Do you think it's Christian to own guns?

South Bound said:

My only avatar is the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, not a "symbol of hatred".

Click to expand...

I live in the Deep South and since the flag has been banned, I try to 'obey the authorities' on that. To me it always represented just being a Southerner but lately the Lord has been opening my eyes to what it means to others. When I hear politicians say they want to bring back the USA like it used to be, I have to wonder if they mean take it back to life in the 50s when things were good. Ah yes, life was good back in the 'happy days' .. for we whites, but not for the others in the back of the bus. Same thing to helping the poor as the Bible commands MANY times. As a former tea party member our thinking was.. help those lazy blacks on welfare? I don't think so! and we hardened our hearts as do my family (not all but most) and friends today.(more whites on welfare and stamps than blacks)

To address the 'civil war' in the future that has been brought up.. I know quite a few people that have been stockpiling weapons/ammo for years because.. they think a civil war is coming.
Don't forget how many thought and still think that the government was (is) going to take over Texas recently.
When the Lt Gov of Tenn urged christians to get guns, I started rethinking my strong right to guns views. I could not picture Jesus and the Apostles fighting back with weapons. They did not fight back with weapons. Yes i know about the buy swords verse that is taken out of context of the rest of the NT. Jesus rebuked Peter for using a sword.

What has happened to the teachings of Jesus to love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you and to help the poor? Now believers are stockpiling weapons and too many seem filled with hatred. I don't recognize Christianity anymore. Not here in the South anyway, where patriotism and politics have become entwined to the point that it has become a new gospel. If what I say enrages you .. take that as a red flag of spiritual warning.

(Prepper storing for disaster survival to me, is smart. Guns for killing deer for food. I believe hard times might come but not a civil war or racial war or fighting the government when God says HE sets up the leaders)

redleghunter said:

Seems the argument is if there are more firearms available there are an increased chance of firearm mortality. Could be the case. But the data is inconclusive.

Click to expand...

How is the data inconclusive? The correlation is high. Is this situation not worthy of further discussion or research?

redleghunter said:

I'm sure the rates are much higher in urban areas where there are restrictions on gun ownership. That pretty much puts to rest the issue of availability.

Click to expand...

So, guns are not readily available in Anchorage, Alaska? "The US state of Alaska has very permissive gun laws, and very few regulations regarding the sale, possession, and use offirearms and ammunition compared to those in most of the continental United States."

What about Albuquerque and Santa Fe? "New Mexico is among states with some of the least restrictive firearms laws in the country."

The only issue New Mexico had in Albuquerque and Santa Fe was between "shall issue" and "may issue", but restricting gun ownership wasn't the issue.

redleghunter said:

Most mass shootings also occur in "gun free zones"----lambs led to slaughter.

Click to expand...

"Mass shootings" occur in places were most people are, well, "massed". Office buildings, malls and schools. You can't have a mass shooting in the middle of a forest or the middle of a cornfield. Conversely, everyone having guns in places where people are "massed" will not prevent a mass shooting.

You want everyone at a mall to possess a firearm? How would they know who is the bad guy and who is the good guy? Is the black guy with the firearm the good guy or the bad guy?

redleghunter said:

I grew up in NY and went to school in NYC. Worked in the City too. Only cops and criminals had guns. Sheep to the slaughter again.

Click to expand...

"Despite being very dangerous in the past, violent crime in New York City has been dropping since 1990 and, as of 2014, is lower than the national average."

redleghunter said:

Women gun ownership has steadily increased.

Click to expand...

From what % to what %? From 2% to 4%? Where are your stats?

redleghunter said:

My buddy runs an NRA safety and shooting course. Most of his classes are now filled with young women. Quite an indicator.

Click to expand...

This is in Texas, right? Not NYC ...

redleghunter said:

It means they don't trust their men to protect them. I can see why reading these posts.

Click to expand...

