Christians owning guns specifically for self defense? (Biblical references, insight?)

[razzelflabben]

Now about turning the other cheek, a certain poster tried to argue this was about the Roman military and the Jews but look at the context...Matthew 5:38-42 38 “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I tell you, don’t resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. let him have your coat as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 38 “You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I tell you, don’t resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. let him have your coat as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and don’t turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Now when we look at the context we see that none of the words suggest this is talking about the Romans only but rather all people who do evil. Scripture is clear that it wasn't just the Romans that were doing evil as another poster asserted. But right after this teaching we see the teaching about our enemies and how to treat them. Right above it is an admonition to speak truth. There is absolutely no reason from the text to assume it is speaking about the relationship of the Jew to the Romans as was asserted. It does NOT exclude the Romans but it isn't specific to them either.

In fact, the extended context talks about how the believer should live in general. Now there are passages about how to treat the Romans specifically like "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." and a few others but we dare not add to scripture what is not there as a previous poster did with the above passage.

 

[GenemZ]

lol now what was the point? I even specified that the point was to ask questions that make the pacifist all the time not matter think...didn't I? WEll, yes I did specify that as the point and you totally missed it in exchange for the "right" to say that you corrected something that wasn't even on the table at the time...how odd that you would feel compelled to "correct" something that wasn't even being discussed...!

The point was missed because the information you used to make your premise was incorrectly used.

 

[razzelflabben]

The point was missed because the information you used to make your premise was incorrectly used.

and yet I just showed that 1. I was not referring specifically to the passage you responded to and that 2. the specific passage you inserted into the discussion as the point (which it was not) does not say what you claim in the context of the passage.

IOW's I used a commonly used passage to make the point of which you inserted your own opinions without care of the point being made then took the passage out of context in order to make the claims you did about the passage. that is two problems on your and 0 on me in this particular situation.

 

[GenemZ]

and yet I just showed that 1. I was not referring specifically to the passage you responded to and that 2. the specific passage you inserted into the discussion as the point (which it was not) does not say what you claim in the context of the passage.

IOW's I used a commonly used passage to make the point of which you inserted your own opinions without care of the point being made then took the passage out of context in order to make the claims you did about the passage. that is two problems on your and 0 on me in this particular situation.

Alright.... move and do not waste your time with me.

 

[razzelflabben]

Alright.... move and do not waste your time with me.

you were the one that responded to me...if you don't want to talk with me then don't...it's still on you my dear brother

 

[GenemZ]

lol now what was the point? I even specified that the point was to ask questions that make the pacifist all the time not matter think...didn't I?

Here is the problem...

What does this mean? " the point was to ask questions that make the pacifist all the time not matter think.."


I can't understand you.

 

[razzelflabben]

Here is the problem...

What does this mean? " the point was to ask questions that make the pacifist all the time not matter think.."


I can't understand you.

The pacifist doesn't care the context of the passage anymore than you do. The pacifist just wants to apply some scriptures to all situations that satisfies their desires, just like you do...so why not take the time to think about what you are saying instead of just going half cocked into dangerous territory when it comes to what scripture really does say....seriously I am not that hard to understand if you just take time to listen without trying to read into it everything you want me to say so that you can make an argument.

 

[gordonhooker]

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.

I find it very interesting when people go back to the plethora of laws in the OT to justify their agenda... Using your logic we should pressing our respective Governments to allow the buying and selling of slaves, and the stoning of and killing of adulterers and homosexuals.

Where in all of that is the two greatest commandments?

36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Mt 22:36–40.

 

[razzelflabben]

I find it very interesting when people go back to the plethora of laws in the OT to justify their agenda... Using your logic we should pressing out respective Governments to allow the buying and selling of slaves, and the stoning of and killing of adulterers and homosexuals.

Where in all of that is the two greatest commandments?

36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “ ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), Mt 22:36–40.

These two commandments summarize all the law and prophets. Matthew 22:40

 

[Butch5]

One last thing, not because I disagree with you, but I do want you to think over your position very carefully. The punishment for murder in the law is death (Exodus, Numbers etc). Jesus says Mathew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." So if you are in a position to stop a murderer and do not. The victim has died. The murderer will be brought before the state and if you offer testimony against the murderer he shall be put to death by the state. In this situation you are now responsible for the deaths of two individuals the murderer and the victim. You killed the victim by doing nothing and the murderer by your testimony. In this scenario I do not think that the "do nothing" approach is righteous. The murderer has already been put to death in the eyes of the law. Whether you kill him or the law kills him is irrelevant as he is already dead. You have the power to save a life by your action - wouldn't you choose to save a life?

