Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun...

[Nacho]

So is adultery. Does this mean we participate in that, too? I confess that example is a little unfair, but you really need to explain to us why you think its acceptable for Christians to participate in the instrumentality of death when you know as well as me that Jesus went to the cross to defeat death.

I realize that you (and others) are only support weaponry in relation to self-defence. But weapons are still the tools of the enemy, and whenever someone is killed with one, Jesus' effort to defeat death on the cross is dealt a slap in the face.

I suggest that there are other ways to make life safer than to "arm ourselves". Many cultures have achieved much 'safer' living condition than in the USA (and Canada, too) without arming their citizens.

So it can be done.

I have all the required equipment to commit adultery, but I choose not to. See that............I choose not to even though I have the required equipment to commit the sin. CHOICE......Freewill......how ever you want to put it....we are responsible for our actions.

1 Corinthians 10

23All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify. 24Let no one seek his own good, but that of his neighbor. 25Eat anything that is sold in the meat market without asking questions for conscience’ sake; 26FOR THE EARTH IS THE LORD’S, AND ALL IT CONTAINS. 27If one of the unbelievers invites you and you want to go, eat anything that is set before you without asking questions for conscience’ sake. 28But if anyone says to you, “This is meat sacrificed to idols,†do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for conscience’ sake; 29I mean not your own conscience, but the other man’s; for why is my freedom judged by another’s conscience? 30If I partake with thankfulness, why am I slandered concerning that for which I give thanks?

31Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God; 33just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the profit of the many, so that they may be saved.


Please keep your religion out of my Christianity.

 

[Drew]

We are all responsible for our own actions...we are not allowed to blame our sin on anyone or on anything. If I was given the launch button to an ICBM missle would you say I am less at fault for killing millions of people then if I did it with a sword over many many years??? No I wouldn't be...because killing is killing. We will all stand before Jesus and answer for our actions and I promise you that saying oh but Jesus I had a gun or I had a bomb will not help your defense.

What is the specific point here? How does any of this make the case for the acceptability of Christians arming themselves?

No one makes me drive my car into a crowd of people, but that sure would be a good way to kill people wouldn't it? Should we take away cars from people too?

This a common, but flawed, argument. Cars are clearly an integral part of our culture that are used, in 99.99999% of cases for purposes other than intentionally killing people.

This is not true of guns - their main purpose is to kill some living being.

And I am arguing from historical facts.....it doesn't matter if they are specific they are facts.

It does matter - you are being very selective, and therefore distorting the reality.

My grandfather smoked 2 packs a day for 60 years, and died at 90 of something other than lung disease.

Can I legitimately used his case to argue that smoking does not cause lung disease?

Of course not.

Speaking of Japan....did you know that one of the reasons they were unsure of invading the mainland in the US during WWII is because they knew most civilians were armed. HMMMM good thing we didn't take everyones guns away then huh?

Not the point, and a flawed argument anyway.

The fact is that Japan is a stable, low violence society. And they have almost no guns. So the Japan example shows that it is indeed possible to have a safe society without guns.

Now as to the WWII stuff. Even if you what you say is true, you are again engaging in selection bias. There are many nations that have been invaded even though the citizens were armed. Take Afghanistan, for example. So you have a lot of work to do to make the case that the benefits of an armed citizenry in relation to deterring foreign aggression is worth all the negative aspects of having armed citizens.

Actual evidence huh......how about when a murder is a felon and when they get out of prison they can't buy a gun so they kill someone with a knife. If you don't think that happens then you are dreaming. Heck most serial killers don't even use guns they use knives or rope. They like to see the terror in the eyes of their victims.....that is evil!!!! Not the rope, knife or gun they used....They are evil by their actions!!!

You are not addressing my objection. You talk about a specific example where someone, who was denied a gun, found a way to kill anyway. This is an anecdote, Nacho, and it is widely understood that anecdotal evidence is of very little value.

I do not deny that these things happen. But what is really important is the degree to which they happen in general. So if you can present a proper argument as to why people will almost always find an alternative to the gun, please do so.

