Pastor claims bible says guns are ok

[Guest LadyC]

it wasn't you that got me riled up. and i AM exercising self control by choosing not to debate it further.

[OakWood]

 

 

In my humble opinion, The Holy Spirit through Peter, James, john, Paul or even Jesus Christ himself did not teach us to respond to violence with more violence. 

 

so, I'm supposed to set back and let a 250 pound muscled up dude rape and kill my wife and or grand daughter and do nothing.....   knowing full well I do not have the strength or skills to stop him....

i'm supposed to just say  "God help my wife."

 

 Did Paul respond to being stoned by throwing stones himself? Did Peter and John respond to the violence of beatings by beating on them back or pulling out a sword? If this is correct about guns, then why is there not even 1 example in the New Testament of a believer responding to violence with violence after the resurrection?  I understand the Word of God to teach that Jesus was an example for us. Did Jesus respond to violence with violence? I believe a divided house can't stand. If we are fighting our battles, then Jesus is not. I believe the bible teaches that we don't fight against flesh and blood, but our battles are spiritual. Eph. 6:12.

 

 

I have to disagree with you here but allow me to explain why.

The disciples were chosen to carry out specific missions and for that reason they had to be complete pacifists. Remember that when Jesus tells men to abandon their wives and families in order to follow him, it can't possibly apply to everybody because if it did, all Christian men would be commanded to do so. Christians would become extinct because they would no longer reproduce and there would be a lot of widows and orphaned children.

So clearly, I think, we all have different roles to play.

 

But anyway, let's get back to the subject.

 

Before Peter went out on his post-ascension mission, Jesus said to him "those who live by the sword, die by the sword" (I've paraphrased a bit but the meaning is the same).

Let's examine the circumstances behind this:

 

Peter probably carried a sword all or most of the time. It was common in those days for men to carry swords. When Jesus was arrested Peter cut off the soldier's ear which Jesus of course promptly healed and then rebuked Peter for his hastiness. Four points here:

 

1/ At no time did Jesus say:

"That was disgusting Peter. You're not my disciple. I don't want to have anything to do with you anymore."

 

Peter lashed out in anger and did so out of love for Jesus. His friend had been arrested and he became angry. He wasn't stepping in front of Jesus and using his sword to protect Jesus because Jesus had already been caught and there was nothing that Peter could do to stop that. He was taking revenge because of his emotion. Vengeance is not for men but belongs to God alone.

Those who live by the sword are those who use violence to solve all their problems. That is not the way to live your life. Violence should always be a last resort. It's a similar thing to the 'turn the other cheek' line. If you've been hit. you've been hit. Hitting the person who hit you is not going to reverse that. You can't become 'un-hit' by hitting back. What's happened has happened. Of course, you could always block the strike and prevent being hit in the first place, but if you've already been hit it's too late to stop it.

But, what if somebody keeps hitting you? Are you meant to just stand there and act like a punchbag?

 

2/ Jesus was not surprised by Peter carrying a sword. He never said "where did that come from? I've never seen you with a sword before Peter. Get rid of it. I hate swords."

Peter must have frequently carried a sword and he was probably carrying one when Jesus first met him. Never did Jesus reject him as a disciple because of this.

 

3/ Swords are swords. They are not agricultural implements like scythes or sickles that are designed for one purpose but could be used for another. Nor are they sharp objects designed for gutting fish that in the wrong hands could be used as deadly weapons. A sword is a sword and is designed purely for fighting or for self-defense.

 

4/ Jesus did not tell Peter to get rid of the sword, he merely told him to 'put it away.'

 

If you think about it, Christianity would have never survived if Christianity was completely pacifist. Christians were often persecuted therefore they had to learn to defend themselves. If Christians had been wiped out, then there would be nobody left to preach the word and Jesus would have died in vain.

