Gun control from a Christian perspective

[tremble]

God does not disapprove of those who posses a sword or use it for good reason. A gun would fit into the same category. But, if your guns become an idol, and I know many people who treat them as idols, then God would disapprove...of the idolatry, not the hardware.

Can you explain how you see your "good reasons" as being consistent with what you believe are God's good reasons? Do you have any comparisons which will illustrate this, from both the Bible and current life?

Also, can you give some explanation on what it means for the average Christian gun owner to view their weapon as an idol? What does that mean in every day practical life?

When the Romans came to arrest them by sending a squad of trained and well-armored soldiers, fighting in their home would only result in a pointless death which was not seen by anyone. So, they surrendered to be arrested. After all, arrest is not death. You still have hope.

Now, that kind of death has meaning. Don't even compare it to being beaten, knifed, or shot to death by a semi-literate thug for your iPhone and credit cards.

What does the literacy of the person have to do with our response to the situation? If they are dirty, illiterate, poor, drunk, or using foul language then it's okay to shoot those kind of people?

Can you see how there is a bias at work here which is stopping you from seeing the issues clearly?

 

[tremble]

Thats your opinion, and it might of been Nates. But you can't judge everyone else by opinions. Thats what got the Pharisees into trouble. Whats not ok for you may not be the same for others. Don't let opinion become a law for all others to follow, thats where you have gone.

The problem with the pharisees is that they stopped listening to God. They became hardened and started following their own man-made doctrines for what they felt was the right way to live. They felt they knew better than God, though they gave lip service to him.

I see something similar happening in people's reasons for why they feel it's okay to rely on lethal weapons for their protection.

 

[tremble]

foodforthought

In order to take the pacifist view of Scripture you have to completely ignore large chunks of the OT, and some parts of the NT as well.

Ignoring isn't the same thing as understanding the difference between Old and New. The new testament means that we are living by new values now.

I understand that we are not living under the old covenant, but the God who commanded Joshua to destroy the Canaanites is the same God who indwells every believer today.

This is like saying, "I understand that we are meant to be living by new standards now, but I'm still going to follow the old standards when I feel it's appropriate for me".

It's like saying, "last year my employer allowed three days of paid leave. Even though this year he said that I will only be allowed two, I will still take three because he is the same employer this year as he was last year".

When people rely on this kind of faulty reasoning you know there is a problem.

The same God that will send fire from the mouths of the two witnesses to destroy those who try to kill them is the very same God who died on the cross for our sins.

But it will clearly be God who is doing the killing. Sure, he's doing it through two of his human servants, but they are obviously not taking the decision to kill into their own hands. Anyone can acquire a weapon for the purpose of harming, but not everyone can breathe fire from their mouth.

 

[tremble]

southbound
Somebody else already pointed out that Christ saves, not us, but how does my carrying a gun keep me from evangelizing the unregenerate?

Perhaps it would be a good exercise for you to try answering your own question. Are you able to consider the possibility that using a gun could stop you from accomplishing God's will and if so, what are some of those possibilities?

If you cannot see any possibility, doesn't that suggest to you a problem in your ability to see the issues clearly?

 

[tremble]

RDkirk
He thought it through to its only valid spiritual conclusion: Ultimately, being constantly prepared to kill prevents a Christian from being constantly prepared to save.

This reminds me of a conversation between George Fox (one of the earliest founders of the Quakers) and William Penn (after whom the State of Pennsylvania is named).

Penn carried a sword around with him for protection, but he felt guilty about it because of Jesus' teachings on pacifism. He was unsure whether he should continue carrying the sword or not so he asked his buddy, George, if it was okay for him to continue carrying the sword and George's answer was, "As long as you may".

In other words, George could see that the HS was convicting Penn about his reliance on using a worldly weapon for protection and gave an answer which suggested Penn should listen to the leading of the HS.

 

[food4thought]

food4thought


Ignoring isn't the same thing as understanding the difference between Old and New. The new testament means that we are living by new values now.

We are living in a new covenant with God, yes; but my point is that God is still the same God, and He has led His people to use lethal force against the wicked in the past. Is it not possible that He might do so again?

