The two reasons why I DON'T OC as much as I'd like to.

I'm very much pro-open carry, but due to two elements of my life, I find that it is not very often that I do so.

1) U of M Student - I graduated with an associates degree in CAD in 2000, didn't like it and went into the Marine Corps till 2004, liked it but not enough to stay in now that I had a wife and kids I was responsible for, moved into real estate and decided, last year to return to school at U-of-M Dearborn. No carrying and I can't even leave the gun in the car. I go full time, so Mon-Thurs is pretty much out of the question for me.

2) Church - I love my church and am very active in it. We meet at Woodhaven High School, so even if I got the Leadership team to sign off on me carrying concealed, I couldn't do it. While I'm all about being responsible and taking responsibilty for my protection and that of my wife, I am not willing to OC at church because it would do nothing but be a distraction and cause visitors (who are notoriously scared when they first walk into a religious place) additional reasons to be uncomfortable. Kinda goes completely against what we are trying to achieve in being welcoming and friendly and showing the love of Jesus there and all that.

That being the case, I'm really limited in the times and ways I can OC.

I too understand the church thing. It irritates the crap out of me though, considering that One of Jesus's teachings was to carry arms. Hint, they didn't CC their 18" swords...

it can be a tough decision, sometimes due to outside reasons we sometimes have to do things that are somewhat distasteful, like going unarmed because your a student. and i assume that you can't have your firearm on school property due to a student agreement, sucks but it is what it is. and i understand the church issue, the social agreement that binds us all together sometimes tears us apart. its where each of us draws the line is, sometimes the only diffrence between us.

for instance we all want to be safe, but how do we get there? my plan includes a gun, with some people the plan stops at the phone. which is better? for me the gun for others the phone. and safety is always relative. you are never 100% safe, to be 100% there can be no risk. thats an impossible goal. theres risk in all we do, its our personal judgements that decide whats acceptable risk for them.

yup i rambled again,,,,sowry

I wouldn't call it rambling, it's a good point.

There is no security beyond what we are capable us providing ourselves in reality.

There is risk in every second of our existence, and frankly tomorrow one of us could drop dead from a heart attack or Lord knows what.

Hopefully we all make the right decision at the right time.

I carry 24/7 PERIOD! If a church says I have no right to carry then according to the bible they are not Christian as a Christian obeys all of GODS laws including selling a garment to purchase my Browning Sword. I don't care what some Apostate Pastor preaches, the bible made it abundantly clear I am to be armed at ALL times. Thus I fellowship with Men of like minds.

I refuse to give a cent of my money to anyone who hates me and my rights.

NHCGRPR45 said:

it can be a tough decision, sometimes due to outside reasons we sometimes have to do things that are somewhat distasteful, like going unarmed because your a student. and i assume that you can't have your firearm on school property due to a student agreement, sucks but it is what it is. and i understand the church issue, the social agreement that binds us all together sometimes tears us apart. its where each of us draws the line is, sometimes the only diffrence between us.

for instance we all want to be safe, but how do we get there? my plan includes a gun, with some people the plan stops at the phone. which is better? for me the gun for others the phone. and safety is always relative. you are never 100% safe, to be 100% there can be no risk. thats an impossible goal. theres risk in all we do, its our personal judgements that decide whats acceptable risk for them.

yup i rambled again,,,,sowry

Click to expand...

Bailenforcer - I'd like to point out that my particular church does not ban me from carrying concealed, but the state does forbid me to stop in at Woodhaven High School (where our church meets) with my weapons concealed regardless of my permit. I could take it up a notch and OC, but as I said, doing that would be a distraction.

Being that I'm ultimately a far more "hardcore" Christian than I am a gun enthusiast I simply feel that that the risk to others is too high. Infinitely too high if you think about it from a "eternal consequences" perspective.

That being said, we are moving forward on target to construct a building of our own on some property we own and when we do have our own place I have no doubt that the Leadership Team will issue statements allowing me to carry concealed under my CPL in accordance with the law...which is what I'll do at that time.

From the Christian's perspective, it is ultimately God who has predetermined how you'll be allowed to die and when. That being the case, if I'm gunned down in the parking lot on my way out of services, I'll have to assume that it's for a purpose far greater than either I or my family are capable of comprehending. The Job Argument and all that.

Hello all,

I will keep this brief. We should be very careful when quoting the Bible. I have seen this passage used by multiple members. However, when I read the passage and the following scripture it is clear to me that we are using it out of context. Please review your Bible and I think after reflection you will come to the same conclusion(s) I did.

Luke 22:36 "But now," he said, "take your money and a traveler's bag. And if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! (New Living Translation 2007).

