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

[2Timothy2:15]

The early church was entirely pacific so much so that until around the 300s CE you could not become a church member if you were either a police man or soldier.

Fairly certain there was no such thing as police in the first oh 1000 years or so after Jesus...The reason they were not Roman soldiers is because Christians were being hunted down by Rome and murdered.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Look at intent. Why do you suppose that Yahshua told his disciples to procure weapons? (Against Roman law, might I add.)

I suppose that he told them to gather the most effective weapons readily available, to defend themselves. I don't believe that it was because that he had some exclusive affinity for swords.

Exactly, and yet we forget that Peter cut off the ear of the soldier in the garden. Peter did not wrestle a sword from a soldier, Peter had one with him.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The early church was entirely pacific so much so that until around the 300s CE you could not become a church member if you were either a police man or soldier.

I don't know if there was an equivalent to modern police in the Roman Empire but there is a more important reason that Christians would not join the military in the Empire, mainly due to the worship of the Hellenistic gods. The military was amongst the most devout in the empire to their dedication to the gods, regularly sacrificing before and after battles and praying in thanks to the gods for their victories. This requirement to sacrifice to Caesar and the gods in my opinion was the main motivating factor Christians did not participate in military campaigns.

This thankfully changed with Christianisation and once these aspects of the military were no longer held to, the Roman empire still found itself needing defending against foreign elements. Let's put it this way, should the Eastern Roman Christians have simply submitted to the Islamic yoke without military resistance? If we had followed that advice, the west would be totally Muslim at this point.

 

[SBC]

I would agree with you in regards to a non-retaliation principle in general. Yet this does not speak to the immediate situation. I would like to clarify, is it okay to attack someone in the defence of another?

In most situations, yes.
In some situations, no.

Or should we follow completely literally and as strictly as possible Jesus' command to turn the other cheek and let the person do their worst to us or others?

It says nothing about "others".
It does say, about receiving a blow to the face, which can be in many situations.
It does say, according to the law, if you are commanded by the court to pay a reparation, give him more than the court orders, but not equal to the order in value.


Matt 5
[39] But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
[40] And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[tulc]

I didn't tell you to do what I do.. I specifically said to do as you are convicted and that we will probably both be corrected when Yeshua returns. How you get that I want you to live like I do from ANYTHING I said is beyond me. But, this is normal from folks like you. I say, "obey" and you hear "unto salvation." Odd but it is what it is. No reason for us to continue discussing anything seeing you'll just add more words to my own thoughts.

well...two things: 1) you really don't know any "folks like me" and 2) ignoring isn't refuting.
tulc(is going to finish his coffee and head to bed)

 

[tulc]

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

Thanks! I'll check it out!
tulc(loves links!)

 

[SBC]

Look at intent. Why do you suppose that Yahshua told his disciples to procure weapons? (Against Roman law, might I add.)

I suppose that he told them to gather the most effective weapons readily available, to defend themselves. I don't believe that it was because that he had some exclusive affinity for swords.

The Lesson is deeper -

A sword of mankind - is forged metal.
Jesus' sword is His Word.

If men follow Jesus' way -
They would have equal to what another would have. Soldiers had swords - Jesus told his disciples to buy and bring a sword.
Jesus had his sword. (His word)

Jesus' sword was NOT equal to what the soldiers' had.
Jesus, did NOT use His sword, but kept silent in his defense. (even at his trials)
(similar to our court system, that a defendant does not have to speak in his defense)

Jesus' then ordered his disciples to not draw on the soldiers.

Also, Jesus chose the time He would be taken by authorities.
(Remember several times He ducked away from being stoned on some street. He did not subject Himself to a back-alley death, but rather one the authorities would do, with many spectators and talk thereof).

We are not supposed to resist authorities.
But in all situations be prepared, (men with swords of metal, also a sword like Jesus, ie the Word of Truth) Always necessary to use? No.

Have a weapon of equal-ness (is also the same premise, founding fathers of the US, taught, for the people, not only against other people, but also the authorities)
Just another of the umpteen - Biblical standards and principles upon which the US was founded. (which sadly like so many Biblical standards and principles have become corrupt in the District of Corruption)

At Jesus' trials - when men "accused" Jesus saying things that were TRUE - He responded saying to them - "YOU" say that I am.

Sort of a keen way, to get men to say and do, what they claim to not believe. They called Him the King of the Jews, gave Him a crown, gave Him a cloak, bowed to Him. Mocking? Yes. But true? Yes.

God Bless,
SBC

 

[JoeP222w]

This is a very hot topic that I am sure many have noticed. Both in Christendom and also outside of it as well. I have a stance on this, and I know there are many different stances. I know of people personally, that are believers that feel that we should have weapons in our home for defense, and also those that do not believe we should defend in a way that brings bodily harm to anyone? It seems that this is a topic that is extremely controversial.