This is like saying, "I understand that we are meant to be living by new standards now, but I'm still going to follow the old standards when I feel it's appropriate for me".

It's like saying, "last year my employer allowed three days of paid leave. Even though this year he said that I will only be allowed two, I will still take three because he is the same employer this year as he was last year".

When people rely on this kind of faulty reasoning you know there is a problem.

I don't think we are supposed to be living by completely new moral standards... God's standard of what is righteousness (obedience of faith) has not changed one iota, it is only the content of our faith and His provision for sins that is different. I don't think you understand how the NT relates to the OT very well. In the old covenant, God gave Israel a written law that was to govern their lives, their obedience to that law in faith determined their righteousness, their sins were covered by blood sacrifice. In the new covenant, God reveals that He has washed away our failure to keep the law, declaring us righteous by faith in Jesus Christ, and we are given the Holy Spirit to dwell within us. We are now obedient directly to the Spirit of God, not a written code of commandments that could never direct us righteously in every conceivable circumstance (although the Scripture is there to help us know the character of the Spirit, as well as to testify clearly of this salvation)... this is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Those who are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.

Now, considering the commands God gave Joshua in the OT, do you agree that it is conceivable that the very same God might lead some of His children to use lethal force under the new covenant? Or are you one of those people who believe that we are serving a different God?

But it will clearly be God who is doing the killing. Sure, he's doing it through two of his human servants, but they are obviously not taking the decision to kill into their own hands. Anyone can acquire a weapon for the purpose of harming, but not everyone can breathe fire from their mouth.

You are splitting hairs. But what does the passage really say?

Rev 11:5-6 NASB And if anyone wants to harm them, fire flows out of their mouth and devours their enemies; so if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed in this way. (6) These have the power to shut up the sky, so that rain will not fall during the days of their prophesying; and they have power over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every plague, as often as they desire.

First, it only says that fire from their mouths is the means that their adversaries will be killed, it does not say that God is in absolute control of the action, or whether the prophets will determine when the time to do so by the leading of the Spirit. Either interpretation is possible... yet notice the end of verse 6. They can cause plagues "as often as they desire". This indicates that these prophets will have the power to kill via plague at their discretion, which of course will be led by the Spirit.

Understand this please. God is not a doddering old indulgent grandpa smiling over His grandchildren no matter what they do. God hates evil, and will ultimately destroy it from the earth. I have shown you evidence from both the old and new testament that God sometimes chooses to use men as His instruments in using lethal force to quell evil. I am not saying it is always right to use lethal force, but I am saying that it is possible for a Christian to be led by the Holy Spirit in his decision to use lethal force to quell evil men/women.

hope this helps;
Mike

 

[South Bound]

The appearance of the weapon is irrelevant to the point of how Christians should view using weapons to protect themselves.

I think it's very relevant, as it shows that their argument against the 2nd Amendment isn't based on facts or logic, but on emotion and hypocrisy.

 

[dragongunner]

The problem with the pharisees is that they stopped listening to God. They became hardened and started following their own man-made doctrines for what they felt was the right way to live. They felt they knew better than God, though they gave lip service to him.

I see something similar happening in people's reasons for why they feel it's okay to rely on lethal weapons for their protection.

Then don't ever protect yourself, thats is your passive view and your right. I totally diagree. But you will continue to debate because its not good enough that you believe in your view, you seem all must be the same as you. Its obvious that you do not like guns and want gun control. And you feel anyone that has them somehow has turned their back on God "to rely on lethal weapons for their protection." Who made you my Judge? Do you know better than God? Do you know better than God what God wants for me, and how he is leading me? I sure hope not.

Romans 13:4King James Version (KJV)

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

 

[Omena]

In a situation where I personally was being threatend, I wouldn't want to use violence to protect myself, because Jesus said not to do that. However if it were a situation where I had the ability to save another life through violence, I think I probably would, although I would try to do so in a way that didn't result in killing the attacker, if possible.

The way I see it, NOT doing anything to save that person would be just as bad as doing something to hurt the attacker, perhaps even more so because not doing anything could result in an innocent person getting killed or injured.

