One does not always need a gun to protect others. During my lifetime I on two different occasions found myself in a position to save woman who were in the process of being violently raped and I did not have a gun.A guy who refused to have a gun to protect his brother with when his brother was attacked.
You therefore know its always going to happen that way. Great.One does not always need a gun to protect others. During my lifetime I on two different occasions found myself in a position to save woman who were in the process of being violently raped and I did not have a gun.
You are right. It is does not always happen that way. But the only way there will be an end to all such things is for God himself to end it by means of divine retribution.”genez” said:You therefore know its always going to happen that way. Great.
You are right. It is does not always happen that way. But the only way there will be an end to all such things is for God himself to end it by means of divine retribution.
Nor is it that I completely disagree with you but we have entered a stage of gun frenzy which makes us all less safe.Again... OK.. that's all fine. But, its not what this thread is about.
Christians owning guns specifically for self defense? (Biblical references, insight?)
What the heck does all you have to say have anything to do with dealing with what we must face with courage in the world until the Lord returns?
Having a gun is not a first resort. Never said it was. Its your back up if all else fails, or your first resort if its a matter of seconds to save yourself from what appears to be threatening your life.
By the looks of your picture you might be around 240 pounds and maybe close to six feet tall. Or, very stocky and strong. What they heck are you doing raising yourself up as the role model for such cases when a 90 pound woman might need some day need to fight off a man of your stature who looks like he wants to do her bodily harm?
Should she pick the guy up bodily? And hurl him to the ground some feet away, knocking the wind out of him?
Stop denying the reality for others... and it looks like you might even be using this as an excuse to brag about your own physical ability to fight.
Guns were created as the equalizer for those too weak to fight off those who wish them harm. And, there will always be someone stronger and meaner that we can not resist, even if we can fight.
Guns are to be a last resort. But they are not to be denied leaving the helpless to become easy prey for those who like the way you reason. They wish everyone would agree with you....
The reason they were in the mess they were in was because God was punishing Israel for not relying on Him.
Think a second here, please. The Lord parted the waters and Israel passed through unharmed. Right? They watched the power of the Lord destroy the powerful Egyptian army that had been pursuing them, Right? They knew the power of God to protect? Without a doubt.
But, what was one of the very first things God commanded of Israel soon after? A draft! The Book of Numbers was about drafting an army that God wanted Israel to form.
Can you still think that just because God performs miracles (to reassure us He is real)? That He will use that same modus operandi for all our conflicts? The Bible does not teach that.
Just ask David why he took five stones for his sling, and why he didn't simply trust God and pray Goliath into death. He trusted God to give him the strength to kill the giant.
So?
Looks like you would give a glass of cold water to a man raping your wife because he became thirsty in the process? You must be consistent if what you claim is truth.
The question is.... "How do you know?"
I am going by the historical context from in which he spoke. As to why he would have been motivated to even say such a thing.
Nor is it that I completely disagree with you but we have entered a stage of gun frenzy which makes us all less safe.
You're still trying to reason around the evidence. Jesus gave a command, 'love you enemies'. He didn't give any conditions or exceptions.
But he did offer some clarification...... Matthew 10:36
"and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ "
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."
Ohhh! I see. "Context?"That's a completely different event and context from Jesus' statement in Mathew 5. However, it doesn't bear on the subject. If a man's enemies are his household then he has to love them too.
Yeah, context. The lack of paying attention to the context of what's being said is one reason there is so so much confusion in Christianity. It's also partly responsible for all of the denominations that exist. Christians are taught to proof text rather than to make an argument from Scripture. In Mathew 5 Jesus was telling His disciples how to conduct themselves. Mathew 5 opens with this.Ohhh! I see. "Context?"
How about the context of Matthew 5? What was it? Why was it said?
Yeah, context. The lack of paying attention to the context of what's being said is one reason there is so so much confusion in Christianity. It's also partly responsible for all of the denominations that exist. Christians are taught to proof text rather than to make an argument from Scripture. In Mathew 5 Jesus was telling His disciples how to conduct themselves. Mathew 5 opens with this.
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
(Matt. 5:1-2 KJV)
In the passage you quoted from Mathew 10 Jesus is telling that He had come to divide.
You are getting squirrelly with me? That is the intro..
