Christians and the Second Amendment

[G. White]

What do christians believe, or already know?

Should the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." be kept as is, somewhat modified, or banned all together?

 

[Drummer4Christ]

I see no reason for the 2nd Ammendment to be modified/abolished. Nowhere in Scripture does God say that defending ones family/property/life goes against His commands.

 

[Rhea]

. Nowhere in Scripture does God say that defending ones family/property/life goes against His commands.

Not even this?

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

or this?

27But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

29And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.

30Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.

31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

32For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

33And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.

34And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

35But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Seems pretty straightforward that Jesus thinks Christians have no use for guns against other humans, especially in the context of militia.

It seems that defending oneself so vociferously bespeaks a lack of faith in heaven, yanno? What's to be feared from dying?

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Not even this?



or this?



Seems pretty straightforward that Jesus thinks Christians have no use for guns against other humans, especially in the context of militia.

It seems that defending oneself so vociferously bespeaks a lack of faith in heaven, yanno? What's to be feared from dying?

Are you arguing that Jesus advocated that someone who is being sexually assaulted should simply submit themselves to rape, rather than subdue their attacker?

The point Jesus was making concerned retaliation, NOT self defense.

 

[reba]

As a Christian who has had the front door kicked in by bad guys with guns, i say leave the second amendment alone. (3 at the door 3 more in the car)

 

[Rhea]

The point Jesus was making concerned retaliation, NOT self defense.

If that were the message, I would expect the passage to read, "if someone strikes you, run away and do not retaliate" rather than "give the other cheek also". If that were the message I would expect, "If someone takes your shirt, do not grab for it back" rather than, "give your cloak also".

If that were the message I would not expect "That ye resist not evil:" but rather I would expect, "resist the evil, but do not do evil in return." Being armed is resisting evil, and the scripture says to NOT resist evil.

Are you arguing that Jesus advocated that someone who is being sexually assaulted should simply submit themselves to rape, rather than subdue their attacker?

So indeed, in the case of a rape, the bible says to not resist the evil, but turn the other cheek for an additional strike. And for the attacker he does not say subdue, he says to pray for them.

Not a comforting message, but a clear one.

I understand the human impulse to protect oneself, but I don't see how one can make these passages promote it.
(for the record, I support the second amendment and I own guns. I do not support the suggestion to "not resist evil". I do resist evil.)

 

[Drummer4Christ]

If that were the message, I would expect the passage to read, "if someone strikes you, run away and do not retaliate" rather than "give the other cheek also". If that were the message I would expect, "If someone takes your shirt, do not grab for it back" rather than, "give your cloak also".

If that were the message I would not expect "That ye resist not evil:" but rather I would expect, "resist the evil, but do not do evil in return." Being armed is resisting evil, and the scripture says to NOT resist evil.


So indeed, in the case of a rape, the bible says to not resist the evil, but turn the other cheek for an additional strike. And for the attacker he does not say subdue, he says to pray for them.

Not a comforting message, but a clear one.

I understand the human impulse to protect oneself, but I don't see how one can make these passages promote it.
(for the record, I support the second amendment and I own guns. I do not support the suggestion to "not resist evil". I do resist evil.)

Please explain how being insulted, being sued, and being inconvenienced are analogous to murder, theft, and rape.

Jesus calls us to love others regardless if they are our enemy, NOT because they are our enemy.

 

[Rhea]

Please explain how being insulted, being sued, and being inconvenienced are analogous to murder, theft, and rape.

Sure. let's start with explaining how "being insulted, being sued, and being inconvenienced" are EVIL,

while "murder, theft, and rape" are not.

Then we can look back at the words of your Saviour:

39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

I've always considered those verses to be about forcing something on the Christian. Forcing violence on the Christian, forcing unfair (but legal) access to the Christians hard-earned goods (taxes?), forcing labor from the christian or forcing the christian to be taken by force. Smite. Take away. Compel to go.

Evil.

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, neither of us really can, can we? But that is what those words say in both Matthew and Luke. It talks about violence. It talks about loss of goods. It talks about unwilling labor or relocation.

It does not talk about inconveniences and insults. Not that I can read, anyway.

I can totally understand why people would not want to read "evil" into a passage that clearly says "evil". Who would want to be told to submit to evil and not resist it? What human would choose that path?

Yet those are the words that Jesus spake.

13Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

The easy path is not the one that Jesus is defining. The easy path is to resist, even if it means you must use force. But Jesus says in these quotes to NOT resist evil. He doesn't say, "resist not inconvenience". He says "resist not EVIL."

