Christianity and self defense

[color of law]

They all do. Even the most modern of translations say it in one form or another. And if you want to go down the KJV route check out the meaning of the word 'power'. There is no doubt we must obey secular authorities.

You are free to drink all the kool-aid you want. You are the one doing the baiting. I don't play those games. Have a nice day.....

 

[solus]

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

You are free to drink all the kool-aid you want. You are the one doing the baiting. I don't play those games. Have a nice day.....

Kool-aid? You either have short term memory loss or you are deliberately trying to misconstrue my words. I did not either say or mean we have to obey every single thing the government tells us to do. In fact I stated that we are quite free to ignore and disobey any unconstitutional so-called law and still be in keeping with biblical principles.
If you pay any attention to my posts, you would know, I hate liberals, hate tyranny and do not for one moment believe in being a blind, dumb sheep that will do whatever told to do without bothering to ask if the authority has the right to make such decrees. And FYI I've fallen foul of the OCDO system as well because I refuse to be censored. I say what I like and if people can't handle the truth they can go find a paccy and go crying to mommy. Now how much Kool-aid does it sound like I drink?

 

[solus]

Kool-aid? You either have short term memory loss or you are deliberately trying to misconstrue my words. I did not either say or mean we have to obey every single thing the government tells us to do. In fact I stated that we are quite free to ignore and disobey any unconstitutional so-called law and still be in keeping with biblical principles.
If you pay any attention to my posts, you would know, I hate liberals, hate tyranny and do not for one moment believe in being a blind, dumb sheep that will do whatever told to do without bothering to ask if the authority has the right to make such decrees. And FYI I've fallen foul of the OCDO system as well because I refuse to be censored. I say what I like and if people can't handle the truth they can go find a paccy and go crying to mommy. Now how much Kool-aid does it sound like I drink?

well if you are as you say you are in that you are not the " ... blind, dumb sheep...without bothering to ask....the authority to make such decrees." as you stated above, how can you argue about a book's passages written by 40 authors from different continents over a period of approx 1600 years.

while you profess to say what you like, it appears you are so closed minded you can't handle what other ppl state over the same ideology.

now care for another sip of koolaid directly from the ladle or do you wish your cup filled again?

ipse

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

well if you are as you say you are in that you are not the " ... blind, dumb sheep...without bothering to ask....the authority to make such decrees." as you stated above, how can you argue about a book's passages written by 40 authors from different continents over a period of approx 1600 years.

while you profess to say what you like, it appears you are so closed minded you can't handle what other ppl state over the same ideology.

now care for another sip of koolaid directly from the ladle or do you wish your cup filled again?

ipse

ok now I know you're just trying to cause strife. At first I thought you were a KJV Only believer. Now it seems you are not one at all as you are making a mockery of the Word of God. I would suggest that if you are not one, then this thread is irrelevant to you. You deny the very foundation on which it is based. Now if you want to debate the authenticity of the Word of God, then we can do so outside the Forum on Google+. However if not, I would say your need to contribute to this thread is more than over. Have a nice day.

 

[keith.mills.31542]

Listen to "do you have to be a pacifist to be a Christian" sermon here. https://www.studentofthegunradio.com/best-of-sotg-radio-sermon-on-war/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

They all do. Even the most modern of translations say it in one form or another. And if you want to go down the KJV route check out the meaning of the word 'power'. There is no doubt we must obey secular authorities.

Yikes. It is amazing to me that a 'liberty proponent' could so cling rigidly and adamantly to a belief like this. Also amazing that you are ok with just arbitrarily making exceptions for unconstitutional laws, as if our dead forefathers have any authority over the living in power. There's no good, no solid foundation for this set of beliefs, IMO...

Listen to "do you have to be a pacifist to be a Christian" sermon here. https://www.studentofthegunradio.com/best-of-sotg-radio-sermon-on-war/



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Listening now, thanks for sharing *thumbs up*

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Yikes. It is amazing to me that a 'liberty proponent' could so cling rigidly and adamantly to a belief like this. Also amazing that you are ok with just arbitrarily making exceptions for unconstitutional laws, as if our dead forefathers have any authority over the living in power. There's no good, no solid foundation for this set of beliefs, IMO...

