Faith and Firearms: Should Christians Own Guns?

[Matthew T.]

 

 

Why is it that when this topic is discussed those on the side of using violent means for protection of self, family and liberty of nation use logic instead of showing where Jesus, Paul, Peter or John taught to fight others?

I guess because it's a given that Jesus is just as present in the Old Testament as He is in the New. Grace did not change the fact that there is sometime a need for war... all the way to the end of the book in Revelation.

It's not hard for me to figure.

Ah the old fig tree. Got it.

It is easy to see in the Old Testament so no need to prove it in the new.

Sorry I can't accept that.

 

 

That's your choice.

 

I am the head of my family. It's my responsibility to protect them.

 

I've agreed to do my part to protect my country when possible.

 

I do all these things with a clear conscience and in hopes that I never have to bring harm to another individual.

 

Israel was given a land in the Old Testament, regained the land in the New. Still engaged in an all out effort to prevent being driven into the sea.

 

Fig tree? I don't know what that's about.

 

We aren't talking about taking a licking or making a sacrifice for the Gospel. That's another whole topic.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Matthew T.

[gdemoss]

Why is it that when this topic is discussed those on the side of using violent means for protection of self, family and liberty of nation use logic instead of showing where Jesus, Paul, Peter or John taught to fight others?

I guess because it's a given that Jesus is just as present in the Old Testament as He is in the New. Grace did not change the fact that there is sometime a need for war... all the way to the end of the book in Revelation.

It's not hard for me to figure.

Ah the old fig tree. Got it.

It is easy to see in the Old Testament so no need to prove it in the new.

Sorry I can't accept that.

if you take the position of the complete pacifist that you seem to be talking about here, we would not be a free nation.

Where did I say I take any position? I simply am asking questions and seeking answers. You assign a position to me by reading into my post using speculative imagination it appears.

I want someone to defend their position of agression using the New Testament.

You declare that we could not be a free nation without the use of violent force. How can you declare such as true?

I will repeat myself "If you take the position of the complete pacifist that you seem to be talking about here......."

I did not accuse you of taking any position, just what IF.

Got it Sam, thanks.

On to the second question I asked. You declare that we could not be a free nation without having resorted to violence. Such a declaration requires omnipotence because it says there is no other way to be free than through violence. How can you declare such?

[gdemoss]

Why is it that when this topic is discussed those on the side of using violent means for protection of self, family and liberty of nation use logic instead of showing where Jesus, Paul, Peter or John taught to fight others?

I guess because it's a given that Jesus is just as present in the Old Testament as He is in the New. Grace did not change the fact that there is sometime a need for war... all the way to the end of the book in Revelation.

It's not hard for me to figure.

Ah the old fig tree. Got it.

It is easy to see in the Old Testament so no need to prove it in the new.

Sorry I can't accept that.

if you take the position of the complete pacifist that you seem to be talking about here, we would not be a free nation.

Where did I say I take any position? I simply am asking questions and seeking answers. You assign a position to me by reading into my post using speculative imagination it appears.

I want someone to defend their position of agression using the New Testament.

You declare that we could not be a free nation without the use of violent force. How can you declare such as true?

The First Century Christians were persecuted until the Church was established. Five hundred years or so later Islam came along and decimated two-thirds of the Christian World before Christians decided to fight back. If they had not fought back, Christianity would have become almost extinct and Christ would have died in vain.

Europe would have not been a Christian Europe, there would be no Christian architecture, no Christian culture and we would all have been reading the Q'uran. It's unlikely that America would have ever been discovered and if it was it would have been colonized by Muslims and under the rule of Sharia law..

In the 1930s Nazi Germany started persecuting Jews culminating in the murder of 6 million of them. Hitler had an agreement with the Arab leader Mohammed Amin al-Husseini to eventually murder all the Jews in the Middle East as well. If Christian nations had not fought and destroyed the Nazis most of the World's Jewry would have been wiped out.

Then 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..

Luke 22:36

How can you say what would have happened with any authority? How do you know for certain what happened historically and more importantly why it happened?

[OakWood]

 

shiloh357 said in post 39:

 

. . . your position would only allow dictators and tyrants to rule the world.

 

Actually, pacifism as it spreads eventually undercuts tyrants, for it robs tyrants of soldiers willing to fight their wars for them.

 

 

 

shiloh357 said in post 39:

 

Hitler would have conquered the world if everyone in America was like you.

 

Hitler would have conquered nothing if the German people of his time had been pacifists.

 

 

Yes, if we lived in a World where EVERYBODY was a pacifist then you would have a point, but we don't - so Christians SHOULD be allowed to defend themselves. If you want to be a pacifist there are many false religions that you can join that you might feel more comfortable with such as Jainism.

Your 'if' statements are ridiculous. 'If the Germans had been pacifists...' is an irrelevant comment. That's like saying 'the World would be perfect if there was no sin'. True but inconsequential because we live in a World that is full of sin.

Your knowledge of scripture is deeply flawed.

[gdemoss]

Why is it that when this topic is discussed those on the side of using violent means for protection of self, family and liberty of nation use logic instead of showing where Jesus, Paul, Peter or John taught to fight others?