So, somehow men can protect women if the men possess a gun? Are you at your woman's side 24/7/365? When your wife goes into McDonald's, you're always there? How about when she goes to the salon for 3 hours to get her hair done? Do you hang out there with your gun to protect her?

Why would you make such a statement except to be snide? Can we not have an honest discussion?

redleghunter said:

As you said to each his own. If you are comfortable in waiting 15 mins to an hour for the police to show up ...

Click to expand...

Here, the police show up in less than 5 minutes. I'm very happy with our police, fire and ambulance service. I guess Texas is different.

redleghunter said:

If the bad guys know you are armed they will go find a sheep without a sheep dog.

Click to expand...

How do they know? Do you put a sign outside? Do you sleep on the porch with a rifle on your chest? Do you keep a loaded firearm on your him while you are sitting in front of the TV watching a football game?

Sheeple Shepherd said:

No he didn't.

Click to expand...

Umm.. he told Peter to put away his sword and he healed the man. You cannot pull one verse about buying a sword (and they showed him 2 and he said it is enough) against the entire NT teaching of love your enemies. No where does it show Jesus or the Apostles using force against the government or anyone.

Biblicist said:

But don't forget, the USA was founded by an armed rebellion against a legal government!

Click to expand...

Romans 13 All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. 2 So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged.

I guess the 'christian' founding fathers chose to disregard and disobey the Scripture.
Oh wait! Most were not christians but Theists.
I have read that many of the soldiers were forced to fight and many were promised land in return. It was not a situation of everyone happily fighting against England.. there was much division on the topic.

Ben Franklin ....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

ETHAN ALLEN
From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

Sheeple Shepherd said:

Our 'first war', the Revolutionary War was fought against the British and was NOT a Civil War.

Click to expand...

As the legal government of the various British Colonies within what is now the US was through the various appointed Colonial Governors, who were themselves appointed by the British Crown and that many colonialists supported this system, then it was indeed a Civil War as many Loyalists (who were loyal to the legal government and their particular colony) were being shot or persecuted, then it was not only a war against the Crown but against the many loyalists who did not want to support the rebels.

Why? The first Settlers fled CATHOLIC persecution.

Click to expand...

Many of those who left Britain were Protestant non-conformists who were in fact fleeing persecution by the Anglican Church. As a result of some recent investigation on my part, it appears that the first State to provide religious freedom within their Statues for all Christians was with Maryland which was established as a Roman Catholic colony.

Slaves were freed in 1865, not the 1960s.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. Lincoln certainly freed those slaves who were within the rebel states in 1863. Slaves who were in the Union States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri did not gain their freedom until the end of the war along with the slaves in the old rebel states. As for slavery finally being abolished in 1865, as the southern States still maintained (or restored after the civil war) much of the status quo where blacks where treated as second class citizens, and where many were lynched, not only in the south, then as these things were only removed in the early 1960's then it is difficult in my opinion to say that the black Americans gained their 'freedom' before the 1960's. In many ways the question seems to be more about semantics than anything else.

. . . History is an interesting creature as it is always written by the victors, where truth can either be lost completely or adjusted to suit the circumstances.

malvina said:

Apart from those needing them for living - do you think people should own guns?
I cannot tie Jesus up with a gun-owner that has them for the sake of having them

Click to expand...

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Timothy 5:8

Provide - Strong's 4306 - pronoeō

1. to perceive before, foresee
   
   
2. to provide, think of beforehand
   
   1. to provide for one
      
      
   2. to take thought for, care for a thing

Provide is a dynamic word that means to prepare in advance.

As the provider, for those in my household, I'm responsible for not only the food, water and shelter of my family, but the safty as well.

In other words, how can I be a responsible provider for my family, if I were to allow people to come steal our food, and destroy our home or kill and rape my family.

The responsibility is on the provider, to protect and provide the things for this life, by foreseeing and preparing in advance, which means watching and praying, as well as having ears to hear what the Spirit is saying to me about these things.

