Christians and Guns?

[Anguspure]

We feel at times that a gun is necessity in places similar to the one Fez lives but not in others. When we are in relatively safety we may not or disapprove guns whilst in other cases we would disagree with ourselves. Our prayers should be directed to never to arrive at the point of using a gun. The instruction is clear not to kill another human being.

Blessings

I live in one of the safest places on the planet.

The only reason I have a gun is because sometimes I venture into places where I can get eaten by something big and hairy if I don't.

I live in an even safer place, don't own a gun but have a Crossbow so I can shoot small hairy things and eat them. : P

[Anguspure]

Coming from down under, I find this topic just a little distasteful.

In my country the interpretation of "reasonable force" to defend oneself is such that the use of a fire arm, or any premeditated weapon would result in a conviction. The carriage or keeping of a weapon intended for use against a person implies that one fully intends to cause harm or death to them.

Having discussed antipiracy measures with colleagues we have had to ask ourselves whether in the heat of the moment we would actually be prepared to kill a person in self defence and do the job properly because that is exactly what is needed in order to carry a fire arm safely (witness the unfortunate experience of Sir Peter Blake). None of us could say with confidence that we would.

Biblically however I guess all things are permissable but not all things are beneficial so I guess nobody is under condemnation who causes death or injury in the process of defending themselves or others.

However the aim of the Christian is to be Christ like in all circumstances. Is it Christ like to have the intention of blowing someones head off?

By the way a sword and a gun are very different in combat. A sword may wound and disable a person without killing them. It would be unusual for a succesfull disabling gunshot wound to be survivable.

[~candice~]

Coming from down under, I find this topic just a little distasteful.

In my country the interpretation of "reasonable force" to defend oneself is such that the use of a fire arm, or any premeditated weapon would result in a conviction. The carriage or keeping of a weapon intended for use against a person implies that one fully intends to cause harm or death to them.

Having discussed antipiracy measures with colleagues we have had to ask ourselves whether in the heat of the moment we would actually be prepared to kill a person in self defence and do the job properly because that is exactly what is needed in order to carry a fire arm safely (witness the unfortunate experience of Sir Peter Blake). None of us could say with confidence that we would.

Biblically however I guess all things are permissable but not all things are beneficial so I guess nobody is under condemnation who causes death or injury in the process of defending themselves or others.

However the aim of the Christian is to be Christ like in all circumstances. Is it Christ like to have the intention of blowing someones head off?

By the way a sword and a gun are very different in combat. A sword may wound and disable a person without killing them. It would be unusual for a succesfull disabling gunshot wound to be survivable.

Brother, from a fellow Aussie, don't go there! I've BTDT. The foundation of the states was built on their right to have and use firearms and their opinion on this matter in general terms seems to be diametrically opposed to those Aussie hold (as with all generalisations, this won't hold for all, but it is generally true).

[Guest man]

By the way a sword and a gun are very different in combat. A sword may wound and disable a person without killing them. It would be unusual for a succesfull disabling gunshot wound to be survivable.

Tell that to James Brady and Gabrielle Giffords.

[oldzimm]

Coming from down under, I find this topic just a little distasteful.

In my country the interpretation of "reasonable force" to defend oneself is such that the use of a fire arm, or any premeditated weapon would result in a conviction. The carriage or keeping of a weapon intended for use against a person implies that one fully intends to cause harm or death to them.

Having discussed antipiracy measures with colleagues we have had to ask ourselves whether in the heat of the moment we would actually be prepared to kill a person in self defence and do the job properly because that is exactly what is needed in order to carry a fire arm safely (witness the unfortunate experience of Sir Peter Blake). None of us could say with confidence that we would.

Biblically however I guess all things are permissable but not all things are beneficial so I guess nobody is under condemnation who causes death or injury in the process of defending themselves or others.

However the aim of the Christian is to be Christ like in all circumstances. Is it Christ like to have the intention of blowing someones head off?

