Should Christians strongly support the SECOND AMENDMENT?

[ROBERTGUWAPO]

Support an abusive government?

Romans
13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

So German Christians are commanded by God to support Adolf Hitler?

 

[ROBERTGUWAPO]

Proverbs 25:21
If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:


Matthew
5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil

5:42 Give to him that asketh thee
5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

So, you are just gonna stand there and watch intruders kill your family before your very own eyes?

 

[ROBERTGUWAPO]

Absurdity Really

What an odd line of reasoning.

This thread is becoming borderline absurd.

I would be a fool if I did nothing to save my loved ones.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Christians should be armed to the teeth! In church, out of church, be licensed to carry concealed, have a good stock pile of ammo, teach their wives and children how to shoot and when the bad guys comes through the door at 2 AM to satisfy their drug habit..., arrange an appointment betwix him and the Lord.

you cool in my book, my man....

 

[pinoybaptist]

Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines would probably fit in with the bottom ones.

 

[HAMel]

Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines would probably fit in with the bottom ones.

pinoybaptist, not to mention half the liberals. Those seeking that elusive perfect utopia here on earth. Where everyone lives off government hand-outs, abort on demand and lay with their "partners" at will while demanding to share their ways with the unsuspecting.

Lord, have mercy on us!!!

In the People's Republic of New Jersey, Maryland and a dozen other states you can't even say the word "gun" without expecting the full weight of the liberal courts to come down on you with a vengeance. Only the cops and the bad guys have weapons in those states and the rest of the population live and cower in fear behind locked and barred doors.

 

[RLBosley]

It tells us why they needed the swords. For self defense. They were considered not only heretics, but as such traitors to Israel (IE numbered with the transgressors).

Eisegesis at it's finest.

If someone attacks your loved one, are they your enemy? Who would you love more?

Let me ask you the same. If someone attacks you or your family, are they an enemy? Jesus commands you to love them. How are you going to do that?

Not a direct correlation, no, but the fact remains that a Christian can commit an act of what the world would call "violence" and could do so without hating the recipient of the act.

I don't care what the world says or how it defines things. I wouldn't consider simple spanking to be violence, especially compared to killing someone.

We could have a long, drawn-out semantics argument over these topics. Yes, it is possible to kill someone you love. The question becomes are you applying the temporary emotion of the moment, or the longer-standing emotions?

Emotion really is a minor part of it. We are commanded to love our enemies. Are you really going to say that you can obey Christ and intentionally love the guy who just kicked in your door while you put a couple rounds of 124g hollow points into his chest?

And here we enter the territory of rhetoric and semantics even more. What constitutes a violent act? If someone broke into your house and trashed the place, but no one was hurt, would you say it was a nonviolent action? Christ even made a whip of cords to chase them from the building. The potential for bodily harm did exist, although we could argue the theological implications until we're both blue in the face.

I agree. This is where it gets messy and we have to be more precise with terms. When I refer to violence, I mean toward an individual causing harm or death. and by Love, as compared to just the lack of hatred, I mean intentionally choosing to see them as of great worth and wanting good for them. I think the NT is clear that Christians should be nonviolent. Killing someone is absolutely not permitted. The grey area for me is things like pepper spray, tasers etc. Still working things out.

Also, I would nuance what you said about the whip of cords. I do not believe Jesus used that to drive out the people, but the animals (oxen especially). The text isn't explicit one way or another, but I have a hard time reconciling Jesus whipping people with his absolute command to love our enemies.

All I said was someone could infer that stance from positions previously stated. I failed to properly point out that my question, which you bolded in your post, was meant to be rhetorical. It was not actually aimed at you. Apologies for the lack of communication on my part. Intonation so rarely displays in written text.

No worries. And no apology necessary.

So German Christians are commanded by God to support Adolf Hitler?

I don't see support in that passage. Also was Nero really that much better than Hitler? Granted he didn't kill as many people, but that was more from a lack of industrial technology not a lack of wickedness.

