/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

1. varies, mostly a non-issue because Catholicism is 2,000 years old and world-wide

2. don't care

3. as long as you acknowledge you are celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ, true man and true God, don't care

>>746686

I am not Catholic, but here are my two cents

>1. private ownership of guns

You can use a knife in surgery to save someone, cut bread or murder someone. objects on themselves arent bad, but humans that use them as such. Guns are fun for sports, such as hunting or target practice I think

>2. giving guns as presents on Christmas

I would be happy, especially if it would be a bolt action rifle. But I dont have license anyways

>3. decorating Christmas trees with non-Christmas related items like on attached pics?

Technically red santa clauses and such arent "Christmas related items" either as they have little to do with nativity. Main part here is to remember what Christmas is about: Incarnation of Christ

Ok, Catholic here:

1 - Part of the inalienable right of self-defense against unjust aggression.

2 - I see no problem, as long as the man you're gifting the gun is a trusted and responsible adult, who wouldn't misuse it.

3 - Christmas trees are not sacred imagery, so I don't think it's that bad. You should avoid secularizing Christmas too much, though.

>>746690

>1. varies, mostly a non-issue because Catholicism is 2,000 years old and world-wide

I don't know, what if McNukes were legal to privately own? Wouldn't the Church say something about that? Something about excess of liberalism? Sure, guns aren't the same on lethality scale, but…

>>746695

>I don't know, what if McNukes were legal to privately own?

what does this have to do with guns?

>Wouldn't the Church say something about that? Something about excess of liberalism?

gun ownership is relatively new and mostly a non-issue for anyone outside the US. as for Catholics, I've seen both sides

>>746695

>guns aren't the same on lethality scale, but…

Don't underplay it, it changes everything. Citizens can't use a Nuke in self defense.

>>746686

1. it's fine in principle but Americans have made it into a sinful obsession

2. pretty cringe unless you're giving a hunting enthusiast a new rifle or something

3. i'm okay with it, fallout sucks though

>>746696

>what does this have to do with guns?

What if someone justifies having a McNuke in order to "defend himself against the government"? Wouldn't you feel a little scared living next ot a neighbour like that? What if he activates it by accident?

My point is where would the Church(Magisterium?) put the line of what is allowed to be owned by an average person and what isn't. Full-auto allowed/not allowed? Explosives allowed or not? Stingers allowed or not for private citizens? Some people(Americans?) on /k/ would say all of these should be allowed, but you can clearly see that some of these carry a huge risk to life of other people if misused.

>>746703

>Wouldn't you feel a little scared living next ot a neighbour like that? What if he activates it by accident?

tiny personal nukes aren't the same thing as owning guns

>My point is where would the Church(Magisterium?) put the line of what is allowed to be owned by an average person and what isn't

So far, it hasn't said much of anything. The Christian religion is about the interior character, and the morality of the acts involved. A gun sitting in your bed-drawer is not the same as a gun pointed to a woman's head in a robbery.

>>746686

1. self-defense

2. depends on how well you know the person, giving people guns for christmas would be weird if you only superficially knew them

3. christmas trees are secular who cares

>>746705

>The Christian religion is about the interior character, and the morality of the acts involved

Okay, but what if you don't secure the gun enough and it gets stolen?

Should there be a license and psychological testing needed to buy a gun(normal scenario)/AA missile(extreme scenario)? My point is: the Cathechism says at one point that the production and distribution of pornography should be outlawed:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

>2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

Notice:

>Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

So what should be the Church-approved laws for gun ownership and Church-approved behaviour for gun owner to not get bad boy points before God at Judgement Day?

>>746708

Oh, and I also once posted a "which fetishes are ok and which are not and IMO the Church should release a full list" thread because, well, I want to eliminate any doubt because I don't want to sin by accident That's the point of this thread, except for guns.

>>746710

To repeat myself a bit from the last post: I wish the Church would release(or maybe there is already? I admit I don't know) some lists of what is and isn't Church-approved behaviour.

>>746686

>private ownership of guns

Not American, don't really care. I don't think Aquinas talked about it.

>2. giving guns as presents on Christmas

That's fine.

>3. decorating Christmas trees with non-Christmas related items like on attached pics?

My friend put a picture of our next-to-last king, so it's cool. Fallout is bad so I don't like the pic, but that's my opinion.

>>746695

I don't think McNukes can be used for personal self-defense, though.

>>746714

>Not American, don't really care. I don't think Aquinas talked about it.