By the way a sword and a gun are very different in combat. A sword may wound and disable a person without killing them. It would be unusual for a succesfull disabling gunshot wound to be survivable.

Brother, from a fellow Aussie, don't go there! I've BTDT. The foundation of the states was built on their right to have and use firearms and their opinion on this matter in general terms seems to be diametrically opposed to those Aussie hold (as with all generalisations, this won't hold for all, but it is generally true).

You would be wise to listen to Candice

[~candice~]

Coming from down under, I find this topic just a little distasteful.

In my country the interpretation of "reasonable force" to defend oneself is such that the use of a fire arm, or any premeditated weapon would result in a conviction. The carriage or keeping of a weapon intended for use against a person implies that one fully intends to cause harm or death to them.

Having discussed antipiracy measures with colleagues we have had to ask ourselves whether in the heat of the moment we would actually be prepared to kill a person in self defence and do the job properly because that is exactly what is needed in order to carry a fire arm safely (witness the unfortunate experience of Sir Peter Blake). None of us could say with confidence that we would.

Biblically however I guess all things are permissable but not all things are beneficial so I guess nobody is under condemnation who causes death or injury in the process of defending themselves or others.

However the aim of the Christian is to be Christ like in all circumstances. Is it Christ like to have the intention of blowing someones head off?

By the way a sword and a gun are very different in combat. A sword may wound and disable a person without killing them. It would be unusual for a succesfull disabling gunshot wound to be survivable.

Brother, from a fellow Aussie, don't go there! I've BTDT. The foundation of the states was built on their right to have and use firearms and their opinion on this matter in general terms seems to be diametrically opposed to those Aussie hold (as with all generalisations, this won't hold for all, but it is generally true).

You would be wise to listen to Candice

In other words Angus, STOP OR THEY'LL SHOOT

[oldzimm]

Coming from down under, I find this topic just a little distasteful.

In my country the interpretation of "reasonable force" to defend oneself is such that the use of a fire arm, or any premeditated weapon would result in a conviction. The carriage or keeping of a weapon intended for use against a person implies that one fully intends to cause harm or death to them.

Having discussed antipiracy measures with colleagues we have had to ask ourselves whether in the heat of the moment we would actually be prepared to kill a person in self defence and do the job properly because that is exactly what is needed in order to carry a fire arm safely (witness the unfortunate experience of Sir Peter Blake). None of us could say with confidence that we would.

Biblically however I guess all things are permissable but not all things are beneficial so I guess nobody is under condemnation who causes death or injury in the process of defending themselves or others.

However the aim of the Christian is to be Christ like in all circumstances. Is it Christ like to have the intention of blowing someones head off?

By the way a sword and a gun are very different in combat. A sword may wound and disable a person without killing them. It would be unusual for a succesfull disabling gunshot wound to be survivable.

Brother, from a fellow Aussie, don't go there! I've BTDT. The foundation of the states was built on their right to have and use firearms and their opinion on this matter in general terms seems to be diametrically opposed to those Aussie hold (as with all generalisations, this won't hold for all, but it is generally true).

You would be wise to listen to Candice

In other words Angus, STOP OR THEY'LL SHOOT

Yeah that's right, we shoot first and ask questions later.

[~candice~]

Coming from down under, I find this topic just a little distasteful.

In my country the interpretation of "reasonable force" to defend oneself is such that the use of a fire arm, or any premeditated weapon would result in a conviction. The carriage or keeping of a weapon intended for use against a person implies that one fully intends to cause harm or death to them.

Having discussed antipiracy measures with colleagues we have had to ask ourselves whether in the heat of the moment we would actually be prepared to kill a person in self defence and do the job properly because that is exactly what is needed in order to carry a fire arm safely (witness the unfortunate experience of Sir Peter Blake). None of us could say with confidence that we would.

Biblically however I guess all things are permissable but not all things are beneficial so I guess nobody is under condemnation who causes death or injury in the process of defending themselves or others.

