Shooting Near Loma Linda University Captures International Attention
December 3, 2015: A mass shooting resulted in the deaths of 14 people and 17 wounded just three miles from the campus of Loma Linda University (LLU), the leading Adventist health sciences institution in southern California, on Wednesday (December 2). Because the university medical center is the primary trauma center for the area, five of the victims were transported to LLU.
Kathleen Clem, MD. Credit: Loma Linda University.
Early Thursday morning CBS Television News interviewed Dr. Kathleen Clem, the chief of emergency medicine at LLU Medical Center and chair of the emergency medicine department in the School of Medicine. Later in the day other administrators were involved in news conference with many journalists in attendance.
The shooters lived in nearby Redlands and were killed in an exchange of gunfire with police later in the day. They were Muslims and the event at which the shooting occurred was a Christmas party for county health department employees, but authorities have yet to determine if this was a terrorist incident or some other kind of violent situation.
Clem is a graduate of the LLU medical school who later spent a decade as the first head of the emergency department at Duke University in North Carolina. While in North Carolina, she was also a volunteer in planting of a new Adventist congregation that reached out to university students and other interested individuals. Her husband, Terry, served as pastor of New Life Fellowship which continues as a growing and vital church today.
Clem returned to LLU in 2007 where she is in charge of training physicians as emergency specialists. She has held multiple national leadership roles within the American College of Emergency Physicians and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM). She serves as chair for the American Association of Women Emergency Physicians and president of the SAEM Academy for Women in Academic Emergency Medicine.
An excellent example of the mission-driven Adventist health professionals in the Loma Linda community, Clem established one of America’s first International Emergency Fellowships and organized teams to establish clinics or teaching trips in 11 countries. Recently she was appointed by the dean of the LLU medical school to lead an institutional culture change initiative for improving Peer Professionalism.
From the AP:
Here’s a look at some of the deadliest U.S. shootings since 2012:
Oct. 1, 2015: 10 dead, 7 wounded at Umpqua College, Roseburg, OR.
June 17, 2015: 9 African-American church members in Charleston, S.C.
May 23, 2014: 6 killed, 13 wounded near U.C. Santa Barbara, CA.
Sept. 16, 2013: 12 killed, Washington Naval Yard.
July 26, 2013: 6 killed, Hialeah, FL.
Dec. 14, 2012: 26 killed, including 20 first-graders, Newtown, Conn.
Sept. 27, 2012: 6 killed, Minneapolis, MN.
Aug 5, 2012: 6 in a Sikh temple, Oak Creek, Wisc.
July 20, 2012: 7 killed, 3 wounded, Aurora, CO.
April 2, 2012: 7 killed, 3 wounded, Oikos U., Oakland, CA
None identified as Muslims but home-grown terrorists. Do the math.
68 killed in three years (?)
Not sure the math matters right now, Elaine. Can’t you even wait until the blood dries to offer anodyne political observations?
As part of the community, living less than 5 miles from the crime scene, I’m feeling pretty nauseous right now, and a bit appalled by what feels like a highly insensitive comment by you. Maybe you’d like to come to San Bernardino, sit down with the grieving, hold their hands, look them in the eyes, and offer them comfort and compassion with your insightful math. They will feel so good to know that they are the first victims of mass shooting by Muslims in America since 2012. To quote a famous American, “At this point in time, what difference does it make?” Maybe tomorrow, but please…not today!
Nathan,
My prayers are with you and your community as you struggle to deal with what happened yesterday, to comfort the grieving and minister to the hurting. The hearts of most Americans and much of the world are with you and your community today.
I left work early yesterday to tend to some personal business and heard one of the first news bulletins on the radio. Several hours later I was watching the live, non-stop TV coverage on a cable news channel and felt powerless to watch anything else as my heart cried-out to God about how much worse things seem to be getting. I fear we are just seeing the beginning.
Elaine,
I think I understand the point you were trying to make. However, I disagree because there may not be as much difference between them and the people involved in yesterday’s incident as it seems. All of the shooters in all of the cases you listed were mentally unstable individuals and possibly even demon-possessed. Considering that radical Islam tells people to go out and kill as we saw yesterday and in Paris and so many other places, it is not hard to think of such people as having a mind that is just as warped, if not possessed by demons. What should be really frightening is how the actions of those shooters you listed has given Muslim radicals an operational model to follow: strike a soft target with a concentration of people and you don’t even have to be a marksman to create mass mayhem and bloodshed long before the police arrive.
I pray that I am wrong, but yesterday was likely just the start of a wave of attacks in America by radical Muslims that will make all those shootings you listed seem infrequent and small.
If a close relative were killed in a mass shooting would it really make a lot of difference whether the perpetrators were Muslim or religious haters as were the killings in a Christian church and one in a Sikh temple? Or even in a Jewish synagogue?
Were you there grieving with all the parents at Sandy Hook and Columbine? When small children are shot it reaches to the very heart of all parents.
My purpose was not to deflect the grief stricken and fearful but a different perspective in that terrorists come from someone’s next door neighbor or even school mate. The easy availability of guns has made the U.S. the murder capital of the world. Those nations’ gun deaths who have strict gun controls pale in comparison to the U.S. If it’s not the “gun culture” what is the cause?
