Do you think it's Christian to own guns?

malvina

Newbie
Aug 22, 2014
490
111
89
South Australia
✟8,706.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
You haven't asked enough people.
OR the Lord... Did you - when you became a Christian - mentally give up EVERYTHING that meant most to you - up to HIM? or did you become a Christian thinking you could keep some things to yourself? Otherwise you have not surrendered your life to Him at all
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,281
20,276
US
✟1,475,804.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
OR the Lord... Did you - when you became a Christian - mentally give up EVERYTHING that meant most to you - up to HIM? or did you become a Christian thinking you could keep some things to yourself? Otherwise you have not surrendered your life to Him at all

The flesh always has its desires. I discover over and over old things I still cling to and new things I've started clinging to.

Here is a long story:

Back in late March 1986...no, actually it began earlier, in 1979 while I was stationed at Offutt AFB, NE, my first wife left me and our then 9-month-old son Daniel for another man. In the first three years of being a single parent with him, I pleaded with her to return: Letters every day, pictures of our growing son, and praying constantly for the Lord to change her heart and bring her back to us. But that didn't work. In that time, she had left the state, hooked up with yet another guy, and moved to yet another state. After three years I finally filed for divorce...and I still had a hope that when she was served the paperwork, it would stir something in her to come back and maybe I'd have another chance if we met face-to-face.

But she didn't come back for the divorce hearing. It happened that the Sarpy County district judge that handled divorces--Judge Ronald Reagan--was personally opposed to fathers having custody of children. He almost never allowed that to happen in his court. Even in my case, as I sat there before him he told me, "The only reason I'm allowing you to have custody is because his mother is out of the state and I can't order her to take custody. But if she ever returns and wants it, I will give it to her."

So I had that hanging over my head. About a year later, I met the woman who would become my current wife. We married in 1984. Around the same time, my ex-wife did return to the state, and although she never bothered to ask for custody, I quickly granted her the visitation she wanted--desperate not to wind up in Judge Reagan's court over the matter.

Then I received orders to Clark AB, Philippines, in late 1986. My ex-wife decided that since I was proposing to take the boy away for three years, she asked for holiday and summer visitation. Again, I granted it because I feared facing Judge Reagan.

So in early January 1986, I flew from Clark AB to Omaha to pick up my son from his Christmas visitation with his mother...and I was met with an injunction. She had decided to sue for custody, citing that the Philippines was too dangerous for children and my son was afraid to return with me.

"The thing I greatly feared had come upon me." There was nothing I could do at that point but return alone.

Over the next three months, I was engaged with my lawyer building up a case to win the custody battle. I built up a file of depositions from all the base officials, from the command staff to the hospital staff to the American school staff, the commissary, the health and saftey unit, the moral and recreation staff, the American Consulate...I had a dossier of depositions and photographs literally eight inches thick. I had spent thousands of dollars on legal fees, tapped our meager savings completely. And I prayed, prayed, prayed to keep my son.

Then I returned to Omaha in late March 1986, getting there on a Friday afternoon for the hearing that next Monday. My lawyer had two items of bad news. One, he had had a conversation with the judge and determined that the judge's attitude about not granting custody to fathers hadn't changed. He'd also discovered that the mother had hired a psychologist to examine our son and give expert testimony on whether it would be advisable for him to return to the Philippines with me.

My lawyer had contacted the psychologist and gotten him to at least interview me to get a "well rounded" evaluation. The psychologist had agreed...if I paid him a thousand dollars. I couldn't. I was tapped out. I had no money left. So we left that at that.

I spent that Saturday and into Sunday in desperate prayer. I had done all the work, we had the plan. I just needed God to do His part...change the heart of the judge.

On Sunday morning I left my motel room to get a quick breakfast. At the front of the motel was a newspaper dispenser with that Sunday morning's Omaha World-Herald. The main headline read in 1-inch letters:

FIGHTING IN THE PHILIPPINES!

