the whole concept.

I appreciate the basic sentiment of it all, really. I want my family to live in safety as well, and my desire-meter ranks precisely zero for how badly I’d like to die while standing in line at the deli.

However, this idea that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is really over-simplified. In fact, I think it is dangerously over-simplified and should really invite some hard questions for those would-be good guys with guns.

The first question this invites is, where will you keep it? Studies show that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood that someone will get shot. Further, we have a growing problem in America of toddlers shooting people with guns they stumble upon. Will you at least keep it locked up in a gun safe where kids can’t access it?

I hope you’ll be that reasonable. But, if you do keep it locked up in a safe because you don’t want your kids getting their hands on it, that invites another question: What good would that do you in an emergency? I mean, having it inconveniently out of reach under lock and key sorta defeats the entire point, no?

But let’s say you resolve that issue– perhaps you’ll be one of those good guys with a gun who carries it everywhere. You strap it safely to your hip, have a hollow point in the chamber, and you’re locked and loaded. That too invites a whole additional line of questioning.

Perhaps the biggest question it invites is this: What qualifies you to be a good guy with a gun who is ready to end a human life at a moment’s notice? Is there some special qualification, or is the mere fact that you think highly of your personal character all the qualification you need?

Some states (like my home state of Maine) require no training at all to be a good guy with a concealed gun, while others require some sort of basic gun safety training. Let’s say you took one of these basic courses: Does a few hours or even a few days of training qualify you to be making life or death decisions in a split second while shopping in Walmart?

If it does, why do the military and law enforcement constantly train? Why not give our professional good guys a few hours of training on a Saturday, hand them a gun, and call it good?

Let’s give the benefit of the doubt for a moment, and consider that you’re an expert on gun safety and an expert marksman. That still leaves a bigger question: Have you taken “kill or no kill” training? Like, lots and lots of it where you decide if someone lives or dies, on the spot and in less than a second? Because that’s what you’ll have to do in real life as a good guy with a gun.

It’s one thing to be a decent person who owns a gun and is trained on the mechanics of how to use it, but what about split-second judgement calls when a human life is in the balance? This is why professional arms bearers repeatedly take kill or no kill training– it’s not enough to be ready to shoot, one needs to have the ability to decide if to shoot at all.

Let me ask you a hypothetical: let’s say you’re standing in the movie isle at Walmart and you hear gunfire and people screaming. You quickly remember that you’re a good guy with a gun, so you draw your weapon and run to the end of the isle. Once you get there, you see a guy with his own gun drawn, and is pointing it in the opposite direction as you.

Do you kill him while you have a clean shot?

Oh my.  The confusion with Benjamin is neck deep, and it’s going to take some time and effort to sort this out.  Before we begin, I know that I have a number of readers who aren’t Christians.  That’s great, and I’m happy to host you in my small and humble home.  This may be a bit boring to you, but you should care anyway.  Men like this not only influence public policy, but they effectively disarm much of the Christian public with their advocacy, this disarming have the effect of making them vulnerable to literally anyone who comes along armed.  Witness the kidnapping of those poor girls at the hands of Boko Haram, or the extinction of Christianity in Mesopotamia, a sad but gradual catastrophe I have watched ever since OIF began.  A large segment of the population that cannot defend themselves is of concern to you, whether you are a Christian or not.  And if you hang on with me, you’ll learn some things about what Jesus thought of unbiblical laws banning weapons.  With that said, let’s begin.

Mr. Schenck says, following Christ, to “love your enemies,” and asserts that this is a big “ethical question” during a home invasion.  Next, without any exegesis or explanation fleshing this out, another leaky bucket is put with the first one, where Mr. Schenk invokes the will of God.  “Is it always God’s will that I survive a violent confrontation with another human being? I’m not sure that’s always God’s will,” he says.  Here Mr. Schenck has said too much and destroyed his own argument, and it will require some explanation to explain what I mean.

Mr. Schenck is acting like a Calvinist, but I seriously doubt he has the deep and abiding commitment to Calvinian theology that I do.  Mr. Schenck is relying on ignorance of the masses for the force of his argument.  Classic Calvinian theology divides the will of God into two distinct categories: (1) preceptive, and (2) decretive.  God’s preceptive will pertains to His precepts, His laws.  What does God wish to happen, or how does He wish mankind to live?  The second category pertains to His decretive will, or what He has decreed to come to pass.

Isaiah 46:10 says “I am God and there is no one like me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure’ ” (Isaiah 46:9-10).  Ephesians 1:11 says ” … having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”  Again, all things.  This suffices for many hundreds of passages that teach the same thing.  God decrees, and no one stays His hand.

Furthermore, He tells us that the later category is not only unknown to us, it is off limits.  Deuteronomy 29:29 says “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.”  We are responsible for knowing and obeying His law, not the outcome, nor the flow of times and epochs that result from our choices and actions.  That’s in God’s hands, and we are not to question it.

Mr. Schenck is questioning God’s decretive will, apparently in need of knowing it so that he can attempt to effect it.  But it makes no difference.  Mr. Schenck can no more bring it to pass nor prevent it from coming to pass than he can move the moon or keep it from moving.  And we have just said that it is none of his business anyway.  Mr. Schenck is either a poorly informed and badly educated Calvinist, or he invoked the doctrines of God’s will in an attempt to confuse people, or merely as another objection to self defense.  I suspect it’s the later rather than the former.

In either case, we’re left with only his first objection, his notion that Jesus was a pacifist, Bohemian hippie flower child.  But he has supplied no exegesis of Matthew 5:44 to make us think that Jesus intends for us to allow others to kill us in His name.  In fact, the problem lies not in the words of Jesus (who was dealing with personal grievances, not public threats, see here John Gill’s and Matthew Poole’s exposition), but rather Mr. Schenck’s lack of hermeneutical self-discipline.