Christianity is meant to be peaceful but it is not pacifist. Christians are not meant to be the aggressors but we have every right to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

[The_Patriot21]

 

Hall, you say that guns are different. That they are an instrument of death. You said that they can do do of their own will. My question is are you serious? That is ridiculous. Guns have no will whatsoever. They are intimate objects. Only a living being can have a will, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a intimate object to do anything-especially kill someone. To suggest that guns are different because they can kill on their own accord is as ridiculous as the moon being made of swiss cheese.

As far "thou shalt not kill" that's already been properly addressed

I'm sorry you misunderstood Post #47 Patriot...

Post #47:

Because guns are different than anything else, they will cause death out of "our" own will, they are an instrument of death. Doctors, seatbelts, helmets etc protect you from death but they aren't instruments of death. The Bible says "Thou shall not kill", to carry a gun around is to know in our subconscious that we might have to kill one day, so why carry that burden around when we know that God is more powerful than a gun to offer us protection. I understand that the Military is a different story, but there is no need to carry a gun around all day in our private civilian free lives when we trust in the Lord.

 

anything can be a instrument of death. Cars, knives, tools, you name it. Guns are no different then any other tool. 

 

Here is the question you seem to be avoiding. We serve an almighty God who is perfect-agreed? Now this almighty God not only allowed for the taking of life in the mosaic law, but ordered the Israelites to war-and yes commanded them to wipe out entire civilizations. Now, if "thou shalt not kill" which incidently, is also part of OT law, is a blanket statement meaning any taking of human life, would that not be a double standard? how can a almighty God have double standards?

[firestormx]

 

 

 

In my humble opinion, The Holy Spirit through Peter, James, john, Paul or even Jesus Christ himself did not teach us to respond to violence with more violence. 

 

so, I'm supposed to set back and let a 250 pound muscled up dude rape and kill my wife and or grand daughter and do nothing.....   knowing full well I do not have the strength or skills to stop him....

i'm supposed to just say  "God help my wife."

 

 Did Paul respond to being stoned by throwing stones himself? Did Peter and John respond to the violence of beatings by beating on them back or pulling out a sword? If this is correct about guns, then why is there not even 1 example in the New Testament of a believer responding to violence with violence after the resurrection?  I understand the Word of God to teach that Jesus was an example for us. Did Jesus respond to violence with violence? I believe a divided house can't stand. If we are fighting our battles, then Jesus is not. I believe the bible teaches that we don't fight against flesh and blood, but our battles are spiritual. Eph. 6:12.

 

 

I have to disagree with you here but allow me to explain why.

The disciples were chosen to carry out specific missions and for that reason they had to be complete pacifists. Remember that when Jesus tells men to abandon their wives and families in order to follow him, it can't possibly apply to everybody because if it did, all Christian men would be commanded to do so. Christians would become extinct because they would no longer reproduce and there would be a lot of widows and orphaned children.

So clearly, I think, we all have different roles to play.

 

But anyway, let's get back to the subject.

 

Before Peter went out on his post-ascension mission, Jesus said to him "those who live by the sword, die by the sword" (I've paraphrased a bit but the meaning is the same).

Let's examine the circumstances behind this:

 

Peter probably carried a sword all or most of the time. It was common in those days for men to carry swords. When Jesus was arrested Peter cut off the soldier's ear which Jesus of course promptly healed and then rebuked Peter for his hastiness. Four points here:

 

1/ At no time did Jesus say:

"That was disgusting Peter. You're not my disciple. I don't want to have anything to do with you anymore."

 

Peter lashed out in anger and did so out of love for Jesus. His friend had been arrested and he became angry. He wasn't stepping in front of Jesus and using his sword to protect Jesus because Jesus had already been caught and there was nothing that Peter could do to stop that. He was taking revenge because of his emotion. Vengeance is not for men but belongs to God alone.