Firstly, you're conflating the Law of Moses with American Law. It's not that often that murders are put to death in America. Regarding the Law of Moses, it was given to Israel, not Christians. However, Paul said to the Romans that Christ is the end of the Law to those who believe.

We also have in the Scenario an unproven premise, that is that one could actually stop the murder. It is also possible that one could also become the second victim.

Regarding the moral issue. Is it correct to defy Christ's command because one disagrees? Jesus said, 'love your enemies.' Please explain how doing violence is loving one's enemies. One early Christian writer wrote, I'll paraphrase, that it was better to be killed than to kill. His reasoning was that he knew his destination was the kingdom of God. However, if he killed another who was trying to kill him, he would be denying that person the opportunity to be saved in the future.

Another thing to consider is, is God capable of stopping a murder? Couldn't God stop the murderer? Why would he need the help of any man?

You asked me to think this through. I have, I've spent years on this subject. I was very hard at first to accept what I was finding on the subject. However, I am all about the truth, no matter where is leads. I have changed quite a few doctrines because of where the truth lead. I don't just pick the parts I like. The evidence for this position, if one looks at it all and openly is pretty cut and dry. We don't see Christians in the NT using violence. When Paul was being wrongly stoned, there were disciple there, yet there is nothing recorded that they tried to defend Paul. The one use of violence by the apostle Peter we swiftly condemned by Jesus. We have the first 300 years of church history. Every writer who addressed the subject condemns the use of violence by Christians. That it's the first 300 years is significant since it what we see taught from the very beginning of the Christian faith. As I said in my firs post in this thread, Christians don't really like this, but it is the genuine Christian faith. It isn't until the time of Constantine that we start seeing Christians advocate the use of violence. So, I soul put forward the same request, that you look deeply into the subject, consider all of the evidence and reconsider your opinion. I've written an article on this subject which is on my website. It presents both the Biblical and historical evidence against the use of violence. It contains some of what I've referenced in this thread. Here is a link to it.

http://thatwhichwasfromthebeginning.vpweb.com/upload/Should Christians Use Violence.pdf

 

[GenemZ]

The pacifist doesn't care the context of the passage anymore than you do. The pacifist just wants to apply some scriptures to all situations that satisfies their desires, just like you do...so why not take the time to think about what you are saying instead of just going half cocked into dangerous territory when it comes to what scripture really does say....seriously I am not that hard to understand if you just take time to listen without trying to read into it everything you want me to say so that you can make an argument.

Thank you... You just explained what you meant what you were saying when you wrote?

" the point was to ask questions that make the pacifist all the time not matter think.."

Thanks! ... now I understand what you meant?
I guess you can not even explain it?

 

[Butch5]

Nothing Jesus is discussing in Mathew chapter 5 ( Where I presume you are getting your doctrine from as I have not been given the chapter and verses that you are using) would classify as a life threatening situation.

Right, He didn't make any exceptions. Love your enemies, no exceptions.

 

[Butch5]

A smite is hardly a life threatening situation.

Your making a distinction that isn't there.

 

[GenemZ]

Your making a distinction that isn't there.

Oh really?

A slap is lethal?

I do not think Jesus needed to make that distinction for most of us.

(unless the hearer did not have his head on tight)!

 

[Butch5]

Oh really?

A slap is lethal?

I do not think Jesus needed to make that distinction for most of us.

(unless the hearer did not have his head on tight)!

But, what you think doesn't have any bearing on Scripture. The first 300 years of Christians, many taught by Jesus and the apostles knew exactly what he meant.

 

[gordonhooker]

These two commandments summarize all the law and prophets. Matthew 22:40

No that is incorrect and what it shows is how some groups will try and use scripture to support their own agenda.

What it says is that the Law and the Prophets teaching is framed for that purpose.

 

[GenemZ]

But, what you think doesn't have any bearing on Scripture. The first 300 years of Christians, many taught by Jesus and the apostles knew exactly what he meant.

Yes.... When a person persecuted them for being a genuine follower of Christ.

