What Does the 2nd Amendment Actually Say?
- Thread starter Richard Aberdeen
- Start date
-
- Tags
- guns jesus love mass shootings peace
MedicBravo
Active
People have put labels on Jesus which may be partly true.
He is NOT a baby murderer, LGB+, rapist, thug, etc.
He does NOT advocate forced taking something from someone to give to someone else who refuses to work for it.
He is FOR borders, walls, legal immigration, Just violence where and on whom applicable.
He is for what is Good and only be God's definition.
He is NOT a baby murderer, LGB+, rapist, thug, etc.
He does NOT advocate forced taking something from someone to give to someone else who refuses to work for it.
He is FOR borders, walls, legal immigration, Just violence where and on whom applicable.
He is for what is Good and only be God's definition.
While i agree with what you say, why say it now, there have been many instances in this discussion where "Liberals" have been vilified and "Conservatives " applauded but you said nothing, so why now?,........, there are no Politics in Christs teaching, the politics are what we bring to our professed faith and are a reflection of our own Prejudices and intolerance.
And on the question of carrying weapons, what do you feel are Christs teaching on that subject, can we say we are turning the other cheek, can we say we are not resisting evil, or loving our enemies or those that abuse and spitefully use us, if our response to such situations and provocations is to blow them away with an AR-15 rifle?. If those that "live by the sword will die by the sword " , then where does that leave those that proclaim ownership and use of such "Swords" as their God given right under the Constitution?.
Whoever said he is?
So you believe that Christ would be against the principle of overseas Aid, where money is taken in the form of Taxation from the donor country and given in Aid to those in desperate need who are often unable to work for that money owing to their physical condition. As far as i read Christs words, "Loving your neighbour as yourself" and "treating others as youd want to be treated" came with no conditions or technicalities, Christs words in "The Sheep and the Goats" about helping those in need again came with no conditions and the Good Samaritan didnt ask the stranger robbed and beaten about his "work ethic" before helping him.And who is going to decide if someone is refusing to work or is incapable of doing that work, and what of his family, do they get punished as well?.
And on the subject of weapons, of bearing arms, do you think Christ advocates for "forced taking something from someone" so that that money can be spent on instruments of mass destruction and carnage.? It seems to me that Christs teachings favour the poor and suffering and oppose violence and bloodshed, so perhaps we should be advocating for that instead.
So when Christ said" when you welcomed the Stranger you welcomed me", what he should have said according to you is "when you welcomed the LEGAL stranger you welcomed me", and when he talked of Loving your neighbour as yourself, again that all involves around the question of Legality and Nationality, because according to you Christ is in favour of "Borders and Walls", could you give me a Gospel reference for that because it seems to me that Christ was all about tearing down walls and borders, both within ourselves , the walls and borders of self interest and greed and in the walls and borders that we create in our lives to differentiate who belongs and who doesnt, who is worthy and who isnt, because at the end of the day "We're ALL wretched sinners in the sight of God and ALL in need of his Grace, Forgiveness and Mercy.
As for Christ being FOR " Just violence where and on whom applicable.", where does Christ advocate that for his followers, and who is going to decide what violence is "Just" and on whom it should fall. Are you going to decide that, is the government, just who gets to decide who will live and who will die?. Ive got to say this idea of Christ advocating his followers perpetrate just violence on those deemed unworthy ,or unjust, or abject sinners, or whatever, seems totally alien to the Christ i know who advocated to love your enemies and turn the other cheek, but give me your references, what Christ actually said and not what you infer ,and i'll check them out.
JN 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
JN 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
Peter was going for the head. In this case Jesus stopped him so that scriptures would be fulfilled.
In Matthews account of Christs arrest in Matthew 26: 49-56 Christ says in Verse 52 " Put up thy sword into his place, for ALL they that take the sword will perish by the sword", also in Lukes account in Luke 22:51 Christ heals the man whose ear has been cut off, it hardly seems like a vindication of violence, so i would ask again, where does Christ advocate " Just violence where and on whom applicable.", and who is going to decide what violence is "Just" and on whom it should fall.?
MedicBravo
Active
Peter was affected by his emotions and trying to prevent prophesy from being fulfilled.
What if the police came to arrest your spouse, best friend, etc. with no explanation and it reeked of suspicion?
You'd probably act similarly.
What if the police came to arrest your spouse, best friend, etc. with no explanation and it reeked of suspicion?
You'd probably act similarly.