...

and again, I can see why this would be unnatural for a human to do. I would resist. I would not turn the other cheek to a person hitting me. I would not take a lawsuit and voluntarily give up more. I would not let a kidnapper or rapist or any person whatsoever force me to go a mile and offer to travel yet another.

I would defend myself.

But regardless of my personal opinion on what is "right" the passages do not agree with me.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

Sure. let's start with explaining how "being insulted, being sued, and being inconvenienced" are EVIL,

while "murder, theft, and rape" are not.

Then we can look back at the words of your Saviour:



I've always considered those verses to be about forcing something on the Christian. Forcing violence on the Christian, forcing unfair (but legal) access to the Christians hard-earned goods (taxes?), forcing labor from the christian or forcing the christian to be taken by force. Smite. Take away. Compel to go.

Evil.

I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, neither of us really can, can we? But that is what those words say in both Matthew and Luke. It talks about violence. It talks about loss of goods. It talks about unwilling labor or relocation.

It does not talk about inconveniences and insults. Not that I can read, anyway.

I can totally understand why people would not want to read "evil" into a passage that clearly says "evil". Who would want to be told to submit to evil and not resist it? What human would choose that path?

Yet those are the words that Jesus spake.



The easy path is not the one that Jesus is defining. The easy path is to resist, even if it means you must use force. But Jesus says in these quotes to NOT resist evil. He doesn't say, "resist not inconvenience". He says "resist not EVIL."

...

and again, I can see why this would be unnatural for a human to do. I would resist. I would not turn the other cheek to a person hitting me. I would not take a lawsuit and voluntarily give up more. I would not let a kidnapper or rapist or any person whatsoever force me to go a mile and offer to travel yet another.

I would defend myself.

But regardless of my personal opinion on what is "right" the passages do not agree with me.

So when a multi-billion dollar corporation "rapes" the Earth for it's resources & "steals" from the poor for profit, we should actually open up more areas & more peoples for exploitation rather than seek justice for environmental & social victims because Jesus said not to resist evil?

 

[Rhea]

So when a multi-billion dollar corporation "rapes" the Earth for it's resources & "steals" from the poor for profit, we should actually open up more areas & more peoples for exploitation rather than seek justice for environmental & social victims because Jesus said not to resist evil?

You may be asking the wrong person this question. But my answer is...

Yah, makes the whole idea of the bible kinda not-believable, hunh. But that's what it says. One shouldn't be surprised, though, because the people at the time didn't know about large scale environmental evil. If it were the word of god, it would have predicted how inappropriate such a passage would sound 2000 years later! But it didn't predict that and now it says what it says, and there it is. We can wish it said something else, if we believe the bible, but it doesn't say something else. It says, "don't resist evil". Crazy, I know. But I didn't write it.

 

[Drummer4Christ]

You may be asking the wrong person this question. But my answer is...

Yah, makes the whole idea of the bible kinda not-believable, hunh. But that's what it says. One shouldn't be surprised, though, because the people at the time didn't know about large scale environmental evil. If it were the word of god, it would have predicted how inappropriate such a passage would sound 2000 years later! But it didn't predict that and now it says what it says, and there it is. We can wish it said something else, if we believe the bible, but it doesn't say something else. It says, "don't resist evil". Crazy, I know. But I didn't write it.

You made the claim in the Social Justice Jesus thread that Jesus advocated retribution for social & environmental evil, only to claim in this thread that Jesus advocated the non-resistance of such evil. That's a contridiction in you, not the Bible. The only thing "crazy" is the ability of someone to undermine their own argument using a manuscript they believe is untrue & unbelievable.

 

[theLords]

If that were the message, I would expect the passage to read, "if someone strikes you, run away and do not retaliate" rather than "give the other cheek also". If that were the message I would expect, "If someone takes your shirt, do not grab for it back" rather than, "give your cloak also".

If that were the message I would not expect "That ye resist not evil:" but rather I would expect, "resist the evil, but do not do evil in return." Being armed is resisting evil, and the scripture says to NOT resist evil.


So indeed, in the case of a rape, the bible says to not resist the evil, but turn the other cheek for an additional strike. And for the attacker he does not say subdue, he says to pray for them.

Not a comforting message, but a clear one.

I understand the human impulse to protect oneself, but I don't see how one can make these passages promote it.
(for the record, I support the second amendment and I own guns. I do not support the suggestion to "not resist evil". I do resist evil.)

