Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should Christians be armed?

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 10:11:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
God's law says "You must not kill" and Jesus never countermanded his father's instruction.

Not only that but he said that rather than retaliate we must turn the other cheek.

But did he not instruct his disciples to carry swords on two occasions?

He did indeed. However not for use on other humans.

In the first instance the disciples were being sent into areas where lions and bears lived, and could need to protect themselves from such. There is no law against taking animal life in defence of your own.

The second was when Christ knew he was to be confronted by Judas and the religious leaders he was leading to them, but was it for defence that he asked them to carry them?

Let us see.

Luke 22:36-38
36 Then he said to them: "But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, "He was counted with lawless ones." For this is being fulfilled concerning me." 38 Then they said: "Lord, look! here are two swords." He said to them: "It is enough."

As the account relates, the sole reason for the carrying of swords was for the fulfilment of prophecy. There was no instruction to use the sword at any point.

However Peter did, so how did Christ react to that. Let's read on.

Matthew 26:
51 But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels? 54 In that case, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must take place this way?

Jesus rebuked him and warned that all those taking up the sword will perish by the sword.

So no, there is no way any Christian should carry arms, for any reason.

If you use a weapon to protect the lives of yourself or your loved ones, how are you showing faith n Jehovah's provision of the resurrection?

Did Jesus not say that if you go against the rules to save your lives you will lose them?

Do you really want to lose out on the perfect life to come just for a few more years in this decidedly second rate one?

Do you put material things before human life?

Your life is no more valuable than that of any other human being. Life is a gift from Jehovah, who are you to take it away?

Self defence may be justifiable in human law, because humans cannot resurrect you, but Jehovah can, so if you take another's life you may well lose your eternal life, whilst guaranteeing the resurrection of the one you killed.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 10:23:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 10:17:47 AM, tarantula wrote:
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.
tarantula
Posts: 866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 10:52:59 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 10:23:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:17:47 AM, tarantula wrote:
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.

Obviously I would do what I can to protect my family and myself, if attacked, within the confines of the law.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:06:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 10:52:59 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:23:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:17:47 AM, tarantula wrote:
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.

Obviously I would do what I can to protect my family and myself, if attacked, within the confines of the law.

So you are going to operate within the confines of the law, but obviously, the people aggressing you are not and won't.

And you think handicapping yourself in such a fashion will warrant you victory?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
tarantula
Posts: 866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:09:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 11:06:42 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:52:59 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:23:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:17:47 AM, tarantula wrote:
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.

Obviously I would do what I can to protect my family and myself, if attacked, within the confines of the law.

So you are going to operate within the confines of the law, but obviously, the people aggressing you are not and won't.

And you think handicapping yourself in such a fashion will warrant you victory?

Yes I certainly do. Gun crime in the US is definitely out of control because everyone seems to be permitted to own one, even kids!
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:14:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 11:09:51 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 4/15/2016 11:06:42 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:52:59 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:23:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:17:47 AM, tarantula wrote:
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.

Obviously I would do what I can to protect my family and myself, if attacked, within the confines of the law.

So you are going to operate within the confines of the law, but obviously, the people aggressing you are not and won't.

And you think handicapping yourself in such a fashion will warrant you victory?

Yes I certainly do. Gun crime in the US is definitely out of control because everyone seems to be permitted to own one, even kids!

Gun crime in the US is predominantly perpetuated by those whom are not legally allowed to own them in the first place, which calls into question as to how safe you would be in such a circumstance. FYI, non firearm related violent crime is strikingly higher in the UK than in the US. Guess who wins in that scenario.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:18:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 11:14:29 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2016 11:09:51 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 4/15/2016 11:06:42 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:52:59 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:23:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:17:47 AM, tarantula wrote:
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.

Obviously I would do what I can to protect my family and myself, if attacked, within the confines of the law.

So you are going to operate within the confines of the law, but obviously, the people aggressing you are not and won't.

And you think handicapping yourself in such a fashion will warrant you victory?

Yes I certainly do. Gun crime in the US is definitely out of control because everyone seems to be permitted to own one, even kids!