Check Chicago’s records of killing just in the past year–a national disgrace. Too many shoot first and ask or answer questions later.
Elaine,
You’re parroting the Liberal illogic that ignores the evil that is in the minds of those who do terrible things while instead blaming the inanimate tools they use. Pick a time in history when the weapons were different and you can find mass killings done using stones, wooden clubs, knives, arrows, spears and swords. The availability of guns that is not the problem, but the severity of the evil in the hearts of those who are willing to do such horrible things. Change their hearts and you’ll change their behavior.
By the way, California’s gun control laws are exactly what President Obama wants. They didn’t prevent yesterday’s carnage, so why do you imagine they will be effective anywhere?
By “those nations with strict gun controls,” Elaine, did you have in mind countries like France and Norway – places where the per capita deaths from mass shootings exceed the U.S.? France has suffered more casualties from mass public shootings in 2015 (508) than the U.S. has suffered since 2009 (424). Conflating “gun violence,” which includes suicides and gang warfare, with mass shootings and terrorism may subserve a political agenda. But it does not contribute to understanding, insight, or solutions.
Gun control is an important topic. But strict gun control laws, whatever their general efficacy, are unlikely to stop mass shootings – especially terrorist shootings. By the same token, I am skeptical of claims that more citizens carrying firearms is likely to prevent, or attenuate the carnage caused by, mass shootings.
Nathan,
The innocent in these mass murders are targeted precisely because they are defenseless. Dylan Roof specifically stated he chose a church to ignite his desired ‘race war’ at a location where he would not face resistance.
Resistance may not ‘attenuate the carnage’ but everyone of us in such circumstances is obligated to protect the innocent with whatever means are available. I would hope to have effective means. To do nothing but cower is, well cowardly. We can not seek to preserve our own lives, however natural that may be, we have to risk ourselves to protect the innocent.
Its conceivable armed resistance could have prevented the murders. It’s certain I would have wished I had a gun if I found myself in such circumstances.
Nathan or other:
I know little about gun laws in the country at the present time, but it seems where they are the strictest, the violence is worse. My question though, are automatic assault weapons allowed anywhere here? There is absolutely no reason why they should be. I can see hand guns. guns for hunters, and collectors (with special registration like we have car registration) being available for those who feel they need protection, but certainly not military or police weapons.
Will someone fill me in on this?
Elaine,
Did you forget 9/ll? And Fort Hood? Boston? and some others called by our president “work related?” These are only a small portion of what has been stopped by our home security endeavors and what we don’t hear about.
I can understand somewhat that the president doesn’t want Americans to begin persecuting Muslims as some hotheads might. But it is going a bit too far with his denial and deception.
You are right, William. They, including participating SDA, didn’t use guns in Rwanda.
DEATHS by various causes— USA in 2015..real time!
MASS shooting at the bottom of the list
http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php
When slingshots are outlawed, only outlaws will have slingshots.
I expect the level of medical professionalism at Loma Linda U. is second to none.
The next question is whether the level of compassion–either by the chaplaincy staff or the medical personnel–was equally evident. Again, I’d be inclined to expect so. I hope someone will report on that as well. Not just what was done but how the victims and their families responded to a special level of compassion.
Because our denomination is the largest one (so far as I know) to promote the doctrine that the anticipated kingdom is an heavenly–not an earthly–one, we are in a unique position to offer solutions–starting with the suggestion that it is a perverted view of Bible prophecy that influences our government to (even if it is indirectly) favor the modern political nation of Israel over her Arabic-speaking neighbors. Multitudes of Americans are unaware of how not only Muslims but non-Muslim Arabic people groups are being subjected to atrocities at the hands of Israelis–atrocities that our government would not tolerate from any other government on Earth.
How many Americans (or even Adventists for that matter) have considered the plight of Christian Palestinians?
Or would we rather argue about who is supposed to heat the water for a foot-washing service?
I’m a bit confused at reason for the article. Is it using the tragedy to plug Seventh-day Adventism? And using the token woman to make it OK? Or what the hey!?
I also wondered at the long bio given to Clem and what it had to do with the tragedy. I can see a short news item about LLUMC getting some of the wounded, but not focusing on one individual. We would like to know if they received chaplaincy help.
This news article reads very much like a self-congratulatory press release from the Loma Linda PR mill.
Apparently it is not only in the Adventist Review that news is “planted”?
Why would fanatical Muslims shoot-up an employee Christmas party?
For the same reason that fanatical Christians would shoot-up an employee Eid party?
This appears (to me) to be religious, not political, terrorism.
These observations are NOT an attempt to justify what happened. Only an attempt to understand why a deranged person would deliberately target his or her fellow employees with whom there was no overt work-related or personal grievance. The only grievance I can perceive from a thousand miles North, would be resentment at peer pressure to attend a work-related function with strong religious overtones.
In the past I have seen Jewish and Jehovah’s Witness colleagues quietly “skip” corporate or school holiday parties with a strong Christ(?)mas theme. And only privately might they express the slight of corporate and peer pressure to participate.
