Should Christians STRONGLY support the 2ND AMENDMENT?

[HankD]

Slapping my face is one thing, threatening my life or the lives of my family will provide proof that I am not yet a perfect Christian.

HankD

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Isaiah 26:3 Thou wilt keep [him] in perfect peace, [whose] mind [is] stayed [on thee]: because he trusteth in thee.

 

[HankD]

Funny, I find the words 'Fear Not' in my Bible but can't find 'Shoot anything that moves'.

Why do we need guns?

Based upon "fear not" why do we need doctors?


HankD

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Well, let's see....

Luke was a physician. So I guess physicians were some necessity.

 

[HankD]

Luke was a physician. So I guess physicians were some necessity.

OK well, the Scripture speaks positively of the sword (no guns in those days) which is an instrument of death.

Romans 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:
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.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Ahhh, but bearing a sword, or gun, is much different than seeing a doctor. Also, we have to take into account the verse that says.

Romans 12:20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
Romans 12:21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

and...

1 Peter 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

 

[Marcia]

But the sword is not spoken of to use in rebellion, but for use by the government.

I'm still waiting for biblical support for rebellion against the King of England by the colonies.

 

[superdave]

So, don't be afraid when my neighbor somehow got into my house when my wife and 2 young children are home with all the doors locked in the middle of the day? Ok, fine, I'm not afraid, I know that God took care of my family, and will continue to do so. That doesn't mean the .40 auto is unecessary or unbiblical. God doesn't command us to abandon our own knowlege and experience in order to trust him. My ability to put 10 rounds inside the 7 ring in 20 seconds is clearly a talent on loan from God.

By some of the arguments being used in this thread, David not only should have let the sheep die, but he should have stood there and let the lion and the bear take what they wanted, and than allowed them to kill him. Oh, and Goliath, he wasn't that bad of a guy either. David's personal war of aggression clearly was immoral, and simply designed to gain him political gain.

 

[Marcia]

Diavid's job was protecting sheep and it was common for larger animals to attack them.

How many of us have had armed intruders into our homes? Sure, maybe one or two here might have had this, but it is not the norm (unless you live somewhere where it's the norm).

I know many single women living alone -- they are far more vulnerable than any man on this board -- and they do not own guns. Why is it that men on the BB are so quick to talk about their guns and their ability to shoot somebody? Isn't this a human male thing, not a God thing?

 

[RayMarshall19]

Originally posted by Marcia:

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
One can rebel against their king, president, or specific eathly ruler only if that ruler is handing down laws to be enforced which are against the Word of God.

Romans 13 we are told to obey those that have rule over us.
Acts 5:29 ...We ought to obey God rather than man

If man's laws and edicts are against God's Word, then we are to ignore the manmade laws. [/QUOTE/]---------------end quote


Acts 5:29 is about the apostles not obeying the religious authorities; in this case, they were not disobeying the civil gov't. Also, disobedience is not quite the same as open rebellion.

When the colonies split from England, it was open rebellion.

What law from the King of England commanded men to violate God's will? Where in the bible does it substantiate rebellion against the government?

I'm not sure about your comment concerning Acts 5:29. Verse 18 of the same chapter says "they laid hands on the apostles, and put them in a public jail." That's a PUBLIC jail. Were not the Jewish leaders of that day vested with some secular, political power? If that is the case then the apostles WERE disobeying the civil government.

The difference between disobedience and open rebellion is a matter of degree and dependent upon the situation. If mere disobedience can get the job done that's great. If open rebellion is required then so be it.

The Delcaration of Independence begins:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the LAWS OF NATURE AND OF NATURE'S GOD entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

The introduction is followed by a list of injustices (sins) suffered at the hands of England.

The document's closing paragraph states that the colonies are "appealing to the SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD for the rectitude of our intentions" and
"for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

So, the "rebels" believed they were following the "Laws of Nature's God", appealed to the "Supreme Judge of the World" to ensure their intentions were right, and expressed a trust in "Divine Providence" to bless them as they moved forward. Not exactly a secular approach.