 

[Drew]

I have all the required equipment to commit adultery, but I choose not to. See that............I choose not to even though I have the required equipment to commit the sin. CHOICE......Freewill......how ever you want to put it....we are responsible for our actions.

I have, of course, never denied that we are all responsible for our actions.

How is this an argument for the right to have a gun?

Please keep your religion out of my Christianity.

My response is this: Please keep your gun-culture out of my Christianity.

 

[Vic C.]

:eeeekkk 9 pages in two days?!? Doesn't surprise me. :waving

I'm skipping over the whole 9 yards, er pages, to address a couple of things in Ian's OP.

After some more talk it ended up being that she didn't think a person ought to defend themselves they should just let the good Lord do what He will and if He doesn't make something fall on the attacker's head then you are just out of luck.

I cringe when I see God's will and "luck" mentioned together. I cringe when "luck" is talked about on it's own. If you are a believer, there IS no room for "luck" in your worldview. 2

Jesus talked about being persecuted for His sake. I'll say it again, His sake. If you are out spreading the Good News or just praising the Lord and the world feels the need to persecute you for it, take it! Jesus did and asked that His followers do the same.

But if you and/or your family are being robbed or whatever so that someone can steal your money or belongings to feed the drug habit or whatever, that's a different scenario.

You want to validate non defense in that case, start preaching the Word!

Mark 8:35 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.

God helps people who help themselves.

Sorry Ian, that's not Biblical.

 

[Vic C.]

... My response is this: Please keep your gun-culture out of my Christianity.

Ok guys, lets end it here!

When are some of you going to realize you can't legislate morality? The right to bear arms has nothing to do with Christianity. How that gun is used does. When a gun owner is within the law, there should be no problem with it. The problem lies when misuse occurs.

I have issues with anyone, including a believer, when they begin to bog me down with ideals and legislature and use Christianity and the Bible as a means to push their agenda and worldview into existence.

That's a slippery slope. :yes

 

[Drew]

Ok guys, lets end it here!

When are some of you going to realize you can't legislate morality? The right to bear arms has nothing to do with Christianity.

How that gun is used does. When a gun owner is within the law, there should be no problem with it. The problem lies when misuse occurs.

This argument has a problem and it is addressed in post 42. Will you be the first person to respect proper debate and actually engage that argument?

In short: you cannot neatly split this system of "man + gun" into two components and "lay all the blame" on the man.

This profoundly begs the very question at issue.

And I entirely disagree about legislating morality. If what you say is true - that we cannot legislate morality, why are there laws against murder and rape, not to mention other things.

 

[Drew]

I have issues with anyone, including a believer, when they begin to bog me down with ideals and legislature and use Christianity and the Bible as a means to push their agenda and worldview into existence.

Uncharitable.

I have provided Biblical arguments.

And they are mostly ignored (of course).

To imply that I have an "agenda" is to stoop to rhetoric and lowers the already low level of debate here.

The detailed Biblical arguments are there, Vic - have at 'em, please.

And "bog me down with ideals"??

Isn't that what Christianity, including the "ideal" of loving one's enemy, is all about?

 

[Pard]

Will you be the first person to respect proper debate and actually engage that argument?

I love hypocrisy...

 

[Classik]

This argument has a problem and it is addressed in post 42. Will you be the first person to respect proper debate and actually engage that argument?

In short: you cannot neatly split this system of "man + gun" into two components and "lay all the blame" on the man.

This profoundly begs the very question at issue.

And I entirely disagree about legislating morality. If what you say is true - that we cannot legislate morality, why are there laws against murder and rape, not to mention other things.

Dude, full of wisdom, the Lord is with thee

 

[handy]

A detailed analysis of the text does not support this interpretation of why Jesus suggested getting the swords.

Please see post 58 - it explains in detail how, if we honour the details in the text, we see that Jesus is suggesting the swords not for "self-defence in future" but rather so that Jesus will be seen as a transgressor.