I am NOT a biblical scholar or for that matter even laymen in the church just a simple follower of the word. I have been reading scripture more lately to bring clarity and peace into my life.

(from biblical review - opinion)
*The events in the Garden of Gethsemane and the commands of Jesus there teach the Apostles nonaggression, so Luke 22:36 does not permit violence. He said to Peter: "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52). Peter and the others heard those words that clarify the use of swords. Therefore, a lifestyle of the sword must not be part of the disciples’ new walk with the resurrected Christ, as they preached his message of hope. *

The swords (2) were so Jesus could teach the lesson above and to Peter[sword 1] {and the rest of the world} and to follow prophecy. At that time only "select" individuals were allowed to carry swords in Jerusalem(PFZ). (Sound familiar?) Those who were not approved to carry by the corrupt leaders were considered criminals, Jesus[sword 2] was making it easy for them, now they solely didn't need the charge of "heretic" they could add "common criminal". These are just my thoughts, I can't find a verse that states Jesus carried the second sword.

I see this as a warning to aggressors that they will be struck down by a "just defense of life". In today's terms: if you draw your pistol/rifle/shotgun to intentionally harm an innocent expect to be shot dead yourself.

Peace be with you all, my brothers.

I am also whats called a Hardcore Christian. When he rebuked Peter it was because Peter had determined that Yashuah should not be crucified and he basically let his opinion over ride that of the almighty Father. Never was Peter given any right to try and stop whats was to be. This is why he was rebuked. He chose to impose his will and use force to do so. Living by the sword in essence. If you read the bible please get an Authorized King James. http://www.biblicalscholarship.net/AV.htm

There will be a greater understanding using a Bible not tainted by Jesuits.

Here is a site we can go into this further if you wish, I have a religion section there.
http://www.opfors.net/forums/

http://www.opfors.net/forums/viewforum.php?f=79&sid=8437ed41e04304ef2e03177dc725f41f

To live by violence alone will cause one to loose his way. To defend his own is just and backed up several times in the bible. And those who think that the Crucifixion made all the old laws end, are in dangerous territory as Yashuh himself told us "I did not come to do away with the LAW I came to fulfill it" meaning simply the only laws done away with he called those Rabinical laws or spoken laws Out of the hardness of their hearts and those laws were done away with not the original laws. Today we are taught lies in Churches. Our forefathers and founding fathers knew this and strongly held to the promise that a a new land was for us and here we sit loosing it. But Franklin told the woman who asked what kind of Government we had, A republic "if you can keep it" and we didn't....

A number of founding Fathers statements warned us that we were in danger of loosing what they created with the Blessings of the Father. Sadly we are NO longer a Moral people as Jefferson warned us to be or we would loose this Government and country.

Enough said. For those who wish to argue, debate or discuss this my invitation to opfors is open that's why I created the site for Christian men, and women to discuss gun rights and the Fathers Yahuah's views of why he gave us this nation.

Thank you for listening/reading this rambling post...

Glock9mmOldStyle said:

Hello all,

I will keep this brief. We should be very careful when quoting the Bible. I have seen this passage used by multiple members. However, when I read the passage and the following scripture it is clear to me that we are using it out of context. Please review your Bible and I think after reflection you will come to the same conclusion(s) I did.

Luke 22:36 "But now," he said, "take your money and a traveler's bag. And if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! (New Living Translation 2007).

I am NOT a biblical scholar or for that matter even laymen in the church just a simple follower of the word. I have been reading scripture more lately to bring clarity and peace into my life.

(from biblical review - opinion)
*The events in the Garden of Gethsemane and the commands of Jesus there teach the Apostles nonaggression, so Luke 22:36 does not permit violence. He said to Peter: "For all who draw the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52). Peter and the others heard those words that clarify the use of swords. Therefore, a lifestyle of the sword must not be part of the disciples’ new walk with the resurrected Christ, as they preached his message of hope. *

The swords (2) were so Jesus could teach the lesson above and to Peter[sword 1] {and the rest of the world} and to follow prophecy. At that time only "select" individuals were allowed to carry swords in Jerusalem(PFZ). (Sound familiar?) Those who were not approved to carry by the corrupt leaders were considered criminals, Jesus[sword 2] was making it easy for them, now they solely didn't need the charge of "heretic" they could add "common criminal". These are just my thoughts, I can't find a verse that states Jesus carried the second sword.

I see this as a warning to aggressors that they will be struck down by a "just defense of life". In today's terms: if you draw your pistol/rifle/shotgun to intentionally harm an innocent expect to be shot dead yourself.

Peace be with you all, my brothers.

Click to expand...

The phrase has been lost in translation. If you live by the sword, you die by the sword. Not If you draw,. The meaning is for the criminals who will rob rape and kill at the edge of the sword, it was never for police, soldiers and law abiding citizens who are using their swords in the proper context.