The Holy writ is a unity, with Christ as the scarlet thread running throughout.  The words of the O.T. are no more in contradiction with Christ than the balance of the N.T.  There is progressive revelation and development of the covenant, but there isn’t any embarrassing contradiction.  We needn’t turn to obscure passages or tangential concerns to justify Biblical self defense.  As we’ve noted before, the basis for it is found in the Decalogue.

I am afraid there have been too many centuries of bad teaching endured by the church, but it makes sense to keep trying.  As I’ve explained before, the simplest and most compelling case for self defense lies in the decalogue.  Thou shall not murder means thou shall protect life.

God’s law requires [us] to be able to defend the children and helpless.  “Relying on Matthew Henry, John Calvin and the Westminster standards, we’ve observed that all Biblical law forbids the contrary of what it enjoins, and enjoins the contrary of what it forbids.”  I’ve tried to put this in the most visceral terms I can find.

God has laid the expectations at the feet of heads of families that they protect, provide for and defend their families and protect and defend their countries.  Little ones cannot do so, and rely solely on those who bore them.  God no more loves the willing neglect of their safety than He loves child abuse.  He no more appreciates the willingness to ignore the sanctity of our own lives than He approves of the abuse of our own bodies and souls.  God hasn’t called us to save the society by sacrificing our children or ourselves to robbers, home invaders, rapists or murderers. Self defense – and defense of the little ones – goes well beyond a right.  It is a duty based on the idea that man is made in God’s image.  It is His expectation that we do the utmost to preserve and defend ourselves when in danger, for it is He who is sovereign and who gives life, and He doesn’t expect us to be dismissive or cavalier about its loss.

And concerning John Calvin’s comments on this subject:

We do not need to prove that when a good thing is commanded, the evil thing that conflicts with it is forbidden.  There is no one who doesn’t concede this.  That the opposite duties are enjoined when evil things are forbidden will also be willingly admitted in common judgment.  Indeed, it is commonplace that when virtues are commended, their opposing vices are condemned.  But we demand something more than what these phrases commonly signify.  For by the virtue of contrary to the vice, men usually mean abstinence from that vice.  We say that the virtue goes beyond this to contrary duties and deeds.  Therefore in this commandment, “You shall not kill,” men’s common sense will see only that we must abstain from wronging anyone or desiring to do so.  Besides this, it contains, I say, the requirement that we give our neighbor’s life all the help we can … the purpose of the commandment always discloses to us whatever it there enjoins or forbids us to do” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1, Book 2, Chapter viii, Part 9).

If you’re willing to sacrifice the safety and health of your wife or children to the evils of abuse, kidnapping, sexual predation or death, God isn’t impressed with your fake morality.  Capable of stopping it and choosing not to, you’re no better than a child molester, and I wouldn’t allow you even to be around my grandchildren.

Turning now to Benjamin, the confusion becomes even more chaotic with less hermeneutical self-discipline.  First of all, he’s tried to tackle too much.  Without going into the details of his argument, Professor Darrell Cole has written a very good article at First Things entitled Good Wars.  His closing paragraph summarizes his thesis.

The most noteworthy aspect of the moral approach to warfare in Aquinas and Calvin is that it teaches (contrary to today’s prevailing views) that a failure to engage in a just war is a failure of virtue, a failure to act well. An odd corollary of this conclusion is that it is a greater evil for Christians to fail to wage a just war than it is for unbelievers. When an unbeliever fails to go to war, the cause may be a lack of courage, prudence, or justice. He may be a coward or simply indifferent to evil. These are failures of natural moral virtue. When Christians (at least in the tradition of Aquinas and Calvin) fail to engage in just war, it may involve all of these natural failures as well, but it will also, and more significantly, involve a failure of charity. The Christian who fails to use force to aid his neighbor when prudence dictates that force is the best way to render that aid is an uncharitable Christian. Hence, Christians who willingly and knowingly refuse to engage in a just war do a vicious thing: they fail to show love toward their neighbor as well as toward God.

If Robert or Benjamin haven’t interacted with Cole’s analysis, you may safely ignore what they have to say on this issue.  They haven’t really tackled the hard issues yet or dealt honestly with violence, federal headship or the fallen state of mankind.  To that extent, their exposition is cowardly.  It never helps your case to beat up on straw men or weaklings.  You have to step into the back yard and run with the big dogs before people will respect you.

Second, Benjamin acts as if the only justification for violence is found in Ecclesiastes 3.  I’ve never even seen such an argument in print, and I certainly wouldn’t make it (not from the so-called “wisdom literature” of Scripture).  But beating up on Ecclesiastes 3 doesn’t justify his next move, which is to disconnect the balance of Scripture from the person and teachings of Christ.  He says “If Jesus is the living Word of God and the Wisdom of God, then we begin with what Jesus taught us. This is what makes us Christians instead of Biblicists– we follow the teachings of our Lord and Savior. When one rejects the face value teaching and example of Christ in favor of other passages or people in Scripture, it’s a good indication that such a person may like Jesus the Savior but not Jesus the Lord– and unfortunately, this thing is a package deal.”

That’s right, Benjamin.  It’s a package deal, and I have no need of setting one passage off against another because I follow the commonly accepted rules of Biblical hermeneutics.  It’s a package deal, and that means I see all of Scripture as a whole, with progressive revelation, development of the covenants, unity of purpose, and divine sanction and inspiration of the authors.  For the best study on this, see Inerrancy, edited by Norman L. Geisler.  I have no need of ignoring Jesus’ words – in fact, I cherish every one of them.  I just make sure to appropriately understand and contextualize them.

For the third example, as for the oft-quoted Luke 22:36, Preston Sprinkle dismisses this passage out of hand as justifying anything at all, to the point that he doesn’t even interact with this passage.  He continues his missive, and I have to say that I’m not at all impressed by his “scholarship.”  He doesn’t any more honestly deal with issues than the two authors we’ve already examined.  I find his snarky manner very off-putting, and his lack of honesty in dealing with the Scriptural data very revealing.

