Should Christians Own Guns????

no book of the bible should be boring to a true christian.

 

What you going to say when God says I sent you an AK47 and then I sent you 2 sawed off shotguns and 4 snub nose pistols and you still let them molest your family? Whats your problem there fellow?

 

God often give us the means, but He doesnt do our job for us.
If God sends a bountiful harvest, should we let it rot because we cant eat it all today, or should we put it away for when it snows. (in places that actually get snow)

 

I have read most of this thread but I do not have time to read all of it.
I actually agree with Bob for once on what I have read of his posts

Yes, God is in COMPLETE control...but...did any of you ever stop to think that it may have been God's providence that gave you to opportunity to own a gun and the ability to shoot it?

I believe not only is it right to own a gun, a man that could own one to protect his family and doesn't is wrong, especially if that ever came up.

 

I might add, I would suggest that you also train the proper use of guns.
it should be taught to all children from an early age.
I was taught gun safety and responsibility from about about 8 or so.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I think of the two extremes when it comes to our life being in God's hands. Of course, it ultimately is, but the two extremes are...

...not trusting God to take care of you (worry, lack of faith, etc.)
...not being responsible and taking action upon God's provision.

Example: The old joke about the man who drowned at his house in a flood...He's on his roof, and two boats and a helicopter come by to resuce him. He says, "No thanks, God's going to take care of me." He drowns. He confronts God at the Gate..."Why didn't you save me?"

God replied, "Well, I sent you two boats and a helicopter."

 

Those who oppose guns spout statistics about how they are used against the owner. But fail to mention why they were used against the owner.

To many people who own guns have no real understanding how to use them or when. Often they are thought of as a deterrant rather than an enforcer. If it has become necessary to pull a gun it is way to late for deterrants. Guns should never be pulled as a means of scaring somone off. If you do not intend to pull the trigger do not pull out the gun for this is irresponsible.

If you pull out the gun then find the most appropriate moment and do not hesitate to pull the trigger. Always know where you are shooting. Shoot with purpose, aim carefully, and do not back down until you know you are safe. Statistics serve their purpose but cannot tell the whole story.

 

A man was caught in a flood and found himself on the roof of his house to avoid the rising flood water. As the water kept rising two men came by in a conoe. "Jump in and we will take you to safety" they said. "No, I will wait on the Lord to save me.

Later as the rising water was now at his feet a helicopter came by and the rescue worker said "Grab on to the rope and we will save you!". "No, I will wait on the Lord to save me".

Again later another boat came by and the man in the boat said "Jump on in here I'll take you to safety!" "No, I'l wait on the Lord to save me".

The man drowned. As he stood before Peter at the gates of heaven, Peter scratched his head and asked "What are you doing here? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!".



Owning a gun does not infringe on Gods' soveriegnty. Failure to protect yourself is testing God and foolish. Owning a gun is certainly one way of protecting yourself.:thumbs:

 

http://elbourne.org/sermons/index.mv?illustration+4060
And how effective would an AK-47 have been?


Philippians 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
DHK

 

I believe in being a peaceful man also. If a man struck me I doubt very seriously I would hit him back.
If you will reread my post they all are in defending my family and providing for them which includes protecting them. Again, if someone attempted to hurt my family they would be in serious trouble and I believe according to Scripture if I stood back and let them do it without trying to protect them then I would be sinning.
This is not a personal thing but a family thing. There is a big difference. Because this boxer took a punch in the mouth it becomes a big thing but only because he was a boxer. I have know many Christian men that have had to turn the other cheek, and even took punches also but not big write up about it, I think I saw your boxer on TV once and thought he was a little bit too much of a show man if it was him and sounds like maybe even this incident may have been used to promote his ministry. Wonder how it became so newsworthy if they were in a jungle somewhere? I wonder what the Boxer would do if you attacked his family. I suspect he would take your head off.

 

we should all take advice first from God.

i will also mention Ghandi. who solved every problem he had without violence.
guns are a means of violence. they insinuate killing someone. although its the person who kills not the gun. but you get my point.

 

Taking a blow for Christ and allowing someone to attack your family (which that illustration was apparently given in response to) are two totally different things, as are the physical mishaps Alcott listed, and suffering for Christ, in the scriptures used to respond to that point. The concept of "suffering for Christ" and "God will always protect you" are being greatly distorted and misused, and that is what is causing this confusion, as well as damaging our testimony, and becoming the basis for the health & wealth gospel most of us reject!