Those who live by the sword are those who use violence to solve all their problems. That is not the way to live your life. Violence should always be a last resort. It's a similar thing to the 'turn the other cheek' line. If you've been hit. you've been hit. Hitting the person who hit you is not going to reverse that. You can't become 'un-hit' by hitting back. What's happened has happened. Of course, you could always block the strike and prevent being hit in the first place, but if you've already been hit it's too late to stop it.

But, what if somebody keeps hitting you? Are you meant to just stand there and act like a punchbag?

 

2/ Jesus was not surprised by Peter carrying a sword. He never said "where did that come from? I've never seen you with a sword before Peter. Get rid of it. I hate swords."

Peter must have frequently carried a sword and he was probably carrying one when Jesus first met him. Never did Jesus reject him as a disciple because of this.

 

3/ Swords are swords. They are not agricultural implements like scythes or sickles that are designed for one purpose but could be used for another. Nor are they sharp objects designed for gutting fish that in the wrong hands could be used as deadly weapons. A sword is a sword and is designed purely for fighting or for self-defense.

 

4/ Jesus did not tell Peter to get rid of the sword, he merely told him to 'put it away.'

 

If you think about it, Christianity would have never survived if Christianity was completely pacifist. Christians were often persecuted therefore they had to learn to defend themselves. If Christians had been wiped out, then there would be nobody left to preach the word and Jesus would have died in vain.

Christianity is meant to be peaceful but it is not pacifist. Christians are not meant to be the aggressors but we have every right to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

 

Show me where I said it was biblical that Christians could only be pacifists? 

[OakWood]

 

 

 

 

In my humble opinion, The Holy Spirit through Peter, James, john, Paul or even Jesus Christ himself did not teach us to respond to violence with more violence. 

 

so, I'm supposed to set back and let a 250 pound muscled up dude rape and kill my wife and or grand daughter and do nothing.....   knowing full well I do not have the strength or skills to stop him....

i'm supposed to just say  "God help my wife."

 

 Did Paul respond to being stoned by throwing stones himself? Did Peter and John respond to the violence of beatings by beating on them back or pulling out a sword? If this is correct about guns, then why is there not even 1 example in the New Testament of a believer responding to violence with violence after the resurrection?  I understand the Word of God to teach that Jesus was an example for us. Did Jesus respond to violence with violence? I believe a divided house can't stand. If we are fighting our battles, then Jesus is not. I believe the bible teaches that we don't fight against flesh and blood, but our battles are spiritual. Eph. 6:12.

 

 

I have to disagree with you here but allow me to explain why.

The disciples were chosen to carry out specific missions and for that reason they had to be complete pacifists. Remember that when Jesus tells men to abandon their wives and families in order to follow him, it can't possibly apply to everybody because if it did, all Christian men would be commanded to do so. Christians would become extinct because they would no longer reproduce and there would be a lot of widows and orphaned children.

So clearly, I think, we all have different roles to play.

 

But anyway, let's get back to the subject.

 

Before Peter went out on his post-ascension mission, Jesus said to him "those who live by the sword, die by the sword" (I've paraphrased a bit but the meaning is the same).

Let's examine the circumstances behind this:

 

Peter probably carried a sword all or most of the time. It was common in those days for men to carry swords. When Jesus was arrested Peter cut off the soldier's ear which Jesus of course promptly healed and then rebuked Peter for his hastiness. Four points here:

 

1/ At no time did Jesus say:

"That was disgusting Peter. You're not my disciple. I don't want to have anything to do with you anymore."

 

Peter lashed out in anger and did so out of love for Jesus. His friend had been arrested and he became angry. He wasn't stepping in front of Jesus and using his sword to protect Jesus because Jesus had already been caught and there was nothing that Peter could do to stop that. He was taking revenge because of his emotion. Vengeance is not for men but belongs to God alone.