In this case some (unverified) press reports state there was a combination of training seminar followed by holiday party. Harder to simply “skip” this because it could adversely impact your job performance or professional status.
Reasonable people might feel a bit of resentment. An seriously unbalanced person might consider this a major affront deserving of retaliation.
(Continuing previous comment – the normal comment display seems to be broken?)
Working for two secular Jewish managers, then for many years with a close JW friend, then for a multi-billion $$ multi-national corporation with most of its employees in Asia (Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists), has been an eye-opening and consciousness-raising experience.
Once in India I was on the other side of the fence when a corporate grand-opening celebration featured a Hindu priest and some Hindu rituals. I slipped quietly into the background and did not pass my hands over the sacred flame nor eat any of the sacred saffron rice. A bit awkward as I was the only “corporate headquarters dignitary” on-site that day. And I was photographed with the local managers and the priest, in front of the flashy new corporate sign.
But I did not come back with a weapon and shoot-up my fellow Hindu colleagues who had “insulted” my Christian dignity.
Some people have bizarre (to me) notions of how to maintain and/or restore personal or religious honor, in the face of real or imagined insults. They inhabit a different reality than do I.
There are press reports that the wife was a Punjabi Muslim. In their culture, if someone rapes an unmarried girl, she has brought shame on the family honor. Her father and brothers are expected to kill her to restore the family honor.
From a Western perspective, the victim is being punished for the crime. It is really her fault. From an Eastern perspective she gets an early entrance to her eternal reward, be it Heaven or Hell. The family is not really judging her guilt or innocence. They are escalating the case to the Supreme Judge, confident that Allah will judge properly.
This seems horrible to us Christians, ourselves only a few centuries removed from “inquisitions” and “trial by ordeal”.
These practices do NOT come from the Bible or the Quran. They are a bending of religion to tribal customs.
For some reason, Jim, I find your attempt to understand and explain deeply troubling. Sometimes, the attempt to find a reason makes horrible evil appear logical – like John Kerry’s lame attempt to differentiate between Paris and Charlie Hebdo.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all can trace their roots to tribal religions. And their sacred texts could all be used by their religious leaders to support barbarism. It is a breathtaking denial of reality for you – a Chrustian – to presume to know better than millions of Muslims whether their sacred texts support their violent cultures. What arrogance! They refuse to separate their culture or their politics from their religion. But we need to ignore what they say, and understand that San Bernardino was religiously – not politically – motivated? Is ISIS a political or religious movement – or both?
Does the fact that the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood facility may have been performing acts which I find abhorrent mitigate or explain the shooting there? Why doesn’t the “let’s find out what we did to incite the barbarbarians” crowd on the political Left ever blame abortion clinics or Left wing values when their sacred cows are attacked by deranged people.
Sometimes evil needs to be unequivocally denounced and rejected with no qualifiers and no opportunistic grandstanding for political advantage. It is not West vs East. It is barbarism vs civilization. Let’s not intellectualize away that fundamental reality.
Jim,
In the 16th century, the Protest of the Princes in Germany took an initial step toward making a distinction between religion and politics. Another step was taken by Roger Williams in the 17th century. Outside Rhode Island, so far as I can tell, that distinction was not codified until the American Revolution.
My point is that to most people in this world and to Muslims in particular, there is no distinction between religious violence and political violence. The farther you move to the so-called “Christian Right”, the less of a distinction there is. Practitioners of that melding of politics and religion are (as of 2015) careful to use political/military means to commit the atrocities but if or when the restraints of the U.S. Constitution were to fall, many professed Christians would be as willing as the Muslims currently are to react violently to whatever offends their religious sensibilities.
The Supreme Court has decided that Christmas is not a religious holiday. That, of course, isn’t satisfactory to those on the “Christian Right”. I don’t know what happened to set off the most recent display of violence at a “Christmas party”. The people who planned it may have been trying to be merely “traditional”. But try to imagine a Muslim being cornered by someone who has a burden to “put Christ back into Christmas”.
Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it.
–April 6, 1859 Letter to…
Politics is the collection of methods by which humans resolve disagreements.
The Protest of the Princes did not take Politics out of Religion. It was a major step in taking Government out of Religion and to a lesser extent, Religion out of Government.
There has always been and will always remain, Politics in Religion, as well as in Government, Military, Commerce, Industry, Academia and wherever else humans band together and disagreements arise.
Islam never had its Protest of the Princes. It still teaches that the only legitimate form of government is a Theocracy (aka Caliphate). The two major branches of Islam historically cannot agree on who should be the Caliph. So for over a millennium, legitimacy of any government has always been a divisive and combative issue for Muslims.
First the British rulers and now American rulers, have learned the very painful lesson that you cannot impose Western-style democracy on cultures that do not share Western values.
When they immigrate to Western nations, Muslim Fundamentalists who cannot agree on the legitimacy of their own governments, struggle with accepting the legitimacy of Western governments in their new homes. And they bring with them the grievances of British, French and now American colonialism in their ancestral lands.
Still I suspect the irritant in this particular case was the Christmas party, not the US government.