Gun crime in the US is predominantly perpetuated by those whom are not legally allowed to own them in the first place, which calls into question as to how safe you would be in such a circumstance. FYI, non firearm related violent crime is strikingly higher in the UK than in the US. Guess who wins in that scenario.

True, but since when have two wrongs ever added up to a right?
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:21:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.

Obviously I would do what I can to protect my family and myself, if attacked, within the confines of the law.

So you are going to operate within the confines of the law, but obviously, the people aggressing you are not and won't.

And you think handicapping yourself in such a fashion will warrant you victory?

Yes I certainly do. Gun crime in the US is definitely out of control because everyone seems to be permitted to own one, even kids!

Gun crime in the US is predominantly perpetuated by those whom are not legally allowed to own them in the first place, which calls into question as to how safe you would be in such a circumstance. FYI, non firearm related violent crime is strikingly higher in the UK than in the US. Guess who wins in that scenario.

True, but since when have two wrongs ever added up to a right?

In this circumstance, when the aggressor retreats due to display of superior firepower by the victim.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:22:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 11:06:42 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:52:59 AM, tarantula wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:23:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:17:47 AM, tarantula wrote:
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.

Obviously I would do what I can to protect my family and myself, if attacked, within the confines of the law.

So you are going to operate within the confines of the law, but obviously, the people aggressing you are not and won't.

And you think handicapping yourself in such a fashion will warrant you victory?

In the eyes of the only ones who matter, Christ and his father, yes.

It will, in extremis, allow us to share in Christ's victory over death by means of the resurrection, there is no better victory that any human can have.

Many will share n that victory thanks to obedience to Jehovah's law whether that be the law on blood or not taking part in the conflicts of this world.

Such a victory over death is the ultimate victory, and only comes to those who die faithfully.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:27:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 11:21:43 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.

Obviously I would do what I can to protect my family and myself, if attacked, within the confines of the law.

So you are going to operate within the confines of the law, but obviously, the people aggressing you are not and won't.

And you think handicapping yourself in such a fashion will warrant you victory?

Yes I certainly do. Gun crime in the US is definitely out of control because everyone seems to be permitted to own one, even kids!

Gun crime in the US is predominantly perpetuated by those whom are not legally allowed to own them in the first place, which calls into question as to how safe you would be in such a circumstance. FYI, non firearm related violent crime is strikingly higher in the UK than in the US. Guess who wins in that scenario.

True, but since when have two wrongs ever added up to a right?

In this circumstance, when the aggressor retreats due to display of superior firepower by the victim.

And how often does that work? How many such attackers would not kill at the first sight of another weapon?

Sorry but that is a typically dumb response, carrying a weapon yourself just adds to the chances of getting killed, every time. It doesn't work in real life the way it does on TV.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 11:33:51 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.

Obviously I would do what I can to protect my family and myself, if attacked, within the confines of the law.

So you are going to operate within the confines of the law, but obviously, the people aggressing you are not and won't.

And you think handicapping yourself in such a fashion will warrant you victory?

Yes I certainly do. Gun crime in the US is definitely out of control because everyone seems to be permitted to own one, even kids!

Gun crime in the US is predominantly perpetuated by those whom are not legally allowed to own them in the first place, which calls into question as to how safe you would be in such a circumstance. FYI, non firearm related violent crime is strikingly higher in the UK than in the US. Guess who wins in that scenario.

True, but since when have two wrongs ever added up to a right?

In this circumstance, when the aggressor retreats due to display of superior firepower by the victim.

And how often does that work? How many such attackers would not kill at the first sight of another weapon?

Quite a few actually. Many attackers are attackers because their confidence comes from outclassing their victim in some way. Its why a little ole lady is a much better victim than a 6 foot five line backer. When that perceived advantage is dispelled, the attacker retreats.

Sorry but that is a typically dumb response, carrying a weapon yourself just adds to the chances of getting killed, every time. It doesn't work in real life the way it does on TV.