I am not making this up! This explanation is provided in the very text itself:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NIV-25902">37</sup> It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’<sup class="footnote" value="[<a href=&quot;<a href=" http:="" www.christianforums.net="" #fen-niv-25902b&quot;"="" target="_blank">http://www.christianforums.net/#fen-NIV-25902b" target="_blank">b]">[b]</sup>; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.â€

This could not be more clear - Jesus is driving home the point that the acquiring of the swords is a strategy to make Jesus be seen as a transgressor, by being part of an armed group.

This is what is so frustrating about engaging believers who claim to take scripture seriously. This text is a classic - if you really take it seriously in all its details, it is obvious that the reason for the sword is clearly something other than self-defence.

It is about fulfilling a prophecy that Jesus would be seen as a transgressor.

And that takes Him to the cross, as it had to be.

Were the charges against Jesus ever that He attacked soldiers with a weapon? Search in vain for that particular charge. Was it even against the law for Jews to carry swords in Judea during Roman occupation? I think not, otherwise Jesus would be commanding His disciples to break the law, something He never would do. If you can provide historical evidence that it was against the law for Jews to carry swords, I'd be interested, but then there still would be the fact that weapons were never part of the charges against Jesus.

Luke tells us what the charges brought against Jesus were:

When it was day, the Council of elders of the people assembled, both chief priests and scribes, and they led Him away to their council chamber, saying, “If You are the Christ, tell us.†But He said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe;and if I ask a question, you will not answer.But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD.†And they all said, “Are You the Son of God, then?†And He said to them, “Yes, I am.†Then they said, “What further need do we have of testimony? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth.†Luke 22:66-71

And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this man misleading our nation and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar, and saying that He Himself is Christ, a King.†Luke 23:2

Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find no guilt in this man.†But they kept on insisting, saying, “He stirs up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from Galilee even as far as this place.†Luke 23:4-5

Then Luke also tells us what Pilate's findings were:
Pilate summoned the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, “You brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion, and behold, having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him." Luke 23:13-14

Considering the fact that Peter used a sword against one of the soldiers in the garden, if the purpose of the sword was to number Jesus with transgressors, you would think it would have been brought up as one of the charges against Him. It wasn't. Ergo, your position that Jesus told His disciples to go out and buy swords in order to help the Jews trump up charges against Him doesn't hold a lot of water.

He was numbered among the transgressors, according to the Jews, because He equated Himself with God. The Romans didn't number Him among transgressors...Pilate said that he didn't find any fault with Him.

The reason why Jesus said what He said was that He was preparing His disciples for the fact that what was prophesied about Him...the fact that He would die like a criminal...was about to take place. He would no longer be with them and their tactics of evangelism would change from being personally sent out without money, provisions and protection to needing to supply those necessities. (I'm wondering why the mention of money and provisions would even be there if all Jesus was doing was helping the Jews trump up charges against him because of the weapons? : )

I did in fact read post #58...and came across this:

If Jesus is really simply "provisioning" his followers to be able to survive in the broader world, He gives a very strange follow on explanation - that the group of them are to be seen as transgressors. That makes no sense in such a context. Would you suggest provisions for people "so that they will be seen as transgressors?

Again, a flaw in your interpretation...Jesus didn't once say " that the group of them are to be seen as transgressors".

Go back and read the passage again. He referred only to Himself as being numbered with the transgressors. When something doesn't make sense in a context one should always go back and read the context and see if one is making it say more than it is. Saying that Jesus was telling the disciples that all of them would be numbered as transgressors is making the passage say far more than it does.

Drew, your interpretation of this is based upon presumption and reading more into the passage than what's there. Generally, when applying exegesis the simplest of interpretations is the correct one....What was prophesied about Jesus, that He would be branded a transgressor and be killed, was about to take place, and Jesus was preparing His disciples for the fact that He would no longer be with them. The "transgression" He was charged with was blasphemy...not armed rebellion against Rome. Jesus had no need to "intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him".

