Guns: An Important Discussion

[Michael The Disciple]

Ok I like guns. I could almost say I love guns. I have owned AK47'S, SKS'S Mini 14, Mini 30 and M1 Carbine along with some handguns. I currently own one handgun.

I understand that Jesus is not opposed to being armed at least generally speaking. What is hard to find in the New Covenant Church is Christians killing their enemies. How do you feel about this? Scripture supporting it? Scripture against it?

[renee819]

I'd sure like to know the answer to this, also.

[TGBTG]

Since you asked for scripture and not my viewpoint..lol

Matt 5

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Love Your Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,[i] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Since you asked for scripture and not my viewpoint..lol

Matt 5

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[h] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Love Your Enemies

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,[i] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect

So how much emphasis is this kind of teaching given in the Churches? Personally in 38 years of hearing Christians teach only about 3 or 4 groups come to mind that I know trys to ingrain this in the members.

I know most are saying the teaching on turning the other chhek was an old time idiom. If one stuck you on the cheek he was trying to insult or degrade you. Yes in that case you should restrain yourself and figuratively speaking turn the other cheek. In other words just let it go.

Of course no one has ever provided any evidence it was just an idiom unless we are supposed to just take their word for it.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Ok I like guns. I could almost say I love guns. I have owned AK47'S, SKS'S Mini 14, Mini 30 and M1 Carbine along with some handguns. I currently own one handgun.

I understand that Jesus is not opposed to being armed at least generally speaking. What is hard to find in the New Covenant Church is Christians killing their enemies. How do you feel about this? Scripture supporting it? Scripture against it?

If someone is trying to kill or harm you or your family, defend them.

Luk 11:21 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed. 22 "But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder.

[Monterrey]

Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out!

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Ok I like guns. I could almost say I love guns. I have owned AK47'S, SKS'S Mini 14, Mini 30 and M1 Carbine along with some handguns. I currently own one handgun.

I understand that Jesus is not opposed to being armed at least generally speaking. What is hard to find in the New Covenant Church is Christians killing their enemies. How do you feel about this? Scripture supporting it? Scripture against it?

Luk 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luk 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.



Joh 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
Joh 18:34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.



It's clear the gospel is NOT to be advanced by the sword. If Christ's kingdom was of this world we would "fight" but it is not. Therefore the gospel is a true message of peace and good will towards men - all mankind.

However, the question is not one of gospel propagation it is "self defense". On this the Bible is clear:
It is interesting to note that Abraham (the father of the "faithful" - the man of faith) brought his "trained servants" with him to rescue Lot.
Gen 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

Then there is this passage of scripture letting us know that we can defend our property from thieves:
Exo 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

A man breaking into a house to steal would be smitten and the owner of the house would suffer no adverse consequences.

Then there is this passage as well:
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

What does "provision" mean?
Certainly it the taking thought for the "needs" of the family. A man should work to provide for his family.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

What does this have to do with the issue at hand? I am glad you asked! LOL!
What man among us would not step in and defend our families from a rabid dog? What man among us would not defend our families from any wild creature seeking to do them harm. I would use anything I could get my hands on to defend them from such an attack.

Jesus said:
Mat 12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
Mat 12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

In the above passage Jesus states that it is right to do good even on the Sabbath day. Here we have the clear statement that humanity is better than the animal kingdom - this is because of our being created in the image of God not because of any other type of inherent worth.

When our families or ourselves are found in the proverbial "ditch" among thieves and robbers it is good to "provide" for their defense whether those thieves and robbers are wild animals or men acting like wild animals. We are commanded to "provide" for our families and there is no doubt in my mind that this includes "protection".

Jesus told the Disciples to go and get a sword, not for the propagation of the gospel but for self defense. These were not letter openers. The highways were dangerous and they would be travelling these. More often than not the robbers look for easy prey and when they see armed men they wait for the unarmed. Interesting that today it is in the "gun free" zones where the mass killings take place. There is nothing new under the sun.

In summary, we are not to propagate the gospel with the sword. However, we are to provide for our families. That includes protecting them from harm. I cannot imagine any man standing idly by watching a venomous animal of a man raping his wife or daughter and doing nothing. It goes against every fiber of what a "man" is supposed to be. All that evil needs to prosper is for good people to do nothing.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Luk 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luk 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luk 22:37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Luk 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

Two swords are not enough for each of them to engage in self defense. Jesus said, "It is enough.", because they were taking Him literally when He was actually warning them with a parable that they'd face violent opposition. Christ's intention wasn't that they truly go and get swords... else Jesus would have said, "Two are not enough.", and we'd read of them going and buying swords. However, we don't.

Joh 18:33 Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?
Joh 18:34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me?
Joh 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

It's clear the gospel is NOT to be advanced by the sword. If Christ's kingdom was of this world we would "fight" but it is not. Therefore the gospel is a true message of peace and good will towards men - all mankind.[/QUOTE]

Amen.