Considering your inherent fear you and your compatriot have displayed, I don't expect you to understand this: training and responsibility with your chosen weapon is an equalizer or a force multiplyer, not a detractor.

Honestly, whom do you expect to win in a fist fight: a boxer or some one with no training?

So, why does that not carry over to firearms usage?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 12:27:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 10:11:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God's law says "You must not kill" and Jesus never countermanded his father's instruction.

Not only that but he said that rather than retaliate we must turn the other cheek.

But did he not instruct his disciples to carry swords on two occasions?

He did indeed. However not for use on other humans.

In the first instance the disciples were being sent into areas where lions and bears lived, and could need to protect themselves from such. There is no law against taking animal life in defence of your own.

The second was when Christ knew he was to be confronted by Judas and the religious leaders he was leading to them, but was it for defence that he asked them to carry them?

Let us see.

Luke 22:36-38
36 Then he said to them: "But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, "He was counted with lawless ones." For this is being fulfilled concerning me." 38 Then they said: "Lord, look! here are two swords." He said to them: "It is enough."

As the account relates, the sole reason for the carrying of swords was for the fulfilment of prophecy. There was no instruction to use the sword at any point.

However Peter did, so how did Christ react to that. Let's read on.

Matthew 26:
51 But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels? 54 In that case, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must take place this way?

Jesus rebuked him and warned that all those taking up the sword will perish by the sword.

So no, there is no way any Christian should carry arms, for any reason.

If you use a weapon to protect the lives of yourself or your loved ones, how are you showing faith n Jehovah's provision of the resurrection?

Did Jesus not say that if you go against the rules to save your lives you will lose them?

Do you really want to lose out on the perfect life to come just for a few more years in this decidedly second rate one?

Do you put material things before human life?

Your life is no more valuable than that of any other human being. Life is a gift from Jehovah, who are you to take it away?

Self defence may be justifiable in human law, because humans cannot resurrect you, but Jehovah can, so if you take another's life you may well lose your eternal life, whilst guaranteeing the resurrection of the one you killed.

It says "Thou shalt not MURDUR."

]

rekt
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:23:42 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 10:11:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God's law says "You must not kill" and Jesus never countermanded his father's instruction.

Not only that but he said that rather than retaliate we must turn the other cheek.

But did he not instruct his disciples to carry swords on two occasions?

He did indeed. However not for use on other humans.

In the first instance the disciples were being sent into areas where lions and bears lived, and could need to protect themselves from such. There is no law against taking animal life in defence of your own.

The second was when Christ knew he was to be confronted by Judas and the religious leaders he was leading to them, but was it for defence that he asked them to carry them?

Let us see.

Luke 22:36-38
36 Then he said to them: "But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, "He was counted with lawless ones." For this is being fulfilled concerning me." 38 Then they said: "Lord, look! here are two swords." He said to them: "It is enough."

As the account relates, the sole reason for the carrying of swords was for the fulfilment of prophecy. There was no instruction to use the sword at any point.

However Peter did, so how did Christ react to that. Let's read on.

Matthew 26:
51 But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels? 54 In that case, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must take place this way?

Jesus rebuked him and warned that all those taking up the sword will perish by the sword.

So no, there is no way any Christian should carry arms, for any reason.

If you use a weapon to protect the lives of yourself or your loved ones, how are you showing faith n Jehovah's provision of the resurrection?

Did Jesus not say that if you go against the rules to save your lives you will lose them?

Do you really want to lose out on the perfect life to come just for a few more years in this decidedly second rate one?

Do you put material things before human life?

Your life is no more valuable than that of any other human being. Life is a gift from Jehovah, who are you to take it away?

Self defence may be justifiable in human law, because humans cannot resurrect you, but Jehovah can, so if you take another's life you may well lose your eternal life, whilst guaranteeing the resurrection of the one you killed.

The problem on course is the OT.
If we are to disregard the laws and instructions of the OT, we find many things that are not spoken against.
What I see is that Christians, as a group - may not include you - pull out the OT when it suits them, and draw from the NT, disregarding the OT, when it suits them.