One other thing that breaks your interpretation down is that Judas went away to betray Jesus before Jesus spoke to the 11 about the money, provisions and swords. If His whole purpose was to help the Jews trump up charges against Him as some kind of armed aggressor, surely He would have been smart enough to do so before Judas left so that Judas could have carried the news to His accusers.

It just doesn't hold up, Drew. Believe this way if you like, but don't accuse others of not taking the Scriptures sincerely or of not taking in all details because they disagree with you.

'Smatter of fact, you might just want to take in more details of Jesus' betrayal (had nothing to do with swords), arrest (had nothing to do with swords), charges against Him (had nothing to do with swords) and subsequent crucifixion (had nothing to do with swords) and re-examine your conclusion. That is if you're claiming to take scripture seriously. ;)

 

[Drew]

Were the charges against Jesus ever that He attacked soldiers with a weapon? Search in vain for that particular charge.

First of all, the text says what is says!!

Again, and I will keep raising this since it is so clear - the clear implication of this text is that the purpose of the sword is so that Jesus will be seen as one of several transgressors:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-25902>37</SUP> It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.â€

Second, the fact that Jesus was not charged with being a "weapon carrying transgressor" is entirely besides the point. As part of his strategy to get arrested based on some charge, being the member of an armed group will only ensure such arrest.

The text says what is says!!!

 

[Drew]

Considering the fact that Peter used a sword against one of the soldiers in the garden, if the purpose of the sword was to number Jesus with transgressors, you would think it would have been brought up as one of the charges against Him. It wasn't. Ergo, your position that Jesus told His disciples to go out and buy swords in order to help the Jews trump up charges against Him doesn't hold a lot of water.

The text says what it says!!!

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-25902>37</SUP> It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.â€

You appear to be manifestly denying Jesus' stated explanation as to why the sword should be acquired.

 

[handy]

I have no problem with people who choose to never have any kind of weapon about them.

I don't carry any weapon myself. We do have a rifle and we have a handgun, they are my husband's and we all know how to use them. But, I don't.

Would I if my kids were in danger? From a cougar, bear, wolves, or an evil man? Most likely. I would find it to be a seriously dereliction of my duty as a parent to just give my kids up to death because "God will take care of them".

But, if Classik, Drew or anyone else would prefer to stand by and let themselves or loved ones be murdered, as a testimony of their faith in God....I truly don't judge that...I really don't.

Would I use a weapon if someone were to myself or my kids in danger due to the fact that we are Christians and they are killing all who claim the name of Christ?

In that case, I probably wouldn't. I really don't think I would. I know that myself, my hubby and kids are all the Lord's and if we were to die because we are Christians, then so be it.

That's different than just sitting back and crying whilst a cougar tears my son apart or a wolf eats my husband or a rapist grabs my daughter before me.

And if anyone doubts that there are killers and rapists in the woods as well as cougars, bears, and wolves...just read the story of Shasta Groene.



And as usual Drew, you don't really read my posts. I already did explain why...it's there, read it again, you'll find it.

 

[Drew]

IAnd as usual Drew, you don't really read my posts. I already did explain why...it's there, read it again, you'll find it.

It happens to be true that in this case, I am indeed guilty of not reading your entire post before responding. As I did to Stove.

But I certainly do not do this generally, so please do not bear false witness about it.

It is absolutely stunning that I get accused of this by the people in this forum.

Yes, I did not read your entire post - I acknowledge this.

But it is clear that I am far and away much more disciplined in responding to arguments that other posters make than the typical poster here.

Ignoring arguments is a veritable family value here.

 

[Drew]

He was numbered among the transgressors, according to the Jews, because He equated Himself with God. The Romans didn't number Him among transgressors...Pilate said that he didn't find any fault with Him.

The text says what it says:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-25902>37</SUP> It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

Whatever Pilate did, or did not say, in relation to capturing Jesus, this does not rewrite the words I have bolded and underlined above.

The reason why Jesus said what He said was that He was preparing His disciples for the fact that what was prophesied about Him...the fact that He would die like a criminal...was about to take place. He would no longer be with them and their tactics of evangelism would change from being personally sent out without money, provisions and protection to needing to supply those necessities.