Thats a good point, i've never thought about that before,
But how do you reconcile Christ not condemning Peter for bearing arms with his words in the Sermon on the mount in Matthew 5: 38-48,
" 38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
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;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
How can you bear arms, presumably with the intention of using them, when Christ says "Do not resist evil, turn the other cheek and Love your enemies"?. and also in Matthew 26: 49-56 Christ says in Verse 52 " Put up thy sword into his place, for ALL they that take the sword will perish by the sword",?.
I dont think i'd act so violently, but i get your point, most of us would react to that situation with varying degrees of anger, violence and hatred at our perceived enemies actions, that would be the Human response.
But doesnt Christs words in Matthew 5:38-48 ,which ive quoted above in my previous post, go exactly against what our human response would be, And that surely is the case in so many of Christs commandments and teachings, we would want to act in one way, he tells us to act in another, often diametrically opposed to how we'd want to respond.
The question is, who do we obey, our own sinful urgings or the teachings of the Saviour we profess to follow,
All my bible teachers over the years have concluded that self-defense is allowed and I agree. (example)
For sure "love your enemies" is one of the most unconventional doctrines of Jesus. It's so beautiful and we need help from the Holy Spirit to accomplish it. A smite on the cheek is more of an affront to our ego than a major threat. Our body is the temple of God so major threats should be thwarted. Jesus' apostles were prepared for major threats but this wasn't one of them. A band of thieves beating them nearly to death would be a major threat.
I read the article, its well written and i understand how Luke 22:36 could be seen as a justification of using violence for self defence, but it does seem to go against most of Christs other words on the subject. Starting with his words in the Beatitudes, where he blessed the meek, the merciful, those that are persecuted and reviled for righteousness sake through the rest of his teachings in the Sermon on the Mount, the theme seems to me to be one of total pacifism in the face of violence and persecution
Its not just "love your enemies", but "do good to them that hate you" and "Pray for them which despitefully use and persecute you", seemingly a total submission to ones enemies. And yes its one of the hardest of Christs commandments to follow when our sinful human reaction is to often resent, revile and sometimes even hate our enemies.
I'm not sure about that, often in the Bible to smite means to "strike or inflict force" and i would imagine that would encompass everything from a light tap to a full blown punch or assault with a weapon. and before Christ said those words of offering the other cheek he said in Matthew 5:39 " But i say unto you, RESIST NOT EVIL", again to me it sounds like a totally pacifist stance.
We are indeed told our bodies are a "Temple of God", and as such we must follow Christs teachings as to the conduct of our bodies, we probably arent going to agree on the question of "Is Bearing arms compatible with Christs teaching?", but its only through discussion that we can understand others point of view.
Some bible teachers do fall on the totally pacifist stance. It's certainly up for discussion. As a young man I admired Gandhi's non violent approach. Most people would describe me as meek rather than brash. Jesus certainly didn't advocate sharing the gospel using force (Islam does). Here in Canada we are disarmed so even though criminals like home invaders are well armed, honest citizens have no protection. Our leaders hypocritically provide themselves with armed security details.
Jesus could anytime ask the Father for more than twelve legions of angels. He didn't need Peter's sword incident to show off His ear healing powers. His earthly ministry was coming to an end and He showed that even He was traveling with apostles bearing arms. The timing when this message is given is very significant. David, a man after God's own heart was not a wimp. So much so that he wasn't permitted to build the temple.
Get to know God in the entire bible. The bible tells us to obey authorities as their power is God given. Moses was saved from death by disobeying a government dictate. So was baby Jesus. God tells us to resist not evil but also to protect His temple which we are.
MedicBravo
Active
Pacifism is NOT an option.
God created us and the body we have while we're here. To NOT defend it is harsh insult to Him. Abusing it is equally insulting.
The optimal action is to restrain the evil person BUT you all know that realistically, most of the time, THEIR actions will result in their death and it will be entirely their fault.
God created us and the body we have while we're here. To NOT defend it is harsh insult to Him. Abusing it is equally insulting.
The optimal action is to restrain the evil person BUT you all know that realistically, most of the time, THEIR actions will result in their death and it will be entirely their fault.
bdavidc
Active
I think you are combining two different biblical issues: personal vengeance and the protection of innocent life. Jesus absolutely forbids revenge. “Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39), and Paul says, “Avenge not yourselves” (Romans 12:19). A Christian should not use a weapon because somebody insults him, angers him, or because he wants to get even.
But Scripture does not say owning a weapon is sinful, and it does not teach that a Christian must stand by and allow himself or someone else to be murdered without resistance.
Even Romans 13:4 shows that the use of force itself is not inherently evil. The civil authority “beareth not the sword in vain” and is called “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” So simply possessing or using a weapon cannot automatically be condemned as contrary to Christ.