Wow show some respect for those who died to give you the freedom to talk that way. And no I do not make exceptions for unconstitutional laws. I'ved been censored multiple times for advocating that we ignore and disobey them. In fact that is a huge bone of contention on OCDO that isnt going to go away any time soon. And no i'm not going to debate the rules, i'm just telling you the facts

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Wow show some respect for those who died to give you the freedom to talk that way. And no I do not make exceptions for unconstitutional laws. I'ved been censored multiple times for advocating that we ignore and disobey them. In fact that is a huge bone of contention on OCDO that isnt going to go away any time soon. And no i'm not going to debate the rules, i'm just telling you the facts

Several times you've said that Christians don't have to follow unconstitutional laws... Which is an exception, to me seems an arbitrary one, to "must follow secular government" - that is what I meant. See below, emphasis mine. (by the way, nothing I said was disrespectful to our founders...)

Lets back up a second here. We arent talking simply 2A rights here, we're talking the basic principle of honoring the governing authorities.


Romans 13:1-2A


However in the US the highest law of the land is the Constitution. If the law is not in subjection to that, *then we have every right to disobey that as it isnt law. This is what allows people like the Citizen Militia to defend the Bundy Ranch, spring children kidnapped by the CPS and demand the police subjugate themselves to We The People.


*Yes I know the precious Rule 15. I'm talking about from a biblical standpoint.

Well lets take a look at it. We have the Apostle Peter defying the Romans when commanded not to preach in the name of Jesus. Yet Paul says what he does in Romans 13. How can both be true? Simple. Mans law stands unless it contradicts Gods and then we must obey God. There is also nowhere in the Bible that demands we obey fake laws like unconstitutional ones. As I said earlier we have every right to disobey and ignore those. If it doubt recheck post 42

AFAIK there's nothing in the Bible that makes the US constitution the final stop, so it seems a little arbitrary to say the Bible requires following secular laws unless those secular laws don't align with the constitution.

(Of course I still disagree with the base interpretation you're using, but let's just say it's correct... Based on what are we saying Christians don't have to follow so-called "unconstitutional" laws? Why does the constitution written by a past government supersede the current government, if the current is ordained in Romans 13?)

 

[solus]

Wow show some respect for those who died to give you the freedom to talk that way. And no I do not make exceptions for unconstitutional laws. I'ved been censored multiple times for advocating that we ignore and disobey them. In fact that is a huge bone of contention on OCDO that isnt going to go away any time soon. And no i'm not going to debate the rules, i'm just telling you the facts

outside the civil war, and from i have learned by listening to the thread i am not sure it was a in fact a freedom war, and within the last 100 or so years PRAY tell what war have US service members fought in which OUR freedom was in jeopardy?

now, i acknowledge our service members have fought for global interests or economic health or to make the situations more difficult for those instituting terrorist acts thus giving the U.S. government excuses to show we are really fighting for our safety rather than our freedom.

so you were saying you are giving facts...please provide facts...instead of emotional hyperbole & rhetoric !!

ipse

 

[rightwinglibertarian]

Several times you've said that Christians don't have to follow unconstitutional laws... Which is an exception, to me seems an arbitrary one, to "must follow secular government" - that is what I meant. See below, emphasis mine. (by the way, nothing I said was disrespectful to our founders...)





AFAIK there's nothing in the Bible that makes the US constitution the final stop, so it seems a little arbitrary to say the Bible requires following secular laws unless those secular laws don't align with the constitution.

(Of course I still disagree with the base interpretation you're using, but let's just say it's correct... Based on what are we saying Christians don't have to follow so-called "unconstitutional" laws? Why does the constitution written by a past government supersede the current government, if the current is ordained in Romans 13?)

Oh I see. Well first of all the highest law in the land is the Constitution. It says so itself. So biblically speaking we are obliged to follow laws that are subservient to that, We do not however have to obey laws which are repugnant to the Constitution as it clearly states it is the highest law. Furthermore in relation to the second amendment, couple the words, shall not be infringed with the 14th Amendment which says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" Therefore we clearly see a government prohibition of the restriction of bearing arms and also see that according to the 10th Amendment this power belongs to the people. Therefore any and all laws to the contrary are void and we have no biblical mandate to obey them

 

[nonameisgood]

This looks a lot like a mathematical proof from elementary school, gone awry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

This looks a lot like a mathematical proof from elementary school, gone awry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll toss in a comment. Not particularly at RightWing or Stealthy, but any and all Christians following their discussion.

