Communism Survivor Destroys "Gun Control" Law Makers

I addressed this point in another post in this thread. I refer you to that reply.

 

This is a true story. A co-worker of my husband's sat in McDonalds in Anchorage, Alaska eating with his friend. His friend's children were present as well. A man came in with a gun and threatened the employee behind the counter. The co-worker's friend, former military, got his gun out and held it under the table. He waited and watched. As soon as the gun holder at the counter waved his gun toward the kids, the co-worker's friend shot him before he could fire a bullet. He was instantly dead. The police came and approved it. It was within Alaska law.

This man was obedient to the law in his actions. Was he wrong according to God's Higher Law? (Dave?)

 

Vengeance is retaliatory, after the event; defence applies during the event. So I don't see how Dave's quoted Scripture is any use in a scenario where one needs to defend oneself or your loved ones

 

If you convert to Islam and then die before you repent, you will go to hell. I would rather that they murdered me than join their satanic cult but I am old and do not have so long to go anyway since I am on borrowed time.

 

That's a good point.

It also brings up another question. If you do nothing, while you have the power to do something, are you aiding and abetting evil? Or at a minimum enabling evil?

Ghandi said he would not have stopped Hitler if he had the chance.

Is passivity what Jesus preached or what Ghandi preached?

 

Latin America is very chaotic and the governments are often despotic but they are not always in control of their territories. I don't think that Latin America will change much because they have very high mountains and vast areas of jungle.

I don't see how the leftist can say that weapons are wrong when Christianity depends upon the blood sacrifice of Jesus just as American freedom was paid for by the blood of our ancestors. I know that I am one of the few if not the only Southern Gospel Primitive Quartet follower here. I have outlived the good days of the USA. Religious liberals are so tedious.

 

Yes or No: do you follow Jesus to the letter (as you put it) and hate your wife and children (Luke 14:26)?

And why does your wife not hate anything that hinders your relationship with Christ? (Which was s what you said with that grammar)

 

I would die, but I don't know if I could allow my child to die. I know my husband couldn't. It would be a very severe test, indeed. I am thankful that God has never in my life required me to put to that kind of a test!

 

No, what Paul said was let "every soul" be subject to the higher powers, meaning even rulers are subject to the law of God.

Paul also defines rulers saying they are not a terror to good works. Anyone who becomes a terror to good works is not a ruler, but a tyrant, and they are not owed allegiance.

 

It occurs to me with the example regarding ISIS and the missionary that the poor missionary interpreted his death far differently than did the members of ISIS. Also differently than a follower of Islam is likely to interpret it. I think Ghandi would have had a huge problem with them, too. Ghandi was up against (at least nominal) Christian society. He played off Christian understandings of the Sermon on the Mount.

I think the early Christian martyrs' deaths did help to spread their Christian faith and win converts. After all, if you believe in something enough to die for it, it gets peoples' attention. It is like the burning mediating man photo in the middle of the street during the Viet Nam War.

But I wonder how impressive that is to Muslims? Maybe they just think it proves Allah is stronger?

 

Going back to the example of Nebuchadnezzar brought up earlier in the thread, what impressed Nebuchadnezzar about God? It was God's mightiness, the fact that God was mightier than other gods. It seems like Allah is similar to a great big War Lord in the sky in some ways, based upon my admittedly limited study of the Islamic faith.

 

The idea was to convert to prevent any harm coming to the children and then you must be prepared to pay the price for that action. Keep in mind that a conversion that is done under duress and is not heartfelt is a false conversion and perhaps maybe the Lord would agree and show mercy. However, if the man was there by himself that is a completely different story. Conversion should be refused, stand fast in the faith, and as a martyr heaven awaits. I would agree with you there.

 

A clear case of a person defending himself and others. I carry a firearm myself, and if I had to intervene in a likewise situation I would not lose any sleep over it. The man stepped up to the plate and saved others from injury or death.

 

Exactly. Like I said I don't think much of him for putting his family in that kind of situation, but if he had gone by himself to spread the word he would indeed have had my admiration also.

 

It's a difficult one: do you think Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego could have pleaded the 'conversion by duress defence' if they'd bottled it at the door of the furnace?

 

Scripture is clear that they never even thought of that.

 

So how would you apply their principles to the ISIS hostage described upthread?

 

When one appears before God one can plead anything, the question is will God show you any mercy. My scenario envisioned a "conversion under duress" to save the child from any torture or death, those three men were adults deciding their own fate so this is not the same situation at all.

 

Thanks for the reply. Paul equates the higher powers with the person called the magistrate.

“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: 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.” (Romans 13:3–4) (KJV 1900)