It even had a large picture of Filipinos scuffling with the guards at the main gate of Clark Air Base.

I got back to my room and fell to my knees: "God, what are you doing? Seriously? Seriously?" I prayed and prayed and prayed. "Let me keep my son!"

Then I heard a voice, an audible male voice, hard and clear but low, from just behind my right hear: "God didn't do what you wanted before, and He's not going to do what you want now."

I was literally knocked completely to the floor by the truth of that voice. God did not change my first wife's heart before, despite years of prayer. And he was not going to change Judge Reagan's heart either. I was enveloped in darkness. I was too heavy to stand up. I was done. I was lost. I was defeated.

I called my wife long distance back in the Philippines and found out from her that it was a strike of the Filipino workers that had begun before I left that had turned into a barricade and a scuffle at the gates, but on base they were okay. I told her about the voice I heard. She said this: "That was the voice of a demon. Don't listen to it. God loves Daniel more than you do. Let go of him and give him to God."

I knew she was right. I got back on my knees and prayed a different prayer: "Lord, I give my son to you. Like Abraham gave up Isaac, I give Daniel to you. And whatever you do, I will continue to praise your name."

In that moment, the room stirred. The motel room had been dark, but suddenly bright light seemed to blast through the windows and through the ceiling. It was like a scene in a movie where someone had been held hostage by terrorists and then suddenly the SWAT team burst into the room. The light whipped around the darkness and flushed it from the room.

I found myself standing. Then I heard another voice behind my right ear, a different voice. It said: "That's what we were waiting to hear."

I said aloud, "What now?"

The same voice said: "Be there...and watch."

I rejoiced the rest of the day, and into the night, and woke up rejoicing that Monday morning, all the way to the Sarpy County Courthouse. I entered the courtroom and my lawyer as well as my "adversaries" were already there--my lawyer had our 8-inch-thick dossier. My ex-wife was there with her lawyer and with the psychologist...and the Sunday Omaha-World Herald.

The judge arrived and the bailiff made his "all rise" announcement. Judge Reagan walked in, but he didn't sit down. He said, "I want to see counsel in my chambers." He pointed to my ex-wife's lawyer and said, "You bring your brief." Then the three of them left the courtroom.

About fifteen minutes later, the two lawyers returned. My lawyer looked at me and said, "We won."

I said, "You didn't even have our paperwork. What happened?"

Late that previous Friday evening, the Nebraska State Supreme Court had handed down a ruling on a custody case legally similar to mine. The Supreme Court had ruled that district court judges could not change long-standing custody simply as a matter of a difference in parental circumstances unless the custodial parent could be shown unfit.

The lawyers hadn't seen the case yet, but Judge Reagan had. Since my ex-wife had no case of my being unfit, despite Judge Reagan's feelings about the matter, his hands were tied.

I took Daniel back with me.

I've obviously thought about those days often since then and pondered all their various aspects. One thing of note was that the crucial State Supreme Court case has initially gone to court even before I was served that injunction. God had, in fact, the entire matter in hand even before it first confronted me. I could have given Daniel to Him from the very beginning.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,746
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,467.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
OR the Lord... Did you - when you became a Christian - mentally give up EVERYTHING that meant most to you - up to HIM? or did you become a Christian thinking you could keep some things to yourself? Otherwise you have not surrendered your life to Him at all

I think the idea that we have to "give up everything" when we become a Christian is what turns so many off. I'm glad you used the word "mentally" when you made mention of it. Yes, if we believe God actually wants us to give up something altogether, then we should. But here's the thing: We shouldn't believe that the Lord has told all of us to give up certain things. If a person who is a Christian owns a gun, who's to say that the person can't be a Christian because of it? Is there anything else a Christian isn't allowed to own?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,746
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,467.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
San Bernardino shooting: multiple dead after gun rampage

Yeah, but it was just a couple people who just happened to be Muslims doing what ISIS tells faithful Muslims to do. In reality, it's simply "workplace violence", because Obama will say that's what it is. No doubt it was caused by global climate change. Oh yeah, and it's also a reason to get back on his soapbox about how we as Americans need to have our gun rights restricted. But wait! California already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and so does Chicago! Oh yes, Paris isn't exactly gun-friendly either. Oh well. At least Obummer will be able to put another crisis to use.