What was the context when Jesus said the following:
5 "Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth."
and..the motivating context.. for this segment... (each have their own context)
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away
your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one
mile, go with him two."
Why would he say such things? What was going on historically at that time that would have motivate such instruction in the second segment I showed you?
Obviously you have strong feelings about this subject. Is it that you consider guns a sport and have developed a love for the sport? Or is it that you fear death and that God will not protect you if you do not have a gun to protect yourself and make you feel secure?”genez” said:Its not less safe. Considering the millions who do own hand guns and all we get on the news are a very few people would have been institutionalized years ago before we did away with mental institutions to keep such people off the streets. Now they give them drugs and let them lose. Religious fanatics are walking Kamikaze bombers. That's war.
Millions of Americans own guns. Millions. Only crazies and criminals are being exploited by the media to get us to disarm? Why? One world government power lusters do not like men to have freedom. They want total control.
The United States was founded upon the principle as to what you called "gun frenzy." Today its the only free nation on earth that helps keep others free. Japan during WWll would have invaded the west coast if it were not for so many of her citizens owning guns. Nazi Germany removed the right to own guns to Jews right before the crack down took place.
Its normal and perfectly healthy to be able to arm yourself. Its the liberal media that has been creating extra shifts working overtime in trying to get people to think its a frenzy. They will never tell us about all the lives that have been saved by citizens who were able to protect themselves.
"Then he took his staff in his hand, chose five smooth stones from the stream, put them in the pouch of his shepherd's bag and, with his sling in his hand, approached the Philistine." 1 Sam 17:40
Five stones.. Today David might have used something like a S&W J Frame. Small like David was, when he faced the giant.
Why didn't God have David "pray" Goliath into death? After all, Israel was shown the parting of the Red Sea. They had the faith to know the power of God. God is telling us something. Because our self defense is what angels watch as they must yet fight the degenerate criminally minded fallen angels. The Bible lets us know these things.... For a reason.
Obviously you have strong feelings about this subject. Is it that you consider guns a sport and have developed a love for the sport? Or is it that you fear death and that God will not protect you if you do not have a gun to protect yourself and make you feel secure?
Exodus 22:2 If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed
We have a biblical right to defend ourselves and our loved ones. We are commanded to not murder, but saving lives by taking another who would kill an innocent is not murder.
You got confused with Law meaning it never makes sense to impliment. For Paul said...I think you’re on dodgy ground if you take an OT law, law as in part of the legal framework of a society, as a guide for personal behaviour now. There are specific OT laws that are no longer applicable in the same form now as then, so how do you choose which to take as literal, current, personal law? Jesus, as he said, could have annihilated his enemies at any time, he chose not to. He told us not to resist an evil person. Hard teachings indeed
The laws that are no longer applicable are those we can not do in the conditions we are in. Since defending oneself when your life is threatened is not ceremonial or ritualistic but simply a matter of life and death, I fail to see your logic fitting into any aspect of my points. The question is, is it sin if I take the life of a man who breaks into my house and is raping my daughter? The answer is no... and if you prefer to sit there and watch it happen, you have that right. I won't... I will shoot him dead and deal with it later.I think you’re on dodgy ground if you take an OT law, law as in part of the legal framework of a society, as a guide for personal behaviour now. There are specific OT laws that are no longer applicable in the same form now as then, so how do you choose which to take as literal, current, personal law? Jesus, as he said, could have annihilated his enemies at any time, he chose not to. He told us not to resist an evil person. Hard teachings indeed
The sense of the law we are not under is the guilty verdict, not individual commandments that deal only with our behavior. There is no Temple so Levitical laws are a moot point anyway (though God does call that priestly order everlasting) but what we can do we probably should do. That which stood against us was the verdict that said "death!" That is what Yeshua overcame.... not "do not steal."You got confused with Law meaning it never makes sense to impliment. For Paul said...
ALL Scripture is God breathed and to still have a purpose.... Not, just some of it. All..
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting
and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly
equipped for every good work." 2 Tim 3:16-17
The sense of the Law we are not to be under is to follow the rituals and Levitical authority. As in... we are no longer to execute anyone for homosexual activity. But, God's attitude that was expressed about it has not changed, and is to be pointed to when someone claims is perfectly OK.
You got to keep a balance. If not? Then murder would no longer hated and condemned by God.