As far as guns are concerned, I think they give the average person a bit too much power to end a life, and that sort of power can go to the head in a bad way. Most countries don't allow their citizens to carry a concealed firearm, and the ones that do often have higher incidences of gun related violence than the ones that don't (which of course makes sense). I think by removing the right to carry a gun in the U.S., we would probably see LESS violence overall in that country. Of course if such a right were ever to be removed, we might see the onset of another civil war!

 

[South Bound]

In a situation where I personally was being threatend, I wouldn't want to use violence to protect myself, because Jesus said not to do that.

Verse, please.

As far as guns are concerned, I think they give the average person a bit too much power to end a life, and that sort of power can go to the head in a bad way.

I see. So, how has the power to defend myself and my family "gone to my head"?

Most countries don't allow their citizens to carry a concealed firearm

Most countries don't have the Constitution and didn't have Founders who recognized the need for the 2nd Amendment.

and the ones that do often have higher incidences of gun related violence than the ones that don't (which of course makes sense).

Name them.

I think by removing the right to carry a gun in the U.S., we would probably see LESS violence overall in that country. Of course if such a right were ever to be removed, we might see the onset of another civil war!

And you came to this conclusion...how, exactly?

 

[tremble]

First, it only says that fire from their mouths is the means that their adversaries will be killed, it does not say that God is in absolute control of the action, or whether the prophets will determine when the time to do so by the leading of the Spirit.

Fair enough, there is the possibility that they will be able to use the power selfishly if they choose, though I doubt God would give that kind of power to someone who was likely to use it selfishly.

Also, the fact that the method through which the person is killing is so obviously supernatural puts it into a different category than someone who buys a man made weapon for the same purpose.

It's a bit like Jesus telling the pharisees that if they have trouble believing his words then they should at least recognize his authority because of the miraculous things he was able to do.

Now, considering the commands God gave Joshua in the OT, do you agree that it is conceivable that the very same God might lead some of His children to use lethal force under the new covenant? Or are you one of those people who believe that we are serving a different God?

Sometimes, when people want to believe something very badly, they will use old testament examples to justify what they want even if what they want goes against New Testament values. They think this is okay because it all comes from the Bible anyway.

But using one part of the Bible to refute the other isn't a way which is likely to arrive at a reliable conclusion about what God wants.

 

[tremble]

I think it's very relevant, as it shows that their argument against the 2nd Amendment isn't based on facts or logic, but on emotion and hypocrisy.

You are still arguing from a political point of view. Legal documents are only relevant in this topic if you believe legal documents are what will save you.

The question is, how does Jesus feel about relying on weapons to defend ourselves, even if it means killing to do so? Can you respond to that?

 

[RDKirk]

Thats your opinion, and it might of been Nates. But you can't judge everyone else by opinions. Thats what got the Pharisees into trouble. Whats not ok for you may not be the same for others. Don't let opinion become a law for all others to follow, thats where you have gone.

I suspect someone said that same thing when the Corinthians read the second letter to them from Paul.

Sorry, "you can't judge me!" is not scriptural valid. Within the Body of Christ we are certainly called to judge the behavior of those within the Body of Christ.

 

[South Bound]

You are still arguing from a political point of view. Legal documents are only relevant in this topic if you believe legal documents are what will save you.

I'm not talking about salvation. I'm talking about the claims the poster made.

The question is, how does Jesus feel about relying on weapons to defend ourselves, even if it means killing to do so? Can you respond to that?

To clarify, when you say "Jesus", do you mean the same Jesus who destroyed literally every living thing on the planet with the exception of eight human beings and a handful of animals, commanded the death penalty for any one of a number of infractions, instructed the Israelites to attack neighboring tribes and countries and annihilate every living thing, made a whip and beat men for defiling the temple, instructed His followers to go out and buy swords to protect themselves with, ordained the state to carry out capital punishment, and declared that He would return with an army to destroy His enemies? That Jesus?

You are accusing me of wanting gun control. That's an odd accusation to make, isn't it? Are you saying you don't?

Why would I want gun control when, historically, gun control has actually been citizen control, meant to disarm citizens?

You want anyone to be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase any kind of gun available, for any reason at anytime at any price?