from http://members.aol.com/etb700/abundant.html

While I do believe that God does intervene in some things, still, we don't always know which things, and shouldn't try to speculate on given instances, and only then claim "we can't understand it". Some things are just good fortune and lack thereof. Fortune, or "luck"; I would define as "an unknown principle of a disposition of a situation to a particular outcome especially to benefit or to adversity that is out of control of the person involved"; rather than any magical or mystical meaning commonly associated with the words. The emphasis is on "unknown" and "out of control of the person". Whatever exactly, or directly causes things, even if it is God; no one can deny that much of the circumstances of life fit this description, from our perspective. (As is always ultimately pointed out to complainers/questioners, we cannot comprehend God's perspective). So why speculate? Whether it is God, or just a combination of natural forces (that God "controls" in a more passive way), we do not know. God may use it for some good, but this should not be our primary word of "comfort" to the one suffering from it! Neither should be "Seek first His Kingdom, and these things will be added to you" (which once again was directed at the original disciples with their immediate needs). This creates expectations of some immediate good, but when it is not seen, then we have to either conclude the person had not sought God first; or we just keep pushing the "good" further and further back; until we ultimately conclude it must be some "heavenly reward" beyond this life. What good is all this after awhile to the person suffering now?
Making all of this so much more confusing is that first, we quote to the sufferer passages like Psalms 50:14 "Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay your vows unto the most High: And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me" and Jer.29:11 "For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end", making it sound like there will always be some immediately seen "deliverance" from a problem. But then, Phil 4:19 "God shall supply all your needs" and Heb.13:5,6 "Be content with such things as you have: for He has said 'I will never leave you nor forsake you'[from Gen.28:15] so we can boldly say 'the Lord is my helper; I will not fear what man shall do to me'[from Ps.27:1]" is taken basically to mean that whatever you have at any given time is all you 'really' need; so if you are being theatened or abused by someone, for instance, it shouldn't trouble you, because at least they cannot take your soul; and when in danger, don't fear because even if you lose your job, your possessions, etc., that's OK because that would be all you "need" because Christ is "with you". Here, the truer focus of scripture, salvation, is used as a sort of "last resort" for when the initial [material] "promises" read into them do not come to pass.
As an example, LaHaye (Why You act the Way You Do p.362) cites an instance where a person is planning a vacation with him, but then finds he has lost his job. He "trusts God" and goes on the trip anyway. Sure enough, when he gets home, another employer has called him for a job. So "God provided for his needs". Fine. But if this hadn't happened, and he had to foreclose the house, or whatever, then that would have been "God's will" for Him, according to theis teaching, and he better not have dared "sin" by grumbling about it! He still has other things to "thank" God for, so that is apparently what his true "needs" were! Hence, the definition of "needs" becomes scaled down. So someone else reads this and they expect that to happen for them, but they are not as fortunate, and they will be disillusioned, and of course only get a pat answer about "needs" from these teachers. Our perception of "needs" (along with "love", "fairness", etc) is then even said to be skewed. But they shouldn't have set people's hopes up that high using the word "needs" (out of its biblical context) in the first place!
We are then told "If you have not accepted His full leading for your life, you will complain because you doubt things will turn out all right". (p.123-4) But just what is "all right"? Do Christians never lose everything and wind up on the street? Do they never lose limbs and other body functions? Have any never died without having "those things" added to them? It is very confusing, because on one hand, the way the verses are initially quoted, it looks like God is promising nothing really bad will ever happen, but when it does; then we must revise the definitions of "need" and "all right", with "food" or even "air" as the last resort to prove that every Christian's "needs" have always been "provided for" no matter what happened! (And then we are at that point reminded again of all the scriptures saying life would be suffering). But then do Christians never starve to death? What is "all right" about that? That their soul will be in Heaven, of course, which is the absolute final resort! Let's look at this from the other angle and compare life the way it is with this hypothetical situation that God ALWAYS prevents, or never allows: what would it mean for God to not be with us, or not supply our every need, or for Him to "leave" or "forsake" us, then? Since every physical and emotional calamity imaginable has in fact happened to Christians; the only thing we are absolutely spared from is ending up [eternally] lost! That is what these scriptures are ultimately pointing to! While this should give us hope and something to be thankful for, as well as "peace" from any worries about eternity; still, our emotions are based on current situations, and the teachers make it sound like those situations in themselves will be or turn into some later situation (in this life) that is "all right". But that is never promised for this life. So you might as well just say "look to Heaven" as much of the old Church did, but the modern church wants to make it sound nicer and more appealing. That's what brings the masses in, and keeps the huge Christian "teaching" industry going! [and also is the perfect escape for those who don't want to be bothered with people's suffering or unhappiness]

 

John Selwyn was a missionary to the South Sea Islands. He was born in 1844 and died in 1898. He was a very peace-loving and pious man. Humility, as the illustration shows characterized "bishop" John, as he became in 1877. If you "saw" the man Bob, you are a walking marvel. How old did you say you were?
DHK

 

There was one problem Ghandi had that he did not solve, that was the intent of evil men to end his life.

 

That's his concern. But since he won't, I will take my own measures.

 

Its not how old am I but the question is, How old is he? :laugh: :laugh: I guess I missed that one DHK. Still goes from personal vs family.

 

I think one should read a litte deeper into Ghandi's history before calling him a peaceful man. He was responsible for the slaughter of many of his own countrymen to gain political position.

I think every pastor should wear a six-gun, strapped to his waist, to keep those wayward parishioners in check....man, would that stop the backbiting and absenteeism...........:laugh: :wavey: (Notice the last funy bloke keeps his one hand down by his side,,quick-draw..........

Cheers,

Jim

 

do you have references? or just discriminating?

 

Read the history. I am tired of doing people's homework. He only became a pacifist in the end, not in the beginning........oh right, you haven't lived long enough.

Cheers,

Jim

 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :wavey: Go for it Jim