The constitutional convention was under way for about a month when Ben Franklin felt compelled to suggest prayer. Meaning, the constitution was written by men who, in a manner of speaking, had to be told they needed to pray.

 

[Citizen]

...before we even begin to cover everything of err.

Epic!! I love it!

"You live in the Land of Err."

"Where did he get that idea? The Book of Err?"

"Oh, did you get that from the case of Err vs. Common Sense?"

Oh, man! there are so many possibilities!

 

[drsysadmin]

Regarding the OP's question - let me first state that every Christian should make a point of being a Biblical scholar...

I should also point out that this is hardly the first time "recognized" scholars disagree.

As some of you may know, I am ordained (I have 14 years of Baptist education in my background), and if there is one thing I truly KNOW about God's teaching it is this: it isn't up to me, this "scholar", Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell or anyone else to tell you what to believe the Bible says. If you choose to follow Christ, its your responsibility to learn the Word of God (albeit with assistance) yourself and let the Lord move your heart to where it should be.

Personally, I strongly disagree with his assertions. However, I am of the opinion that his reaction is directly in response PURELY to the final sentence stated - the "And let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here." That statement DOES speak to a sense of vengeance. To "teach a lesson" using deadly force is NOT the focus of self defense, nor is it in keeping with a "purely New Testament" focus. Thus I feel that did not represent the Christian IDEAL,

However, with that said - the guy who wrote the first article has EVERY RIGHT to believe that Christians shouldn't arm themselves. I have EVERY RIGHT to believe they should. God moves the heart, and He knows us better than we know ourselves. Perhaps the writer of that article, if faced with a life or death situation - would pull a trigger to save a loved one and then live a tormented existence having committed what he mentally, emotionally and spiritually could never resolve. If that is the case, I firmly believe God would move a person like that to NOT be in a situation where that choice - if faced - would create such turmoil. For those who God knows would not lose themselves in such a situation, I do not doubt that God is perfectly (see what I did there?) fine with them being armed to defend themselves and others.

I don't have a problem with him being "wrong" in my view, and I doubt he would take issue with what he would no doubt consider an incorrect view on my part. Ultimately, we'd agree to disagree, praise the Lord for the ability to do so and remain Brothers in Christ. The Bible is full of Scripture that could be used to back one or the other position - so IF you are a Christian then I would recommend you spend some time in the Word of God and in prayer and let the Spirit move your heart to where it should be in regard to His plan for your life. If your not a Christian - well that's another discussion entirely but I will pray for you in the hope that the Lord will open your ears to His call. Then I hope He encourages you to be a RESPONSIBLE gun owner (and carrier). :lol:

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Regarding the OP's question - let me first state that every Christian should make a point of being a Biblical scholar...

I should also point out that this is hardly the first time "recognized" scholars disagree.

As some of you may know, I am ordained (I have 14 years of Baptist education in my background), and if there is one thing I truly KNOW about God's teaching it is this: it isn't up to me, this "scholar", Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell or anyone else to tell you what to believe the Bible says. If you choose to follow Christ, its your responsibility to learn the Word of God (albeit with assistance) yourself and let the Lord move your heart to where it should be.

Personally, I strongly disagree with his assertions. However, I am of the opinion that his reaction is directly in response PURELY to the final sentence stated - the "And let’s teach them a lesson if they ever show up here." That statement DOES speak to a sense of vengeance. To "teach a lesson" using deadly force is NOT the focus of self defense, nor is it in keeping with a "purely New Testament" focus. Thus I feel that did not represent the Christian IDEAL,

However, with that said - the guy who wrote the first article has EVERY RIGHT to believe that Christians shouldn't arm themselves. I have EVERY RIGHT to believe they should. God moves the heart, and He knows us better than we know ourselves. Perhaps the writer of that article, if faced with a life or death situation - would pull a trigger to save a loved one and then live a tormented existence having committed what he mentally, emotionally and spiritually could never resolve. If that is the case, I firmly believe God would move a person like that to NOT be in a situation where that choice - if faced - would create such turmoil. For those who God knows would not lose themselves in such a situation, I do not doubt that God is perfectly (see what I did there?) fine with them being armed to defend themselves and others.