However the aim of the Christian is to be Christ like in all circumstances. Is it Christ like to have the intention of blowing someones head off?

By the way a sword and a gun are very different in combat. A sword may wound and disable a person without killing them. It would be unusual for a succesfull disabling gunshot wound to be survivable.

Brother, from a fellow Aussie, don't go there! I've BTDT. The foundation of the states was built on their right to have and use firearms and their opinion on this matter in general terms seems to be diametrically opposed to those Aussie hold (as with all generalisations, this won't hold for all, but it is generally true).

You would be wise to listen to Candice

In other words Angus, STOP OR THEY'LL SHOOT

Yeah that's right, we shoot first and ask questions later.

I was just telling a punny don't shoot me for it .

[oldzimm]

Coming from down under, I find this topic just a little distasteful.

In my country the interpretation of "reasonable force" to defend oneself is such that the use of a fire arm, or any premeditated weapon would result in a conviction. The carriage or keeping of a weapon intended for use against a person implies that one fully intends to cause harm or death to them.

Having discussed antipiracy measures with colleagues we have had to ask ourselves whether in the heat of the moment we would actually be prepared to kill a person in self defence and do the job properly because that is exactly what is needed in order to carry a fire arm safely (witness the unfortunate experience of Sir Peter Blake). None of us could say with confidence that we would.

Biblically however I guess all things are permissable but not all things are beneficial so I guess nobody is under condemnation who causes death or injury in the process of defending themselves or others.

However the aim of the Christian is to be Christ like in all circumstances. Is it Christ like to have the intention of blowing someones head off?

By the way a sword and a gun are very different in combat. A sword may wound and disable a person without killing them. It would be unusual for a succesfull disabling gunshot wound to be survivable.

Brother, from a fellow Aussie, don't go there! I've BTDT. The foundation of the states was built on their right to have and use firearms and their opinion on this matter in general terms seems to be diametrically opposed to those Aussie hold (as with all generalisations, this won't hold for all, but it is generally true).

You would be wise to listen to Candice

In other words Angus, STOP OR THEY'LL SHOOT

Yeah that's right, we shoot first and ask questions later.

I was just telling a punny don't shoot me for it .

Don't worry Candice, I'll keep my six shooter strapped in the holster.

[Jeanette4]

Well exactly what ARE you saying? On the one hand the Bible says we should be prepared to defend our family (and I think your first example of being "armed" as in armed with God in prayer and study)..........yet you say you don't necessarily think we should all run out and buy a rifle..........where do you stand? I happen to lean away from everyone and their mother's owning guns.............

Luke 22:35-38 (King James Version)

35And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

I know that I am forever teaching that there is a sever lack of attention to what is being taught in the Body of Christ today but I cannot cease until I pass over because it is such an important topic.

In my, almost, daily encounters with people, claiming the Name of the Christ for their, very, own, I find such discourse with what the scriptures, the inspired Word of God has to say. While it is certainly not a new concept there is a disturbing concept that is growing in the US by leaps and bounds and that would be the refusal to bear arms against this nation's and other people's enemies.

It seems to me that not only do these "New Testament� Christians, not read the Bible (The Old Testament) that Jesus, not only inspired to be written but, read and used exclusively but they cannot be reading the best life application commentary ever written, the New Testament! In verse 36 of the above passage from Luke Jesus warned His followers, that will be us, to arm themselves for the oncoming events.

Now, there are two ways for a Christian to arm himself and he should be properly prepared in both. The first, and by far, the most important is to place the Word of God in the secret place of your heart. That is best accomplished by daily reading the Word of God. It's really a painless thing and does not require you to become a teacher. It takes fifteen to thirty minutes a day for a year to read the entire Bible... all of it!

The second, although it is a good idea, does not require that you run right out and purchase a semi-automatic rifle. It does however require that a man be prepared to die defending his mother, his wife and his children. Defense, like Christianity, requires commitment.