Jim,
Has anyone really learned that you can’t impose Western concepts on a different culture? The Europeans have been importing Muslims from their former colonies in the Middle East and Africa for many decades and the current wave of Muslim immigrants and events such as the Paris terrorist attack are the natural result. America is only slightly behind Europe on that path.
Both the Muslim and other cultures around the world have a long history of brutality for a very simple reason: only strong rulers can impose a form of rule of law on the people with any duration and their success is very closely related to the degree of brutality with which they are willing to put-down and destroy any opposition or threat. Instead, we send diplomats to try and talk them out of doing whatever bad thing they’re wanting to do to us and tell our citizens there is no threat so we should welcome them into our homeland.
I agree with you about the Christmas party. I can’t imagine a situation as inflammatory to a militant Muslim than being required to attend professional meetings and having that imposed on them.
I am among those whose hearts are crying over what happened in San Bernardino. We live in a dangerous world. It is just as dangerous as it was during World War 1 and World War 2. The article regarding Loma Linda Medical Center’s role in caring for the wounded left me feeling cold. The article is not really about the compassion of our church in this time of sadness, shock and need. Rather it’s about how wonderful Kathleen Clem is. When are we going to stop being so inwardly focused?! The article demonstrates once again part of what is so wrong with our church. I was watching the wall to wall coverage of the shooting on Wednesday evening. I was impressed with various faith leaders publicly expressing sympathy and support for the families affected. Knowing where the shooting took place, I was confident that among the leaders taking the podium there would be an Adventist. Sadly, there was none. When will we learn that there is a much greater imperative in serving others than trumpeting how good we are and how right we are as a church!
I agree with most of what you are saying–it was a terrible PR report. But you seem to be making assumptions by saying no SDA persons were there to help; they just didn’t get on the news. By now you may have read about Amanda who was wounded and yet sought to calm others. But you are right about our arrogance and inward focus.
Wes,
I have a name for the thing you decry. I call it, “the we-are-it syndrome”.
At the same time, it may be that one or more Adventist “leaders” didn’t take the podium for the very reason that he/they felt to do so would be seen as self-serving.
Less than a year ago, I was still holding up the SdA organization as an example of how effective a group of believers could be at avoiding the disadvantages of hierarchical model on the one hand AND the disadvantages of the congregational model on the other hand. I suspect, for example, that congregationalists (in the lowercase sense of the word) achieve proportionally less in the way of building universities and hospitals.
On the other hand, to the extent that we tout the existence of such facilities as evidence of our supposed goodness, the good things the congregationalists do at the local level might create less of a temptation to exhibit spiritual pride.
It is possible to see the danger on either side of the road, over-correct and wind up in the ditch anyway. Is it too late to make small corrections? Or will our idealism prevent us from availing ourselves of what I think was the intention a hundred years ago, namely to combine the advantages of both organizational models?
Have we reached the point where Loma Linda University Hospital is no longer considered a philanthropic institution? If so, maybe it doesn’t require the “support” of any church organization.
I am still waiting for Nathan or some other knowledgeable person to inform me of the gun laws for California and the nation for automatic assault weapons. I can’t imagine anyone being able to buy what should only be in the hands of the military or police. They could only be used for criminal activities.
EM,
First, automatic (pull the trigger and it keeps firing until you release the trigger) weapons are banned from private ownership without a license from ATF. The weapons used were semi-automatic (one pull, one shot).
Second, the term “assault weapon” is a misnomer often applied to a weapon that is similar in appearance to weapons typically used by soldiers. That is because an assault is a physical attack on another person and you don’t need a gun to commit an assault. Also, the anti-gun folks want you to think every long gun is a military weapon.
Third, the main differences in California as compared to other states are that they limit the number of rounds a magazine can hold (10), certain add-ons that PC politicians think make a gun look more intimidating, etc. But the biggest difference is the difficulty a citizen faces in getting a concealed carry permit for a handgun. Basically, you can’t get one unless you are law enforcement, licensed to work for an executive security, company, or similar. That contrasts with my state which has a “shall issue” law requiring the sheriff to grant a concealed carry permit to any citizen requesting one who passes a criminal background check. Or Maine, which no longer requires a carry permit.
The failure of California’s gun laws to prevent the terrorist attack is just the latest glaring example of how gun control laws are an exercise in politically-correct futility.
In reality, if gun laws were an exercise in futility, then the coincidence that the states with the most strict gun laws have fewer gun deaths per 100,000 people than those state with fewer and less stringent gun laws would not exist, OR gun advocates and enthusiasts like you William would be able to explain why there are invariably fewer gun deaths per 100,000 in the states where the strictest gun ownership restriction are than there are in the states with the least restrictive gun ownership laws.
The same goes for the nations in the industrialized west. If gun laws were an exercise in futility, the coincidence of there being so many fewer gun deaths per 100,000 people in Japan and western European democracies, as well as in Canada and Australia, than there are in the United States, would simply not exist; OR there would be another uncomplicated reason that gun advocates, enthusiasts, and lobbyists (including you) could furnish for the great disparity in those comparative fatality statistics.