But regarding his dismissal of Luke 22:36, which I presume he treats as some sort of spiritualized metaphor, remember that Christ wasn’t just commanding His disciples to get swords (for the purpose of self defense, or the purpose of ensuring that they would later be guilty of breaking the law, or whatever, it doesn’t matter).  He was commanding that his disciples become criminals.  It was against the law for them to have those swords.  “During the Roman occupation of Judea, Jews were forbidden to own swords, spears or any implements of war.”  Jesus commanded them to ignore laws controlling weapons.  While I reject the theological approach taken by Dr. Martin at Yale University, he has supplied us with good data on this question.

… for some evidence, see Digest 48.6.1: collecting weapons ‘beyond those customary for hunting or for a journey by land or sea’ is forbidden; 48.6.3.1 forbids a man ‘of full age’ appearing in public with a weapon (telum) (references and translation are from Mommsen 1985). See also Mommsen 1899: 564 n. 2; 657-58 n. 1; and Linderski 2007: 102-103 (though he cites only Mommsen). Other laws from the same context of the Digest sometimes cited in this regard are not as worthwhile for my purposes because they seem to be forbidding the possession of weapons with criminal intent. But for the outright forbidding of being armed while in public in Rome, see Cicero’s letter to his brother relating an incident in Rome in which a man, who is apparently falsely accused of plotting an assassination, is nonetheless arrested merely for having confessed to having been armed with a dagger while in the city: To Atticus, Letter 44 (II.24). See also Cicero, Philippics 5.6 (§17). Finally we may cite a letter that Synesius of Cyrene wrote to his brother, probably sometime around the year 400 ce. The brother had apparently questioned the legality of Synesius having his household produce weapons to defend themselves against marauding bands. Synesius points out that there are no Roman legions anywhere near for protection, but he seems reluctantly to admit that he is engaged in an illegal act (Letter 107; for English trans., see Fitzgerald 1926).

Christ commanded them to possess and bear arms, even in violation of the law.  This is a fact, and no amount of spiritualizing, Scripture twisting or hermeneutical machinations can get around it.

If we have learned absolutely nothing – and I do mean absolutely nothing – of any import or value on the Scriptural data concerning violence or self defense from the three authors cited here, it seems that it’s time to move on to the mundane and trivial.  Benjamin wants to know all about how we keep our guns.  But here I find my own attention floating to something else, i.e., how Benjamin parks his cars, where he does so, whether they are put into a safe condition when he isn’t around them, where he keeps his keys, how well he controls the kitchen knives, cleaners, soap, gasoline for power tools, electrical outlet covers, and cabinet locks, and whether all of his circuits are up to current code with GFCIs in the bathrooms, garage, porches and other places they need to be?

In fact, I’m wondering how I know that Benjamin is actually qualified to be a husband and father?  But this sort of meddlesome, control freak, brooding mother hen, nanny mentality tires me and seems repulsive and grody, so I think I’ll just leave it to Benjamin seeing that it’s none of my business anyway.  Grok that, Benjamin?

As for this notion that cops receive all of this ninja warrior training, it just isn’t so.  One friend who recently retired as captain of one of the largest police departments in America, told me that most gun owners’ self training far exceeded what most cops get, mostly who just qualify on the range once a year and then never unholster their weapons after that (thankfully).  Otherwise, we would have no answer for all of those examples of stupidity, overreaction, dead dogs, negligent discharges, fellow officer shootings, hundreds of rounds discharged in rolling gun battles inside the inner city, and SWAT raids gone bad.  You see Benjamin, if we civilians unholster our weapons, we’re charged with brandishing and we get to talk to a judge and get our rights taken away.  If we point our weapons at someone, it’s called assault with a deadly weapon (which includes perceived intent), and we get to go to prison for an extended stay.  When the LEOs do it, it’s called being “heroes of the community.”  Perhaps, Benjamin, when you pose your shoot / no-shoot scenario, you should be talking to LEOs.

It doesn’t take an experienced law enforcement professional to know that ordinary folks with weapons can and do save lives, every day, all over the world.  That’s not the problem or the question.  You see, by invoking the police, Benjamin has said too much.  He isn’t really a pacifist, he doesn’t really want to perish at the hands of criminals, and he doesn’t really take the teachings of Christ as seriously as he claims.  He just believes in the same thing all progressives do – monopoly of force.  The ugly little truth of progressives, including Christians who have progressive tendencies, is that they haven’t yet been able to turn away from the state as savior and protector, judge and jury, lawyer and arbiter.  They are statists, and their reflexive tendency is to attempt to reconcile their statism with the Holy writ.  To them the state is supreme – otherwise they wouldn’t believe in a monopoly of force.  The real Scripture twisting is done by them, not the millions of Christians around the world who either know better and dismiss their antics as misguided or who are [unfortunately] misled by them.

There are many more steps in this process, including pointing out that the American revolution has its roots in the covenant theology of continental Calvinism (taught by my former professor Douglas Kelly), and that thousands of pastors fought in the war of independence.  For now it is enough to observe that the objections the detractors offer up are like ten leaky buckets.  All of them leak, and putting ten of them together no more ensures that you have a viable container than a single leaky bucket.  They float from one idea to the next, and don’t seem to spend any time on core objections because that tactic doesn’t work and they know it.  They haphazardly throw everything up but the kitchen sink, hoping something will stick.  Quantity is favored over quality because none of the objections are compelling.

They hope something will stick not because of the Biblical data on self defense, gun ownership and war, but because of the philosophical presuppositions they bring to their study of the Scriptures.  Unless this issue is honestly addressed, their prose will not be honest.

UPDATE: Thanks to WoG, SSI and WRSA for the links.