 

[TCassidy]

Eisegesis at it's finest.

Translation: "I am totally ignorant of the history of Israel and the political climate at the time of Christ and as I am too lazy to educate myself I will just post a meaningless blurb without any foundation or facts."

 

[PreachTony]

If someone attacks you or your family, are they an enemy? Jesus commands you to love them. How are you going to do that?

Okay, so someone is attacking your family. You are supposed to love the attacker. What do you do? Do you lay down and just let the attacker kill you? Do you tell your children to just let the attacker beat them, since retaliating obviously means you hate them? I don't mean these to sound snarky or sarcastic. This is a genuine topic to discuss.

I don't care what the world says or how it defines things. I wouldn't consider simple spanking to be violence, especially compared to killing someone.

While I agree with you that spanking isn't an act of violence, I'm just trying to make the point that the world looks on it as violence. I'm sorry that my desire to draw a non-1:1 correlation has caused so much confusion.

Emotion really is a minor part of it. We are commanded to love our enemies. Are you really going to say that you can obey Christ and intentionally love the guy who just kicked in your door while you put a couple rounds of 124g hollow points into his chest?

See my answer above.

I agree. This is where it gets messy and we have to be more precise with terms. When I refer to violence, I mean toward an individual causing harm or death. and by Love, as compared to just the lack of hatred, I mean intentionally choosing to see them as of great worth and wanting good for them. I think the NT is clear that Christians should be nonviolent. Killing someone is absolutely not permitted. The grey area for me is things like pepper spray, tasers etc. Still working things out.

Also, I would nuance what you said about the whip of cords. I do not believe Jesus used that to drive out the people, but the animals (oxen especially). The text isn't explicit one way or another, but I have a hard time reconciling Jesus whipping people with his absolute command to love our enemies.

Inference from scriptural evidence aside, I can see where you are coming from, though we obviously disagree. I believe we should strive for nonviolence, but I don't believe it means we should just allow the world to steamroll us. If Christians are not allowed to defend themselves or their families from harm, then we're right back to square one.

You said earlier that emotion plays a small part, but then you define violence has causing harm or death. We can play legalistic tug-of-war all day on terminology. To me, violence requires malice aforethought. If someone is charging at you and your family firing a gun and the only recourse you have for protecting your loved ones is firing a gun back at that person, I don't really see how that can be held against someone as a hateful act. I can see how the notion of "love," as you have defined it, can be missing from that scenario. But we also have to be honest and say that the absence of love does not equal the abundance of hate. Most humans are simply apathetic to what goes on around them.

 

[pinoybaptist]

Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines would probably fit in with the bottom ones.

.................
Lord, have mercy on us!!!

In the People's Republic of New Jersey, Maryland and a dozen other states you can't even say the word "gun" without expecting the full weight of the liberal courts to come down on you with a vengeance. Only the cops and the bad guys have weapons in those states and the rest of the population live and cower in fear behind locked and barred doors.

sounds like a real "party" going on there, at the expense of the law-abiding, tax-paying, hapless citizenry, of course.
everybody having fun.
criminals and bad boys throwing their lead and cutting the notches on their guns, politicos and cops having their photo-ops and enhancing their careers picking up somebody who may not even have anything to do with whatever.
used to live in maryland, bro.
lemme say that, refreshingly, I found California to be a little bit, just a weeny tiny little bit, more, tolerant of the word "gun".
if there were jobs in, say, wyoming, the same way they had in Cali, we'd move out there in a heartbeat.

 

[righteousdude2]

Guns in the hands of citizens make for a strong citizenry that can counter an abusive government. An abusive government, as historically proven, always paves the way to an erosion of our basic freedoms such as religion, assembly, and free speech. Therefore, should we not support the Second strongly? :thumbs:

(I asked this question ten years ago when we were way fewer.)

I am a proud owner of guns. I believe every American has the right to defend their life and the life of their loved ones. I firmly believe that guns do not kill people. People kill people. Sort of like here on the board. There are some who are evil. Small minded and willing to say anything to stand out in the crowd.

