Featured Christians Carrying Concealed Weapons - Falwell vs. Piper

Man hush. What are you,some sort of George Zimmerman wannabe? Officers are hired to serve and protect.

 

The question included seeing someone shooting or stabbing--intending to cause serious bodily harm or death--others. So what would you have us do? Be specific, and give us an alternative.

Edited to add: where did anyone say "shoot to kill"? I believe you added that.

 

Typical to misquote, when they cannot argue the logic!! Very "liberal"!!??

 

Shoot to kill was the notion put forth by Jerry Falwell Jr. in his "address" during convocation. I was speaking to that notion as it is with what the thread started.
At Liberty University, a Christian's first line of defense should not be to kill or be killed, or to use deadly force to stop being killed as Mr. Falwell seemed to say.

I don't think it Christlike to walk around with a gun acting like you've got the answer if anything happens.

It's more about, again as Piper said, the attitude.

The cavalier attitude about taking a life tells me once again that abortion for a lot of folks is about politics and not about Christ. Otherwise, folks would be a lot less vocal about their ability to take a life if a situation arose.

Everything about being prepared to use the "sword" in such a way speaks to me of a worldly , fleshly response and not a spiritual response.

To answer your question about seeing someone shooting or stabbing, etc, I submit what Mr. Piper said:

 

Boring as usual.

 

Not addressing the post -- as usual!!Rolleyes

Zaac sez: "I don't think it Christlike to walk around with a gun acting like you've got the answer if anything happens."

Right; misquote/twist, and then argue YOUR warped idea of what is actually said!!Rolleyes

 

I addressed it. Your usual boring mind coupled with your boring response just didn't like it. Checked off.

 

I believe God infused the will to survive in each of us.
I also believe those passages cited by Piper are for those who go forth into the world with the gospel and they should expect persecution and even martyrdom.

However, then there are those who come to us and mow us down like sitting ducks, this is a different situation.

While its true we have law enforcement to protect us, these ISIL murderers make sure and plan accordingly to kill where no firearms are allowed.

I believe Falwell said that only well trained individuals would be armed. Veterans and/or law enforcement persons preferably.

In this way the scenario of Jihadists (foreign or domestic) thinking to mow down as many students as possible would make Falwell's institution, having given them fair warning, an unlikely target.

Be wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove.

HankD

 

Well, you have calmed down a bit; now I'm just BORING instead of "BEING MIRED IN THE DEVIL'S WICKEDNESS".

Definitely an improvement!

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads/will-america-survive.97133/page-2#post-218827

 

Oh, you're STILL mired. You just added boring to your resume.Thumbsup

 

When a man goes to war in a foreign land to defend his country this also includes his loved ones. Most likely you will have to kill the enemy. I don't see any difference in defending your loved ones and your property in America against those that would kill you and your family.

 

Jerry Falwell was right of gun right subject, I agree. But Falwell is in Hell, due to his heresy and betrayal of Faith. He sold himself to freewillism, God loves everybodyism, Arminianism, and corrupted political system. Love of money and power kill human souls.

 

"Man hush. What are you,some sort of George Zimmerman wannabe? Officers are hired to serve and protect."

Zaac, take a couple of aspirins..., a short nap and you'll feel better when you wake up. Believe me. It works every time.

Most always "officers" show up after the fact.

 

Apologies for the delay in replying, I've been about other things than this here board

David didn't live under the new covenant. Where are the examples, in the NT, of Christians committing brutality or "protecting others" with a sword that are condoned and championed?

I'm curious why "protecting others" inherently means carrying a gun. Are there no other alternatives? I'm all for protecting others, I just don't think the vast majority of Americans possess the capacity to properly handle a handgun in a sudden, violent situation.

Notice this video where British police, or this one as well, who are armed, bring down a machete wielding crazed man without shooting him. Isn't this a better option for ourselves and the police?

The more direct line here is that in an moment where Jesus could have willingly allowed bloodshed on his behalf, the scene in the Garden where Peter strikes off the ear of another, he chooses instead to heal the wound rather than allow the pain. Under the New Covenant we have a new responsibility towards others.

I'm all for protecting others, but if we think that can only be accomplished with handguns we are lying to ourselves and the others we seek to protect.

You've made good points Don, please don't miss my appreciation of them, but I simply, respectfully disagree that handguns are the solution here.

 

This does not make your case. They were there in the garden to take Jesus to the illegal court hearing where he was then taken to the cross. His purpose was in fact not to defend himself due to the greater purpose at that time.

 

If the average American, in your opinion, is not well trained enough to handle a gun in a violent situation, do you consider them well trained enough to engage a "machete wielding crazed man" unarmed? That seems to be your position.

The last crazed man I had to deal with (many years ago) ended up with me and a police officer tackling an unfortunate, mentally ill fellow in the gas station I was working at. He was pretty feisty, and I'm glad that he wasn't wielding a machete.

But, the entirety of the population is not healthy, young adult males. If my wife or disabled father in law were confronted by a machete wielding crazed man, I would hope that they had something other than their bare hands for defense.

 

It certainly does make his case as does everything Christ did on the Cross. A lot of you sound like you possess the same attitudes of the Jews during Christ's earthly ministry in that you think His way should be one of the sword and violence.

EVERYTHING He did during His earthly ministry pointed to His grace and mercy and forgiveness; the exact opposite of how the Jews thought the Messiah would come.

As preachinjesus said

Christ gave us the alternative to man's way. And man's way, without a doubt, is to arm yourself and shoot first and ask questions later.

This very worldly approach to dealing with folks definitely explains why some of you applaud with your words when a police officer kills an unarmed person.

Jesus will return with the sword in HIS time:

11I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. 12His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.”a He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Rev. 19:11-16

 

I didn't say anything about carrying non-lethal protection. I'm just curious how a handgun is, by default, the best option. Why not a telescoping baton, pepper spray, or even a stun gun? Why must the device of our protection be one of the few that almost automatically means the ending of a life?

 

I think it does. Of course, one might also point to the episodes where the crowd sought to seize Jesus and kill him (Luke 4:29-30) or when a crowd tried to stone him (John 8:58-59.) Jesus could have used force to repel these crowds, but instead he sought another way. In the second, the text plainly states that he ran and hid, in the first, a bit more miraculous perhaps.

When Paul, or maybe other early believers, was accosted by a crowd intent on harming him or killing him, how often did he, or they, take up arms in defense? Seems a new ethic is a hand.

Indeed, if we consider the literature of the earliest Christian communities through Nicaea there is a serious point made by the early Christians to resist using force to harm others seeking to harm them. If this weren't the model of the NT, why did a near pacifistic ethic suddenly emerge from the first Christians?

 

Because the things you listed are inadequate in the face of multiple assailants.