Matthew 26:52 also needs its context. Peter drew the sword to prevent Christ from being arrested, even though Jesus had repeatedly said He must suffer and die. Christ told Peter to put it away because Peter was violently resisting what Christ had willingly come to accomplish. That passage does not teach that Christians may never own weapons or use force to protect life.
And “turn the other cheek” is about refusing personal retaliation. It is not a command to stand aside while someone murders your family, your neighbor, or another innocent person.
As for an AR-15 or any other firearm, the Bible does not condemn owning one. Scripture simply does not say that gun ownership is sinful. What it does condemn is murder, hatred, vengeance, and the wrongful use of violence.
So the real question is not, “Does a Christian own a gun?” The question is, “What is in his heart, and how does he use it?”
Loving our enemies means we do not hate them, seek revenge, or repay evil for evil. It does not mean we are required to let evil destroy innocent life without resistance.
The standard is Scripture, not liberal politics and not conservative politics.
Amen to that.
I once spent time in a southern state and someone told me he had just bought a 357 magnum which I thought was pretty cool since in Canada we law abiding citizens can't buy such things. He then said he hoped an "intruder" would come into his home so he could try it out only the word he used wasn't "intruder" and specified color. While the bible allows the owning of arms, the feelings in his heart were sinful.
I totally understand the human desire for self defence and the protection of those we care for, i just find it hard, given Christs words in the Sermon on the mount to justify those actions, but as you say "its up for discussion" and its good that we can discuss the issue without animosity and with a desire to truly understand Christs teachings .
Thats true, so do you think it was the unique position of Christ and his followers at that time that made him say to them to provide themselves with a sword, as they would be the primary purveyors of his Gospel and faced persecution?, and what of the phrase, "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword"?.
Ive had a lengthy discussion with Christ4ever about obeying the Earthly authorities even when their dictates conflict with the teachings of Christ based on my understanding of Acts 5:29. but thats probably a whole different topic. But if protecting his temple involves going against Christs commandments then that protection is surely unjustifiable, and thats what i'm trying to figure out.
As ive said i totally understand the human reaction to defend oneself and those we care for and the urge to hit back when attacked is hard to resist, but youre saying we shouldnt resist it, even if it results in the death of our attacker, how do you resolve that position with Christs words in Matthew 5:38-48?.
" 38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
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;
45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
An interesting perspective, but in Matthew 5:39, preceding Christs words of "whosoever shall smite thee on the thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" Christ says "Do not resist Evil", how do you reconcile that with self defence or "the protection of innocent life"?.
So you believe that violence is allowed in self defence or the protection of others, and that resisting Evil is permissible if carried out without feelings of revenge, anger or the desire to get even?. But who decides that, is it left up to the subjective judgement of the one acting in self defence. And what if Anger or revenge manifests itself, do you stop, how many of us can act violently but also dispassionately, human history is littered with examples of good intentions leading to the most evil of acts, as the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", could that be the reason why Christ, knowing our hearts better than we know ourselves, Said "Do not resist Evil", because in so many cases we become the very monster we're trying to defeat.?
But if ALL Governments are in the control of the Devil as intimated in Luke 4:5-8, when the Devil offered them to Christ if he would bow down and worship him, what does that say about their using of force. And is the use of force by a Government different to Christs call on his followers to obey his commandments. I find it hard to justify the ownership of a weapon and the use of force by a Christian by using the example of mass murder being committed by a regime such as the Nazis, soviet Russia or the Hutu extremists in Rwanda, an extreme example i know, but you get my point.
But Christ then goes on to say in Matthew 26:52 " for all that take the sword shall perish by the sword", what do you make of that?.
But if we see those actions for the Evil acts they undoubtedly are, then doesnt Christs words of "Do not resist Evil " mean that we should do just that, and not resist them?. Let me say that although i'm arguing that Christ promoted an almost totally pacifist stance, i want to be proved wrong, because i couldnt stand by and watch an innocent abused, or not hit back if attacked, or stand aside and let evil prevail, but thats my human response, are Christs words commanding me to act differently?.
So how can you "Love your enemies", "Bless those that curse you", "Do good to those that hate you and pray for those that spitefully use and persecute you" if you blow them away with an AR-15 assault rifle?, and again, is it possible to kill without an element of anger, hatred or revenge in our hearts, can we take someones life in a life or death situation yet still have love for them in our hearts, and even if we can, are we not contravening Christs commandment "To not resist evil" by so doing?.
