Christians and guns

warrior of Christ 94 · May 19, 2015

What would Jesus do? Kicking over tables and beating people with a whip is not out of the question. John 2:15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
God has four characteristics shown in the Bible. He is a healer, a teacher, a worker of miracles and he is a warrior.
Exodus 15:3 The Lord is a man of war;the Lord is his name.
If we truly are to conform ourselves to Jesus, we too must develop his warrior spirit.

Avniel · May 19, 2015

TheDag said:
Once again you provide a whole heap of examples that are not self defence. When a bloke walked into my step son because he wasn't looking where he was going and then started yelling at my son you bet I had him pinned up against the wall quick smart and temporarily cut off his air supply. That was not self defence however. That was defending my family. I noticed earlier you said I had been taught that God is anti-violence. Not sure if I have been taught that but it is not a view I subscribe to. I never claimed that. Many of your responses have been along the lines of proving violence is justified on some occasions. I have never disputed that.

You don't have to go with common understanding but you do need to justify your view. If two swords is enough in a situation when Jesus was going to be arrested and they were meant to be used at that time then Jesus would not have told him to stop. So if we accept that passage as meaning need the swords now then we have to conclude they were supposed to be used and supposed to fight. Yet that doesn't fit in with God's will in the situation. So we can safely conclude the passage did not mean to have them for the arrest of Jesus.
So that leaves the possibility that they were meant to have them for later (assuming it was meant to be taken literally). Well the issue with that is that it tells us that two swords is enough. How does two swords get divided by twelve disciples? (Judas was replaced hence the figure of twelve not eleven) The sum just does not work unless it means they were all supposed to stay together in the same place. Also since we know Jesus and the disciples had no lace to call home and they travelled a lot then they would have had their possesions with them. So amongst their possesions there were two swords instead of one each? Doesn't make sense. Jesus says "If you don't have a sword sell your cloak and buy one". Yet you say the journey was dangerous and so they had swords to defend themselves. Yet they went out before separately and still only had the two swords between them? These dangers existed on that trip as well didn't it? The danger of being mugged. Yet only two swords were there. It just doesn't add up unless one makes assumptions and stretches things too far.

So what exactly are you disputing my entire point is that God isn't anti violence.

What we do know is he told them to carry a sword and one was used. When Jesus corrected him it was because he approached an officer like a common criminal. What did the person arresting Christ have to do with that? He was simply doing his job as he had been ordered to.

You can't pretend there were no swords

TheDag · May 20, 2015

Avniel said:
So what exactly are you disputing my entire point is that God isn't anti violence.

What we do know is he told them to carry a sword and one was used. When Jesus corrected him it was because he approached an officer like a common criminal. What did the person arresting Christ have to do with that? He was simply doing his job as he had been ordered to.

You can't pretend there were no swords

Your the one who mentioned self defence. Sorry if you want to change it to something different. If you used the wrong words thats fine just say so. I simply asked you to justify the evidence for self defence and all the passages you have produced are not examples of self defence and an argument from silence which is what you have said proves it is not legitimate. I noticed that you once again managed to refer to the Luke passage without addressing my points.

TheDag · May 20, 2015

warrior of Christ 94 said:
What would Jesus do? Kicking over tables and beating people with a whip is not out of the question. John 2:15 And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables.
God has four characteristics shown in the Bible. He is a healer, a teacher, a worker of miracles and he is a warrior.
Exodus 15:3 The Lord is a man of war;the Lord is his name.
If we truly are to conform ourselves to Jesus, we too must develop his warrior spirit.

John 2 is another example that is not self defence. Just in case anyone was thinking of using it to justify self defence.

warrior of Christ 94 · May 20, 2015

It was self-defense, Jesus was protecting the temple and religion from the defilement the money changers were engaging in.

Avniel · May 20, 2015

TheDag said:
Your the one who mentioned self defence. Sorry if you want to change it to something different. If you used the wrong words thats fine just say so. I simply asked you to justify the evidence for self defence and all the passages you have produced are not examples of self defence and an argument from silence which is what you have said proves it is not legitimate. I noticed that you once again managed to refer to the Luke passage without addressing my points.

What are you even talking about?

Self defence isn't swinging a sword at an arresting officer that is not defending oneself. My entire point was 1) Jesus told them to carry a sword 2) they had swords 3) the swords were swung 4) it was said they can't treat them like robbers swing swords at them.

What point.....

If you want to lie and manipulate my words to mean something to justify what you're saying then by all means.