Those who live by the sword are those who use violence to solve all their problems. That is not the way to live your life. Violence should always be a last resort. It's a similar thing to the 'turn the other cheek' line. If you've been hit. you've been hit. Hitting the person who hit you is not going to reverse that. You can't become 'un-hit' by hitting back. What's happened has happened. Of course, you could always block the strike and prevent being hit in the first place, but if you've already been hit it's too late to stop it.

But, what if somebody keeps hitting you? Are you meant to just stand there and act like a punchbag?

 

2/ Jesus was not surprised by Peter carrying a sword. He never said "where did that come from? I've never seen you with a sword before Peter. Get rid of it. I hate swords."

Peter must have frequently carried a sword and he was probably carrying one when Jesus first met him. Never did Jesus reject him as a disciple because of this.

 

3/ Swords are swords. They are not agricultural implements like scythes or sickles that are designed for one purpose but could be used for another. Nor are they sharp objects designed for gutting fish that in the wrong hands could be used as deadly weapons. A sword is a sword and is designed purely for fighting or for self-defense.

 

4/ Jesus did not tell Peter to get rid of the sword, he merely told him to 'put it away.'

 

If you think about it, Christianity would have never survived if Christianity was completely pacifist. Christians were often persecuted therefore they had to learn to defend themselves. If Christians had been wiped out, then there would be nobody left to preach the word and Jesus would have died in vain.

Christianity is meant to be peaceful but it is not pacifist. Christians are not meant to be the aggressors but we have every right to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

 

Show me where I said it was biblical that Christians could only be pacifists? 

 

 

Sorry, I just read this one post. If you said anything else before I missed it. It's a long thread and I didn't read it all.. I apologise if I misunderstood your comment, but I wanted to have my say which I believe is still valid even if it was a stand-alone post without a previous quote from anybody else.

[Hall7]

Last post for Patriot... Sometimes we try to justify things to accommodate our worldly minds, I've done it myself many times in the past and  still struggle with it at times. The full transformation of the spirit is a long process and even then the spirit will always be at war with the flesh. The hardest part is the renewal of the old self until we are able to see ourselves through the spirit of God within us, and when we do we begin to admit to ourselves what it is that we need to change. And Patriot...brother...I didn't mean to put you on the spot when I mentioned that there are some who feel the need to carry their guns everywhere they go, that was meant for everyone in the U.S and not just you. GBU...  

[firestormx]

 

 

 

 

 

In my humble opinion, The Holy Spirit through Peter, James, john, Paul or even Jesus Christ himself did not teach us to respond to violence with more violence. 

 

so, I'm supposed to set back and let a 250 pound muscled up dude rape and kill my wife and or grand daughter and do nothing.....   knowing full well I do not have the strength or skills to stop him....

i'm supposed to just say  "God help my wife."

 

 Did Paul respond to being stoned by throwing stones himself? Did Peter and John respond to the violence of beatings by beating on them back or pulling out a sword? If this is correct about guns, then why is there not even 1 example in the New Testament of a believer responding to violence with violence after the resurrection?  I understand the Word of God to teach that Jesus was an example for us. Did Jesus respond to violence with violence? I believe a divided house can't stand. If we are fighting our battles, then Jesus is not. I believe the bible teaches that we don't fight against flesh and blood, but our battles are spiritual. Eph. 6:12.

 

 

I have to disagree with you here but allow me to explain why.

The disciples were chosen to carry out specific missions and for that reason they had to be complete pacifists. Remember that when Jesus tells men to abandon their wives and families in order to follow him, it can't possibly apply to everybody because if it did, all Christian men would be commanded to do so. Christians would become extinct because they would no longer reproduce and there would be a lot of widows and orphaned children.

So clearly, I think, we all have different roles to play.

 

But anyway, let's get back to the subject.

 

Before Peter went out on his post-ascension mission, Jesus said to him "those who live by the sword, die by the sword" (I've paraphrased a bit but the meaning is the same).