I would defend any ones right to speak their mind ... but not to speak to the point of committing character assassination of a brother or sister ... and the moderators who sit by and all this to take place, especially when it is pointed out in a complaint and they do nothing, is kin to throwing gas on a fire and fanning the flames.

The trolls. The mean spirited malcontents need to be reigned in like the crazies who use a gun to take another life for the joy of the kill, or for the sport of being able to exert their power over others.

Yes, we should share the word. But, you can't share the word when guests stop by and see a blood bath of verbal sorts

Well, that's my sermon on why we should support the ownership of guns. But we need to clean out the bad seeds who give ownership a bad rap. :type:

 

[go2church]

I would remind folks that there is a long history of peaceful nonviolent resistance within Baptist and anaBaptist circles. Some of the questions asked within this discussion have been asked and answered with a gentle but firm "no violence, ever". Even the "attack on the family" question. One could hardly say it has been a large or even vocal group, but it has been a consistent presence throughout Christian history.

 

[corndogggy]

So, you are just gonna stand there and watch intruders kill your family before your very own eyes?

More people getting lazy on me. Post #32.

 

[corndogggy]

It seems that the question is what exactly does it mean to love your enemies? Well, Jesus said exactly what that means, we just stop too early:

Luke
6:34 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
6:35 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.


So somebody busts in your window at 4 AM, you got the drop on them. In most states, you can legally ventilate them and claim self defense. Most people would do just that, and I can't say I blame them. However, how exactly does that jive with Luke 6:35? That is not being kind and merciful to the evil, yet that is exactly what Jesus said to do. I'm sorry that you don't like what the Bible says but that doesn't mean you can twist it to fit your ideas. At least I'm honest and admit that my ideas probably aren't compatible with the Bible on this subject.

 

[PreachTony]

It seems that the question is what exactly does it mean to love your enemies? Well, Jesus said exactly what that means, we just stop too early:

Luke
6:34 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
6:35 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.


So somebody busts in your window at 4 AM, you got the drop on them. In most states, you can legally ventilate them and claim self defense. Most people would do just that, and I can't say I blame them. However, how exactly does that jive with Luke 6:35? That is not being kind and merciful to the evil, yet that is exactly what Jesus said to do. I'm sorry that you don't like what the Bible says but that doesn't mean you can twist it to fit your ideas. At least I'm honest and admit that my ideas probably aren't compatible with the Bible on this subject.

If we're going down this road, then let's punch the gas.
How are we defining merciful? Is it merciful to your enemy to not retaliate, thereby giving them the opportunity to strike you or your family or your friends down? Or is merciful perhaps overcoming your enemy without killing them, and then handing them over to the authorities?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Stopping someone from harming you or your loved ones IS mercy.

 

[Revmitchell]

Mercy only comes to those who are repentant. To do otherwise is contrary to the nature of God.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I would remind folks that there is a long history of peaceful nonviolent resistance within Baptist and anaBaptist circles. Some of the questions asked within this discussion have been asked and answered with a gentle but firm "no violence, ever". Even the "attack on the family" question. One could hardly say it has been a large or even vocal group, but it has been a consistent presence throughout Christian history.

There have been a lot of stupid Christians, throughout history.

 

[corndogggy]

Mercy only comes to those who are repentant. To do otherwise is contrary to the nature of God.

The verses above say otherwise. Luke 6:34 specifically says he is kind to the evil.

 

[Rolfe]

If someone attacks your loved one, are they your enemy? Who would you love more?

Let me ask you the same. If someone attacks you or your family, are they an enemy? Jesus commands you to love them. How are you going to do that?

I notice that you dodge the question by asking me the same.

My answer: If someone attacks my family, they have become my enemy because of their predatory actions. As for loving my enemy, I am also commanded to love my Wife. I will side with my innocent Wife.

You seem to equate love with tolerance for an aggressor's violence inflicted on the innocent. Defense is not revenge.

I answered, now it is your turn.