I believe that if a Christian has Christs Love and compassion in their heart then they would never own a gun in the first place, but seeing we are ALL wretched sinners , perhaps the question is how far can we deviate from Christs teaching before we are condemned , and is violence and the taking of anothers life, for whatever reason, unjustifiable in the eyes of Christ.
Could you give me a Gospel reference for that please, because for me, Loving someone goes far deeper than "not hating them, seeking revenge or repaying Evil", as does, "praying for them, blessing them and doing good to them", it seems hard to reconcile saying youre "doing good" to someone while taking their life with a weapon.
I agree completely. I do not believe there are "Liberal" or "Conservative" Christians, there are just Christians loving Christ as their Lord and Saviour and trying to follow his teachings and commandments . The labels we put on to ourselves and others are an attempt to justify our own particular Preferences and prejudices and should have no place in our walk of faith.
bdavidc
Active
I think the main issue is what Jesus meant by “resist not evil” in Matthew 5:39. The context is personal retaliation. Jesus had just referred to “an eye for an eye” and then gave examples of being slapped, sued, compelled, and mistreated. He was forbidding personal vengeance, not teaching that Christians must never oppose evil in any circumstance.
Jesus Himself avoided people who were trying to kill Him. In Luke 4:29-30 they tried to throw Him off a cliff, but He passed through them and went His way. He also told His disciples, “When they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another” (Matthew 10:23). So “resist not evil” cannot mean that we must simply submit to whatever evil someone wants to do.
You asked whether I believe force can ever be used in defense of yourself or another person. I believe Scripture leaves room for legitimate defense, but I would not say the Bible gives us a blanket command allowing lethal force in every self-defense situation.
"If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed." ~ Exodus 22:2 shows that Scripture distinguishes between murder and a death that occurs while defending against an immediate threat. That does not give someone permission to act out of anger, revenge, or hatred. Romans 12:19 still says, “Avenge not yourselves.”
You also asked who decides whether force is justified. The person acting is responsible before God for that decision, and yes, human judgment can be wrong. That is why force should be used to stop a threat, not to punish someone or get even.
Concerning Luke 4 and governments, I do not believe that passage means every government and every act of government belongs to Satan. Scripture also says, “The powers that be are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1), and civil authority is described as bearing the sword against evildoers in Romans 13:4.
That does not justify Hitler, Stalin, Rwanda, or any other evil regime. When government becomes evil, Acts 5:29 still applies: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
You also asked about Matthew 26:52, “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” Peter was using the sword to stop the arrest and crucifixion that Christ had already said must happen. Jesus immediately explained that the Scriptures had to be fulfilled (Matthew 26:53-54). I see that as a warning against living by violence, not a statement that every use of force under every circumstance is sinful.
You specifically asked for a Gospel reference supporting my statement that loving our enemies does not mean allowing innocent people to be harmed. I agree with you that loving our enemies means far more than simply not hating them. Jesus said: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them” (Matthew 5:44). But I do not see anywhere in the Gospels where loving an attacker means allowing him to murder another person.
Jesus said, “The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (John 10:11), and contrasted that with the hireling who sees danger and runs away (John 10:12-13). He also said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). Those passages do not specifically authorize firearms or lethal force, and I would not claim that they do. But they do show that love can require us to put ourselves between danger and the person being harmed.
That is the distinction I am making. Stopping someone from murdering an innocent person is not the same thing as hating that person or seeking revenge against him. Could someone use force and still have love for the attacker? I believe so. The objective should not be, “I want to kill this person.” It should be, “I have to stop this person from killing someone.” If the threat can be stopped without taking a life, that is obviously preferable.
If innocent people are in immediate danger, Scripture does not teach that we must simply stand by and let them be killed when we have the ability to help. Nehemiah gives a clear example. When the people were threatened with attack, he told them, “fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses” (Nehemiah 4:14). The people continued their work while keeping weapons ready for defense (Nehemiah 4:17-18). That does not justify revenge, hatred, or unnecessary violence. But it does show that Scripture does not condemn being armed or using force to defend your family or other innocent people from an immediate threat.
That is why I do not believe we should make absolute pacifism a command where Scripture does not clearly make it one.
And I disagree that a Christian with Christ’s love would never own a gun. Scripture never makes weapon ownership a test of Christian love. The Bible condemns murder, hatred, vengeance, and wrongful violence. It does not condemn simply owning a weapon.
Where I think we agree is this: politics should not decide the issue. Scripture should.
If Scripture condemns something, we should condemn it. If Scripture permits something, we should not forbid it. And where Scripture does not give a specific command, we should be careful not to create one ourselves.