Shouldn't you care about problems of others as a Christian? That line seemed a bit selfish to be honest. If someone likes guns, he/she should know what's a sin and what isn't. Remember, there are people in this world that don't see ANYTHING wrong with pornography(there literally is a thread RIGHT NOW on /christian/ where a Protestant defends masturbation because he "read the whole Bible and didn't find anything against masturbation"(somehow) and "I've never felt the Holy Spirit ever guiding me against masturbating to imaginary girls" argument) because they never read Summa Theologica or any other document that explains in-depth why it's bad for your soul. And yet, it is a sin. Church should keep people informed about what elite Christian thinkers realized is wrong and what's okay. Sure, we know contraception is wrong because even back in the times of Aquinas/Augustine they existed and Aquinas/Augustine wrote about it. But guns, especially machine guns did not exist back then. We need a guidance on whether if someone wants to buy a gun is it okay or is it a sin(obsession?) of lust or something so that person can know how to act.

>>746716

>I don't think McNukes can be used for personal self-defense, though.

But some people argue they could be used for recreation.

>>746719

TL;DR We need clear rules(preferably in-depth/in detail) on whether certain behaviours are okay or sinful obsessions.

>>746721

Forgot to say: and write down which gun-related behaviours are good or bad.

>>746719

Nukes have tremendous collateral effects, though. Using them for your personal recreation is incredibly selfish and vain.

>>746724

On the other hand, I see no problem in shooting guns inside your private estate, even for recreation.

>>746725

I mean rural estates, of couse.

>>746726

*of course

>>746724

>Nukes have tremendous collateral effects, though. Using them for your personal recreation is incredibly selfish and vain.

True, but what if you detonate them at a desert? IMO already buying a nuke(which costs a lot probably) is already a waste of money and materials and pretty vain, but there ARE people and even CHRISTIANS that will defend such behaviour. We need a clear "this is NOT okay" document(and preferably with "and here is why") for guns(not only for Americans. Even in other parts of the world it is possible to own guns, although it's a bit harder compared to USA) and I would argue also for sexual fetishes(I will never have a wife probably but if somehow I miraculously got one I would like to know what is allowed and what is not, obviously ejaculating outside the vagina is mortally sinful, but are latex and other sexual clothing allowed in the marital bed?).

>>746728

*but there ARE people and even CHRISTIANS that will defend such behaviour because there wasn't anything written against personal ownership of nukes in the Cathechism

>>746729

Also, owning a nuke is pretty over the top example, but what I'm saying there needs to be more documents on what's right or wrong when it comes to more modern inventions like guns because I and many other people don't want to go to Hell and some sinful stuff may not be so obviously sinful at first glance.

>1. private ownership of guns

No opinion. The Church doesn't care.

>2. giving guns as presents on Christmas

She still doesn't care. However common sense says that's dangerous because kids aren't responsible enough

>3. decorating Christmas trees with non-Christmas related items like on attached pics?

The Church doesn't care. It's an "unnoficial" Christmas decoration.

>>746733

what makes owning a nuke "over-the-top", is that it is completely different from owning a gun. everyone owning a potentially world-ending device is vastly different than owning a hand-gun.

quit using it as an example

>>746737

>>1. private ownership of guns

>No opinion. The Church doesn't care.

Okay. Still, how much is it okay to spend on stuff. You can buy a $300 PSA AR-15 that will work or an okay-tier $500-1500 AR-15 or a $3000-4000 top-tier AR-15 and it would still be justifiable price if for self defense… or you can buy an antique/rare gun(even completely impractical one) that costs $100 000 at the auction. Would buying the last one be sinful? This doesn't apply only to guns, but also to buying $400 plastic anime girl toys. How much can you spend on fun stuff before it becomes sinful where you could instead spend it on charity? I know that is a different question to the previous ones, but it still bothers me.

>>746749

You're thinking too hard, friend.

Buy (legally) whatever gun(s) you need to defend yourself and your family. Donate what you can to charity. It's not rocket science.

>>746759

>Buy (legally) whatever gun(s) you need to defend yourself and your family.

Okay.

>Donate what you can to charity.

So no place for expensive plastic toys, no matter how pretty/well-made they look. Do I get it right?

>>746765

Imo, yes. Expensive plastic toys have no intrinsic value other than appealing to your vanity unless you are a youtuber and use it to decorate the backround of your videos or for "content". I think it is safe to assume you aren't a youtuber.

>>746749

Its like asking how much money should one spend buying a car.

I don't know dude I don't know how much you've got, but don't forget about charity to your neighbour that is you're not gonna buy an Aston Martin knowing that you neighbour is starving, unless you have enough money to buy the car and help your friend.