Do you have any idea how people outside of God's people lived in those days? They went to the arenas to watch and approve of seeing gladiators murdered with their thumbs down. Heartless. They sought out temple prostitutes in their "local houses of worship" to fulfill their religious duties to their gods by having sex with men, women, children, and animals. Young children were commonly accepted sex objects in that culture. So, of course! God fearing Christians were going to be despised and hated in their environment!

But.. Since then the church expanded and went into all the world? Transforming cultures of degeneracy into what appears much more like we see today? Christians who are mocked today by the unbelievers are 99% of the time not being persecuted. They are being called out for being stupid and idiotic in many ways.For many Christians follow fuzzy thinking with the Scriptures!

Today is a day when a Christian who has matured in Christ can live freely of harm. Its usually our own stubbornness and stupidity that opens the door for the Christians ridicule. But, even with mature Christians, mocking will come just the same. But never leaving the unbeliever feeling justified like the stupid ones do. Glorifying Christ is leaving your mockers not feeling fully justified. Not glorifying Christ leaves your persecutors feeling totally justified.

But, nowhere will our persecution today be like the first church faced unless we live in a godless Communist nation. Or, we allow for for our own nation to grow in its degeneracy by the churches neglecting sound thinking with the Word. Failing to become "salt of the earth."

Problem is..Too many Christians feel free to twist the Word to give themselves authority over others. Twist it as to create a way of thinking that justifies their natural way of thinking.

"My ways are not your ways." My thoughts are not your thoughts, says the Lord."

But, to the stupid, stubborn Christian? The Christian's ways are now the Lord's ways. The stupid Christian's thoughts become the Lord's thoughts..... And, they call it persecution when the unbelievers are actually justified in mocking them.

 

[Butch5]

Yes.... When a person persecuted them for being a genuine follower of Christ.

Do you have any idea how people outside of God's people lived in those days? They went to the arenas to watch and approve of seeing gladiators murdered with their thumbs down. Heartless. They sought out temple prostitutes in their "local houses of worship" to fulfill their religious duties to their gods by having sex with men, women, children, and animals. Young children were commonly accepted sex objects in that culture. So, of course! God fearing Christians were going to be despised and hated in their environment!

But.. Since then the church expanded and went into all the world? Transforming cultures of degeneracy into what appears much more like we see today? Christians who are mocked today by the unbelievers are 99% of the time not being persecuted. They are being called out for being stupid and idiotic in many ways.For many Christians follow fuzzy thinking with the Scriptures!

Today is a day when a Christian who has matured in Christ can live freely of harm. Its usually our own stubbornness and stupidity that opens the door for the Christians ridicule. But, even with mature Christians, mocking will come just the same. But never leaving the unbeliever feeling justified like the stupid ones do. Glorifying Christ is leaving your mockers not feeling fully justified. Not glorifying Christ leaves your persecutors feeling totally justified.

But, nowhere will our persecution today be like the first church faced unless we live in a godless Communist nation. Or, we allow for for our own nation to grow in its degeneracy by the churches neglecting sound thinking with the Word. Failing to become "salt of the earth."

Problem is..Too many Christians feel free to twist the Word to give themselves authority over others. Twist it as to create a way of thinking that justifies their natural way of thinking.

"My ways are not your ways." My thoughts are not your thoughts, says the Lord."

But, to the stupid, stubborn Christian? The Christian's ways are now the Lord's ways. The stupid Christian's thoughts become the Lord's thoughts..... And, they call it persecution when the unbelievers are actually justified in mocking them.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the issue. As you pointed out, they lived in a much worse culture than we do. And yet, they still said, 'in our religion it is better to be killed than to kill.'

 

[GenemZ]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the issue. As you pointed out, they lived in a much worse culture than we do. And yet, they still said, 'in our religion it is better to be killed than to kill.'

Where did you get that saying from? We are not talking about a martyr situation.

You confuse murder with killing in self defense. Especially in defending loved ones.

You would rather to see your wife and kids murdered than to shoot an evil person?

 

[Butch5]

Where did you get that saying from? We are not talking about a martyr situation.

You confuse murder with killing in self defense. Especially in defending loved ones.

You would rather to see your wife and kids murdered than to shoot an evil person?

Jesus didn't make any distinction and Christians for the 300 years didn't make any distinctions they simply would not use violence. What I want doesn't have any bearing on the subject. The question is what are Christians to do? The evidence from the Scriptures and first 300 years of the Christian faith are very clear, no violence.