Should Christians STRONGLY support the 2ND AMENDMENT?

[buckster75]

I know I have missed some posts but here goes:

If I have stopped some one from killing me so I can continue in God's work I will "Rejoice and be exceeding glad"

already commented on the praying.

"Follow in His steps" ..I got protection as He asked me to.

Did some one actually say Jesus wanted them to take on the whole Roman army?

 

[buckster75]

don't know what you mean by sidetrack?

 

[Hardsheller]

Originally posted by StraightAndNarrow:
There's the answer we need to arrive at as a citizen in a free democracy and then the answer we need to come up with as a Christian. My own belief is that guns have nothing to do with Christianity. If anything, they are anti-Christian if you believe in the sanctity of life (all life including unborn babies).

So you would deny me my Constitutional Rights?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Jesus never said "rejoice and be exceeding glad" when you kill your persecutor, He said rejoice and be exceeding glad WHEN you are persecuted.

I'll paraphrase what Peter said in 1 Peter 2v20ff.

"What good is it when you are buffeted for doing wrong and you take it patiently. But if you suffer for doing well, and do so patiently, this is acceptable to God. This is what you are called to, Jesus left an example for us that we should follow in His steps. He did not sin. When He was reviledm He did not revile, when He suffered, He did not threaten, but commited Himself to His that judges righeously."

I could go on and on. There are MANY New Testament passages dealing with persecution. They ALL say to "accept it, rejoice in it, pray for those who are persecuting you, depend on the Holy Spirit for words to say." Not ONCE does the New Testament give us ANY justification for killing persecutors.

Your take up a sword argument is the closest you can get. It clearly is not meant as a defense, since Jesus said two swords was enough. I suspect these were to protect themselves from wild animals as they went out.

Never, never did Jesus command, suggest, or even imply that killing to protect ourselves from persecution was acceptable.

 

[OCC]

Hardsheller, I don't think it is a case of "denying you your Constitutional rights". Maybe Constitutional rights aren't biblical. Isn't your Constitutional right the right to be a member of a well-regulated militia?

As for the actual use of guns for self-defense, well if the right to bear arms is to protect yourself against government persecution then can you really use that to justify self-defense against another individual (who is not a government worker)?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Well fellas, its been fun, but I have spent FAR too much time on this thread the last fews days. Hoping to just leave some thoughts for consideration.

Take care.

 

[OCC]

You too C4K.

 

[Hardsheller]

Jesus said some interesting things about children that might play into this discussion.

Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Now I can't believe Jesus would say that and then expect me, a follower of his, to stand by idly and watch this happen and not do something to prevent it.

Jesus also said, Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

So do we just let the pedophile run loose to abuse and kill again or do we bind the millstone around his neck and toss him off the bridge confident that we are doing the will of Christ?

I'd rather err on the side of protecting the weak and the undefended than err in favor of the violent offender.

 

[Hardsheller]

On the intent of the Bill of Rights including Amendment 2 it seems that the Rights are individual rights and not collective rights to be controlled by either the state or the federal government.

 

[just-want-peace]

I know what you DID say. And yes, many missionaries have went out from America. That doesn't mean God established it.

And just from curosity, what would it take for you to believe that God did, in fact, establish this country?

I recommend reading "The Light and the Glory" ; Peter Marshall & David Manual

Does this prove God established the USA? No, but it sure does give a convincing argument for that possibility.

"--- In this intriguing book, the authors make a persuasive case that the rays had first begun to pierce the gloom some 300 years before,when a Genoese visionary whose name literally meant "Christbearer", became convinced that God was calling him to bear the light of Christ west to undiscovered lands. This is at considerable variance with what American schoolchildren have been taught for generations - that Columbus discovered America by accident, while seeking a trade route to the Indies - and it is but the first in a continuing series of surprising discoveries the authors made, as they sought the hand of God in early American history. ---" Front flyleaf

I have just gotten into the Revolutionary war, and I am amazed at what I DID NOT KNOW about this country's history.

As to documentation, the biblography is 8 pages long.

'Course I fully realize that those who hate the USA will ignore any possibility that this book could be accurate, but then there's always "that 10%"!