Yes.

This is all Old Testament stuff. We are talking about New Testament values.

I see. So, God's values changed between the Old and New Testaments? If it's changed once, who's to say they won't change again?

Wouldn't that be a contradiction of the Biblical doctrine of God's aseity and God's immutability?

Even though this example involved violence, the context here was very different from what we are currently talking about.

So, Jesus approves of violence in some circumstances, but not others?

And yet, when one of them tried to use the sword, he was rebuked for it.

He wasn't rebuked. He was told to put his sword away, not that he shouldn't carry a sword, not that he should never use it.

Obviously there is more to the comment Jesus made than what appears on the surface. Are you willing to consider that?

I've been considering it for twenty-five years. You act as if this is the first time anybody has ever heard your claims.

Verse please.

Romans 13.

God's right to destroy is not in question.

No, it's not. But you have raised the question of God's attitude concerning violence.

It starts to look like you will use any argument you can find to support your case, rather than a person who is carefully examining all the evidence to come to a conclusion which is most likely to be consistent with what God wants from his followers today.

So, it's not possible that I could have thoughtfully, studiously, and prayerfully considered these things and come to a different conclusion?

Isn't that just a wee bit childish and shallow?

 

[tremble]

But you will continue to debate because its not good enough that you believe in your view, you seem all must be the same as you.

Let's keep the focus on Jesus and not on individuals okay?

Its obvious that you do not like guns and want gun control.

You are accusing me of wanting gun control. That's an odd accusation to make, isn't it? Are you saying you don't? You want anyone to be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase any kind of gun available, for any reason at anytime at any price?

And you feel anyone that has them somehow has turned their back on God "to rely on lethal weapons for their protection."

I never said anything like this. I never asked you if you own or use guns. I've not asked you for your background or history with guns or even if you should be allowed to own a gun. I've not told you to sell your guns or to stop using them. I never asked you to participate in this discussion at all. Whether you feel that you have turned your back on God or not is up to you. Pretending that I did may make you feel better about your arguments but it will not contribute anything useful to the discussion.

It is this kind of emotional debating which I feel stops people from being able to genuinely consider that God may tell them not to rely on weapons for their protection.

 

[tremble]

To clarify, when you say "Jesus", do you mean the same Jesus who destroyed literally every living thing on the planet with the exception of eight human beings and a handful of animals, commanded the death penalty for any one of a number of infractions, instructed the Israelites to attack neighboring tribes and countries and annihilate every living thing,

This is all Old Testament stuff. We are talking about New Testament values. Try to be fair in your arguments.

made a whip and beat men for defiling the temple,

Even though this example involved violence, the context here was very different from what we are currently talking about.

instructed His followers to go out and buy swords to protect themselves with,

And yet, when one of them tried to use the sword, he was rebuked for it. Obviously there is more to the comment Jesus made than what appears on the surface. Are you willing to consider that?

ordained the state to carry out capital punishment,

Verse please.

declared that He would return with an army to destroy His enemies?

God's right to destroy is not in question. It starts to look like you will use any argument you can find to support your case, rather than a person who is carefully examining all the evidence to come to a conclusion which is most likely to be consistent with what God wants from his followers today.

 

[food4thought]

Fair enough, there is the possibility that they will be able to use the power selfishly if they choose, though I doubt God would give that kind of power to someone who was likely to use it selfishly.

Also, the fact that the method through which the person is killing is so obviously supernatural puts it into a different category than someone who buys a man made weapon for the same purpose.

It's a bit like Jesus telling the pharisees that if they have trouble believing his words then they should at least recognize his authority because of the miraculous things he was able to do.

I think you sidestepped a very pertinent fact regarding what NT Scripture says about men having the power to use lethal force, in whatever form. God can use someone as an instrument of his judgment via sending fire and plague at their command (in obedience to the desire of the Spirit), and He can also do so by giving someone strength to pull a trigger and leading them to do so by the same Spirit.

And you also haven't really addressed whether you think God's character has changed between the OT and NT.

Sometimes, when people want to believe something very badly, they will use old testament examples to justify what they want even if what they want goes against New Testament values. They think this is okay because it all comes from the Bible anyway.