Clearly you are emotional, including fearful; and this fear drives your thinking on this subject. But the comparative rate of gun violence and deaths between states, and between nation-states, is irrefutable data that proves that you are fundamentally misinformed in your thinking (otherwise such statistical evidence would be nonexistent).
Stephen,
You are so PC that you keep recycling the same old arguments that have been refuted so many times before.
The idea that limiting gun ownership by the law-abiding was refuted last week in articles in the “Washington Post” and “Mother Jones” showing how crime is going down in areas where gun ownership among the law-abiding is up. I know you don’t like it (and they don’t want to admit it), but those articles echo what Dr. John Lott had documented in great detail in his book, “More Guns, Less Crime.”
I accept being politically correct. Call me any kind of correct…I’ll take it. Being correct is generally better than being incorrect.
Here’s the thing William, the link you provided recently was unsurprisingly no good. It couldn’t be opened, not my old hardware/software, at least. Not only that, the more important point is that there is no information that does or that can refute or disprove those facts relative to comparative gun deaths per 100,000, state by state or nation to nation.
Not even the crackpot, politically-motivated, biased, and discredited work of John Lott doesn’t and can’t refute them; which is something that you undoubtedly know.
Anyway, here’s a recent Washington Post piece that references some Mother Jones findings on this topic. This can’t possibly be what you meant for me to see. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/mass-shootings-in-america/
Grammatical and wording correction: Not even does or can the crackpot, politically-motivated, biased, and discredited work of John Lott refute them; which is something that you undoubtedly know.
Stephen,
Being PC means you are anti-constitution. Evidence of this is how you endlessly decry the Second Amendment and argue for ways to infringe on it when the Amendment ends with “the right of the citizen… shall not be abridged.” Ellen White predicted that one of the major steps America would take in the last days that will unleash religious persecution is the abandonment of every principle in the Constitution. So there is no question which side you’re on and it isn’t defending freedom.
I agree with your comments Elaine. I always look for your thoughts. They make me think. I am tired of hearing about how they are Muslims. They are not. They are apart of something evil. Islam is not evil. I know too many who are renouncing this, yet still having hate heaped up on them.
Keep up the good work you do!
William,
CCPs are stupid. No criminal cares whether he has a permit for a gun; sensible people who need a gun shouldn’t care either. If your life is in danger or you feel threatened in your environment, simply move away. That’s the smart thing to do.
Guns are easy to obtain in California, from corrupt gun dealers, pawn shop owners, “fences,” ordinary criminals. A hammerless pistol can easily be concealed and illegally carried. It is illegal for police to detain you without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
A Muslim could walk around in SF in full religious regalia with an armory sufficient to do a lot of damage but they can not be stopped and questioned unless they are doing something a civil libertarian would consider “reasonable suspicion”.
You might be surprised who can get a CCP next time you try to carjack that attractive Asian woman in her luxury car.
Hansen,
ISIS claims to have operatives in more than 120 countries and be working on taking-over the world. President Obama told us they’d never be able to attack in America and you know what happened, so I’m confident they’ll never show-up or attack where you are. Until you discover otherwise, enjoy your illusions.
President Obama said….LOL, are you serious? Who cares what he said? John Kerry said the US needs to develop relations with China based on mutual trust, Say what? Probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard from a politician, mutual trust…with China? LOLOLOL
I don’t even give a thought to gun violence. Virtually unheard of but people do use edged weapons. I prefer to deal with an edged weapon, easy to run away from. Course, I know you like to do cowboy so you gonna stan’ yo’ groun’, kill someone instead of walking/running away. To each his own.
Scripture is fairly clear that God is the strong tower of the righteous, their sword and shield. The day I need firearms training alongside atheists in order to live free of fear is, I hope, a long time coming.
Hansen,
Like I said, enjoy your illusions. Or, maybe I should say, delusions. I don’t know where you get some of your wild ideas, I’m just sure I don’t want to go there.
If Adventist Today staff don’t object to people airing their political opinions on this site, I guess I shouldn’t “object” either. I would like to point out, however, that whereas other denominations often take sides on political issues (thus diminishing the number of people who are willing to identify with them), our denomination has wisely avoided taking sides on political issues other than religious liberty.
That doesn’t mean that Adventists AS INDIVIDUALS don’t or shouldn’t participate in political debate or political action. Dr. Carson, for example, isn’t running as an Adventist or as a Christian but as a private citizen. He doesn’t pretend to represent me and, when I have been asked about his beliefs, I have answered that I hope he reads for himself, studies for himself and thinks for himself.
I once read a comment Ellen White wrote in her diary as her husband was leaving the house to work on a political issue (prohibition, I think). “I hope he is doing the right thing.”
I have ideas about what policies I think our federal and state governments should have on such issues as private ownership of firearms. I’d love to share my ideas with anyone who asks. I prefer to do so privately, however, so as to avoid giving anyone the impression that I am trying to influence Adventists AS A GROUP to adopt my political ideology.
Roger,
I appreciate your approach to the topic of gun ownership. I made my decision a number of months ago after being confronted with a very real threat. I had to wrestle with issues of family, the law and scriptures where passing statements get expanded into “thou shalt not” declarations as if they were part of the Ten Commandments. I made my decision and readers here know what that was. Because I had to thoughtfully and prayerfully examine myself and the issue, I respect others who also consider it and reach their own decision, even if they decide differently. It is those who decide and condemn based on political philosophy or without examining the scriptural elements whose opinion I do not respect because it is based on ignorance.