I am interested to know if there are any other believers that feel as if they would not own a gun or a weapon in self defense, and why. I am also interested in knowing from the other perspective, those that are for owning them and do own guns and weapons, and why? Or even if you desire to not own any for that purpose, but are not against someone owning them?

I am not against anyone owning a gun, if they are a responsible individual and have the gun in a safe location when not in use. However, there is no effective way to evaluate if an individual is "responsible". And unfortunately, many people who are not intruders into a home (i.e. family or children) are far too often harmed by a gun in the house. Not always the case, but it does happen. I enjoying target shooting, but since I currently have no place to shoot targets, I do not personally own a gun nor do I keep a gun in the house.

I don't find in the Bible where God forbids owning a weapon to protect your family, nor a command to keep a weapon for self defense. So that makes it a morally neutral issue, an adiaphoron. I will leave to the Christians conscience and how he works that out with God.

I am against what many on the Left consider gun control. What they propose is against the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and more importantly, gun control only stops law abiding citizens from having guns (or making it very difficult to own a gun). The 2nd Amendment was created to not only to preserve the right of the citizens to own guns, but also so that the government would not have too much power and forget the purpose of government is to serve the people, not enslave them (i.e. to keep the government in check). Criminals will always have access or ability to get guns and no amount of gun control will stop that. Even if they created some kind of device to eliminate all guns in the world, man would still kill man with a knife. If they eliminated knives, they would kill with a club. If they eliminated clubs, they would kill with a rock. Eliminating weapons does not change the heart of evil men. The only way to stop unlawful gun violence is to change the heart by proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and asking God to change the heart of evil men. They get saved, they begin to love God and love their neighbor, they remove the desire to murder their fellow man.

 

[Halbhh]

This is a very hot topic that I am sure many have noticed. Both in Christendom and also outside of it as well. I have a stance on this, and I know there are many different stances. I know of people personally, that are believers that feel that we should have weapons in our home for defense, and also those that do not believe we should defend in a way that brings bodily harm to anyone? It seems that this is a topic that is extremely controversial.

I am interested to know if there are any other believers that feel as if they would not own a gun or a weapon in self defense, and why. I am also interested in knowing from the other perspective, those that are for owning them and do own guns and weapons, and why? Or even if you desire to not own any for that purpose, but are not against someone owning them?

I grew up in the country, and occasionally we had to shoot a animal for defense or even food, which isn't in fundamental principal different than using a bow and arrow, for hunting.

But, today, the U.S. is out of whack on guns.

These guns in the news are not hunting rifles or merely a self-defense handgun even...

but instead they are assault weapons designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly.

 

[razzelflabben]

Great reply Ken. I believe God placed in human creation the same sense of responsibility to protect his or her family as God did the animal world. And God places an even higher value on his human creation than animals. What happens when you get between a mother lion and her cubs. If not careful she will rip your face off and feed you to her kids. When similar situations of danger present themselves to the mother or father of small children I can almost guarantee those same natural instincts will well up within them as well. If Charles Manson or Freddie Kruegger shows up on your front porch and wants to rape and butcher your family, I can guarantee that inviting them in for a hot cup of cocoa, hold hands and sing a few rounds of Kum-by-aaaa will be the last thing on your mind as it should be.
We live in a world and age where increasingly two legged pure evil exists. It is one thing to offer a man your cloak or a can of gas if he wants to steal your lawn mower, but to allow your children to be eaten like sheep without challenge is being far less than responsible.
Scripture says that the man who does not take care of his own is less than the heathens.

I think it is also important to this part of the discussion to look at how God Himself "protected" His children. In the OT the children of Israel were instructed to kill "innocent woman and children" because they would otherwise lead the children of Israel away from God and into their deaths. IOW"s it's a protection. Time and time again God is instrumental in protecting His children even at the cost of others death. Personally, I think that as long as we are seeking God and not some form of justice or protection we have the right and obligation to protect at least from the standpoint of scripture.

that being said, there is a passage in Amos that says, "Woe unto you who desire the day of the Lord for it is darkness and not light." whereas this passage is not talking about protecting our families I think the principle applies. If we kill the intruder we take away the possibility of his turning to God...which is why I think it is always wise to try to stop them without killing them. IOW's if it comes down to it, go for the leg shot or hand rather than the heart or head. The way I shoot who knows what I would hit....lol

 

[razzelflabben]

Everything I hear people who have guns for self defense in their home are more likely to shoot a member of the family or shoot themselves.
And it doesn't matter if your a Christian or not.
I kick box I'm happy with that, I used to own guns but never kept them loaded, as most people would for self defense.

I have heard this claim before but don't understand it...isn't the claim the same thing as saying those who have a cake sitting on the counter are much more likely to eat the cake than those that don't have cake in their homes? Seems like a meaningless claim to me.