Prior:

Philosophizing With Guns

Guns In Church In Mississippi

A Touching And Heartwarming Story Of Violence And Revolution

Jihadist Shooter Was Going To Target A Church

Pistol-Packin’ Christians

The Idolatry Of Security

They Believe The Angels Will Protect Us

Woe To The Nation Whose Religious Teachers Have Become Workers Of Wickedness

Should Christians Own Guns?

A Desperate Cry From Iraq’s Christians

The PCUSA On Guns

Dear Christians With Guns

Concerning The Nigerian Christian Girls

Guns: Think Of The Children

Does Jesus Shoot An AR-15?

Baptist Forum Does Gun Control

Who Would Jesus Shoot?

The Golden Calf Of Gun Control

Faith And Firearms

Guns And Religion

When Christians Discuss Guns

Christians, The Second Amendment And The Duty Of Self Defense

Trackbacks & Pingbacks


Comments

  1. On May 23, 2016 at 9:10 am, Cal S. said:

    Then He said to them, “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. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me:…” -Luke 22

  2. On May 23, 2016 at 4:52 pm, Gene Urtel said:

    I would invite you kindly to consider the following:

    To put it briefly: In Luke 22:36 the Son of God did not mean a literal sword. He spoke figuratively, as when he instructed, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword…. [for] you will be hated by all for my name’s sake” (Matthew 10:34 & 22).

    Indeed, God the Son commonly spoke figuratively, as when he taught, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone would eat of this
    bread, he will live forever” (John 6:51), even asking, “Does this offend you?”
    (John 6:61). To be sure, many of his own disciples in response were offended, objecting, “This is a hard saying; who could understand it?” and “went back and walked with him no more” (John 6:60 & 66).

    Just so in Luke 22:38 the eleven disciples misunderstood him once again in regards to the sword and to other objects, to which the Lord responded with disappointment over
    their lack of understanding, declaring, “It is enough” (Luke 22:38), that is,
    there is no point in pursuing this matter with you any further.

    So what did the Lord mean by his statement: “’When I sent you without
    purse, beggar’s bag, and sandals, did you lack anything’? So they said, ‘Nothing’. Then he said to them, ‘But now, he who would have a purse, let him take it, and likewise a beggar’s bag; and he who would have no sword, let him sell his outer garment and buy one; for I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in me: “And he was numbered with the transgressors;” for the things concerning me have an end’”(Luke 22:35-37)?

    In other words, the Lord advised them, ahead of time, that after his salvation work on the cross between the two thieves had come to an end, after his ascension into heaven, as they would go about their hazardous missionary work of teaching the gospel (2nd Corinthians 11:23-27), they would have to learn to supply themselves with spiritual strength by turning to the strengthening power of the divine gospel itself, taking up “the
    sword of the Spirit” (Ephesians 6:17), for example, with a sense of urgency.

    Look at his context! On their first missionary journey with the gospel (Luke 9:1-6), when they were on their own, away from the Lord, without a purse, beggar’s bag, or even sandals, the disciples were reminded by the Lord that he had protected them from want and harm (Luke 22:35). Just the same, after his ascension, they would be without his physical presence and his miraculous protection which they had had because they had been in a training period. Then, when their persecutors would hunt them down like wild animals (Acts 8:3; 9:1-2), they would wish even for just one day of his previous protection (Luke 17:22).

    Thus, in Luke 22:35 & 36 God is preparing their minds for their future activity without
    his physical presence and without his unusual protection which they had had
    during their training period. He urges them to acquire those biblical spiritual supplies which are counterparts to an earthly purse, sandals, beggar’s bag, and sword, for instance.

    Furthermore, the apostles on their missionary journeys did not strap on swords nor even employ bodyguards to protect them from bloodthirsty mobs (Acts 14:19; 16:19).
    To be sure, after the disciple Peter pulled out a sword in Gethsemane
    and used it in the cause of protecting his Lord, yet interfering with God’s
    plan of salvation (John 18:10-11), he was scolded for it: “Put your sword back in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword!” (Matthew 26:53.)

    Therefore, realize that the Bible has not been written so as to be a manual by which
    people may learn about self-defense, how best to build a house (Matthew 7:24), or
    how to keep their possessions safe (Matthew 12:29)! The Bible does not pursue these worldly matters. It concerns itself with spiritual things (Matthew 6:25-33). The
    Bible merely uses figurative language at times, parables, etc., solely for the
    purpose of making you understand something spiritual which you do not know yet,
    by comparing it to something in this world which you already do know.

    Moreover, there are some additional points to remember:
    (1) The Son of God does not set out to bewilder you when he uses
    figurative speech; nor does he think that it would be asking too much of you to
    understand his speech. (2) Furthermore, God does not leave it up to you to understand his speech merely by the deductive process of your intellect. Rather he
    helps you. Indeed, Holy Writ presumes that you will be able to draw the right
    inference concerning the Lord’s speech, and will assure you of it when you have
    done so, because the Word of God is a lamp (Psalm 119:105), and the Holy Spirit
    will be enlightening your mind as to the meaning of those words (John 16:13). Be assured of this divine pledge! Then use God’s words as he intended!

    Gene Urtel – The Rivertown Press

  3. On May 23, 2016 at 5:07 pm, Herschel Smith said:

    Oh dear.

    Oh dear.

    Oh dear. Sigh …

    We all know that there is metaphor, simile, allegory, apocalyptic literature and other kinds of literature in the Scriptures. You’re trying to teach your granny to suck eggs.

    This isn’t one of those passages. You’re doing some Scripture twisting to conclude that the words of Christ aren’t intended to confuse, but [on the other hand] he didn’t really mean to get swords even though He said so.

    He meant what He said. Now, as to the question why did He say it, that’s another issue, one that has a rich history in Biblical interpretation. But your admonition that Christ didn’t really mean it is trivial.

    Go back to the basics, the simplest interpretation is where you begin (not always where you end, but it’s where you start), and the simpler passages serve to interpret the more complex passages. The Scriptures are perspicacious.

