Guns: An Important Discussion

[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.