This just in this morning …
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/03/weve-had-a-massive-decline-in-gun-violence-in-the-united-states-heres-why/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_optimist
The sky is not falling in. So called ‘gun violence’ is not getting worse, but in fact ‘We’ve had a massive decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why.’
Let’s look for church leaders to address this article in today’s Sunday edition of the Washington Post.
And for the record there are fewer people starving in the world, life expectancy is increasing world wide, fewer people are dying in wars, and natural disasters are declining in frequency and in impact world wide looking back as few years as a decade and as far back as a century it seems.
And in the last 20 years people killed in work place violence in the U.S. has fallen from 1,500 annually to around 500 now. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-act-violence/201408/the-truth-behind-the-run-hide-fight-debate
Society world wide seems to be increasingly successful in wringing out of itself famine, war, pestilence, and violence. Let’s note and support what is working to society’s well being.
William, Your continuing assertion that prayer and Bible led you to arm and train to kill others in self defense requires more than assertions. It sounds like you are simply scared of a threat and are doing what any atheist would do.
Considering all the SDA talk about a death decree and mark of the beast, I must ask where the line is to be drawn. If someone wants to kill you because you keep Saturday or are a Christian or eat meat, is it OK to defend yourself with lethal force? It’s an honor to die for Jesus as a martyr but how about being killed by racist swine for reasons that have nothing to do with your beliefs.
No chance to stand on principle, testify, die for a cause, you just happen to be the wrong race in the wrong place. OK to use lethal force then but if the chance to die as A Christian martyr arises, then holster your gun?
Probably a lot of people are wondering about these things now. It’s time for prayer and fasting, not time to lock and load, or whatever it is that gun enthusiasts like to do.
Hansen,
Your level of confusion and detachment from reality are amazing!
How is Hansen not being realistic in his observations? William, you have clearly indicated that, after being or feeling threatened, prayer and Bible study have led you to arm and train yourself and your family for self-defense; and have recently indicated that you are now prepared to be the armed protector of many.
Hansen poses a reasonable scenario in that the Bible elevates the status of martyrs who have died for their beliefs and the cause of Christ. It does sound as if you are only willing to be a martyr if and when you go down in a blaze of glory—only after giving as well as you’d gotten from the enemy.
Yeah, that sounds like any Christian who depends on divine power all right. Perhaps one day you will offer a testimony as to how divine power enabled you to mow down those armed enemies who were coming after you; and how you thereby protected yourself and those who were with you; you know, in self-defense.
That said—believe it or not—I understand your fear and your impulsive reaction to threats, real and/or perceived. But that your impulses are at odds with and contradictory to your confession is beyond question.
Now you are paradoxically trying to merge your reactionary impulses and right wing political ideology with faith and dependence upon the supernatural…and it makes you sound like a nut; an accident waiting to happen.
It doesn’t help that you keep typing William.
William, You are telling us that prayer and Bible study justify you arming and training yourself and family members to bear arms and kill people in self defense, yet you continue to offer nothing but a vague reference to prayer and Bible study to justify your course of action.
I recently reviewed your position, as I understand it with a friend. I offered no commentary, just said that a guy who believed his family was in danger secured guns to protect himself, while naming the name of Christ. My friend was absolutely incredulous. thought it unbelievable that a Christian would take up arms in self defense. It’s not only me that’s “detached” and “confused” about Christians arming themselves to kill people who threaten them.
Really, you should be disfellowshipped from your local congregation. The level of fear and cowardice that drives you to that desperate of a move is not compatible with Christian faith. If someone wants to harm you, move away. Find a new place to live. Ask some friends to join you in prayer and fasting.
That’s what i did recently when my life was threatened in a place where there would be absolutely no police support or justice, no claim of self defense or justifiable homicide. The promises of God gave me peace and assurance that I need not worry and I don’t. Strange you scorn prayer and fasting but believe that gun violence is OK for a Christian.
Brethren! Brethren!
Can you please desist from impugning the motives of those with whom you disagree?
Our denomination has long encouraged pacifism but not required it.
Similar to the situation with regard to vegetarianism.
It casts a dark shadow on the whole advent movement for brothers to be trying to impose their personal philosophies on each other.
I can be a lot more specific if necessary but please try to find some respect for those with whom you disagree. It might even be a good idea to try to understand other views than your own rather than representing your position as the only biblical or Adventist one.
Yeah, nice try Roger; perhaps it is safe to say that you are lukewarm on this particular issue; which is to say that you may not feel strongly one way or the other. Perhaps there are other issues about which you feel strongly; or perhaps not.
Personally, I do understand William’s fear and his impulsive reaction to threats, real and/or perceived. That his impulses are at odds with, and contradictory to, his testimony (of complete dependence upon the power of God and His Spirit) is beyond question in my view. This would be true irrespective of any affiliation with Seventh-day Adventism.