  4. On May 24, 2016 at 6:33 am, Bibliotheca ab Nova Roma said:

    Thank you! I see this particular (incredibly dishonest) interpretation of Luke 22 all. The. Time! And it drives me up the blasted wall! “The Message” is an especially loathsome translation in this regard, given the way the “translators” mutilated and perverted this particular passage of Scripture. (The Anointed Son of God Almighty never uttered the words “enough sword talk!” you blasted heretical, sniveling worms!) Our Lord said to sell your coat (and, depending on translation, the rest of the items listed as well) to buy a sword. The disciples said they had swords. He said “that is sufficient.” How we get from “that is sufficient” to “I give up! You idiots are hopeless! I *said* ‘buy a sword’ but I *meant* you ought to memorize Scripture! Honestly…” I cannot begin to understand; but I have little doubt that Satan is involved somewhere. Such disgusting doublespeak and moral cowardice are precisely within that serpent’s bailiwick. Again, thank you for this post. I look forward to linking to it in future conversations! God bless you! :-)

  5. On June 22, 2016 at 7:24 pm, Grandpa said:

    …sorry, it has been a while since I’ve had time to chime in. And in this, I agree. “The Lord is a warrior.” It isn’t all allegorical, or metaphorical. Read “Jesus, Mean and Wild”… did he display righteous anger at the money changers on the steps of the temple? Should he have perhaps given them hugs, and loved them into repentance? And as for Eugene Peterson’s horrible paraphrase: “The Message” – no serious scholar can quote “Scripture” from it, and not err. “The Message” is a nice story, but it is NOT a translation. – Grandpa

  6. On May 23, 2016 at 5:14 pm, Cal S. said:

    Soooo… As opposed to every. Single. Time that he explained the parables to the 12 in private, and expounded upon those things that he meant figuratively that they didn’t get the way he intended–such as the ‘leaven of the Pharisees’–he just decided this one time that even though they didn’t get it he would just leave them hanging?

    Yeah, not buying it. Jesus is God, and even though God could have thought the enemies of Israel out of existence in times of old, or sent His hosts against them to wipe them off the face of the planet, He still expected His people to have a hand in their own self-preservation through the taking up of arms. It’s no different today. Especially since the mechanism that he allowed us to set up for the governing of our society, the government of these United States, says that we are legally justified in taking someone’s life to preserve our own. It’s not illegal, it’s not immoral.

  7. On May 23, 2016 at 5:31 pm, Herschel Smith said:

    Those are excellent points. The Scriptures aren’t as complex as he’s making them out to be in most places (apocalyptic literature like Daniel and Revelation excepted). It was easy for His 12 to get things sort of wrong, such as the parable of the prodigal son (I happen to believe that the focus isn’t primarily on the wayward son, or even his brother [a mistake that some exegetes make], but rather, the father). The purpose of the parable of the prodigal son is to explain the father, not the sons (either one of them).

    But what we don’t have is Christ saying behind closed doors, “No no, idiots, I really meant that they were girls who needed more time with mommy, and we’re just like the girls who need more time with goddess Shechinah.”

    Having to work to fully explain something doesn’t mean that the Scriptures are nonsense, which is what this commenter wants us to believe.

  8. On June 20, 2016 at 12:38 am, skies said:

    There is no esoteric secret society Christian beliefs. Jesus was open about all He had to say, and nothing in Scripture is hidden, except from those whose eyes satan has blinded (those of the Kingdom of Darkness):

    Joh 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spoke openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, where the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
    Joh 18:21 Why do you ask Me? ask them which heard me, what I have said to them: behold, they know what I said.

    He did not expect that the knowledge of His teaching was difficult to understand.. ask those who heard Me, He said.. they know what I said. The long, esoteric, mystical, figurative, metaphorical explanation flies in the face of the obvious and easy interpretation Jesus expected people to hear. A majority of people hearing this passage would not come up with that difficult, convoluted explanation Gene did (above).

    Jesus is practical. His yoke is easy, His burden light.

    That esoteric explanation does not pass the “smell” test of authenticity that Jesus here proclaims for correct Hermeneutic exposition – that those who hear Him speak would not be confused by esoteric interpretations which fly in the face of the obvious meaning of the text.

  9. On May 23, 2016 at 6:43 pm, Fred said:

    Lot was taken by foreign agents. Abram went and got him back, killing and destroying the kings, in rightful and natural defense of himself and Lot. But then what did Abram do? He gave a tenth to Melchizedek, a priest of the most high god. Honorable men disagree about the meaning of Luke 22 but the natural right of self defense before God is apparent. What did Melchizedek do when Abram returned from the battles? He said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth…And in case anybody is wondering no, Abram did not keep the loot; he gave it to its rightful owner, again, in natural defense of others.

    How many times does the Holy Bible tell us that Jesus is after the order of Melchisedec? How many earthly parents does this Melchisedec have? LORD willing, I won’t have to use my carry weapon, but if the situation presents itself, what would I rather hear, blessings or admonishment from He that pulled my reprobate soul from out of the depths?

    His divine pledge? I already bet it all, and lost. I am His.

  10. On June 5, 2016 at 3:45 pm, matt said:

    ….Speechless. Yours is a supernatural blindness, Gene.

  11. On January 4, 2017 at 7:54 am, theBuckWheat said:

    A metaphor is not superior to the reality it helps to amplify. In other words, just because the Word of God is called a “sword” in many passages does not nullify or supplant the real sword where it is used in Luke 22. It would be like saying that because Christians are metaphorically called “ambassadors for Christ” in 1 Cor. 5:20 that we enjoy diplomatic immunity and our homes are the sovereign territory of the government we now represent.

  12. On May 23, 2016 at 11:07 am, Bibleater said:

    Who killed the Egyptian? Was it God? No, it was Moses, because it was needed.