Even the laws of the land allow for these things through the second amendment.




JLB

Mary7 said:

Umm.. he told Peter to put away his sword and he healed the man. You cannot pull one verse about buying a sword (and they showed him 2 and he said it is enough) against the entire NT teaching of love your enemies. No where does it show Jesus or the Apostles using force against the government or anyone.

Click to expand...

He told Peter to put away the sword because he knew what Peter did not. Messiah knew that he would be murdered/killed and that Peter could not save him from it.

Had nothing to do with Peter having a sword.

jiminpa said:

You are only partially correct as you compared population to votes, and I mentioned registered voters, but I was still wrong, so my apologies. Nonetheless, we do have digital machines that do whatever they are programmed to do and politicians who are only interested in themselves.

Click to expand...

I had the number of registered voters in 2014 in Philadelphia County and I was going to post it, but I was also going to post the number of registered voters for each prior election. However, it appears the webmaster moved the data to another folder and the links were dead. Instead, I used the the population numbers to show that the votes cast in each election remained fairly constant with the population numbers, though in 2014 there were fewer votes cast compared to prior years.


Digital voting machines certainly do whatever they are programmed to do, just like any other computer. Have you volunteered to work the polls to see how the machines and the process works? I have many times. Volunteering to be an election judge and following the process of voting has been very enlightening. I encourage everyone to do it. In fact, in most cases your local election commissioner encourages it, as well, because he/she often doesn't have enough people to properly handle the number of voters who show up.

The voting machines are double-sealed with numbered tags that must match the master list of tags. If they don't everything comes to a complete halt. About 1 hour before the polls open we go through unsealing each one, starting it up and validating zero votes. Each machine must produce 2 tapes showing every person on the ballot with a zero starting vote. If that doesn't happen, the machine is marked as invalid, shut down, removed from the array of machines and the election commissioner is notified immediately. When the polls close and we start the shutdown process, each machine must produce 2 tapes showing the votes for every candidate. The machine even tabulates and prints the votes on an hourly basis for later reconciliation with the card authorization machines, so at the end of the day each machine will use up almost an entire tape roll in providing all the numbers. The results are posted at each election precinct before any election judge leaves the building. The machines are put back in their cases, re-sealed twice with new matching numbers, and the machines and master list are handed over to the election commissioner immediately afterward.

While there might be issues in electronic voting, there are definitely issues with paper ballots. Just ask Florida.

Mary7 said:

Romans 13 All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. 2 So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged.

I guess the 'christian' founding fathers chose to disregard and disobey the Scripture.
Oh wait! Most were not christians but Theists.
I have read that many of the soldiers were forced to fight and many were promised land in return. It was not a situation of everyone happily fighting against England.. there was much division on the topic.

Ben Franklin ....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

ETHAN ALLEN
From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

Click to expand...

I'm glad that an American has written this as I'm not sure that as an Australian that I would get away with saying what you have; though from my limited knowledge on these events you appear to be spot on.

Biblicist2 said:

As the legal government of the various British Colonies within what is now the US was through the various appointed Colonial Governors, who were themselves appointed by the British Crown and that many colonialists supported this system, then it was indeed a Civil War as many Loyalists (who were loyal to the legal government and their particular colony) were being shot or persecuted, then it was not only a war against the Crown but against the many loyalists who did not want to support the rebels.


Many of those who left Britain were Protestant non-conformists who were in fact fleeing persecution by the Anglican Church. As a result of some recent investigation on my part, it appears that the first State to provide religious freedom within their Statues for all Christians was with Maryland which was established as a Roman Catholic colony.