You may not feel so strongly Roger; which needless to say is your prerogative. In any case feel free to be specific in this forum. Most of us would strongly agree with you that it is possible and preferable to respectfully disagree (than it is to disrespectfully disagree) with our fellow AT participants.
Roger, William has referenced to prayer, personal study, and the Holy Spirit to justify arming himself and his family to kill other people in self defense. This borders on lunacy, militia like separatism, White power, religious fanaticism, etc. It’s exactly the kind of rhetoric koresh used to justify his fondness for weaponry, etc.
I had been wondering how so many people stared at William’s comments like cows at a new gate. Stephen is the only one with sense enough to denounce his position and you want to call for calm? The motives of someone who openly advocates gun violence, as a resource for Christians, should be impugned.
A addict acquaintance of mine used to carry during her drug binges, her stash and a pistol in her boot but when she came crawling back to church after some trauma, she always left her guns behind.
References to prayer and Bible study sound too much like what I’m hearing from gays who want to normalize sodomy in the community of faith. Gun violence, sodomy, whatever, can not be justified by any reasonable interpretation of Scripture and prayer won’t change that. I don’t believe that the HS leads people into homosexuality or commando mentality.
Roger, William has referenced to prayer, personal study, and the Holy Spirit to justify arming himself and his family to kill other people in self defense. This borders on lunacy, militia like separatism, White power, religious fanaticism, etc. It’s exactly the kind of rhetoric koresh used to justify his fondness for weaponry, etc.
I had been wondering how so many people stared at William’s comments like cows at a new gate. Stephen is the only one with sense enough to denounce his position and you want to call for calm? The motives of someone who openly advocates gun violence, as a resource for Christians, should be impugned.
A addict acquaintance of mine used to carry during her drug binges, her stash and a pistol in her boot but when she came crawling back to church after some trauma, she always left her guns behind.
References to prayer and Bible study sound too much like what I’m hearing from gays who want to normalize sodomy in the community of faith. Gun violence, sodomy, whatever, can not be justified by any reasonable interpretation of Scripture and prayer won’t change that. I don’t believe that the HS leads people into homosexuality or commando mentality.
In this thread, some commentators have tipped their hands. (That’s a reference to playing card games so they can condemn me for that too.)
The advent movement is about helping people avoid the last deception. As important as that is, it isn’t more important than the doctrines of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers.
The “ditch on the other side of the road” is to become so focused on political or lifestyle issues as to loose our focus on the nature of the kingdom. People will receive the mark of the beast, not because they are wrong about which day of the week is the sabbath but because of their willingness to impose their understanding on others.
Is there a difference between “contraception”, “birth control” and “abortion”?
Is there a difference between “guns”, “gun ownership”, “self defense”, “gun violence”, “siege mentality”, “racism”, “separatism” and “commando mentality”?
More importantly, if someone adopts one of those things, is it appropriate to accuse him of something else, just because you think it is related?
Here’s a suggestion: Make a list of things about which a person can disagree with you without you thinking that disqualifies him to be a be a member of our denomination. Maybe if the list is short enough and you can kick everyone out who disagrees with you about anything else, we can get the membership down to 144,000 so Jesus can return.
Roger, Number one on my list would be a person who is so scared that he must arm himself and his family and train to kill people. A person like this has no business in any faith community. William’s mumbling about prayer and personal Bible study justifying his position is nonsense. Apparently he feels unaccountable to anyone, which is fine, outside the faith community. He can join a militia.
Hansen,
God’s people throughout history have carried weapons for self defense. If you were local, I would introduce you to a friend who is one of the most deeply spiritual people I know, a retired Navy SEAL who was introduced to God while in special operations training. There are some other deeply spiritual folks I’d like to introduce you to but can’t for national security reasons because they’re active duty military spec ops types. They’ve given me some really powerful lessons about faith in God.
Gun control is hitt’in what you’re aim’in at. William (above) doesn’t have to justify owning guns for self defense. Nor does he need to drop out of his faith community. And target practice does not constitute training to kill people.
William: there’s a nice, relatively new, indoor shooting range in Beaumont. Come target practice with me there.
Bob,
Thanks for the invite, but I’m afraid that would be a bit of a drive (like several days) to get there. We have a couple good indoor ranges and several outdoor ranges within a modest driver here in North Alabama.
I’ve enjoyed target shooting since I was big enough to hold a gun and a favorite activity with my family was going to an old quarry and shooting-up empty beer cans that we’d picked-up from the roadside with an old single-shot .22 rifle with open sights. Earlier this year that pleasure became a very serious self-defense matter when co-workers and I were advised by a credible authority of very specific and real threats, so much of my recent training has been focused on how to kill an attacker. I still enjoy punching holes in targets and my wife and daughter now enjoy that with me, but we’re all aware the situation could arise where we must act with a far more serious purpose.
Hey, I know to many of you conservatives and/or anti-liberals, or whatever, that we (Hansen, me, and a handful of others) seem intolerant of William and his gun-toting, sharpshooting mindset and culture; and of course some of you may think we’re out to confiscate your guns (or whatever).