  13. On May 23, 2016 at 11:08 am, Gentry said:

    Nothing in the Bible or in any religion I know of precludes dummies from taking part, quoting scriptures and having insane beliefs that have no sensible basis in scripture, religion or the actual words of Jesus. There are even liberals who profess to believe.

  14. On May 23, 2016 at 4:41 pm, Archer said:

    Mine does. You see, Benjamin will pass his false interpretation onto his children and any others who will listen/read his words. If his interpretation is out-of-line with the teachings of the Bible, that’s a problem; it presents a stumbling block for others’ walk with God.

    Luke 17:1-2: “Jesus said to his disciples: ‘Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.'”

    In my mind, “little ones” doesn’t just mean “children”, although it certainly does include that. It also means anyone still growing in their faith and their understanding of the Word, and as such also refers to adults who came to Christ later in life.

  15. On May 23, 2016 at 4:49 pm, Herschel Smith said:

    That passage actually came to mind when I was writing this article. I couldn’t include everything, and you’re certainly right about its expanse, but it also includes the very ones who need protecting like the children. That’s why I [un]favorably compared these men to child molesters. They would sooner see the little ones perish in order to uphold to their Pharisaical sense of righteousness.

  16. On May 23, 2016 at 11:23 am, MTHead said:

    “And if the good man of the house had known in what hour the thief would come, he would have watched. And not suffered his house to be broken through”. Jesus sounds pretty to me on the matter.
    I love my brothers, all four of them. I did anything they asked of me. Personal expense, extra miles mattered not. But two of them were alcoholics. And as such there problems were not tolerated. That includes breaking and entering. And if one of them supposed harm on someone in my care. No amount of force was off the table. Drunk or sober.
    I can love you, while beating you to death. My brothers and I did it to each other for years.

  17. On May 23, 2016 at 3:04 pm, Deserttrek said:

    those who want to be victims can be victims … prey versus predator

  18. On May 23, 2016 at 3:11 pm, GeoBlue said:

    God designed my perfect body with a powerful tool, the BRAIN. The brain God has given me with my body is to be used. Therefore I use my brain to think and come to the conclusion that modern tools, i.e. guns and knives are to be used to protect ones life, lives of family and friends, and life period. Use your BRAINS people, it was put in your body for a reason!!!

  19. On May 23, 2016 at 7:29 pm, Fred said:

    Benjamin disqualifies himself and us from firearms and then goes on to apparently, be qualified to tell us how to store our arms. He is a tyrant.

  20. On May 23, 2016 at 7:48 pm, Owen said:

    God granted us the life we have. If we fail to even attempt to protect it, is that not the same as denying the sanctity of life, of holding cheaply that gift from God? Is it not the functional equivalent of self-murder?

    If one is standing on train tracks with a train barreling down at them, sounding its horn in warning, and you fail to simply step off the tracks before the train arrives, is that not suicide? Failure to defend your God-given life in the face of aggression is, to my mind, the same as obstinately standing on those train tracks while the train barrels down at you, futilely blowing its horn in warning.

  21. On May 23, 2016 at 9:32 pm, MTHead said:

    Sorry Gene, Not only did he plainly tell us to be prepared to defend ourselves. He told you it was better to be cold, and armed.(that sell your garment thing), than it was to not be.
    Herschels right, Gene. If your not ready to defend those around you that are weaker, you have no love for your fellow man.

  22. On May 23, 2016 at 9:34 pm, jack burton said:

    Another passage that illustrates the appropriate use of weapons in self defense is Acts 23. A plot to kill Paul is hatched (by 40 assassins) and he is moved by night to another city. As protection he receives an armed escort of 200 soldiers, 200 spearmen, and 70 horsemen. There is no objection by Paul and no comment as to why this is incorrect by Luke (the author).

  23. On May 23, 2016 at 9:46 pm, MTHead said:

    I’m also reminded of the parable of the tares. Wheat and weeds growing up together. God didn’t plant them. I’m positive he couldn’t care less if I do a little weeding along the way to being more fruitful.
    He’s just going to pull them up and burn them anyway!

  24. On May 26, 2016 at 9:27 pm, Tom Wolff said:

    Speaking of Heinlein,

    “Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral
    behavior is survival behavior above the individual level.”

    “There comes a time in the life of every human when he or she must decide to risk “his
    life, his fortune, and his sacred honor” on an outcome dubious. Those who fail the challenge are merely overgrown children, can never be anything else.”

    Although I doubt Heinlein was a Christian, he grokked.

  25. On June 13, 2016 at 8:05 am, Malgus said:

    I’m what’s called a ‘renegade Catholic’ these days… went off the reservation awhile back.

    That said, I can settle the above convoluted mess fairly easily.

    This is the way I see it: The greatest gift the Almighty has bestowed upon me is life. My own and the lives of my loved ones. To not defend that life, that greatest of all gifts bestowed upon me and mine, with any and all means at my disposal – to the last breath – when confronted with evil bent on snuffing that life out is a direct insult to the Almighty Himself. It is literally spitting on and discarding His greatest of all gifts..

    When confirmed, we Catholics used to be referred to as Soldiers of Christ.

    Squishy, let’s-all-hug-it-out “christians” like Schenk will inherit their “Moral High Ground” when confronted by evil… about 6 feet of it.

    If he is okay with that, then fine by me. What is not okay is him waving whatever edition of the Bible he’s reading under my nose and passing judgement on me based on his interpretation of it…

    As far as Corey is concerned, well, I don’t give a sh*t how long he served or what awards he has – for the record, MY Schützenschnur is silver. I missed Gold by one point – so going by that metric, my opinion matters more than his and carries more weight… Sneering hypocrisy doesn’t work on me, pal.

    These sheep want to let evil roll right over them and offer no resistance while they and their loved ones lives are snuffed out? That’s fine.

    But I’ll contest the wolves’ vote and sleep well doing it, too.

    That’s all I got.