I don't have a problem with him being "wrong" in my view, and I doubt he would take issue with what he would no doubt consider an incorrect view on my part. Ultimately, we'd agree to disagree, praise the Lord for the ability to do so and remain Brothers in Christ. The Bible is full of Scripture that could be used to back one or the other position - so IF you are a Christian then I would recommend you spend some time in the Word of God and in prayer and let the Spirit move your heart to where it should be in regard to His plan for your life. If your not a Christian - well that's another discussion entirely but I will pray for you in the hope that the Lord will open your ears to His call. Then I hope He encourages you to be a RESPONSIBLE gun owner (and carrier). :lol:

Your post is very thoughtful, and it pains me to disagree with any part of it... But I must disagree with your final conclusions. I wish it were so that this were a matter where the "sides" could simply agree to disagree, and currently it would seem that is largely a possibility. But if his philosophy were adopted, we would have a community of Christians that believe they must be completely submissive to government disarmament. He is not simply saying that Christians should make a personal decision to disarm, but he says, essentially, that the government exclusively has right to the sword, and that Christians should be completely submissive to the government and its sword. His philosophy isn't just wrong, it's dangerous, and if adopted, our ability to simply agree to disagree and go on about our business will vanish.

 

[color of law]

Your post is very thoughtful, and it pains me to disagree with any part of it... But I must disagree with your final conclusions. I wish it were so that this were a matter where the "sides" could simply agree to disagree, and currently it would seem that is largely a possibility. But if his philosophy were adopted, we would have a community of Christians that believe they must be completely submissive to government disarmament. He is not simply saying that Christians should make a personal decision to disarm, but he says, essentially, that the government exclusively has right to the sword, and that Christians should be completely submissive to the government and its sword. His philosophy isn't just wrong, it's dangerous, and if adopted, our ability to simply agree to disagree and go on about our business will vanish.

+1 At the moment I can't think of anything to add.

 

[drsysadmin]

Your post is very thoughtful, and it pains me to disagree with any part of it... But I must disagree with your final conclusions. I wish it were so that this were a matter where the "sides" could simply agree to disagree, and currently it would seem that is largely a possibility. But if his philosophy were adopted, we would have a community of Christians that believe they must be completely submissive to government disarmament. He is not simply saying that Christians should make a personal decision to disarm, but he says, essentially, that the government exclusively has right to the sword, and that Christians should be completely submissive to the government and its sword. His philosophy isn't just wrong, it's dangerous, and if adopted, our ability to simply agree to disagree and go on about our business will vanish.

The really tough thing about freedom is that people have the right to have wrong philosophies, perspectives and beliefs. Not only that - they have the right to have dangerous ones too. Freedom - not just talking religiously here - is a two sided sword. Is his philosophy "dangerous"? It is to him and anyone who adopts it. But just as freedom means he can believe dangerous things - it also means I don't have to.

The key words you used were: if adopted. Thanks to freedom - we all can choose to adopt it or not. IF is one of the biggest "small" words in the English language. I choose not to adopt it - and I'd say the majority of Christians reject his view - at least the majority in my personal experience do. While his view may be dangerous, I don't have the "right" to deny him this freedom to choose it for himself. Which means at the end of the day, I can disagree. Should it ever become a real matter of discussion within the body of the faithful, then I am confident that the Lord will see to it that people are moved in their view according to His plan.

Sometimes I just have to follow the path He sets out for me and wonder what in the world He is doing when I look at the rest of the world - but given that its His decision I have learned to trust it even when I disagree.

 

[solus]

Sola Fide. Sola Scriptura. Sola Gratia. Solus Christus. Soli Deo gloria.

did you forget Sola ecclesia & Sola caritas?

Mein Herr, Gott segne Sie! können Sie über Ihre Krankheitsgefühl bekommen bald.

Ipse

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Of course the anarchistic Jewish Carpenter was pro self defense.

He wasn't a pacifist yet he would break peoples fingers for insults either.