We should be able to agree that the OT permits and encourages the use of weapons against the people who cause problems for the people of God.

We have the issue of Jesus saying he did not come to change the law.

You have to do some pretty fancy reading to get to your position, but it can be done.
Those Christians who support gun ownership, have an easier time of it.
They cite Luke 22:35-38, and as I see it, your rebuttal fails.
If you take nothing, you need nothing, if you take a money bag and napsack, you need a sword.
He did not say if you have nothing, take a sword to fulfill the prophesy.
It seems clear to others, that you are to protect your valuables against robbers, and your vague reference to upholding some unnamed prophesy is lacking.
What prophesy is fulfilled by wearing a sword, but not using against robbers?

I see a great difference between someone using weaponry as a last resort against assault, and someone "living by the sword".
This does make a good case against Christians joining the military.
Surely a profession soldier "lives by the sword", even if she is a medic or cook, supporting the ones using weaponry. Do you agree?

I do see other weaknesses in you rebuttal to Christian gun advocates, but this is the weakest.
Thanks.
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:33:02 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 1:23:42 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:11:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God's law says "You must not kill" and Jesus never countermanded his father's instruction.

Not only that but he said that rather than retaliate we must turn the other cheek.

But did he not instruct his disciples to carry swords on two occasions?

He did indeed. However not for use on other humans.

In the first instance the disciples were being sent into areas where lions and bears lived, and could need to protect themselves from such. There is no law against taking animal life in defence of your own.

The second was when Christ knew he was to be confronted by Judas and the religious leaders he was leading to them, but was it for defence that he asked them to carry them?

Let us see.

Luke 22:36-38
36 Then he said to them: "But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, "He was counted with lawless ones." For this is being fulfilled concerning me." 38 Then they said: "Lord, look! here are two swords." He said to them: "It is enough."

As the account relates, the sole reason for the carrying of swords was for the fulfilment of prophecy. There was no instruction to use the sword at any point.

However Peter did, so how did Christ react to that. Let's read on.

Matthew 26:
51 But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels? 54 In that case, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must take place this way?

Jesus rebuked him and warned that all those taking up the sword will perish by the sword.

So no, there is no way any Christian should carry arms, for any reason.

If you use a weapon to protect the lives of yourself or your loved ones, how are you showing faith n Jehovah's provision of the resurrection?

Did Jesus not say that if you go against the rules to save your lives you will lose them?

Do you really want to lose out on the perfect life to come just for a few more years in this decidedly second rate one?

Do you put material things before human life?

Your life is no more valuable than that of any other human being. Life is a gift from Jehovah, who are you to take it away?

Self defence may be justifiable in human law, because humans cannot resurrect you, but Jehovah can, so if you take another's life you may well lose your eternal life, whilst guaranteeing the resurrection of the one you killed.

The problem on course is the OT.
If we are to disregard the laws and instructions of the OT, we find many things that are not spoken against.
What I see is that Christians, as a group - may not include you - pull out the OT when it suits them, and draw from the NT, disregarding the OT, when it suits them.

We should be able to agree that the OT permits and encourages the use of weapons against the people who cause problems for the people of God.

We have the issue of Jesus saying he did not come to change the law.

You have to do some pretty fancy reading to get to your position, but it can be done.
Those Christians who support gun ownership, have an easier time of it.
They cite Luke 22:35-38, and as I see it, your rebuttal fails.
If you take nothing, you need nothing, if you take a money bag and napsack, you need a sword.
He did not say if you have nothing, take a sword to fulfill the prophesy.
It seems clear to others, that you are to protect your valuables against robbers, and your vague reference to upholding some unnamed prophesy is lacking.
What prophesy is fulfilled by wearing a sword, but not using against robbers?

I see a great difference between someone using weaponry as a last resort against assault, and someone "living by the sword".
This does make a good case against Christians joining the military.
Surely a profession soldier "lives by the sword", even if she is a medic or cook, supporting the ones using weaponry. Do you agree?

I do see other weaknesses in you rebuttal to Christian gun advocates, but this is the weakest.
Thanks.