If this conversation is about you winning some sort of popularity contest and using immoral means to win an argument I won't do that. If you want to have a conversation I'm more than happy.

Aldebaran · May 20, 2015

TheDag said:
Actually it is not unusual for people who break into homes to not be set on violence. But all of what you have said does not counter my point and does not support South Bound's views that it is God's will. One surely must take time to find out what God's will is. To declare that one automatically knows God's will in any given situation! You simply can not assume it is God's will for that person to die and that you are God's chosen instrument to do it. We see plenty of stories in the bible of people ignoring God's will yet God did not force his way on them. Sure perhaps later those people did God's will but that was after not immeadiate.

I understand that there are people who are completely against the idea of killing someone in self defense. For them, there are alternatives, although they might not be as effective. You can use a large can of pepper spray or a taser where legal. Even a baseball bat or club could work. Just hope the person breaking in doesn't have a gun.

TheDag · May 25, 2015

Avniel said:
What are you even talking about?

Self defence isn't swinging a sword at an arresting officer that is not defending oneself. My entire point was 1) Jesus told them to carry a sword 2) they had swords 3) the swords were swung 4) it was said they can't treat them like robbers swing swords at them.

What point.....

If you want to lie and manipulate my words to mean something to justify what you're saying then by all means.

If this conversation is about you winning some sort of popularity contest and using immoral means to win an argument I won't do that. If you want to have a conversation I'm more than happy.

It is rather simple. You said the bible justifies self defence. I asked you to provide evidence and you have not.
I have provided an alternative understanding of what was meant by the instruction to carry swords which also fits in with other passages where it mentions swords but clearly is not talking about a literal sword. It is also a common understanding. Yet you keep saying it over and over again as if that magically makes a difference. You have not justified your original statement is all I'm saying. That is all I have ever asked yet you seem to be getting upset at me asking for you to provide evidence you claim exists and that you have already looked at in the past. I'm really not sure what is so difficult about it.

TheDag · May 25, 2015

Aldebaran said:
I understand that there are people who are completely against the idea of killing someone in self defense. For them, there are alternatives, although they might not be as effective. You can use a large can of pepper spray or a taser where legal. Even a baseball bat or club could work. Just hope the person breaking in doesn't have a gun.

This in no way addresses what I said. Was it supposed to or are you just adding something extra on? Just trying to get correct understanding of what you mean.

Aldebaran · May 25, 2015

TheDag said:
This in no way addresses what I said. Was it supposed to or are you just adding something extra on? Just trying to get correct understanding of what you mean.

I thought the idea of using a gun in self defense might be seen as wrong because it involves killing someone. I thought maybe those who have an issue with that would be more willing to defend themselves with something that would not kill, but could still defend. Maybe I'm not understanding what the real issue being discussed is. Feel free to clarify if I'm not clear on it.

TheDag · May 26, 2015

Aldebaran said:
I thought the idea of using a gun in self defense might be seen as wrong because it involves killing someone. I thought maybe those who have an issue with that would be more willing to defend themselves with something that would not kill, but could still defend. Maybe I'm not understanding what the real issue being discussed is. Feel free to clarify if I'm not clear on it.

Certainly some do use the argument that killing is wrong but that is not an argument that I am making. Thanks for clarifying.
All I have asked for is for people to justify their claims that scripture supports self defence. There are certainly passages about defending others.
Some here have claimed that they are carrying out God's will by shooting intruders yet have produced no evidence that they know God's will on the matter or have sought his will.

Aldebaran · May 26, 2015

TheDag said:
Certainly some do use the argument that killing is wrong but that is not an argument that I am making. Thanks for clarifying.
All I have asked for is for people to justify their claims that scripture supports self defence. There are certainly passages about defending others.
Some here have claimed that they are carrying out God's will by shooting intruders yet have produced no evidence that they know God's will on the matter or have sought his will.

It seems to be a given that a person is allowed to defend themselves, and even possessions. Here's what Matthew 12:29 says. It's a quote from Jesus:

"Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house."

It sounds here like he's showing it to be obvious that if your house is being broken into, you'll do what you can to stop the intruder from stealing from you. Would you do any less if the intruder was trying to personally harm you?

Another way of looking at it is whether or not people should go to the doctor, or take medicines when they're sick. We could ask ourselves how it is our place to alter our condition if God has put us in such a position of being sick. Maybe he wants us to stay sick and even die. If it's our time, is it our place to change it?