The fact that they keep referring to the Christmas party that this shooting occurred at as a "holiday party", along with the fact that Islamic extremism is still never mentioned just has this story dripping with political correctness.
 
Upvote 0

malvina

Newbie
Aug 22, 2014
490
111
89
South Australia
✟8,706.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
I think the idea that we have to "give up everything" when we become a Christian is what turns so many off. I'm glad you used the word "mentally" when you made mention of it. Yes, if we believe God actually wants us to give up something altogether, then we should. But here's the thing: We shouldn't believe that the Lord has told all of us to give up certain things. If a person who is a Christian owns a gun, who's to say that the person can't be a Christian because of it? Is there anything else a Christian isn't allowed to own?

This is funny!
"I think the idea that we have to "give up everything" when we become a Christian is what turns so many off. I'm glad you used the word "mentally" when you made mention of it"

Yes it DOES put a lot of people off! that's exactly why we get our unbelievers, atheists, etc etc..
So you think God should change the goal posts to Accept Him as our Saviour?
God doesn't want part of us = He wants THE LOT otherwise we stay wherever we are . We are no use to Him at all if we keep part to ourselves we would be working with our HEADS then and not our hearts.
Some 'think' they have surrendered all to Jesus but they haven't When we first come to Him we can be unaware we are holding onto something He will reveal it to us either direct or through another Christian. We become like an ONION with Him peeling off one layer at a time - that is with true surrender. He will give us back things far greater than what the world will have. He will also use all of our life's experiences good and bad for His work.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,746
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,467.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
This is funny!
"I think the idea that we have to "give up everything" when we become a Christian is what turns so many off. I'm glad you used the word "mentally" when you made mention of it"

Yes it DOES put a lot of people off! that's exactly why we get our unbelievers, atheists, etc etc..
So you think God should change the goal posts to Accept Him as our Saviour?
God doesn't want part of us = He wants THE LOT otherwise we stay wherever we are . We are no use to Him at all if we keep part to ourselves we would be working with our HEADS then and not our hearts.

Some 'think' they have surrendered all to Jesus but they haven't When we first come to Him we can be unaware we are holding onto something He will reveal it to us either direct or through another Christian. We become like an ONION with Him peeling off one layer at a time - that is with true surrender. He will give us back things far greater than what the world will have. He will also use all of our life's experiences good and bad for His work.

To be clear, I wasn't talking about holding onto sin and things like that. I was referring to everything else. Yes, some things we may be asked of Him to give up. Most things we aren't. It all depends on the person. If a person is an alcoholic, then God will probably want them to give up drinking. If a person just drinks a glass of wine with a meal once a week when they come to Christ, then it's obviously not a vice that God would tell them they need to give up. At the same time, a person with a mindset of criminal activity as a lifestyle may see their guns as a means to getting what they want from others. But a person who is a gun owner for purposes of defense, hunting, target shooting or collecting probably wouldn't be asked of God to give them up when they come to Christ unless they were some sort of idol to that person, which could be manifested by buying so many of them that they aren't able to afford their basic needs.

The reason I bring all this up is because we were discussing how we're supposedly to give up everything when we come to Christ. I've heard of cult leaders using that idea to abusive ends. That's why it's important to understand it.
 
Upvote 0

farout

Standing firm for Christ
Nov 23, 2015
1,813
854
Mid West of the good USA
✟14,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think that the second amendment was not wrote for personal use, but to help the defense of republic. In fact, since the glorious revolution(1688), and after with the American constitution's redaction (1787), legislators saw that the supreme manner to equilibrate legislative and executive powers is to permit carrying of arms for all the people. So, if Christians are submitted to the law, according to Rom.13, for example, they can carry owns arms...