It says "Thou shalt not MURDUR."
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:40:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 12:27:56 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:11:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God's law says "You must not kill" and Jesus never countermanded his father's instruction.

Not only that but he said that rather than retaliate we must turn the other cheek.

But did he not instruct his disciples to carry swords on two occasions?

He did indeed. However not for use on other humans.

In the first instance the disciples were being sent into areas where lions and bears lived, and could need to protect themselves from such. There is no law against taking animal life in defence of your own.

The second was when Christ knew he was to be confronted by Judas and the religious leaders he was leading to them, but was it for defence that he asked them to carry them?

Let us see.

Luke 22:36-38
36 Then he said to them: "But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, "He was counted with lawless ones." For this is being fulfilled concerning me." 38 Then they said: "Lord, look! here are two swords." He said to them: "It is enough."

As the account relates, the sole reason for the carrying of swords was for the fulfilment of prophecy. There was no instruction to use the sword at any point.

However Peter did, so how did Christ react to that. Let's read on.

Matthew 26:
51 But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels? 54 In that case, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must take place this way?

Jesus rebuked him and warned that all those taking up the sword will perish by the sword.

So no, there is no way any Christian should carry arms, for any reason.

If you use a weapon to protect the lives of yourself or your loved ones, how are you showing faith n Jehovah's provision of the resurrection?

Did Jesus not say that if you go against the rules to save your lives you will lose them?

Do you really want to lose out on the perfect life to come just for a few more years in this decidedly second rate one?

Do you put material things before human life?

Your life is no more valuable than that of any other human being. Life is a gift from Jehovah, who are you to take it away?

Self defence may be justifiable in human law, because humans cannot resurrect you, but Jehovah can, so if you take another's life you may well lose your eternal life, whilst guaranteeing the resurrection of the one you killed.

It says "Thou shalt not MURDUR."

]

rekt

I suppose some translations may have changed it to that, but I wonder how many?

Exodus 20:13 American Standard Version (ASV) 13 Thou shalt not kill.

Exodus 20:13 King James Version (KJV) 13 Thou shalt not kill.
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:48:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 1:40:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:27:56 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:11:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God's law says "You must not kill" and Jesus never countermanded his father's instruction.

Not only that but he said that rather than retaliate we must turn the other cheek.

But did he not instruct his disciples to carry swords on two occasions?

He did indeed. However not for use on other humans.

In the first instance the disciples were being sent into areas where lions and bears lived, and could need to protect themselves from such. There is no law against taking animal life in defence of your own.

The second was when Christ knew he was to be confronted by Judas and the religious leaders he was leading to them, but was it for defence that he asked them to carry them?

Let us see.

Luke 22:36-38
36 Then he said to them: "But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, "He was counted with lawless ones." For this is being fulfilled concerning me." 38 Then they said: "Lord, look! here are two swords." He said to them: "It is enough."

As the account relates, the sole reason for the carrying of swords was for the fulfilment of prophecy. There was no instruction to use the sword at any point.

However Peter did, so how did Christ react to that. Let's read on.

Matthew 26:
51 But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels? 54 In that case, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must take place this way?

Jesus rebuked him and warned that all those taking up the sword will perish by the sword.

So no, there is no way any Christian should carry arms, for any reason.

If you use a weapon to protect the lives of yourself or your loved ones, how are you showing faith n Jehovah's provision of the resurrection?

Did Jesus not say that if you go against the rules to save your lives you will lose them?

Do you really want to lose out on the perfect life to come just for a few more years in this decidedly second rate one?

Do you put material things before human life?

Your life is no more valuable than that of any other human being. Life is a gift from Jehovah, who are you to take it away?

Self defence may be justifiable in human law, because humans cannot resurrect you, but Jehovah can, so if you take another's life you may well lose your eternal life, whilst guaranteeing the resurrection of the one you killed.

It says "Thou shalt not MURDUR."

]

rekt

I suppose some translations may have changed it to that, but I wonder how many?

Exodus 20:13 American Standard Version (ASV) 13 Thou shalt not kill.