Let's examine the circumstances behind this:

 

Peter probably carried a sword all or most of the time. It was common in those days for men to carry swords. When Jesus was arrested Peter cut off the soldier's ear which Jesus of course promptly healed and then rebuked Peter for his hastiness. Four points here:

 

1/ At no time did Jesus say:

"That was disgusting Peter. You're not my disciple. I don't want to have anything to do with you anymore."

 

Peter lashed out in anger and did so out of love for Jesus. His friend had been arrested and he became angry. He wasn't stepping in front of Jesus and using his sword to protect Jesus because Jesus had already been caught and there was nothing that Peter could do to stop that. He was taking revenge because of his emotion. Vengeance is not for men but belongs to God alone.

Those who live by the sword are those who use violence to solve all their problems. That is not the way to live your life. Violence should always be a last resort. It's a similar thing to the 'turn the other cheek' line. If you've been hit. you've been hit. Hitting the person who hit you is not going to reverse that. You can't become 'un-hit' by hitting back. What's happened has happened. Of course, you could always block the strike and prevent being hit in the first place, but if you've already been hit it's too late to stop it.

But, what if somebody keeps hitting you? Are you meant to just stand there and act like a punchbag?

 

2/ Jesus was not surprised by Peter carrying a sword. He never said "where did that come from? I've never seen you with a sword before Peter. Get rid of it. I hate swords."

Peter must have frequently carried a sword and he was probably carrying one when Jesus first met him. Never did Jesus reject him as a disciple because of this.

 

3/ Swords are swords. They are not agricultural implements like scythes or sickles that are designed for one purpose but could be used for another. Nor are they sharp objects designed for gutting fish that in the wrong hands could be used as deadly weapons. A sword is a sword and is designed purely for fighting or for self-defense.

 

4/ Jesus did not tell Peter to get rid of the sword, he merely told him to 'put it away.'

 

If you think about it, Christianity would have never survived if Christianity was completely pacifist. Christians were often persecuted therefore they had to learn to defend themselves. If Christians had been wiped out, then there would be nobody left to preach the word and Jesus would have died in vain.

Christianity is meant to be peaceful but it is not pacifist. Christians are not meant to be the aggressors but we have every right to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

 

Show me where I said it was biblical that Christians could only be pacifists? 

 

 

Sorry, I just read this one post. If you said anything else before I missed it. It's a long thread and I didn't read it all.. I apologise if I misunderstood your comment, but I wanted to have my say which I believe is still valid even if it was a stand-alone post without a previous quote from anybody else.

 

I've said a lot in this thread recently. You did not misunderstand my comment in regards to application of the verse i used. But you did in regards to the word and meaning of pacifist. Let me put it this way.

 

 1.Many times in the old testament People would attack God's people. God would say basically, go out and fight this way and do this or that. They Did what God said and won. Often to the killing of every man woman, and child.   2. now lets say someone attacks you and your spouse with rape and murder as the intent. In the fight you pull out your gun and kill them. Now, what is the difference between number 1 and 2? From my perspective Number 1 happened because it was God's judgement on them, number 2 happened because it was your judgement on them. We as Christians should be as peaceful as possible in all situations. Why didn't Paul, Peter or John ever fight back with all the beatings and stoning  he went through? I just think that to carry around a gun everywhere invites violence, to repay violence with violence is wrong, the only exception being when it is God's Judgement and not ours. I hope this clarifies my position for you. If not tell me and I'll try again.

 

Below ADD LATER

If we are suppose to lash out and kill our enemy and repay their violence with violence, then what was the point in the verse Love your enemies?

Edited September 4, 2014 by firestormx

[enoob57]

Hall, you say that guns are different. That they are an instrument of death. You said that they can do do of their own will. My question is are you serious? That is ridiculous. Guns have no will whatsoever. They are intimate objects. Only a living being can have a will, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a intimate object to do anything-especially kill someone. To suggest that guns are different because they can kill on their own accord is as ridiculous as the moon being made of swiss cheese.