I don't believe our founding fathers believed they were violating God's will. I think the believed they were following it.

 

[Circuitrider]

Isn't it interesting that Jesus made sure the disciples were armed before facing the coming confrontation with Jewish authoritites. Now he did caution Peter that "living by the sword" had negative consequences, but we can't lose the fact that they were armed.

Our message is one of love and compassion for others, however, we must be careful to stand up for what is right. Sometimes that means "bearing the sword." If someone came into my house to do me or my family harm, if necessary I would defend my house with deadly force.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by RayMarshall19:
I'm not sure about your comment concerning Acts 5:29. Verse 18 of the same chapter says "they laid hands on the apostles, and put them in a public jail." That's a PUBLIC jail. Were not the Jewish leaders of that day vested with some secular, political power? If that is the case then the apostles WERE disobeying the civil government.

Three points in response:
1. Even if the religious authorities could put them in jail, the apostles were still not disobeying the civil gov't just because the religious leaders had this power.
2. Even if one were to concede that the apostles were disobeying the civil gov't, it was because they were told not to preach the gospel.
3. In defying the orders not to preach the gospel, the apostles did not pick up weapons and start a rebellion against the government.

I think no. 3 goes against using this passage as justification for open armed rebellion against the government.

...So, the "rebels" believed they were following the "Laws of Nature's God", appealed to the "Supreme Judge of the World" to ensure their intentions were right, and expressed a trust in "Divine Providence" to bless them as they moved forward. Not exactly a secular approach.

I don't believe our founding fathers believed they were violating God's will. I think the believed they were following it.

But just because they believed they were following God's will does not make it so. They could have been wrong.

 

[RayMarshall19]

1. No. Any agent to which the civil government extends authority is part of the civil government.
2. I don't understand what this statement means.
3. As I said before, disobedience and rebellion differ only in degree. In the apostles' case disobedience was apparently all they thought was required to do God's will.

The Founding Fathers, however, realized that simple disobedience would not get the job done. I can't say for sure, and neither can you, whether they were doing God's will. That's between them and God. (But the same can be said of your pastor's choice of sermon last Sunday or anything else one does as a result of conviction.)

But the Fathers said up front that they thought they were doing God's will I am convinced that they believed they were doing it, especially when I consider the price they would have paid if their cause had failed.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Jesus may have told them to take up the sword, but in the garden, He told them to put away the sword.

 

[Alcott]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Funny, I find the words 'Fear Not' in my Bible but can't find 'Shoot anything that moves'.

Why do we need guns?

To shoot something; whether it moves or not. Have you stopped laughing yet?

 

[RayMarshall19]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Jesus may have told them to take up the sword, but in the garden, He told them to put away the sword.

Are you saying you would not use a weapon to defend yourself or your family against someone who intended to harm them?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Ray,

I have enough faith in my Lord that He will protect me. And just like the 3 Hebrew men would not bow to the kings image, I will not give in to returning evil for evil. And no matter what an intruder tried to do, he or she could do nothing except it were allowed by the Lord.

 

[RayMarshall19]

I can certainly respect that.

 

[Alcott]

no matter what an intruder tried to do, he or she could do nothing except it were allowed by the Lord.

It probably will be allowed. Many Christians I know have been robbed and beaten. If you choose to depend on the Lord, do you lock your doors, carry insurance on your home, tell any children who may visit to leave gas or electric appliances or outlets alone,....? or just hope He won't allow anything nasty to happen?

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

This is a good argument against predestination of everything that happens. I believe that God does foreordain some things (Jesus' death on the cross for example) but not everything.

This doesn't change my view on guns. I am against them. I don't buy the argument thatthey would be necessary or even useful to overthrow a tyranical government. What is necessary is maintaintaining our constitutuional rights which are being usurped by the current administration through the Patriot Act and claudestine activity.