However, the question is not one of gospel propagation it is "self defense". On this the Bible is clear:
It is interesting to note that Abraham (the father of the "faithful" - the man of faith) brought his "trained servants" with him to rescue Lot.
Gen 14:14 And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

Abraham wasn't living under the New Covenant. It was a nomadic time and Abraham lived according to patriarchal codes. He was much like a tribal leader. Thus this doesn't apply. It's more akin to warfare.

Then there is this passage of scripture letting us know that we can defend our property from thieves:
Exo 22:2 If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

A man breaking into a house to steal would be smitten and the owner of the house would suffer no adverse consequences.

Again, this isn't the New Covenant. Essentially this Law of Moses was part of ancient Israel's civil code of justice. It doesn't speak to the morality of self defense, only the justice. Much like laws regarding self defence here in the United States. For example, it's legal to use lethal force to defend yourself. However, like the Law of Moses, it doesn't speak to it's morality or how such an action should be viewed in light of Christ's teachings.

Then there is this passage as well:
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

What does "provision" mean?
Certainly it the taking thought for the "needs" of the family. A man should work to provide for his family.
2Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

What does this have to do with the issue at hand? I am glad you asked! LOL!
What man among us would not step in and defend our families from a rabid dog? What man among us would not defend our families from any wild creature seeking to do them harm. I would use anything I could get my hands on to defend them from such an attack.

Actually, I'll have to differ with you here. The context of the verse was addressing men that were not working and expecting the church to continue giving them and their families handouts. Paul's point is that these able bodied men must provide for their families and their necessities (food, clothing, etc.). This doesn't speak at all about self defense or the use of lethal force.

Jesus said:
Mat 12:11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
Mat 12:12 How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.

In the above passage Jesus states that it is right to do good even on the Sabbath day. Here we have the clear statement that humanity is better than the animal kingdom - this is because of our being created in the image of God not because of any other type of inherent worth.

When our families or ourselves are found in the proverbial "ditch" among thieves and robbers it is good to "provide" for their defense whether those thieves and robbers are wild animals or men acting like wild animals. We are commanded to "provide" for our families and there is no doubt in my mind that this includes "protection".

Christ's point is this passage was that the Pharisiacal accusation against him for healing on the sabbath was baseless. Also, with this Christ affirmed the superiority of the Gospel of Grace over the Law, affirming that He was Lord of the Sabbath. Nothing about self defense was in view.

Jesus told the Disciples to go and get a sword, not for the propagation of the gospel but for self defense. These were not letter openers. The highways were dangerous and they would be travelling these. More often than not the robbers look for easy prey and when they see armed men they wait for the unarmed. Interesting that today it is in the "gun free" zones where the mass killings take place. There is nothing new under the sun.

Already addressed.

In summary, we are not to propagate the gospel with the sword. However, we are to provide for our families. That includes protecting them from harm. I cannot imagine any man standing idly by watching a venomous animal of a man raping his wife or daughter and doing nothing. It goes against every fiber of what a "man" is supposed to be. All that evil needs to prosper is for good people to do nothing.

Christian history attests to the fact that rather iit be under organized persecution or isolated acts of random violence against Christians... early Christians refused to draw blood. Even Christians serving in the Roman army refused to shed blood for the emperor and were executed for treason. Entire families were often the target of isolated random violence, crime, and persecution... in each instance... they died before shedding the blood of their attacker.

True Christianity will cost you more than a dress code... should someone break into your home... obedience to Christ might cost you or life... and perhaps even your family's lives.

[Pliny]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Two swords are not enough for each of them to engage in self defense. Jesus said, "It is enough.", because they were taking Him literally when He was actually warning them with a parable that they'd face violent opposition. Christ's intention wasn't that they truly go and get swords... else Jesus would have said, "Two are not enough.", and we'd read of them going and buying swords. However, we don't.

Oh yeah... That's why Peter had a sword because it was just a story. Two swords is enough for self defense. You will not start a war with them but you will be able to defend yourself. Yeah... Jesus was just telling them a parable about swords and violent persecution... Give me a break. Next you will tell us Jesus told Peter to throw his sword away instead of sheathing it for now. I guess they were letter openers right? Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Abraham wasn't living under the New Covenant. It was a nomadic time and Abraham lived according to patriarchal codes. He was much like a tribal leader. Thus this doesn't apply. It's more akin to warfare.

He was the father of the faithful. So you are saying he did not trust God? Bologna. My Bible tells me all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for instruction in righteousness. Last time I checked the OT was still scripture.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Again, this isn't the New Covenant. Essentially this Law of Moses was part of ancient Israel's civil code of justice. It doesn't speak to the morality of self defense, only the justice. Much like laws regarding self defence here in the United States. For example, it's legal to use lethal force to defend yourself. However, like the Law of Moses, it doesn't speak to it's morality or how such an action should be viewed in light of Christ's teachings.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for instruction in righteousness. Last time I checked the OT was still scripture. Self defense is a basic human right. Interesting that a "Libertarian" does not see this.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Actually, I'll have to differ with you here. The context of the verse was addressing men that were not working and expecting the church to continue giving them and their families handouts. Paul's point is that these able bodied men must provide for their families and their necessities (food, clothing, etc.). This doesn't speak at all about self defense or the use of lethal force.

