Pastor claims bible says guns are ok

[The_Patriot21]

and enoob, yes youve described what a gun does-it lobs a piece of metal at high speeds, but that doesnt make it evil-or even a killing machine. Ive fired thousands of rounds-and never killed, nor had any inclination, to kill a human being. wild game, certainly, and definetly more then my fair share of prairie dogs, and ive definetly shortened the life of a coyote or two, but never at a human being.

 

Now, yes you are right-we dont see any violence on par with killing by the apostles in the New Testament-but you do see Jesus ordering His disciples to purchase swords, which was the "gun" of the day. And your ignoring the Old Testament-the same God wrote both, and gave us both. He fulfilled the Old covenant-not eliminated the old testament. In fact without the old testament, the new testament is worthless. So that argument-that its not seen in the new testament-doesn't hold water. The new and old testaments serve different roles-but are both equally important.

[firestormx]

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.

I have never said all guns are evil all the time. For instance, I know people in the hills ( mountains) of Virginia where my family is from originally that still uses guns to hunt for most of their food. I don't see a problem in the world with someone using a gun to provide for their family. However, as Children of God we are not to revisit violence with violence were people are concerned . Go back and read my posts, that all I've ever said. Repaying violence with violence is wrong, we are called to peace. We don't solve our problems no matter how bad with guns and violence but with Jesus Christ.

[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.

 

I have never said all guns are evil all the time. For instance, I know people in the hills ( mountains) of Virginia where my family is from originally that still uses guns to hunt for most of their food. I don't see a problem in the world with someone using a gun to provide for their family. However, as Children of God we are not to revisit violence with violence were people are concerned . Go back and read my posts, that all I've ever said. Repaying violence with violence is wrong, we are called to peace. We don't solve our problems no matter how bad with guns and violence but with Jesus Christ.

 

 

But repaying violence with violence is revenge isn't it? And I made it clear that revenge belongs to the Lord only.

There is no repayment involved. You've 'straw-manned' me a bit there.

Defending yourself is not repaying violence with violence. Defending yourself is using physical means to protect yourself against violence. 'Repayment' suggests that you have acted AFTER the fact  - which I did not condone.

[firestormx]

But repaying violence with violence is revenge isn't it? And I made it clear that revenge belongs to the Lord only.

There is no repayment involved. You've 'straw-manned' me a bit there.

Defending yourself is not repaying violence with violence. Defending yourself is using physical means to protect yourself against violence. 'Repayment' suggests that you have acted AFTER the fact  - which I did not condone.

No Intention of straw-manning you as you put it. Although, right there is the disagreement i have with most here, if defending yourself is not repaying violence with violence, then why didn't the NT apostles ever defend themselves?

[OakWood]

 

But repaying violence with violence is revenge isn't it? And I made it clear that revenge belongs to the Lord only.

There is no repayment involved. You've 'straw-manned' me a bit there.

Defending yourself is not repaying violence with violence. Defending yourself is using physical means to protect yourself against violence. 'Repayment' suggests that you have acted AFTER the fact  - which I did not condone.

No Intention of straw-manning you as you put it. Although, right there is the disagreement i have with most here, if defending yourself is not repaying violence with violence, then why didn't the NT apostles ever defend themselves?

 

 

Because, as I have already pointed out they had special missions................

 

Clerics do not necessarily defend themselves

Monks take vows of chastity and never marry (probably unscriptural actually because I see no reason for anybody to become a monk)

Prophets prophecise

Teachers teach

Some men abandon their wives, forsake all their possessions and wander the Earth preaching

Some men stay with their wives, raise kids and own property

Some men are defenders of the faith, fight in wars, protect the innocent and protect the land

Some men grow crops and feed others

Some men are carpenters

 

 

and so on.......

[enoob57]

Well I would dispute with you on this by these verses:

Gal 4:4-7

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent

forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might

receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons,

God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your

hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no

more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir

of God through Christ.

KJV

A righteous standard had to be established so that a righteous

man could be determined by His fulfillment of that standard...