 

[TexasSky]

If you think the New Testament justifies the use of weapons by Christians, why didn't Peter, Paul, John, James, Stephen..... kill the people who tried to arrest them?

 

[Hardsheller]

So Texas Sky, what makes the use of weapons by a nation OK and the use of weapons by individuals Not OK?

 

[Me4Him]

I haven't read all 12 pages, so I may be "replowing ground".

Ec 3:17 for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

Ec 3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

I "suppose" being able to "TELL TIME" would be the first priority.

The coming Tribulations is an "ACT OF GOD" that no one can fight against and win.

Re 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

While I believe that "FREEEDOM" should be defended, to the death, just as "FAITH" is kept, the "TIME PERIOD" in which we live and the erosion of "FREEDOMS" are all "pre cursors" to this Tribulation period.

Should we just "sit back" and let it go, not really, We can't "Stop" the tribulations, but a lot more would be saved from the "Fire" and politicians would have a "fear of God" if Christians were willing to take a "stand to the death" for what they believe.

We ask the soliders to fight/die for freedom in Iraq, but don't have the "integrity" to do the same here at home, all I can say is; "Hypocrite".

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
So Texas Sky, what makes the use of weapons by a nation OK and the use of weapons by individuals Not OK?

Nothing. Christianity is all about loving not killing your neighbor.

 

[Mercury]

About the whip:

Originally posted by buckster75:
didn't say it did. (just read what I said and stop adding . he used a weapon.

A whip is no more a weapon than a hammer or a kitchen knife is a weapon. It is a tool that can be used as a weapon. Its purpose is to get animals moving. We have no evidence that Jesus used it as a weapon.

BTW a whip can kill

I'm sure many of the tools Jesus learned to use from Joseph could also kill. He probably used a knife a few times in his life as well. How is this relevant?

this got me thinking. Where did Jesus get the whip?

He made it out of cords (John 2:15).

 

[Bunyon]

C4K- ""Rejoice and be exceeding glad"
"Pray for them that persecute you"
"Follow in His steps

Well, C4K, these words just say be happy when it happens to you, and to pray for them. How do you take out of this passage, that one cannot defend their family agains violence? I don't see where it says that.

 

[Bunyon]

"why didn't Peter, Paul, John, James, Stephen..... kill the people who tried to arrest them? "----------------------------------------

Their particular mission may have precluded the use of weapons. We don't all have the same jobs in the kingdom. We are not all the same part of the body. But as far as we know they did not have the oportunity to resist.

 

[Bunyon]

God established every country and govenment according to the Bible.

[ September 28, 2005, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Bunyon ]

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Hardsheller:
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

[...]

So do we just let the pedophile run loose to abuse and kill again or do we bind the millstone around his neck and toss him off the bridge confident that we are doing the will of Christ?

Jesus said it would be better for him, meaning the one who caused one of the little ones to sin, stumble, or be offended (depending on translation). I think it's referring to causing a child to lose their childlike faith. Regardless of interpretation, it's certainly not just referring to pedophiles. And secondly, it would be better for them if they were killed before they had a chance to do this thing (see Luke 17:2). Jesus is probably referring to long before, such as his similar statement about Judas in Matthew 26:24. This is not speaking of punishing, or even about defending children, but of how it would be better for the offender if they never had the chance to do this thing.

Are you willing to murder anyone who might be about to offend a child, cause a child to sin, or cause a child to lose their childlike faith? And, have you considered that while doing so might be better for the offender, it may not be better for you?

This reminds me of the argument that if there's an age of accountability, it would be better to kill babies before they reach it so they would be guaranteed salvation. Even if that were true, it may be better for the babies, but not better for the one who kills them. The same applies here.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by Bunyon:
Their particular mission may have precluded the use of weapons.

Isn't it interesting that the particular mission of all the disciples recorded in the New Testament seems to have precluded the use of weapons against opposition? Not one counterexample. No Samsons in the mix. Saul seems to have been willing to use violence before his conversion, but a visit from Jesus changed that. Jesus' mission also seems to have precluded armed resistance, and he is our example as well as our Lord and Saviour.

If weapons are to be an important part of how we as Christians deal with opposition, why is the New Testament silent about it, and why did the early church for the most part miss this crucial way of responding to their persecution?