I don't know maybe I am just not understanding the claim. But I would naturally assume that for someone to get killed by a gun there would have to be a gun around for them to get shot with....

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

This is a very hot topic that I am sure many have noticed. Both in Christendom and also outside of it as well. I have a stance on this, and I know there are many different stances. I know of people personally, that are believers that feel that we should have weapons in our home for defense, and also those that do not believe we should defend in a way that brings bodily harm to anyone? It seems that this is a topic that is extremely controversial.

I am interested to know if there are any other believers that feel as if they would not own a gun or a weapon in self defense, and why. I am also interested in knowing from the other perspective, those that are for owning them and do own guns and weapons, and why? Or even if you desire to not own any for that purpose, but are not against someone owning them?

Quoting Father Philip:

"God bless us all!

What a tragic world we live in. I know that this came up following 9/11. If I am remembering, I believe a statement came out asking that no guns be brought to the Church. We take our example from the Christians in the Middle East who go to churches everyday without knowing whether or not they will lose their lives. They do not bring guns. There is no denying that it would be a grave tragedy for someone to come into any church and do the type of damage that we saw this weekend. If they target us because of our faith, that is our martyrdom. As in all things, we put our trust in Christ. Within the doors of the Church, we enter the Kingdom and if that is the case, we leave the rest of the world outside. In my mind, that would include weapons.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing against guns in general, just against bringing them in the Church.

In Christ,

Fr Philip"

Forgive me...

 

[SBC]

I grew up in the country, and occasionally we had to shoot a animal for defense or even food, which isn't in fundamental principal different than using a bow and arrow, for hunting.

But, today, the U.S. is out of whack on guns.

These guns in the news are not hunting rifles or merely a self-defense handgun even...

but instead they are assault weapons designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly.

The government that governs OVER the people have assault rifles.
Do you know HOW governments CAN and DO oppress the people they govern?
It is by having more muscle then what the people have.
And to perpetuate their strong oppressive hold, they forbid the people to have what they have.
Having a defense mechanism is not always about using it, it is about having it, and your enemy, or oppressor, knowing you have it. Because with that knowledge, they then have to angel in risks they are willing to take TO oppress or otherwise intrude and attack.
It is the same Concept the US takes with foreign nations. You have this, hummm, we have something more powerful and more of them.
And it is the same Concept the left sitting in offices of authority project. The people are restricted, "they" can do whatever "they" want, in or outside of the Constitution, cuz who's going to stop "them"? ("they" have armed guards!, tanks, an entire military, just like the kings of the old days).
A historical and well known issue, and WHY the founders of the US, put no restriction on the people to own defense mechanism's. (But that does stop the US Congress, does it?)

God Bless,
SBC

 

[razzelflabben]

Hmmmm...so that's (kind of) one out of 307 mass shootings this year?
Mass shootings in the U.S.: 307 mass shootings have occurred in 2017
So that excuses all the people killed because the NRA fights against every attempt to bring some kind of regulation on guns in America?
tulc(wonders if this would constitute an actual grasping at straws argument?)

and yet my husband was just telling me that congress had an opportunity to pass a bill that would have made it harder for this guy to get a gun and instead they filibustered the bill....likewise, we put travel bans on to vet people that have come into the country illegally and get told how terrible that is...point being if it was just an argument about more regulations I don't think we would be having the same discussion. The battle seems to be over guns or no guns not regulations...if it was about regulations the government wouldn't be filibustering to stop common sense bills nor would we be crying in our cereal when calling for vetting from countries known for terrorism.

 

[SBC]

Everything I hear people who have guns for self defense in their home are more likely to shoot a member of the family or shoot themselves.
And it doesn't matter if your a Christian or not.
I kick box I'm happy with that, I used to own guns but never kept them loaded, as most people would for self defense.

People buy and have many different kinds of things, and are ignorant of how to use them properly or safely use and care for the things. Look at the nitwits who stand on the seat of their motorcycles, arms in the air, in traffic. People are ignorant and stupid. All you can do is educate yourself and your household, and be prepared for the unexpected.

God Bless,
Locked, Loaded, Handy ~
SBC

 

[SBC]

and yet my husband was just telling me that congress had an opportunity to pass a bill that would have made it harder for this guy to get a gun and instead they filibustered the bill....likewise, we put travel bans on to vet people that have come into the country illegally and get told how terrible that is...point being if it was just an argument about more regulations I don't think we would be having the same discussion. The battle seems to be over guns or no guns not regulations...if it was about regulations the government wouldn't be filibustering to stop common sense bills nor would we be crying in our cereal when calling for vetting from countries known for terrorism.