Dear Christian Women,

Don't listen to this garbage. If you are about to be the victim of rape (God forbid), fight with all of your might. This cockamamy "interpretation" of Scripture is from the mind of an atheist. The Bible does not state that one should submit oneself to rape. This self-righteous suicide "understanding" of Scripture passages, contradicts the rest of the NT and Christ's teachings. God does not contradict Himself.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live

That is all.

 

[Rhea]

You made the claim in the Social Justice Jesus thread that Jesus advocated retribution for social & environmental evil, only to claim in this thread that Jesus advocated the non-resistance of such evil. That's a contridiction in you, not the Bible. The only thing "crazy" is the ability of someone to undermine their own argument using a manuscript they believe is untrue & unbelievable.

The argument in that thread was not about resisting evil, it was about comforting its victims through charity.

Dear Christian Women,
If you are about to be the victim of rape (God forbid), fight with all of your might.

Yes, I agree completely.

This cockamamy "interpretation" of Scripture is from the mind of an atheist.

From the mind of a human.

The Bible does not state that one should submit oneself to rape. This self-righteous suicide "understanding" of Scripture passages, contradicts the rest of the NT and Christ's teachings. God does not contradict Himself.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live

But in many ways it does match Jesus' other teachings very closely.
Do not bother to grow or store food. Do not worry about where to find clothing or shelter. Does the bird care? Nor should you. If you are not ready to leave your father and mother to follow. Let the dead bury the dead.

Jesus talk quite a lot about eschewing the trappings of an earthly existence. Material things holding you hostage against god.

I think there is quite a lot to show that Jesus was not concerned about mundane and earthly safeties. Not cold nor hunger nor toil; not family nor property nor tradition; nor - as the passages above state - even safety or freedom.

The OT contradicts this quite a bit as you have shown. But Jesus' words have a theme of giving up all comfort and safety to concentrate only on trusting god.

...


Perhaps you don't like this interpretation, but I think we can all agree that I am not the only one in the world to read it. Many Christian sects take this as their core beliefs and will NOT resist.

You can call me atheist, but 250,000 Amish agree with this interpretation.
Peaceful Societies


And I agree with you, it would be horrifying to teach women to not fight rapists. But that is what the Amish teach.

 

[theLords]

From the mind of a human.

Dear Christian:

The mind of an unbelieving human lacking the Holy Spirit (just to clarify).

But in many ways it does match Jesus' other teachings very closely.
Do not bother to grow or store food. Do not worry about where to find clothing or shelter. Does the bird care? Nor should you. If you are not ready to leave your father and mother to follow. Let the dead bury the dead.

Jesus talk quite a lot about eschewing the trappings of an earthly existence. Material things holding you hostage against god.

I think there is quite a lot to show that Jesus was not concerned about mundane and earthly safeties. Not cold nor hunger nor toil; not family nor property nor tradition; nor - as the passages above state - even safety or freedom.

The OT contradicts this quite a bit as you have shown. But Jesus' words have a theme of giving up all comfort and safety to concentrate only on trusting god.

You misunderstand Christ. Not a big deal, you don't believe in Him anyway. But, the minute you start promoting false doctrine to other Christians there is a problem. We are called to give up anything that sets itself up before God in our life. If it were as simple as "denying comforts" then God would never bless people with extraordinary riches. (King David, King Solomon, Thomas Bramwell Welch, William Colgate). These men alone throw a monkey wrench into your baseless foundation.

Perhaps you don't like this interpretation, but I think we can all agree that I am not the only one in the world to read it. Many Christian sects take this as their core beliefs and will NOT resist.

This "interpretation" is nothing more than false doctrine, that contradicts the entirety of Scripture. Whenever a Christian sect cherry picks the Bible--there is a major problem.

You can call me atheist, but 250,000 Amish agree with this interpretation.
Peaceful Societies
And I agree with you, it would be horrifying to teach women to not fight rapists. But that is what the Amish teach.

The Amish believe in the unbiblical doctrine of Rumspringa, as well. Wow, this is quite the fallacious argument that I would not have expected from an atheist. Well, here's a rebuttal for you: 3 to 4 billion people in the world believe in God, therefore you should believe in God. After all, if a large number of people believe something--then it's obviously true!

 

[handy]

I've always considered those verses to be about forcing something on the Christian. Forcing violence on the Christian, forcing unfair (but legal) access to the Christians hard-earned goods (taxes?), forcing labor from the christian or forcing the christian to be taken by force. Smite. Take away. Compel to go.

Wow...I guess it isn't surprising that you're not a Christian then.

I think there is quite a lot to show that Jesus was not concerned about mundane and earthly safeties. Not cold nor hunger nor toil; not family nor property nor tradition; nor - as the passages above state - even safety or freedom.