Exodus 20:13 King James Version (KJV) 13 Thou shalt not kill.

Old Jewish bible.

http://www.biblestudytools.com...

Says murder.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:49:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 1:40:26 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 12:27:56 PM, The-Holy-Macrel wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:11:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God's law says "You must not kill" and Jesus never countermanded his father's instruction.

Not only that but he said that rather than retaliate we must turn the other cheek.

But did he not instruct his disciples to carry swords on two occasions?

He did indeed. However not for use on other humans.

In the first instance the disciples were being sent into areas where lions and bears lived, and could need to protect themselves from such. There is no law against taking animal life in defence of your own.

The second was when Christ knew he was to be confronted by Judas and the religious leaders he was leading to them, but was it for defence that he asked them to carry them?

Let us see.

Luke 22:36-38
36 Then he said to them: "But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, "He was counted with lawless ones." For this is being fulfilled concerning me." 38 Then they said: "Lord, look! here are two swords." He said to them: "It is enough."

As the account relates, the sole reason for the carrying of swords was for the fulfilment of prophecy. There was no instruction to use the sword at any point.

However Peter did, so how did Christ react to that. Let's read on.

Matthew 26:
51 But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels? 54 In that case, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must take place this way?

Jesus rebuked him and warned that all those taking up the sword will perish by the sword.

So no, there is no way any Christian should carry arms, for any reason.

If you use a weapon to protect the lives of yourself or your loved ones, how are you showing faith n Jehovah's provision of the resurrection?

Did Jesus not say that if you go against the rules to save your lives you will lose them?

Do you really want to lose out on the perfect life to come just for a few more years in this decidedly second rate one?

Do you put material things before human life?

Your life is no more valuable than that of any other human being. Life is a gift from Jehovah, who are you to take it away?

Self defence may be justifiable in human law, because humans cannot resurrect you, but Jehovah can, so if you take another's life you may well lose your eternal life, whilst guaranteeing the resurrection of the one you killed.

It says "Thou shalt not MURDUR."

]

rekt

I suppose some translations may have changed it to that, but I wonder how many?

Exodus 20:13 American Standard Version (ASV) 13 Thou shalt not kill.

Exodus 20:13 King James Version (KJV) 13 Thou shalt not kill.

Hebrew scholars have nol doubt, the words Jesus read used the word for murder, not kill.
The change was from murder, to kill, which is incorrect.
We all know Jesus did not read an English Bible.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:51:07 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
What kind of swords were they? Which part of the soldier's body did Peter strike?
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
The-Holy-Macrel
Posts: 777
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:53:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 1:51:07 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
What kind of swords were they? Which part of the soldier's body did Peter strike?

And this matters why?
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 1:57:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
It matters because Jesus said to eat his body and drink his blood, which turned out to be different than what people were thinking.

The sword of the spirit is said to be the word of God. The ear of the soldier was struck.

In other words, is it not possible that Jesus' disciples were carrying around scripture, and when Peter attacked the soldier, he was doing so with scripture?

I'm not ruling anything out.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 2:21:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 1:23:42 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:11:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God's law says "You must not kill" and Jesus never countermanded his father's instruction.

Self defence may be justifiable in human law, because humans cannot resurrect you, but Jehovah can, so if you take another's life you may well lose your eternal life, whilst guaranteeing the resurrection of the one you killed.

The problem on course is the OT.

No part of scripture is a problem except to those who wish to deny truth.

If we are to disregard the laws and instructions of the OT, we find many things that are not spoken against.
What I see is that Christians, as a group - may not include you - pull out the OT when it suits them, and draw from the NT, disregarding the OT, when it suits them.

Then they are not truly Christians. I use the whole of scripture and refuse to regard it as two separate books.

Jesus taught from the law, as well as the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, as did the Apostles. True they used it more as a source of principles than a law code, but as a source of principles it was and is valid.


We should be able to agree that the OT permits and encourages the use of weapons against the people who cause problems for the people of God.