  26. On June 20, 2016 at 12:29 pm, River Lightning said:

    Concerning “Scripture” in the Bible”
    Those who are qualified to “truly” learn from Him
    must “deny your self ( gr. = soul ), and follow Me” ( His Holy Spirit )
    Unless He personally confirms any word in the Bible to one of His, by His Holy Spirit,it is just a soulish exercise by that person, the same as any ‘natural’ soulish person in the world could normally do_ read words, and follow them.

    Therefore, those who endeavor to follow the Messiah from their soul,
    instead of from their spirit following Him:
    “All who come up another way are thieves and liars.”

  27. On October 20, 2016 at 11:55 am, Doug said:

    It seems that people, specifically Mr. Robert Schenck, are arguing that the lives of the wolves have more importance (to God) than the lives of the innocent.

    Isn’t one of the more common allegories used in the New Testament that of a shepherd watching his flock? Isn’t it a shepherd’s (father’s) job to protect his flock (family) from the wolves? Or does the shepherd just cover his head and do nothing in the presence of evil?

    Aren’t we to err on the side of life? To me, that means that if someone breaks into my home and physically threatens my family, I should protect them from harm. Even if that means the death of the provocateur, I’ve saved the lives of the innocent. Isn’t God using me to protect one of his children? Even if the person I’m opposing is another of his children – that has God’s teachings?

  28. On October 21, 2016 at 4:11 pm, JSW said:

    The moment someone starts using Scripture on me, my first uestion to them is, “Do you vote democrat?”

    If they say, “Yes,” then they’ve lost the entire argument from a Scriptural viewpoint since, A) Democrats have removed God from their party platform not once, but three times; B) Promote abortion (even if the person claims to be pro-life, to vote for a demoncrat is to consent to their crime– any who think God is going to not hold that person accountable is an idiot); C) Those people (demoncrats) always twist Scripture, separating Old from New Testaments, telling me that God has changed His mind (especially on topics such as homosexual activities) because this is the 21st Century and God took that into consideration.

    I could go on and on about the differences between God and demons, but I think you get where I’m coming from.

  29. On November 6, 2016 at 8:10 am, FrozenPatriot said:

    These willfully blind sheep, by extension of their flawed logic, should also be arguing that Christians shouldn’t enroll in the military or as a peace officer. There is no teaching of Jesus which blesses violence after donning a government costume, they ought to crow…

  30. On February 14, 2017 at 8:23 am, Seerightthere! said:

    This FOOL does not represent all Christianity or even a small portion of it. He is blind and wishes to lead the blind. We all know what the Bible says about an intruder in the night and how they should be dealt with.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment


You are currently reading "Irrational Christian Bias Against Guns, Violence And Self Defense", entry #15230 on The Captain's Journal.

This article is filed under the category(s) Featured,Firearms,Guns,Religion and was published May 22nd, 2016 by Herschel Smith.

If you're interested in what else the The Captain's Journal has to say, you might try thumbing through the archives and visiting the main index, or; perhaps you would like to learn more about TCJ.