As far "thou shalt not kill" that's already been properly addressed

I'm sorry you misunderstood Post #47 Patriot...

Post #47:

Because guns are different than anything else, they will cause death out of "our" own will, they are an instrument of death. Doctors, seatbelts, helmets etc protect you from death but they aren't instruments of death. The Bible says "Thou shall not kill", to carry a gun around is to know in our subconscious that we might have to kill one day, so why carry that burden around when we know that God is more powerful than a gun to offer us protection. I understand that the Military is a different story, but there is no need to carry a gun around all day in our private civilian free lives when we trust in the Lord.

anything can be a instrument of death. Cars, knives, tools, you name it. Guns are no different then any other tool. 

 

Here is the question you seem to be avoiding. We serve an almighty God who is perfect-agreed? Now this almighty God not only allowed for the taking of life in the mosaic law, but ordered the Israelites to war-and yes commanded them to wipe out entire civilizations. Now, if "thou shalt not kill" which incidently, is also part of OT law, is a blanket statement meaning any taking of human life, would that not be a double standard? how can a almighty God have double standards?

There is some reasoning that needs to take place here- such as God knows the hearts of all creatures!

We do not... So when God says kill them all we know God has given them over with no further draw.

We also know the Law could not save so why would we revisit to find justification for anything?

A gun is designed to do only one thing to throw led at a killing rate of speed and force. You can't

dig a garden with it, build a house, cover up with it to keep warm etc. I think you get my drift.

One thing we must do is not to judge things to be such because we accept it to be so... rather we are

to judge with righteous judgment formed from His Word. You simply find no physical violence on the

par of killing in Jesus or any of His disciples in the New Testament. Love, Steven

[The_Patriot21]

Last post for Patriot... Sometimes we try to justify things to accommodate our worldly minds, I've done it myself many times in the past and  still struggle with it at times. The full transformation of the spirit is a long process and even then the spirit will always be at war with the flesh. The hardest part is the renewal of the old self until we are able to see ourselves through the spirit of God within us, and when we do we begin to admit to ourselves what it is that we need to change. And Patriot...brother...I didn't mean to put you on the spot when I mentioned that there are some who feel the need to carry their guns everywhere they go, that was meant for everyone in the U.S and not just you. GBU...  

that doesnt answer my question. Im sorry I misunderstood you earlier-and I don't mind being put on the spot, nothing like a little iron sharpening iron to help each other grow. 

[OakWood]

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my humble opinion, The Holy Spirit through Peter, James, john, Paul or even Jesus Christ himself did not teach us to respond to violence with more violence. 

 

so, I'm supposed to set back and let a 250 pound muscled up dude rape and kill my wife and or grand daughter and do nothing.....   knowing full well I do not have the strength or skills to stop him....

i'm supposed to just say  "God help my wife."

 

 Did Paul respond to being stoned by throwing stones himself? Did Peter and John respond to the violence of beatings by beating on them back or pulling out a sword? If this is correct about guns, then why is there not even 1 example in the New Testament of a believer responding to violence with violence after the resurrection?  I understand the Word of God to teach that Jesus was an example for us. Did Jesus respond to violence with violence? I believe a divided house can't stand. If we are fighting our battles, then Jesus is not. I believe the bible teaches that we don't fight against flesh and blood, but our battles are spiritual. Eph. 6:12.

 

 

I have to disagree with you here but allow me to explain why.

The disciples were chosen to carry out specific missions and for that reason they had to be complete pacifists. Remember that when Jesus tells men to abandon their wives and families in order to follow him, it can't possibly apply to everybody because if it did, all Christian men would be commanded to do so. Christians would become extinct because they would no longer reproduce and there would be a lot of widows and orphaned children.

So clearly, I think, we all have different roles to play.

 

But anyway, let's get back to the subject.

 

Before Peter went out on his post-ascension mission, Jesus said to him "those who live by the sword, die by the sword" (I've paraphrased a bit but the meaning is the same).