But, what you think is not what counts. The way the law is written says differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

farout

Standing firm for Christ
Nov 23, 2015
1,813
854
Mid West of the good USA
✟14,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What "fees"?


Great question! Fees? It must be what the call it where she lives. I for one will be prepared to defend our rights to gun ownership. I don't understand how people relate being a Christian to hot owning a gun.....it beats me!
 
Upvote 0

ARBITER01

Legend
Aug 12, 2007
13,372
1,699
✟163,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Great question! Fees? It must be what the call it where she lives. I for one will be prepared to defend our rights to gun ownership. I don't understand how people relate being a Christian to hot owning a gun.....it beats me!

It's simply a personal opinion from those who are afraid of guns. That's all it comes down to, they have been conditioned to be scared of them. Jesus is not going to kick us out of the book of life for owning one and using it when we need to.

Our constitution in the Unites States is a very unique document that no other country has. It encapsulates our natural born rights given unto us from GOD when we were born into our country. It was written to unbeliever and believer alike to ensure our rights were enshrined for all posterity.

There are people from other countries who will never know that sort of freedom and liberty. I'm not about to allow personal opinions from people outside of our country to sway me away from the leading of The Holy Spirit. We each have our salvation race to run, and it's not up for discussion with those who would persuade you to their teachings instead of The Holy Spirit's.

People who put all of their efforts and time towards nib-nosing into other peoples ways of life and business are no more spiritual than anyone else, in fact, they are worse off. Those who are maturing in The Lord already know that "those who are led by The Holy Spirit are sons of GOD." They have moved beyond being children and babes in Christ anymore.

Jesus said: "be not deceived." It would do us all good, as born again Christians, to ensure that we are seeking out The Holy Spirit's leading in our life instead of giving any amount of weight to those that would guilt you into observing their personal opinions and teachings instead.

Be led by The Spirit, not mankind.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

malvina

Newbie
Aug 22, 2014
490
111
89
South Australia
✟8,706.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
To be clear, I wasn't talking about holding onto sin and things like that. I was referring to everything else. Yes, some things we may be asked of Him to give up. Most things we aren't. It all depends on the person. If a person is an alcoholic, then God will probably want them to give up drinking. If a person just drinks a glass of wine with a meal once a week when they come to Christ, then it's obviously not a vice that God would tell them they need to give up. At the same time, a person with a mindset of criminal activity as a lifestyle may see their guns as a means to getting what they want from others. But a person who is a gun owner for purposes of defense, hunting, target shooting or collecting probably wouldn't be asked of God to give them up when they come to Christ unless they were some sort of idol to that person, which could be manifested by buying so many of them that they aren't able to afford their basic needs.

The reason I bring all this up is because we were discussing how we're supposedly to give up everything when we come to Christ. I've heard of cult leaders using that idea to abusive ends. That's why it's important to understand it.
I am not talking about holding onto SINS! surely you must understand that when we come to the Lord we give our ALL to Him! - that is all the bad and all the GOOD for Him to use as He pleases. Everything that means most to us we hand over to Him, then He gives back to us whatever He thinks will benefit us most.
He knows us well, and knows what we have idolised - He wants to have it we can't hide it from Him. If we are not ready to hand Him everything then we have not surrendered ourselves it's simply been a head thing. Sometimes He gives us back what we have loved most perfected but this depends on whether it will affect our walk with Him
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,746
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,467.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I'm sorry but you can't twist scripture to suit yourself He wants our ALL not just what suits us