As far as Luke 22:36, its actually the end of the story. First, a little background, and some common sense. It was, since the beginning of time, not customary, but necessary to carry a weapon. Then, as now, to not carry one is simply foolish. Wether protection from animals, or humans, people have always carried a weapon, and only in the last several decades, has it been discouraged by some very short sighted individuals and groups. Throughout history, people carried weapons for protection.

That said, In Luke 10(?) Jesus wanted to show his disciples that he was God by providing for them during their ministry, and to allow through practice and experience to have faith in Him to provide what they needed. To accomplish this, He asked them to go on this mission without certain things that would be needed. I don't have the cite ready right now, but He asked them to go without a coat, a bag for the money, and likely a few other items. Although a weapon wasn't originally mentioned at the beginning of the text, His order to carry two at the end indicates this. In Luke 22, He recounted this trip with them asking the disciples if they lacked anything, which they said that they did not. They were then sent out into the world to preach the gospel, to witness, as I am now doing, and to bring the things with them that they needed, assuring them that He would always be with them. In Luke 22:36 He did order Christians to be armed. This was really one of the last things Christ did in His human form, as it was immediately following this that He was crucified for the remittance of sin to those who would accept Him as Savior and repent.

I, and a few others do reference this passage as a directive from Christ, because that is exactly what it is.

Please keep in mind, that this forum asks us not to discuss religion, so mods, if you would please forgive this discussion as a valid question and answer as to an important part of the history of why we should be able to lawfully carry handguns, which is the point of this forum.

And G9, please get a KJV, these new translations really do change the meaning, its a slippery slope.

G9, did you get your CPL yet?

I agree with Stainless. Luke 22:35-38 is Jesus providing an explanation that his previous commission to the disciples was accompanied by very obvious supernatural provision and protection but that from this point forward, the issuing of divine grace to such a level was not to be the norm. This is not to say that such things never happened from that point forward as Paul was bitten by a viper and shook it off without effect, but that such would not be the norm so the disciples were commanded to conduct themselves with wisdom in light of this new reality.

I would like to say that it is important to put vs 36 in its place and not get too caught up in the call to arms. Why? Because Jesus himself plays down the "buying the sword" element in the teaching in vs. 38.

Here is where I tend to disagree with the KJV(only) or KJV(best) crowd...but let's not get into that here.

In the KJV, vs. 38 leaves us with the impression that two swords was all that was "needed" because it was a response that two swords were present.

I'm currently studying Greek in preparation for the ministry and this is not how the phrase is communicated in the Greek. When Jesus said "It is enough" the structure of the phrase would communicate the idea of your child running around the house sceaming and you saying "That's enough!" or "That's enough of that!" You can see this in the KJV translation but not easily on a casual read without having a firm grasp from the rest of the Gospels of the history of the disciples attitudes.

The disciples were constantly convinced that Jesus Christ was going to start a revolution and usher in the kingdom by force. They never really were shaken from this until after the resurrection. They had a pattern of "not getting it" concerning things of spiritual importance (i.e. his rebuke of Philip in John 14:9) and this is another example.

Jesus tells his disciples that they are commissioned to a great work but that the divine provision/protection that characterized their previous missionary expedition was not to be expected from this point forward, so take common sense precautions like bringing money and a weapons for self defense.

The disciples, with their selective hearing, pretty much gloss over everything other than the reference to a "sword" which they feel is a call to arms for the revolution (which is their inner burning desire) and they eagerly say, "Here's two swords" with hope in their eyes that it's time to march on Jerusalem. I can see Jesus, frustrated that they have been overlooking his multiple references to the fact that his own death is required at this time prior to the early kingdom of the Messiah, shakes his head and tells them, "That's enough of that kind of talk."

In summary, Jesus completely plays down the sword thing in vs. 38. That being the case, it is imperative that Christians not get caught up in things regarding being armed. It doesn't negate the call to take common sense self defense measures commanded in vs. 36 but, in the end I think the overall principle taught on this subject in the entire section would be...

"Take common sense measures to defend yourself like carrying a weapon, but don't get caught up in the Doctrine of the 2nd Amendment and make it an object of your worship. Your job here in this age is reaching, not revolution."

I believe thats correct as well, we aren't revolutionarys, we are preachers. I believe that it is a call to arms, not a call to violence. Therefore, the only logical reason for posession of arms, would bne for defense.

The KJV is the closest translation to the origional Hebrew andGreek languages, which is why it comes so strongly recommended. Less loss, less influence. If you can, the origional Greek and Hebrew are the best, for reasons accurately pointed out by The Expert.