TheDag · May 27, 2015

Aldebaran said:
It seems to be a given that a person is allowed to defend themselves, and even possessions. Here's what Matthew 12:29 says. It's a quote from Jesus:

"Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house."

It sounds here like he's showing it to be obvious that if your house is being broken into, you'll do what you can to stop the intruder from stealing from you. Would you do any less if the intruder was trying to personally harm you?

However with that passage it still is not real clear. It really is reading more into it than is there. When read in context it really is not talking about self defence at all to be honest.

Aldebaran said:
Another way of looking at it is whether or not people should go to the doctor, or take medicines when they're sick. We could ask ourselves how it is our place to alter our condition if God has put us in such a position of being sick. Maybe he wants us to stay sick and even die. If it's our time, is it our place to change it?

Yep.

seekingsolace · May 27, 2015

Aldebaran said:
It seems to be a given that a person is allowed to defend themselves, and even possessions. Here's what Matthew 12:29 says. It's a quote from Jesus:

"Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house."

It sounds here like he's showing it to be obvious that if your house is being broken into, you'll do what you can to stop the intruder from stealing from you. Would you do any less if the intruder was trying to personally harm you?

You should be very careful not to take verses out of context.

Aldebaran · May 27, 2015

seekingsolace said:
You should be very careful not to take verses out of context.

Point out what I said wrong and then we can discuss it.

CharlesC · May 30, 2015

If we live by the sword we will die by the sword. In other words, Jesus was not for violence.

Aldebaran · May 31, 2015

CharlesC said:
If we live by the sword we will die by the sword. In other words, Jesus was not for violence.

Living by the sword, and simply using one to defend yourself as needed are two different things. Otherwise, anyone who is a cop or soldier, or even an ordinary citizen who is alive today because they used a sword or gun to defend themselves must die by the sword as a result. If that’s the case, the criminal element of society would have a field day.

CharlesC · May 31, 2015

Well, a soldier is doing something honorable for his country. God honors those in service of their country. I truly believe Jesus was a pacifist. He tells us it is no longer eye for an eye, that if someone takes your tunic also give him your cloak, don't resists the evil person, do not turn away the person whom wants to borrow from you. So if someone robs you, from Jesus perspective, we should not take vengence. I think that is difficult for many people to understand. So if following the Bible, If someone stills my scooter, I amuppose to say, I guess they needed it more than I. That would be obeying the Bible. But people today, file a police report, have the guy arrested, thrown in jail.

CharlesC · May 31, 2015

We are to model Jesus. So say, someone stole my scooter... I would file a police report still. Why? Well I still want the person caught for stealing? I would go to court, after the guy is caught, to ask the judge to go easy on the criminal. Maybe suggest probation and make the guy tell me why he stole my scooter. Share my testamony with the thief in order to save him. But would not use a weapon to shoot the criminal, if he wanted something of mine. Everything is replaceable. Guns to get in the wrong hands and children often get killed because of it. I am not saying, a riffle for hunting is wrong. What I am saying, is having a hand gun for survival is wrong. It indicates that one thinks more of this life than a life with Jesus. If that criminal breaks into my house, I am packing for him. Peter struck a guard with a sword to protect Jesus. Jesus was not pleased with that for a reason.

Aldebaran · May 31, 2015

CharlesC said:
Well, a soldier is doing something honorable for his country. God honors those in service of their country. I truly believe Jesus was a pacifist. He tells us it is no longer eye for an eye, that if someone takes your tunic also give him your cloak, don't resists the evil person, do not turn away the person whom wants to borrow from you. So if someone robs you, from Jesus perspective, we should not take vengence. I think that is difficult for many people to understand. So if following the Bible, If someone stills my scooter, I amuppose to say, I guess they needed it more than I. That would be obeying the Bible. But people today, file a police report, have the guy arrested, thrown in jail.

I’ve heard the argument before that a soldier is doing something honorable for his country. But what is he doing that’s honorable? Is he not picking up a gun, and being willing to shoot at people and kill them? How is doing it for a country because someone told you to do it more honorable than doing it because someone is trying to kill you or your family in your own home?

Christians and guns

Active Member

Doing my part each day by being the best me

I don't like titles

I don't like titles

Active Member

Doing my part each day by being the best me

NCC-1701-A

I don't like titles

I don't like titles

NCC-1701-A

I don't like titles

NCC-1701-A

I don't like titles

Bah

NCC-1701-A

Active Member

NCC-1701-A

Active Member

Active Member

NCC-1701-A

Similar threads