The whole book of Hebrews is about remaining in the grace that

is given us in Christ and to return to the law... That was the

purpose of the OT and law! Seeing no man could obey its statutes

God gave all example of the need outside of this world for a

deliverer! The blood of bulls and goats cannot save us...

Gal 3:10

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse:

for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all

things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

KJV

and this is the fullness of time that the law was one violation

and the eternal destiny was established... no one that committed sin

could abide with God in His Heaven.

Gal 3:11-13

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is

evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of

faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. 13 Christ hath

redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for

it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

KJV

This is the epoch of all of Scripture the Cross... so if the law could

not save us and Jesus could- your validations of importance seems rather

conflicting to the purpose of God as He states this

2 Peter 3:9

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count

slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should

perish, but that all should come to repentance.

KJV

Love, Steven

Edited September 4, 2014 by enoob57

[enoob57]

This is not rocket science we are to be of the mindset of Here

Col 3:1-4

3 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are

above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. 2 Set your

affection on things above, not on things on the earth. 3 For ye

are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. 4 When Christ,

who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with

him in glory.

KJV

It is way beyond pacifism as this is only a effort in man to try

to imitate What he sees in Jesus. Rather it is s/Spiritual realities

and where our heart really lies in faith. For the obedience is to live

with Christ where He 'IS' presently and not in the first birth's place...

which is passing away! Love, Steven

[firestormx]

 

 

But repaying violence with violence is revenge isn't it? And I made it clear that revenge belongs to the Lord only.

There is no repayment involved. You've 'straw-manned' me a bit there.

Defending yourself is not repaying violence with violence. Defending yourself is using physical means to protect yourself against violence. 'Repayment' suggests that you have acted AFTER the fact  - which I did not condone.

No Intention of straw-manning you as you put it. Although, right there is the disagreement i have with most here, if defending yourself is not repaying violence with violence, then why didn't the NT apostles ever defend themselves?

 

 

Because, as I have already pointed out they had special missions................

 

Clerics do not necessarily defend themselves

Monks take vows of chastity and never marry (probably unscriptural actually because I see no reason for anybody to become a monk)

Prophets prophecise

Teachers teach

Some men abandon their wives, forsake all their possessions and wander the Earth preaching

Some men stay with their wives, raise kids and own property

Some men are defenders of the faith, fight in wars, protect the innocent and protect the land

Some men grow crops and feed others

Some men are carpenters

 

 

and so on.......

 

God is not a respecter persons. He has one standard for all. Besides, They ( the apostles ) just like the Lord Jesus Christ were an example for us to follow. We are suppose to be a light in a dark world. An example of the compassion, mercy and love of God. Allowing the Lord Jesus Christ to carry on his earthly ministry through us. For it's not us who lives, but Jesus who lives in and through us. Now Since it's Christ that's suppose to live through us, since it's Christ we are suppose to be an example of and bring Glory to, how does responding to violence with more violence accomplish this? 

 

P.S. In case you think I'm just talking off the top of my head, and to save me the trouble of having to repeat it if you do think I'm talking off the top of my head, please go to page 5 of this thread and read my post #88.

[Guest LadyC]

firestormx

do you believe Jesus and God are of one accord? 

do you believe that God is the same, yesterday, today and forever?

do you believe God when He says He is a God of justice and that vengeance is His?

do you believe that the OT is relevant to teaching us about God's character, and therefore the character of Jesus Christ as well?

do you believe that God's people were justified in rebuilding the walls of jerusalem while bearing weapons to defend their progress and their people?

do you believe God was serious when He instructed His people to wipe out evil, in some instances leaving not even women, children or cattle from enemy nations alive?

do you believe that God uses His people to carry out His will, including justice?

do you believe that Jesus told His disciples that if they had no sword to sell their cloak and buy one?

do you believe that there is any distinction between an act of revenge and an act of defending oneself or someone else?

 

please try not to dismiss any of the questions. they're all important to understanding where you are coming from.

[Guest LadyC]

i've always been curious how one could think doing nothing to protect someone from harm is a reflection of Christ's love.