Ok, so what do you have left in your life if you've given up everything? You didn't even answer what I said before.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,746
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,467.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I am not talking about holding onto SINS! surely you must understand that when we come to the Lord we give our ALL to Him! - that is all the bad and all the GOOD for Him to use as He pleases. Everything that means most to us we hand over to Him, then He gives back to us whatever He thinks will benefit us most.
He knows us well, and knows what we have idolised - He wants to have it we can't hide it from Him. If we are not ready to hand Him everything then we have not surrendered ourselves it's simply been a head thing. Sometimes He gives us back what we have loved most perfected but this depends on whether it will affect our walk with Him

We have no disagreement here. But what I do disagree with is when people come here to say that if we are gun owners, then we haven't given up our guns for Christ. I see no connection, unless people automatically assume guns=evil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

malvina

Newbie
Aug 22, 2014
490
111
89
South Australia
✟8,706.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Labor
g4 second amendment.jpg

1. “The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, thus gun control measures are unconstitutional.”

Those who make this argument are misinformed as to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and have either been tricked by the modern gun lobby’s marketing or are actively perverting its meaning.

First, here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Gun enthusiasts and gun lobbyists love to cite the 2nd amendment to the constitution as the catch-all defense to their right to carry any weapon that they can get their hands on (ex. assault rifles). In order to do this, these gun owners/sellers have hopelessly perverted the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and have expanded its guarantee of the right to “keep and bear arms” far beyond its original bounds.

From its passage and until the late 20th century, the 2nd Amendment to the constitution was interpreted to protect the rights of states to maintain militias and for militiamen to sustain arsenals. In the early years of our country, there was no standing federal army (the founders were afraid of a national standing army consolidating power) and the states were expected to sustain a state militia in order to contribute to the national defense; this expectation necessitated protections for militias that would facilitate militiamen keeping weapons for their service.

The 2nd amendment was predicated upon the maintenance of state militias—something that has become irrelevant in the face of our federal armed services—and is not something that should have allowed individuals to claim the right to own weapons. State militias had the right to bear arms, but individual, unattached Americans had no such right—this distinction in the difference between the 2ndAmendment being a collective right or an individual right.

Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger—a Republican—said the following about the proposal that the 2nd Amendment is aimed at protecting every American’s right to own guns:

“…one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militias—would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

As Justice Burger said in no uncertain terms, before gun lobbyists and activists began campaigning to change the understanding of the 2nd Amendment in the late 20th century, nobody considered it to be an individual right. Unfortunately, a decades-long concerted effort by gun lobbyists and big money conservatives has successfully shifted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment so that it can be used to justify letting anybody own any weapon that they choose.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,746
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,467.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
View attachment 166944
1. “The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, thus gun control measures are unconstitutional.”

Those who make this argument are misinformed as to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and have either been tricked by the modern gun lobby’s marketing or are actively perverting its meaning.

First, here is the text of the 2nd Amendment:

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Gun enthusiasts and gun lobbyists love to cite the 2nd amendment to the constitution as the catch-all defense to their right to carry any weapon that they can get their hands on (ex. assault rifles). In order to do this, these gun owners/sellers have hopelessly perverted the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and have expanded its guarantee of the right to “keep and bear arms” far beyond its original bounds.

From its passage and until the late 20th century, the 2nd Amendment to the constitution was interpreted to protect the rights of states to maintain militias and for militiamen to sustain arsenals. In the early years of our country, there was no standing federal army (the founders were afraid of a national standing army consolidating power) and the states were expected to sustain a state militia in order to contribute to the national defense; this expectation necessitated protections for militias that would facilitate militiamen keeping weapons for their service.

The 2nd amendment was predicated upon the maintenance of state militias—something that has become irrelevant in the face of our federal armed services—and is not something that should have allowed individuals to claim the right to own weapons. State militias had the right to bear arms, but individual, unattached Americans had no such right—this distinction in the difference between the 2ndAmendment being a collective right or an individual right.

Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger—a Republican—said the following about the proposal that the 2nd Amendment is aimed at protecting every American’s right to own guns:

“…one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militias—would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”

As Justice Burger said in no uncertain terms, before gun lobbyists and activists began campaigning to change the understanding of the 2nd Amendment in the late 20th century, nobody considered it to be an individual right. Unfortunately, a decades-long concerted effort by gun lobbyists and big money conservatives has successfully shifted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment so that it can be used to justify letting anybody own any weapon that they choose.

After looking at the editorial cartoon created by a liberal himself as the beginning of your argument, it only took me a few lines of what you wrote to realize where you were going and then I decided my time would be better spent elsewhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

jiminpa

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 4, 2004
4,082
760
✟283,713.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Despite what the supreme court has ruled in attempt to usurp the constitution, they are not the highest law of the land and they don't legally get to change the constitution. Therefore any ruling that infringes on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is itself unlawful. In America it is the gun restrictions that are illegal, and the "justices" who have allowed gun restrictions are committing treason against the citizens of the United States of America. Now in other countries you are the servants of your rulers so you are at their whim, and gun ownership or eating food is at the good grace and will of your rulers.
 
Upvote 0

ARBITER01

Legend
Aug 12, 2007
13,372
1,699
✟163,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
There's always a point when the truth that was hiding comes out.

For instance, this whole thread was predicated on the idea that Christianity somehow disagreed with the 2nd amendment of our constitution, but in reality, the real motive behind all the argument was political instead of religious.

This seems to apply more now than ever in this thread (some rough language).


In reality, there will never be a confiscation of our guns, and the people who think that writing a law will solve all the problems, are clueless.
 
Upvote 0

jiminpa

Senior Member
Site Supporter
Jul 4, 2004
4,082
760
✟283,713.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
There's always a point when the truth that was hiding comes out.

For instance, this whole thread was predicated on the idea that Christianity somehow disagreed with the 2nd amendment of our constitution, but in reality, the real motive behind all the argument was political instead of religious.

This seems to apply more now than ever in this thread (some rough language).


In reality, there will never be a confiscation of our guns, and the people who think that writing a law will solve all the problems, are clueless.
Or the legislators could just ignore the constitution like they always do, and just do what they want to, and make political deals with the supreme court justices to, as usual, declare the text of the constitution, "unconstitutional."

It's kind of like having a Bible discussion with reformationists, they just keep insisting that the document means something other than what it explicitly says, same with the supreme court and the constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

thunderbyrd

Senior Member
Dec 26, 2005
800
80
65
Frankfort, ky
Visit site
✟1,485.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Or the legislators could just ignore the constitution like they always do, and just do what they want to, and make political deals with the supreme court justices to, as usual, declare the text of the constitution, "unconstitutional."

It's kind of like having a Bible discussion with reformationists, they just keep insisting that the document means something other than what it explicitly says, same with the supreme court and the constitution.
one way to make Christians ineffectual in a country/culture is to kill them all.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,901
17,177
Canada
✟279,058.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So I would say it would be 'putting guns before the Lord'. I remember when I first became a Christian we had very good teachers for baby Christians. They went to a lot of trouble to make sure we had given up EVERYTHING to the Lord, or they said we would have problems with 'The Baptism of Fire' and I saw this many times. Too often one of us would try to hang on to something. It was explained we could never serve The Lord if we was holding something to ourselves - or be free Christians and this was totally right. I was hanging onto to vanity, I told them that by becoming a Christian I was scared I would become 'frumpy' as so many were in those days. I had to give that vanity up to the Lord and the freedom I experienced after was amazing.
I am quite sure that some of the Christian gun lobby are not giving their guns up to The Lord. He might not require ALL to do it but I'm sure He would some - it would depend on exactly HOW MUCH they want them - He wants us to want Him more than anything! and if they was walking with Him He would make this clear to them.
Hi Ms Malvina:

I guess also that shooting lizards, etc. in the Outback does not have much to do with Christian consecration, one way or another, even though some people might try to make the linkage!
 
Upvote 0