But using one part of the Bible to refute the other isn't a way which is likely to arrive at a reliable conclusion about what God wants.

And sometimes, when someone believes they know someone intimately, they will ignore glaringly obvious evidence that they don't really know that person as well as they thought they did. Hopefully, in this case, you won't be hurt too badly when your Savior turns out to be more than you currently think He is in your heart.

You are doing exactly what you are implying I am doing... ironic, isn't it? I do not claim that God never calls us to be martyrs, to forgive unconditionally, and turn the other cheek. I am simply saying that God can and certainly does call some of us to be instruments of His righteous judgment... the only real Biblical question is whether this is limited to government authorities or if free citizens may also be called to do this in extraordinary circumstances. You seem to be claiming that a Christian is never going to be led by God to end another person's life in defense of self or others, despite compelling evidence to the contrary from both the NT and the OT.

Place a gun in your hands and transport yourself to Sandyhook last year at the moment the shooting started... what do you think God would have you do? The police will never get there in time, and you know this. Try to stop him in a nonlethal way, and you are likely to only get yourself killed along with the children. How many children could have been saved by one moral and sane person with a gun and the will to use it? I am not trying to use emotion here... this was a real thing that happened, not some "fear the boogeyman" type of emotional appeal. This was a real event that sadly will probably happen again. Use logic. If one of the teachers had been armed, what do you think God would have wanted him/her to do?

 

[RDKirk]

Place a gun in your hands and transport yourself to Sandyhook last year at the moment the shooting started... what do you think God would have you do? The police will never get there in time, and you know this. Try to stop him in a nonlethal way, and you are likely to only get yourself killed along with the children. How many children could have been saved by one moral and sane person with a gun and the will to use it? I am not trying to use emotion here... this was a real thing that happened, not some "fear the boogeyman" type of emotional appeal. This was a real event that sadly will probably happen again. Use logic. If one of the teachers had been armed, what do you think God would have wanted him/her to do?

Having had more than one gun barrel pointed at me, I'd have to say from experience that God had better make me instantly Jason Bourne whether I'm armed or not.

Most people are going to get killed in that situation, unless they have given themselves over to the gun to such a degree that they act instinctively and effectively in an outgunned-and-surprised situation.

I know people like that, but they spend dozens of hours every week training for it.

 

[food4thought]

Having had more than one gun barrel pointed at me, I'd have to say from experience that God had better make me instantly Jason Bourne whether I'm armed or not.

Most people are going to get killed in that situation, unless they have given themselves over to the gun to such a degree that they act instinctively and effectively in an outgunned-and-surprised situation.

I know people like that, but they spend dozens of hours every week training for it.

I disagree. Finding the gunman shouldn't be hard, just follow the sound of gunfire. You would know the school better than him if you were a teacher there, so finding a good spot to shoot from cover shouldn't be that hard. Then it is simply a matter of staying calm, overcoming your understandable fear and desire to not take a life, and shooting straight.

But even if you were right, you ducked the question. The question was "what would God want you to do?". Nothing? Try to tackle him and disarm him like you really are Jason Bourn? Or maybe you fancy yourself a good negotiator and would try to talk him down while he ignores you and continues shooting 2nd graders. Is it not possible, perhaps even probable, that He would want you to at least try to stop him from killing those children using the most likely method to succeed?

 

[Boidae]

Having had more than one gun barrel pointed at me, I'd have to say from experience that God had better make me instantly Jason Bourne whether I'm armed or not.

Most people are going to get killed in that situation, unless they have given themselves over to the gun to such a degree that they act instinctively and effectively in an outgunned-and-surprised situation.

I know people like that, but they spend dozens of hours every week training for it.

I'm not sure if it could be limited to someone who is like Jason Bourne or has given themselves over to the gun.

Hunters also can probably have that type of reaction when it comes to being quick enough to get a shot off. Sometimes, hunters get surprised by the deer they are hunting and have to react quickly, bird hunting is definitely a quick reaction type of shooting, especially when flushing a bird.

I know the above to be true because I have hunted, been around hunters and if you're not quick enough and do not aim true, you go home empty handed.