I guess because it's a given that Jesus is just as present in the Old Testament as He is in the New. Grace did not change the fact that there is sometime a need for war... all the way to the end of the book in Revelation.

It's not hard for me to figure.

Ah the old fig tree. Got it.

It is easy to see in the Old Testament so no need to prove it in the new.

Sorry I can't accept that.

That's your choice.

I am the head of my family. It's my responsibility to protect them.

I've agreed to do my part to protect my country when possible.

I do all these things with a clear conscience and in hopes that I never have to bring harm to another individual.

Israel was given a land in the Old Testament, regained the land in the New. Still engaged in an all out effort to prevent being driven into the sea.

Fig tree? I don't know what that's about.

We aren't talking about taking a licking or making a sacrifice for the Gospel. That's another whole topic.

Fig tree..lol..you said it wasn't hard for you to figure. Just a pun.

So you admit that you cannot support your position using New Testament teachings then?

[gdemoss]

I am not taking a position here. I desire others to show how they use the New Testament to lead them to using violence as a means of achieving freedom and peace.

[Matthew T.]

I am not taking a position here. I desire others to show how they use the New Testament to lead them to using violence as a means of achieving freedom and peace.

 

So you admit that you cannot support your position using New Testament teachings then?

 

You know, brother? It is challenging. Give me time to get some free time to look into this. What I am pretty sure of right now, is that it is Biblical and with God's permission that we, as Christians, are allowed to sometimes fight, to defend ourselves and country, and to oppose eVil in any way God has blessed us to do so.

 

But if you will be so kind as to give me some time, I won't forget about this. It'll give me a motivated reason to get into the scripture concerning this. I'll admit, I haven't examined the New Testament scripture with this particular focus... And also, many things in the Old Testament do still stand today as "profitable" things to do, even if all things are lawful.

 

I'll give it a look.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Matthew T.

[gdemoss]

I am not taking a position here. I desire others to show how they use the New Testament to lead them to using violence as a means of achieving freedom and peace.

So you admit that you cannot support your position using New Testament teachings then?

You know, brother? It is challenging. Give me time to get some free time to look into this. What I am pretty sure of right now, is that it is Biblical and with God's permission that we, as Christians, are allowed to sometimes fight, to defend ourselves and country, and to oppose eVil in any way God has blessed us to do so.

But if you will be so kind as to give me some time, I won't forget about this. It'll give me a motivated reason to get into the scripture concerning this. I'll admit, I haven't examined the New Testament scripture with this particular focus... And also, many things in the Old Testament do still stand today as "profitable" things to do, even if all things are lawful.

I'll give it a look.

I would appreciate hearing your study. Right now I take the position that I don't know. I have some thoughts on the matter but nothing conclusive. At one time I held to a pacifistic position but have come to a reassessment of my theology based upon the removal of nonbiblically based presuppositions and am working to seek after pure truth in all matters.

Here is one scripture I toss out complete pacifism with:

Jhn 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

The principle I see here is that Jesus said that there were conditions upon which his servants would fight.

[The_Patriot21]

Why is it that when this topic is discussed those on the side of using violent means for protection of self, family and liberty of nation use logic instead of showing where Jesus, Paul, Peter or John taught to fight others?

I guess because it's a given that Jesus is just as present in the Old Testament as He is in the New. Grace did not change the fact that there is sometime a need for war... all the way to the end of the book in Revelation.

It's not hard for me to figure.

Ah the old fig tree. Got it.

It is easy to see in the Old Testament so no need to prove it in the new.

Sorry I can't accept that.

if you take the position of the complete pacifist that you seem to be talking about here, we would not be a free nation.

Where did I say I take any position? I simply am asking questions and seeking answers. You assign a position to me by reading into my post using speculative imagination it appears.

I want someone to defend their position of agression using the New Testament.

You declare that we could not be a free nation without the use of violent force. How can you declare such as true?

I will repeat myself "If you take the position of the complete pacifist that you seem to be talking about here......."

I did not accuse you of taking any position, just what IF.

Got it Sam, thanks.

On to the second question I asked. You declare that we could not be a free nation without having resorted to violence. Such a declaration requires omnipotence because it says there is no other way to be free than through violence. How can you declare such?

Read my signature. True peace is not just the absence of conflict but the presence of justice. This world is full of violent evil men, and they will not be stopped by pacifism. Many times the only way to stop a violent man and bring about justice is through violence.

Jesus was not a pacifist, at least not by today's standards. He realized there was a time for violence and a time for peace, and He had the wisdom to know the difference. To call Jesus a pacifist is to spit in the face of the Bible, because it does not teach that.

Its not a sin to own a firearm. Nor is it a sin to use one in accordance to the law and to the Bible, and there are Biblical examples of when it is not only OK to own a weapon but to use said weapon. Peter defending Jesus with a sword was brought up rarlier-what I did not see is who told Peter to carry the sword in the first place. The answer is Jesus did. So obviously, Jesus is OK with His followers carrying deadly weapons, its not the weapon that is the sin its what you do with it.

[missmuffet]