Only in the pursuit of Jehovah's own justice. In every case Jehovah himself killed more men than Israel did.

The point being that is was authorised purely for the advancement of Jehovah's own plans and purposes, not for those of any man or group of men.

Jehovah needed Israel, and especially Judah, protected to enable the line to the Messiah to be secure.

That is no longer the case, and since the Messiah Arrived Jehovah has not authorised one single killing or war.

The circumstances that Jehovah allows or authorises anything in have to be taken into account.


We have the issue of Jesus saying he did not come to change the law.
No, he did not say that. He said he did not come to destroy it. He did however come to begin the fulfilment of Jeremiah 31:33 and start the process of teaching his followers to put the law into their hearts, thus removing the need for a rigid law code.


You have to do some pretty fancy reading to get to your position, but it can be done.

No, you simply have to include the whole of scripture in your equation, and not just cherry pick as the pro-gun lobby do.

However there is not one law of God against owning a weapon, simply against using such a weapon on a human being.

Weapons used for hunting for food are perfectly acceptable, however even then only for food gathering. Not for sport, but that is a whole other discussion.

Those Christians who support gun ownership, have an easier time of it.

Only becuase they cherry pick their evidence.

They cite Luke 22:35-38, and as I see it, your rebuttal fails.
If you take nothing, you need nothing, if you take a money bag and napsack, you need a sword.

He did not say if you have nothing, take a sword to fulfil the prophesy.

In fact according to Matthew's eye witness account, which carries more weight than an account written later and through research, a second hand account, that is precisely what he did say, as in my quotation, so that argument is invalid.

The Pro-gun lobby are simply cherry picking things which allow them to do as they wish and ignore all contra indications, which are many.

It seems clear to others, that you are to protect your valuables against robbers, and your vague reference to upholding some unnamed prophesy is lacking.

And yet Christ made it very clear that the only valuable thign any Christian has is is relationship with Jehovah. The moment you place possessions over and above the value of life, you are completely contrary to scripture.

Defend, yes by all means if you must, but not to the level of taking a life.

What prophesy is fulfilled by wearing a sword, but not using against robbers?

The prophecy, as the account at Matthew told you, that Jesus was to be counted amongst ruffians and lawbreakers.


I see a great difference between someone using weaponry as a last resort against assault, and someone "living by the sword".

Obviously, but with scripture it is easy to see what you want to see, harder to see what Jehovah and Christ want you to see, as I do.

truth is rarely what we want it to be, and we have to tailor ourselves to it, not the other way round as you are doing, and the pro gun lobby do.

Not if you are using it to protect your own life. In which case you are living, and continuing to live by the sword.

This does make a good case against Christians joining the military.

It makes an absolute case against it, but the true, most powerful case against it is that Christians must be no part of this world, which includes not being involved in any way in it's disputes.

If, for instance, an American becomes a true Christian, he dedicates himself to Christ as his King, therefore he is no longer truly American, he is a subject of God's Kingdom under Christ, not of the American Government.

The same applies to all nationalities.

Surely a profession soldier "lives by the sword", even if she is a medic or cook, supporting the ones using weaponry. Do you agree?

I agree entirely, but even ore so anyone involved with Government, whether in the military of civilian aspects, is very much a part of this world which no Christian is allowed to be.

If you had bothered to read the whole of John 17, you would see that another part of that prayer was that Christ's followers be no part of the world. Support of something makes you, effectively, a part of it.

That is why true Christians are not involved in government in any way, including not voting for them.

Why would they? They already have their government in heaven with Christ as King, and their own law book in the Bible, which answers every need, including telling us to obey any human law which does not go against God's, which Jesus declared as "Give Caesar's things to Caesar, but God's things to God" the principle of which applies to all aspects of life.
.

I do see other weaknesses in you rebuttal to Christian gun advocates, but this is the weakest.

And yet every argument you have put forward is not only much weaker because it has to be cherry=picked, but also still goes against the principles of God's law.

The major principles being that:

1: Obedience to the principles in Jehovah's law trumps all others.

2: Our eternal lives are more important than this life.