Well other than the fact that Hansen certainly is no liberal, let me also make this clarification; the main point that I am arguing, and doing so vociferously and unequivocally, is that William’s testimony of absolute and total dependence on the power of God and His Spirit to do the miraculous and to lead and direct his ministry is rendered of none effect (at best) by his concomitant reliance on firearms and his supposed skill with them to protect himself and others in these last days. (It doesn’t matter how many like-minded military, law enforcement, or other par-military people he may claim to know or befriend.)
To me, William sounds like a vigilante wannabe who also thinks that God speaks to him; in other words, a walking recipe for disaster—who has now openly admitted to have been recently engaged in “training that is focused on how to kill an attacker.”
If that sounds like dependence on the power of God to anyone then I would strongly recommend an intervention of some sort to such individuals.
Stephen,
There you go again with more wild, worn-out, PC nonsense that we’ve heard before!
Police officers are trained to shoot and kill attackers like the terrorists in San Bernardino and the only people you hear accusing them of wanting to kill others are the race-baiting liars from groups like “Black Lives Matter” and their sympahizers. Soldiers are trained to kill attackers and you don’t hear about them going around killing others unless they’re someone like Maj. Nidal Hassan at Ft. Hood. Both are also trained to evaluate threats and react according to the law, as I also am. You don’t understand this because you’re a Liberal so you trust only government while fearing your fellow citizens. But since it is your fellow citizens who do the work of the government, why do you not fear the government?
Your safety and liberty are protected by the armed soldiers, police officers and fellow citizens like me who are trained to defend you, them and our country by force. It is our ability to exercise deadly force if it is required that prevents many who would commit great evil from doing it.
Only someone who hasn’t heard the voice of God or experienced the guidance of the Holy Spirit would dare to mock God by insinuating that He doesn’t guide someone who has that experience.
Think about the level of delusion and quality of thinking that suggests that anyone who questions, or doubts, that you are divinely led is daring to mock God.
That represents a very dubious (if not dangerous) thought process. I think your delving into the diversion of race is a cute ploy in this conversation; but that’s all it is. That you retain the presence of mind to play games like that gives me hope for you.
The suggestion that I rely on people like you with guns is telling. It puts me in mind of a conversation that one of my relatives once had with the owner of a company at which they were employed. When the owner said that they pay the salary that feeds their employees’ families, my relative informed the business owner that the Lord provided them and their family with everything they have and everything they’d ever, or will ever receive.
The same applies to my safety and security. The same applies to your safety and security. It is the Lord who keeps and protects you, not your ability to shoot a gun. And dude, I couldn’t possibly care less if that sounds, or is, politically correct or not.
Stephen,
Calling me a “vigilante” shows you don’t know the difference between offense and defense and you are devoted to believing liars. Offense is what those terrorists did in Paris and San Bernardino. Offense is the nearly quarter BILLION people murdered during the 20th century by their governments after they were forced to surrender their guns. So, if you can’t tell the difference between offensive use of a gun and ownership for defensive purposes when you are threatened by criminals or terrorists, why should a person trust anything you say on any other topic? You’re not making any sense and just want to argue.
VIGILANTE: a person who is not a police officer but who tries to catch and punish criminals
Full Definition of VIGILANTE
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice
(Source: Merriam-Webster)
I actually said you sounded like a “vigilante wannabe.” How can you deny it? The broad definition (a self-appointed doer of justice) applies.
Stephen,
Can the leopard change it’s spots? Apparently you can’t because you are continuing your old habits of insinuation and blatant falsehoods to attack me and millions of your fellow citizens.
I am NOT seeking to catch and punish criminals. I have merely taken action to protect myself should I be confronted with a criminal or terrorist. A vigilante seeks the confrontation. I am going about my normal business. I have been trained by police and security experts to be perceptive of criminal behavior so that I can first avoid and evade it. My first tool is my cell phone to call the police. The use of deadly force is a last resort only when no other options are available. That is the exact opposite of being a vigilante, yet you persist in repeating that lie to accuse me and by doing that you are providing public documentation that you are violating the 9th Commandment. So, if you are a follower of God instead of just political correctness, you will cease promoting that lie.
I maintain that you sound like a vigilante wannabe to me; in fact very much so. You are training to kill criminals and will presumably be armed in order to do so. You have said point blank, no pun intended, that you are prepared to be the guy who protects your fellow citizens in case of an attack. That sounds like a vigilante wannabe.
You have come up with your own definition or perhaps have some image of a George Zimmerman type in your mind. But then, I wouldn’t think that you consider what he did offensive in any way. Unless I’m wrong, you would consider his actions strictly of a defensive nature.
I think that he was a vigilante. I think that you are a vigilante wannabe, or a would-be vigilante; or perhaps even a vigilante in waiting. That is my opinion William; and you can call it a breach of the ninth commandment or a breach of the fourth commandment for all I’m concerned. Thankfully for me, you are not my judge; and thankfully for you that I’m not yours.
What I can judge is the logic/consistency (or illogic/inconsistency) of your stated positions; of your claiming reliance and dependence on the guidance, power and Spirit of God for the miraculous in ministering His love to others on the one hand; and in the clearly fearful arming of yourself and family and the training to kill human beings with those arms on the other.