Let's examine the circumstances behind this:

 

Peter probably carried a sword all or most of the time. It was common in those days for men to carry swords. When Jesus was arrested Peter cut off the soldier's ear which Jesus of course promptly healed and then rebuked Peter for his hastiness. Four points here:

 

1/ At no time did Jesus say:

"That was disgusting Peter. You're not my disciple. I don't want to have anything to do with you anymore."

 

Peter lashed out in anger and did so out of love for Jesus. His friend had been arrested and he became angry. He wasn't stepping in front of Jesus and using his sword to protect Jesus because Jesus had already been caught and there was nothing that Peter could do to stop that. He was taking revenge because of his emotion. Vengeance is not for men but belongs to God alone.

Those who live by the sword are those who use violence to solve all their problems. That is not the way to live your life. Violence should always be a last resort. It's a similar thing to the 'turn the other cheek' line. If you've been hit. you've been hit. Hitting the person who hit you is not going to reverse that. You can't become 'un-hit' by hitting back. What's happened has happened. Of course, you could always block the strike and prevent being hit in the first place, but if you've already been hit it's too late to stop it.

But, what if somebody keeps hitting you? Are you meant to just stand there and act like a punchbag?

 

2/ Jesus was not surprised by Peter carrying a sword. He never said "where did that come from? I've never seen you with a sword before Peter. Get rid of it. I hate swords."

Peter must have frequently carried a sword and he was probably carrying one when Jesus first met him. Never did Jesus reject him as a disciple because of this.

 

3/ Swords are swords. They are not agricultural implements like scythes or sickles that are designed for one purpose but could be used for another. Nor are they sharp objects designed for gutting fish that in the wrong hands could be used as deadly weapons. A sword is a sword and is designed purely for fighting or for self-defense.

 

4/ Jesus did not tell Peter to get rid of the sword, he merely told him to 'put it away.'

 

If you think about it, Christianity would have never survived if Christianity was completely pacifist. Christians were often persecuted therefore they had to learn to defend themselves. If Christians had been wiped out, then there would be nobody left to preach the word and Jesus would have died in vain.

Christianity is meant to be peaceful but it is not pacifist. Christians are not meant to be the aggressors but we have every right to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

 

Show me where I said it was biblical that Christians could only be pacifists? 

 

 

Sorry, I just read this one post. If you said anything else before I missed it. It's a long thread and I didn't read it all.. I apologise if I misunderstood your comment, but I wanted to have my say which I believe is still valid even if it was a stand-alone post without a previous quote from anybody else.

 

I've said a lot in this thread recently. You did not misunderstand my comment in regards to application of the verse i used. But you did in regards to the word and meaning of pacifist. Let me put it this way.

 

 1.Many times in the old testament People would attack God's people. God would say basically, go out and fight this way and do this or that. They Did what God said and won. Often to the killing of every man woman, and child.   2. now lets say someone attacks you and your spouse with rape and murder as the intent. In the fight you pull out your gun and kill them. Now, what is the difference between number 1 and 2? From my perspective Number 1 happened because it was God's judgement on them, number 2 happened because it was your judgement on them. We as Christians should be as peaceful as possible in all situations. Why didn't Paul, Peter or John ever fight back with all the beatings and stoning  he went through? I just think that to carry around a gun everywhere invites violence, to repay violence with violence is wrong, the only exception being when it is God's Judgement and not ours. I hope this clarifies my position for you. If not tell me and I'll try again.

 

Below ADD LATER

If we are suppose to lash out and kill our enemy and repay their violence with violence, then what was the point in the verse Love your enemies?

 

 

That's a good point, but to me it's not about carrying a gun everywhere and anywhere like some people do.....  it's about having the right to carry a gun when you wish and if you wish. You might only feel the need to carry a gun 10% of the time, but I would like to think that you have the choice.