The OT contradicts this quite a bit as you have shown. But Jesus' words have a theme of giving up all comfort and safety to concentrate only on trusting god.

You're right...earthly pleasures or pain or even needs were not on the forefront of what Jesus came to teach about Himself to His people, the Jews. (He wasn't opening this in a big way to the gentiles at the time...although He did deal with individual gentiles in a loving way.

The Jews, of course, were looking for Messiah...whom they thought would be a strong military king, such as King David. Someone that would crush the Romans and bring them not only freedom...but for some of the zealots, the hope that they would be the world's superpower.

Combine this interpretation of not only who but what the messiah would be, with the arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude that became entrenched in the religious leaders of the time...one can see that the teachings of Jesus were so outrageously out-there...well, they rose up and put Him to death...(because He allowed it).

Jesus came bringing the idea that the world wasn't an enemy to conquer...but a neighbor to love...hard stuff for the Jews in their insular society to accept.

That was why Jesus was saying what He was saying...not "forcing something on the Christian"...but telling the Jews...I AM your Messiah...but I'm not here to do what you think I'm going to do.

It's not that Christ's words have no application for today's secular society...the ideas of "turn the other cheek", "go the extra mile" and "that man is so kind, he'd give you the coat off his back" are so entrenched in our vernacular that I'd bet a lot of people wouldn't even know they originated with Christ. And, in our vernacular, each of these idioms describe a person who is willing to put self aside and meet the needs of the other person.

So, if a rapist comes after my daughter...I should just let him have at her? Or, that as a Christian, I should not own a gun, much less pull one out and blow her attacker away?

Really we're comparing apples and oranges here, because Jesus is speaking to the Jews of the first century and how the fulfillment of the promised Messiah was a whole different ball game than what they expected...it's not really about how a 21st American should act if a rapist goes after her daughter.

...Not that I can't draw on this should such an event occur...but, as much as I respect the Amish...I don't think their view is the only way this text should be interpreted.

 

[G. White]

So far we have been discussing RKBA issues as a "right to defend one's self and/or loved ones from deadly physical force". How do christians feel about gun ownership for "hunting" and "sporting" purposes?

 

[handy]

Gun ownership truly falls into the category of Christian liberty...the bible speaks neither for it, nor against it. If a Christian wants a gun for hunting or sporting...go for it.

However, if one feels deep down inside that one shouldn't "support" the gun industry or whatever...then one shouldn't own a gun.

 

[jasoncran]

Gun ownership truly falls into the category of Christian liberty...the bible speaks neither for it, nor against it. If a Christian wants a gun for hunting or sporting...go for it.

However, if one feels deep down inside that one shouldn't "support" the gun industry or whatever...then one shouldn't own a gun.

for the record..

i am pro-gun. i wont ever by any gun. why? my wife has bi polar and sever anger issues . she has hit me several times. i have used my bjj training to stop her and control her without harm to me or her.

that said i will not condemn the brethren for owing a gun for self-defense or hunting.


but if one is a true die hard pacifist then one wouldnt debate or answer any attack one person with words of force without retreat and no response.

pacifism does include that stuff. so rhea if we are to be that way how then should you all know of christ? AND i have heard of that.

and i used to be anti-gun and anti-military as a kid. funny that changed on 6 aug 1991. yes indeed tommorow is the anniversary of service and i am so joyous.

 

[Rhea]

So, if a rapist comes after my daughter...I should just let him have at her?

No! You absolutely "should" NOT, IMO!
(But the bible doesn't help you decide that)

Or, that as a Christian, I should not own a gun, much less pull one out and blow her attacker away?

I would.
But the bible does not help decide that.

 

[Rhea]

The Amish believe in the unbiblical doctrine of Rumspringa, as well. Wow, this is quite the fallacious argument that I would not have expected from an atheist. Well, here's a rebuttal for you: 3 to 4 billion people in the world believe in God, therefore you should believe in God. After all, if a large number of people believe something--then it's obviously true!

If my argument had been, "I'm right because lots of people agree with me" you would be correct that it is a fallacious argument.

But that wasn't my argument.

My argument was that your claim that I was wrong because I am atheist (emphasis in original), was disproven by the same reading being interpreted by non-atheists. By Christians.

Whenever a Christian sect cherry picks the Bible--there is a major problem.

So true. So, so true.
And interesting how many different sects disagree with each other. Each believing the others have it wrong. Each sure that they have special knowledge of truth.

Each unable to convince other Spirit-Inspired believers.
It makes for interesting discussion.