26th MEU (10)
Abu Muqawama (12)
ACOG (2)
ACOGs (1)
Afghan National Army (36)
Afghan National Police (17)
Afghanistan (677)
Afghanistan SOFA (4)
Agriculture in COIN (3)
AGW (1)
Air Force (31)
Air Power (9)
al Qaeda (83)
Ali al-Sistani (1)
America (7)
Ammunition (26)
Animals in War (4)
Ansar al Sunna (15)
Anthropology (3)
Antonin Scalia (1)
AR-15s (91)
Arghandab River Valley (1)
Arlington Cemetery (2)
Army (50)
Assassinations (2)
Assault Weapon Ban (26)
Australian Army (5)
Azerbaijan (4)
Backpacking (2)
Badr Organization (8)
Baitullah Mehsud (21)
Basra (17)
BATFE (53)
Battle of Bari Alai (2)
Battle of Wanat (17)
Battle Space Weight (3)
Bin Laden (7)
Blogroll (2)
Blogs (7)
Body Armor (17)
Books (2)
Border War (7)
Brady Campaign (1)
Britain (27)
British Army (35)
Camping (4)
Canada (2)
Castle Doctrine (1)
Caucasus (6)
CENTCOM (7)
Center For a New American Security (8)
Charity (3)
China (10)
Christmas (8)
CIA (23)
Civilian National Security Force (3)
Col. Gian Gentile (9)
Combat Outposts (3)
Combat Video (2)
Concerned Citizens (6)
Constabulary Actions (3)
Coolness Factor (2)
COP Keating (4)
Corruption in COIN (4)
Council on Foreign Relations (1)
Counterinsurgency (215)
DADT (2)
David Rohde (1)
Defense Contractors (2)
Department of Defense (130)
Department of Homeland Security (16)
Disaster Preparedness (3)
Distributed Operations (5)
Dogs (6)
Donald Trump (1)
Drone Campaign (3)
EFV (3)
Egypt (12)
El Salvador (1)
Embassy Security (1)
Enemy Spotters (1)
Expeditionary Warfare (17)
F-22 (2)
F-35 (1)
Fallujah (17)
Far East (3)
Fathers and Sons (1)
Favorite (1)
Fazlullah (3)
FBI (7)
Featured (177)
Federal Firearms Laws (18)
Financing the Taliban (2)
Firearms (605)
Football (1)
Force Projection (35)
Force Protection (4)
Force Transformation (1)
Foreign Policy (27)
Fukushima Reactor Accident (6)
Ganjgal (1)
Garmsir (1)
general (14)
General Amos (1)
General James Mattis (1)
General McChrystal (41)
General McKiernan (6)
General Rodriguez (3)
General Suleimani (7)
Georgia (19)
GITMO (2)
Google (1)
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (1)
Gun Control (477)
Guns (1,102)
Guns In National Parks (3)
Haditha Roundup (10)
Haiti (2)
HAMAS (7)
Haqqani Network (9)
Hate Mail (7)
Hekmatyar (1)
Heroism (4)
Hezbollah (12)
High Capacity Magazines (11)
High Value Targets (9)
Homecoming (1)
Homeland Security (1)
Horses (1)
Humor (13)
ICOS (1)
IEDs (7)
Immigration (54)
India (10)
Infantry (4)
Information Warfare (2)
Infrastructure (2)
Intelligence (22)
Intelligence Bulletin (6)
Iran (169)
Iraq (378)
Iraq SOFA (23)
Islamic Facism (44)
Islamists (69)
Israel (18)
Jaish al Mahdi (21)
Jalalabad (1)
Japan (2)
Jihadists (80)
John Nagl (5)
Joint Intelligence Centers (1)
JRTN (1)
Kabul (1)
Kajaki Dam (1)
Kamdesh (9)
Kandahar (12)
Karachi (7)
Kashmir (2)
Khost Province (1)
Khyber (11)
Knife Blogging (2)
Korea (4)
Korengal Valley (3)
Kunar Province (20)
Kurdistan (3)
Language in COIN (5)
Language in Statecraft (1)
Language Interpreters (2)
Lashkar-e-Taiba (2)
Law Enforcement (3)
Lawfare (6)
Leadership (5)
Lebanon (6)
Leon Panetta (2)
Let Them Fight (2)
Libya (14)
Lines of Effort (3)
Littoral Combat (8)
Logistics (49)
Long Guns (1)
Lt. Col. Allen West (2)
Marine Corps (245)
Marines in Bakwa (1)
Marines in Helmand (67)
Marjah (4)
MEDEVAC (2)
Media (34)
Memorial Day (2)
Mexican Cartels (24)
Mexico (30)
Michael Yon (5)
Micromanaging the Military (7)
Middle East (1)
Military Blogging (26)
Military Contractors (4)
Military Equipment (24)
Militia (4)
Mitt Romney (3)
Monetary Policy (1)
Moqtada al Sadr (2)
Mosul (4)
Mountains (15)
MRAPs (1)
Mullah Baradar (1)
Mullah Fazlullah (1)
Mullah Omar (3)
Musa Qala (4)
Music (16)
Muslim Brotherhood (6)
Nation Building (2)
National Internet IDs (1)
National Rifle Association (17)
NATO (15)
Navy (21)
Navy Corpsman (1)
NCOs (3)
News (1)
NGOs (2)
Nicholas Schmidle (2)
Now Zad (19)
NSA (2)
NSA James L. Jones (6)
Nuclear (53)
Nuristan (8)
Obama Administration (218)
Offshore Balancing (1)
Operation Alljah (7)
Operation Khanjar (14)
Ossetia (7)
Pakistan (165)
Paktya Province (1)
Palestine (5)
Patriotism (6)
Patrolling (1)
Pech River Valley (11)
Personal (33)
Petraeus (14)
Pictures (1)
Piracy (13)
Pistol (2)
Pizzagate (21)
Police (246)
Police in COIN (3)
Policy (15)
Politics (317)
Poppy (2)
PPEs (1)
Prisons in Counterinsurgency (12)
Project Gunrunner (20)
PRTs (1)
Qatar (1)
Quadrennial Defense Review (2)
Quds Force (13)
Quetta Shura (1)
RAND (3)
Recommended Reading (14)
Refueling Tanker (1)
Religion (117)
Religion and Insurgency (19)
Reuters (1)
Rick Perry (4)
Rifles (1)
Roads (4)
Rolling Stone (1)
Ron Paul (1)
ROTC (1)
Rules of Engagement (74)
Rumsfeld (1)
Russia (29)
Sabbatical (1)
Sangin (1)
Saqlawiyah (1)
Satellite Patrols (2)
Saudi Arabia (4)
Scenes from Iraq (1)
Second Amendment (184)
Second Amendment Quick Hits (2)
Secretary Gates (9)
Sharia Law (3)
Shura Ittehad-ul-Mujahiden (1)
SIIC (2)
Sirajuddin Haqqani (1)
Small Wars (72)
Snipers (9)
Sniveling Lackeys (2)
Soft Power (4)
Somalia (8)
Sons of Afghanistan (1)
Sons of Iraq (2)
Special Forces (24)
Squad Rushes (1)
State Department (18)
Statistics (1)
Sunni Insurgency (10)
Support to Infantry Ratio (1)
Supreme Court (2)
Survival (13)
SWAT Raids (53)
Syria (38)
Tactical Drills (1)
Tactical Gear (1)
Taliban (167)
Taliban Massing of Forces (4)
Tarmiyah (1)
TBI (1)
Technology (16)
Tehrik-i-Taliban (78)
Terrain in Combat (1)
Terrorism (92)
Thanksgiving (6)
The Anbar Narrative (23)
The Art of War (5)
The Fallen (1)
The Long War (20)
The Surge (3)
The Wounded (13)
Thomas Barnett (1)
Transnational Insurgencies (5)
Tribes (5)
TSA (14)
TSA Ineptitude (11)
TTPs (1)
U.S. Border Patrol (5)
U.S. Border Security (14)
U.S. Sovereignty (17)
UAVs (2)
UBL (4)
Ukraine (3)
Uncategorized (42)
Universal Background Check (3)
Unrestricted Warfare (4)
USS Iwo Jima (2)
USS San Antonio (1)
Uzbekistan (1)
V-22 Osprey (4)
Veterans (2)
Vietnam (1)
War & Warfare (212)
War & Warfare (40)
War Movies (3)
War Reporting (18)
Wardak Province (1)
Warriors (6)
Waziristan (1)
Weapons and Tactics (57)
West Point (1)
Winter Operations (1)
Women in Combat (18)
WTF? (1)
Yemen (1)

April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006

about · archives · contact · register

Copyright © 2006-2017 Captain's Journal. All rights reserved.