Handy, what am I supposed to say?

Am I supposed to agree that instead of what Jesus actually says:

“But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-25902>37</SUP> It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

....that He really said this instead:

“But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. I am about to die like a criminal and will no longer be with you. and your tactics of evangelism will change from being personally sent out without money, provisions and protection to needing to supply those necessities<SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-25902>37</SUP>

Again, you are simply replacing Jesus' explanation for his instruction with one of your own.

The text says what it says!!!

 

[Pard]

But it is clear that I am far and away much more disciplined in responding to arguments that other posters make than the typical poster here.

Ignoring arguments is a veritable family value here.

Ah yes another heart warming instant of "Do what I say not what I do"

 

[handy]

But it is clear that I am far and away much more disciplined in responding to arguments that other posters make than the typical poster here.

Must be good to be you, Drew.

I'm not going to argue the subject. You've put forth what you believe...I've put forth why I disagree and choose to look to the whole of Scriptures...

Everyone else can make up their own minds...

:waving

 

[Drew]

Again, a flaw in your interpretation...Jesus didn't once say " that the group of them are to be seen as transgressors".

Not in those exact words, but the meaning is the same. Let the text speak again:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. <SUP class=versenum id=en-NIV-25902>37</SUP> It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.â€

To be "numbered with transgressors" means to be seen as being one member of a group of transgressors.

The "transgression" He was charged with was blasphemy...not armed rebellion against Rome. Jesus had no need to "intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him".

As I have already stated, it is perfectly plausible that Jesus is setting Himself up to be seen as a member of sword-carrying trouble-makers, adding further justification for the authorities to arrest Him.

Does this mean that He would then necessarily be charged with being an armed troublemaker? Of course not.

Let's say I am a murderer and I want to get arrested. I speed down the road at 100 mph. I get pulled over and the police find a dead body in the back seat.

Will I get charged for speeding? Not likely.

Again, the text says what it says!! Immediately after giving the instruction, Jesus clearly asserts that the carrying out of the instruction fulfills a prophecy about being numbered as a transgressor. Do you really deny this?

 

[stovebolts]

This a common, but flawed, argument. Cars are clearly an integral part of our culture that are used, in 99.99999% of cases for purposes other than intentionally killing people.

This is not true of guns - their main purpose is to kill some living being.

Hey Drew,

I know how much you enjoy conversing the scriptures, and so do I. Unfortunatly I'm a bit short on time right now, although if this thread is still going on early next week, I'll reply to what you've replied back to me :nod

Not trying to post a hit and run, but I think I see the source of your argument. You believe that the main purpose of a gun is to be used as a weapon for killing other people. Hence, you would like to see guns gone... period.

I can tell you that this is not the case. There are millions of guns in america that will never entertain the thought of being fired at another human being. Again, a gun is only a weapon when used against another human being. Period. You would not call a butter knife a weapon because it's main purpose is never used as a weapon. That does not mean that a butter knife cannot be used as a weapon. Likewise, a gun is not a weapon, and we shouldn't think of guns primarily as weapons. BTW, I am picking up a nice 20 gauge tomorrow for my boy. For me, it's an economical way to put meat in my freezer. For him, it's sport. If the need ever arose would I ever use it to protect my family? No question about it. But that is not the primary purpose of that gun, and I think most would agree with this.

Now, you have shown scripture why you believe we should not own guns, which I of course disagree with, and we can argue that next week. But in the meantime, please, show me where we are not to protect our family from people trying to harm them by way of scriptures.

I'm asking you this because it sounds like your saying that if somebody breaks into your house, you should just move aside and let them do what they please, with whoever they please in your house.

I just want to know how you would handle that type of situation in your own home...

Thanks.

 

[Drew]

Hey Drew,

I know how much you enjoy conversing the scriptures, and so do I. Unfortunatly I'm a bit short on time right now, although if this thread is still going on early next week, I'll reply to what you've replied back to me :nod

Fair enough - I should back off on posting for at least a few hours.