 

[Halbhh]

The government that governs OVER the people have assault rifles.
Do you know HOW governments CAN and DO oppress the people they govern?
It is by having more muscle then what the people have.
And to perpetuate their strong oppressive hold, they forbid the people to have what they have.
Having a defense mechanism is not always about using it, it is about having it, and your enemy, or oppressor, knowing you have it. Because with that knowledge, they then have to angel in risks they are willing to take TO oppress or otherwise intrude and attack.
It is the same Concept the US takes with foreign nations. You have this, hummm, we have something more powerful and more of them.
And it is the same Concept the left sitting in offices of authority project. The people are restricted, "they" can do whatever "they" want, in or outside of the Constitution, cuz who's going to stop "them"? ("they" have armed guards!, tanks, an entire military, just like the kings of the old days).
A historical and well known issue, and WHY the founders of the US, put no restriction on the people to own defense mechanism's. (But that does stop the US Congress, does it?)

God Bless,
SBC

Well, the Romans had conquered Israel by force and were extracting tribute, taxes, from Israel, without representation or benefits in return.....

And yet, about "taxes" to the invaders, foreigners....Christ said "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's...."

Ouch.

Apostles reinforced this non violence in their epistles, saying in essence to submit to government.

That wouldn't include doing non Christian acts like turning over Jews for genocide, etc., but in all matters not directly breaking God's commandments, we are instructed to submit to government.

We can vote though....

 

[SBC]

I think it is also important to this part of the discussion to look at how God Himself "protected" His children. In the OT the children of Israel were instructed to kill "innocent woman and children" because they would otherwise lead the children of Israel away from God and into their deaths. IOW"s it's a protection. Time and time again God is instrumental in protecting His children even at the cost of others death. Personally, I think that as long as we are seeking God and not some form of justice or protection we have the right and obligation to protect at least from the standpoint of scripture.

that being said, there is a passage in Amos that says, "Woe unto you who desire the day of the Lord for it is darkness and not light." whereas this passage is not talking about protecting our families I think the principle applies. If we kill the intruder we take away the possibility of his turning to God...which is why I think it is always wise to try to stop them without killing them. IOW's if it comes down to it, go for the leg shot or hand rather than the heart or head. The way I shoot who knows what I would hit....lol

 

[RaymondG]

That being said...I dont think it is wrong for other to protect themselves if they desire to. And I personally like Guns and would consider owning one if I had access to a shooting range.

I see no fault in you gunning down the robber,

I dont mind trusting in him......And I dont mind others trusting in their own strength either.

you can't force your convictions on others

It is obvious that you are trying to make your own opinion have more value by incorrectly portraying me as one who is against guns and who try to force my opinion on others. I hope that works out for you. It is clear we cant reason together, and it is pointless to try.

 

[razzelflabben]

Why is that a "common sense bill"? It's a restriction on the whole of the people.

the government (military) being required to report soldiers who are dishonorably discharged and deemed unfit to carry or use a weapon is not common sense? How? How is it common sense to hide those things from those who sell weapons to the public?

You may think to wish to own a gun - and you may think it a good idea to restrict some, and not others. But you should be aware of the low-down. The medical journals, and boards who decide the mental health status of the people....has ummm. ..reported one in four persons are now considered mentally "imbalanced". Do you think many people have a bout with depression, run to their doctor, get a prescription, yeah, they now have a record, and should be restricted from owning a firearm? But, but, but, that was a one time incident, 5 years ago. So? It's is documented evidence, and based on that documentation, it would hold, to restrict them.

and so a dishonorable discharge from the military do to being unstable is a one time deal? I have two children who went into the military, one was discharged early because of health issues that stem from an incident that happened in the military...got news for you, the process for determining whether or not to discharge was long, laborous and was much more than a one time depression incident...just fyi

The whole intent for the "bill of rights", was to "ensure" the government WOULD NOT interfere in what they had no authority to govern.

amen...

John Hancock, as lefty as he was, was correct; that there should not have been a "bill of rights". Because what is NOT in the Constitution, the government does not have authority to govern. But BECAUSE the "bill of rights" IS in the Constitution, well....well, the government has their sticky fingers in all kinds of legislation of governing restricting those rights.

yep

Rights for the people were intended for the people to be the primary governance over themselves, which by the way is also Biblical, as our rights come from God.
However the people practically break their necks trying to get the government to restrict, restrict, restrict.

Oh we agree on this but that being said, I don't think it is a violation at all to say, I know Joe is mentally unstable and giving him a gun would be a bad idea since he has talked about getting a gun and killing as many people as he can....

Doesn't make sense to me, and even in Scripture, men were doing the same things as today....wanting the government to restrict them....and God Himself warned to not go that route.

God Bless,
SBC

I am often times reminded of how bad things went for Israel when they insisted on having a king like all the other nations...I pray we never fall prey to the same sin...