Featured Should Christians strongly support the SECOND AMENDMENT?

you cool in my book, my man....

 

Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines would probably fit in with the bottom ones.

 

Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines would probably fit in with the bottom ones.

pinoybaptist, not to mention half the liberals. Those seeking that elusive perfect utopia here on earth. Where everyone lives off government hand-outs, abort on demand and lay with their "partners" at will while demanding to share their ways with the unsuspecting.

Lord, have mercy on us!!!

In the People's Republic of New Jersey, Maryland and a dozen other states you can't even say the word "gun" without expecting the full weight of the liberal courts to come down on you with a vengeance. Only the cops and the bad guys have weapons in those states and the rest of the population live and cower in fear behind locked and barred doors.

 

Eisegesis at it's finest.

Let me ask you the same. If someone attacks you or your family, are they an enemy? Jesus commands you to love them. How are you going to do that?

I don't care what the world says or how it defines things. I wouldn't consider simple spanking to be violence, especially compared to killing someone.

Emotion really is a minor part of it. We are commanded to love our enemies. Are you really going to say that you can obey Christ and intentionally love the guy who just kicked in your door while you put a couple rounds of 124g hollow points into his chest?

I agree. This is where it gets messy and we have to be more precise with terms. When I refer to violence, I mean toward an individual causing harm or death. and by Love, as compared to just the lack of hatred, I mean intentionally choosing to see them as of great worth and wanting good for them. I think the NT is clear that Christians should be nonviolent. Killing someone is absolutely not permitted. The grey area for me is things like pepper spray, tasers etc. Still working things out.

Also, I would nuance what you said about the whip of cords. I do not believe Jesus used that to drive out the people, but the animals (oxen especially). The text isn't explicit one way or another, but I have a hard time reconciling Jesus whipping people with his absolute command to love our enemies.

No worries. And no apology necessary.

I don't see support in that passage. Also was Nero really that much better than Hitler? Granted he didn't kill as many people, but that was more from a lack of industrial technology not a lack of wickedness.

 

Okay, so someone is attacking your family. You are supposed to love the attacker. What do you do? Do you lay down and just let the attacker kill you? Do you tell your children to just let the attacker beat them, since retaliating obviously means you hate them? I don't mean these to sound snarky or sarcastic. This is a genuine topic to discuss.

While I agree with you that spanking isn't an act of violence, I'm just trying to make the point that the world looks on it as violence. I'm sorry that my desire to draw a non-1:1 correlation has caused so much confusion.

See my answer above.

Inference from scriptural evidence aside, I can see where you are coming from, though we obviously disagree. I believe we should strive for nonviolence, but I don't believe it means we should just allow the world to steamroll us. If Christians are not allowed to defend themselves or their families from harm, then we're right back to square one.

You said earlier that emotion plays a small part, but then you define violence has causing harm or death. We can play legalistic tug-of-war all day on terminology. To me, violence requires malice aforethought. If someone is charging at you and your family firing a gun and the only recourse you have for protecting your loved ones is firing a gun back at that person, I don't really see how that can be held against someone as a hateful act. I can see how the notion of "love," as you have defined it, can be missing from that scenario. But we also have to be honest and say that the absence of love does not equal the abundance of hate. Most humans are simply apathetic to what goes on around them.

 

sounds like a real "party" going on there, at the expense of the law-abiding, tax-paying, hapless citizenry, of course.
everybody having fun.
criminals and bad boys throwing their lead and cutting the notches on their guns, politicos and cops having their photo-ops and enhancing their careers picking up somebody who may not even have anything to do with whatever.
used to live in maryland, bro.
lemme say that, refreshingly, I found California to be a little bit, just a weeny tiny little bit, more, tolerant of the word "gun".
if there were jobs in, say, wyoming, the same way they had in Cali, we'd move out there in a heartbeat.

 

I am a proud owner of guns. I believe every American has the right to defend their life and the life of their loved ones. I firmly believe that guns do not kill people. People kill people. Sort of like here on the board. There are some who are evil. Small minded and willing to say anything to stand out in the crowd.

I would defend any ones right to speak their mind ... but not to speak to the point of committing character assassination of a brother or sister ... and the moderators who sit by and all this to take place, especially when it is pointed out in a complaint and they do nothing, is kin to throwing gas on a fire and fanning the flames.

The trolls. The mean spirited malcontents need to be reigned in like the crazies who use a gun to take another life for the joy of the kill, or for the sport of being able to exert their power over others.

Yes, we should share the word. But, you can't share the word when guests stop by and see a blood bath of verbal sorts

Well, that's my sermon on why we should support the ownership of guns. But we need to clean out the bad seeds who give ownership a bad rap. :type:

 

I would remind folks that there is a long history of peaceful nonviolent resistance within Baptist and anaBaptist circles. Some of the questions asked within this discussion have been asked and answered with a gentle but firm "no violence, ever". Even the "attack on the family" question. One could hardly say it has been a large or even vocal group, but it has been a consistent presence throughout Christian history.

 

More people getting lazy on me. Post #32.

 

It seems that the question is what exactly does it mean to love your enemies? Well, Jesus said exactly what that means, we just stop too early:

Luke
6:34 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
6:35 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.


So somebody busts in your window at 4 AM, you got the drop on them. In most states, you can legally ventilate them and claim self defense. Most people would do just that, and I can't say I blame them. However, how exactly does that jive with Luke 6:35? That is not being kind and merciful to the evil, yet that is exactly what Jesus said to do. I'm sorry that you don't like what the Bible says but that doesn't mean you can twist it to fit your ideas. At least I'm honest and admit that my ideas probably aren't compatible with the Bible on this subject.

 

If we're going down this road, then let's punch the gas.
How are we defining merciful? Is it merciful to your enemy to not retaliate, thereby giving them the opportunity to strike you or your family or your friends down? Or is merciful perhaps overcoming your enemy without killing them, and then handing them over to the authorities?

 

Stopping someone from harming you or your loved ones IS mercy.

 

Mercy only comes to those who are repentant. To do otherwise is contrary to the nature of God.

 

There have been a lot of stupid Christians, throughout history.

 

The verses above say otherwise. Luke 6:34 specifically says he is kind to the evil.

 

I notice that you dodge the question by asking me the same.

My answer: If someone attacks my family, they have become my enemy because of their predatory actions. As for loving my enemy, I am also commanded to love my Wife. I will side with my innocent Wife.

You seem to equate love with tolerance for an aggressor's violence inflicted on the innocent. Defense is not revenge.

I answered, now it is your turn.