That's an interesting point. Lincoln certainly freed those slaves who were within the rebel states in 1863. Slaves who were in the Union States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri did not gain their freedom until the end of the war along with the slaves in the old rebel states. As for slavery finally being abolished in 1865, as the southern States still maintained (or restored after the civil war) much of the status quo where blacks where treated as second class citizens, and where many were lynched, not only in the south, then as these things were only removed in the early 1960's then it is difficult in my opinion to say that the black Americans gained their 'freedom' before the 1960's. In many ways the question seems to be more about semantics than anything else.

. . . History is an interesting creature as it is always written by the victors, where truth can either be lost completely or adjusted to suit the circumstances.

Click to expand...

Early Colonial era[edit]
Because the Spanish were the first Europeans to establish settlements on the mainland of North America, such as St. Augustine, Florida in 1565, the earliest Christians in the territory which would eventually become the United States were Roman Catholics. However, the territory that would become the Thirteen Colonies in 1776 was largely populated by Protestants due to Protestant settlers seeking religious freedom from the Church of England (est. 1534). These settlers were primarily Puritans from East Anglia, especially just before the English Civil War (1641–1651); there were also some Anglicans and Catholics but these were far fewer in number. Because of the predominance of Protestants among those coming from England, the English colonies became almost entirely Protestant by the time of the American Revolution.[note 1]


People do not lose their identities that easily, they brought with them what they knew.
Does not change what I said.

Mary7 said:

Romans 13 All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. 2 So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged.

I guess the 'christian' founding fathers chose to disregard and disobey the Scripture.
Oh wait! Most were not christians but Theists.
I have read that many of the soldiers were forced to fight and many were promised land in return. It was not a situation of everyone happily fighting against England.. there was much division on the topic.

Ben Franklin ....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

ETHAN ALLEN
From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

Click to expand...

Christianity is a pagan religion. They understood that.


Who will I follow? Shaul (Paul) or Messiah/Yah?


Messiah also spoke out against, refused to follow, the Pharisee.

Sheeple Shepherd said:

There are two sins that cannot be atoned for.
Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.
Suicide, obviously because you are dead, dead people cannot atone for sin.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify as I wasn't asking if you acknowledged that suicide is a sin. My intention was to ask if you were okay with people committing suicide, meaning the planning of it and the method they choose. Once suicide occurs, there's nothing to do. However, helping to prevent suicides is quite different. Since there are so many people committing suicide with guns, what should we do about it? Citing your statistics, a majority of gun owners are more likely to commit the sin of suicide than there are victims of homicide by firearm, generally (whether the victim owns a gun or not).

In that vein, the OP asks an important question. Since most gun owners are more likely to die using their own firearms than be victims of crime by firearm, would Jesus ask everyone to still possess firearms? If so, why?

Ned Netterville said:

I happen to agree with Malvina on the subject of insurance, and I've been blessed with the same experience. However, I wouldn't suggest to just anyone they try the same for I think they have to be confident in their faith in order to do so successfully.

Click to expand...

How does one know if he/she is confident in his/her faith? How does one know if other family members are confident in their faith? What does that look like? Is it just a feeling?

ChronosFT said:

Let me clarify as I wasn't asking if you acknowledged that suicide is a sin. My intention was to ask if you were okay with people committing suicide, meaning the planning of it and the method they choose. Once suicide occurs, there's nothing to do. However, helping to prevent suicides is quite different. Since there are so many people committing suicide with guns, what should we do about it? Citing your statistics, a majority of gun owners are more likely to commit the sin of suicide than there are victims of homicide by firearm, generally (whether the victim owns a gun or not).

In that vein, the OP asks an important question. Since most gun owners are more likely to die using their own firearms than be victims of crime by firearm, would Jesus ask everyone to still possess firearms? If so, why?

Click to expand...

Those who commit suicide, those who are LAWLESS, do not walk in Torah, are not Yah's people.
Let them die, matters not to me at all.

Ned Netterville said:

However, I'm afraid I find myself concurring with you regarding the Confederate Battle Flag, since most of the Confederate soldiers had no slaves, but generally out fought the Yankees because they were defending their homeland against an invading army.