I don't believe I said it was explicitly stated. However, it is implicit. The man is the guardian of the home, the provider. What good is providential care when there is no defense of that care? You can stand and pray while someone destroys your home or does unimaginable things to your family. That is your prerogative. Mine is to defend my family and as I see it it is part of providing for my family - my responsibility as a man.

Also I see where Cornelius was commanded to depart the army right before Peter baptized him... NOT!
Gotta run...

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pliny

Oh yeah... That's why Peter had a sword because it was just a story. Two swords is enough for self defense. You will not start a war with them but you will be able to defend yourself. Yeah... Jesus was just telling them a parable about swords and violent persecution... Give me a break. Next you will tell us Jesus told Peter to throw his sword away instead of sheathing it for now. I guess they were letter openers right? Give me a break.

It should also be noted that swords were typically carried by travelers not only to defend from robbers, but to defend from wild beasts. And Christ's statement does imply the element of the disciples being sent forth to spread the Gospel...

Luke 22:35-36 (ESV)
35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

So... according to you, Christians aren't to use lethal force to defend themselves from persecution. However, the context is being sent to spread the Word of God. On their last missionary trip... they were sent without moneybag or knapsack, sandals or sword. Jesus then asks if they lacked anything. And they said, no. However, Jesus is now saying, their next trip will not be so comfortable. Now, they should consider taking money and food for travel. And anyone with a cloak should consider buying a sword. So... why would the disciples be admonished to take swords on a missionary journey; especially when we aren't supposed to spread the Gospel with the Bible in one hand and a sword in the other??? A sword is valuable for a traveler. Agan, a traveler could use the sword to defend from a robber or attack... but we never see a born again believer doing this. Instead... born again believers never harm anyone. Most likely the advice to buy a sword was to protect from beasts while traveling.

He was the father of the faithful. So you are saying he did not trust God? Bologna. My Bible tells me all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for instruction in righteousness. Last time I checked the OT was still scripture.

Yes, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God adn is profitable for instruction in righteousness. However, I can't demand that you not eat ham because the Law lists it as unclean. Why? Different covenantal dispensation. Abraham was Father of the Faithful. And yes, his "FAITH" illustrates the kind of faith we are to have. However, in Abraham's covenantal dispensation, his "position" was a "patriarch". Much like a tribal chief. That required the use of force and allowed for him to wage war. While we can take a lesson from Abraham's faith... not every one of his actions are agreeable with the New Covenant.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for instruction in righteousness. Last time I checked the OT was still scripture. Self defense is a basic human right. Interesting that a "Libertarian" does not see this.

Oh, I do see this. I wouldn't criminalize gun owners or prosecute someone for murder if they were just defending themselves. There is a difference between "LAW" and living for Jesus. You see... the law allows anyone to own a gun and allows them to defend themselves with it. I support that. The law should be like that. However... Christ calls us to a higher ethic than both the OT law or the 2nd Amendment. I'd not abolish the Second Amendment. I'd not make it illegal to protect yourself. But... I'd admonish the Christian to obey Christ. Turn the other cheek. Do not render evil for evil. An eye for an eye only leaves both parties blind. Do not resist violently. Trust God.

I don't believe I said it was explicitly stated. However, it is implicit. The man is the guardian of the home, the provider. What good is providential care when there is no defense of that care? You can stand and pray while someone destroys your home or does unimaginable things to your family. That is your prerogative. Mine is to defend my family and as I see it it is part of providing for my family - my responsibility as a man.

Don't you trust God to protect your family? And should God allow you to face such a dark hour... don't you think God has a purpose???

Can you give me ONE example from Scripture showing a born again believer using lethal force for self defense???

Also I see where Cornelius was commanded to depart the army right before Peter baptized him... NOT!
Gotta run...

No... soldiers who became Christians were not asked to depart from the army. However, history shows that Christian soldiers in the Roman army refused to shed blood. Thus they disobeyed only orders that conflicted with the Christian ethic. And for this reason, disobeying the emperor was considered treason. When they refused to kill... they were tried for treason and executed.

Please understand... "defense of self and family" need not be lethal force. There are ways to defend one's self and/or family that do not include lethal force. So I don't advocate standing by and just watching someone harm your family.

Some non-lethal options might include the following...

*divine intervention - Depending on God to deliver miraculously.
*escape - Fleeing from the source of danger.
*ruse - Out smarting or using trickery to escape or to be released without injury.
*nonlethal force - Using non-lethal physical force to subdue an attacker to prevent injury to others including the attacker themselves.
*moral disarming - Speaking to the attacker with an appeal to conscience securing safety and release.
*martyrdom - Dying with the word of Jesus on your lips without inflicting injury or harm to the attacker.