Click to expand...

How so?

"Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces fired upon [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter']Fort Sumter."[/url]

"The war began when the Confederates bombarded Union soldiers at [URL='http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/fort-sumter.html']Fort Sumter, South Carolina on April 12, 1861."[/url]

The Confederates started the war. They attacked US soldiers manning a US fort.

Sheeple Shepherd said:

Those who commit suicide, those who are LAWLESS, do not walk in Torah, are not Yah's people.
Let them die, matters not to me at all.

Click to expand...

This is not about the Torah, the Koran or any other holy book.

I didn't ask a difficult question, and neither did the OP, but you are avoiding the question I asked anyway.

Your response seems to indicate that those who commit suicide are lawless. That means that suicide by firearm occurs among those people who are lawless. That also means that all firearms deaths occur at the hands of criminals. What else can I conclude from your response?

But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Timothy 5:8

Provide - Strong's 4306 - pronoeō

1. to perceive before, foresee
   
   
2. to provide, think of beforehand
   1. to provide for one
      
      
   2. to take thought for, care for a thing

Provide is a dynamic word that means to prepare in advance.

As the provider, for those in my household, I'm responsible for not only the food, water and shelter of my family, but the safty as well.

In other words, how can I be a responsible provider for my family, if I were to allow people to come steal our food, and destroy our home or kill and rape my family.

The responsibility is on the provider, to protect and provide the things for this life, by foreseeing and preparing in advance, which means watching and praying, as well as having ears to hear what the Spirit is saying to me about these things.

Even the laws of the land allow for these things through the second amendment.




JLB

A greater Hope said:

The question is,
Is there ever a need for one if Jesus is on your side. I think we should ask Jesus when Peter took out the sword to defend Jesus? Answer no peter/children I am your sword and avenger I will fight for you.

Click to expand...

So, are you saying that Christians who follow their faith are wrong in owning firearms? Or just wrong for using firearms?

Sheeple Shepherd said:

Early Colonial era[edit]
Because the Spanish were the first Europeans to establish settlements on the mainland of North America, such as St. Augustine, Florida in 1565, the earliest Christians in the territory which would eventually become the United States were Roman Catholics. However, the territory that would become the Thirteen Colonies in 1776 was largely populated by Protestants due to Protestant settlers seeking religious freedom from the Church of England (est. 1534). These settlers were primarily Puritans from East Anglia, especially just before the English Civil War (1641–1651); there were also some Anglicans and Catholics but these were far fewer in number. Because of the predominance of Protestants among those coming from England, the English colonies became almost entirely Protestant by the time of the American Revolution.[note 1]


People do not lose their identities that easily, they brought with them what they knew.
Does not change what I said.

Click to expand...

Yes, Protestants running from persecution from other Protestants (Church of England is Protestant)

Mary7 said:

She was referring to the medical costs. So many people die here in the US from not having the money to pay for medical co.sts.

Click to expand...

So why don't they take advantage of the alternatives for people who have no money? Given what the OP has reveled about themselves, I have no doubt that their story is bovine skubulon. This is the internet and the OP having revealed herself, it's only natural that she would characterize the issue in such dishonest terms as "wealth or death". But for those of who happen to be grownups, there are a host of alternatives to help pay for cancer treatment.

So many have died from having pre existing illnesses and were refused insurance due to that. I have 2 children that were considered uninsurable yet at the time they were able to work so could not draw disability. We had to come up with the money for all doctors, meds and hospital bills which equaled massive bills. It costs thousands just to walk into a hospital.

Click to expand...

And yet, you refuse to join a medical sharing coop.

You better believe I am for the same system that most of Europe, Scandinavia and Canada has and I assume also Australia.

Click to expand...

Then may your chains rest very heavily on you and may posterity forget that you were our countryman.

If you prefer socialism, why not move to a socialist country, rather than trying to destroy America?