3: Material things are nothing when compared to a single human life.

4: We are commanded to love our enemies, which it is impossible to show when threatening them with a weapon.

Gun ownership is not against the principles in God's law.

Using, or threatening to use, one against a human is.

Using one to kill even an animal for other than food is also contrary to the principles in God's law.

Target shooting is not contrary to the principles in God's law.

No, it is not my argumentation which is weak.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 3:07:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 1:57:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
It matters because Jesus said to eat his body and drink his blood, which turned out to be different than what people were thinking.

Very true, and many disciples ceased following him because they insisted on taking the figurative as literal.


The sword of the spirit is said to be the word of God. The ear of the soldier was struck.

I don't think there is any relevant connection there but it is a good analogy, so who knows.


In other words, is it not possible that Jesus' disciples were carrying around scripture, and when Peter attacked the soldier, he was doing so with scripture?

No, that is not possible. As Matthew points out in his account they were carrying literal swords so that Jesus could be counted amongst lawless ones as the prophecy foretold.

That is how Jesus explained asking them to.

However Jesus made t very clear to Peter that he should not have used it, in that same account.


I'm not ruling anything out.

It is always important to compare Gospel accounts for the simple reason that only two, Matthew's and John's, were written by eye witnesses. Luke's and Mark's were created from research and so, though accurate, do not carry as many details as Matthew and John, in some places.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 3:33:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 10:11:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God's law says "You must not kill" and Jesus never countermanded his father's instruction.

Not only that but he said that rather than retaliate we must turn the other cheek.

But did he not instruct his disciples to carry swords on two occasions?

He did indeed. However not for use on other humans.

In the first instance the disciples were being sent into areas where lions and bears lived, and could need to protect themselves from such. There is no law against taking animal life in defence of your own.

The second was when Christ knew he was to be confronted by Judas and the religious leaders he was leading to them, but was it for defence that he asked them to carry them?

Let us see.

Luke 22:36-38
36 Then he said to them: "But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, "He was counted with lawless ones." For this is being fulfilled concerning me." 38 Then they said: "Lord, look! here are two swords." He said to them: "It is enough."

As the account relates, the sole reason for the carrying of swords was for the fulfilment of prophecy. There was no instruction to use the sword at any point.

However Peter did, so how did Christ react to that. Let's read on.

Matthew 26:
51 But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels? 54 In that case, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must take place this way?

Jesus rebuked him and warned that all those taking up the sword will perish by the sword.

So no, there is no way any Christian should carry arms, for any reason.

If you use a weapon to protect the lives of yourself or your loved ones, how are you showing faith n Jehovah's provision of the resurrection?

Did Jesus not say that if you go against the rules to save your lives you will lose them?

Do you really want to lose out on the perfect life to come just for a few more years in this decidedly second rate one?

Do you put material things before human life?

Your life is no more valuable than that of any other human being. Life is a gift from Jehovah, who are you to take it away?

Self defence may be justifiable in human law, because humans cannot resurrect you, but Jehovah can, so if you take another's life you may well lose your eternal life, whilst guaranteeing the resurrection of the one you killed.

Well you are left with some difficult points. One it means thou shalt not murder. Two justice and natural law demand the right to defend themselves against unwarranted aggression. Three if not for Christians defending themselves you'd be facing Mecca 5 times a day.

You are right my life is not more intrinsically valuable than another persons. That does not mean I do not have the right to defend myself. And what if I see someone who is going to kill 5 other people. Do I not have a duty to preserve those five at the expense of one who will unjustly attack them?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 3:56:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 3:33:05 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:11:48 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
God's law says "You must not kill" and Jesus never countermanded his father's instruction.

Not only that but he said that rather than retaliate we must turn the other cheek.

But did he not instruct his disciples to carry swords on two occasions?

He did indeed. However not for use on other humans.

In the first instance the disciples were being sent into areas where lions and bears lived, and could need to protect themselves from such. There is no law against taking animal life in defence of your own.

The second was when Christ knew he was to be confronted by Judas and the religious leaders he was leading to them, but was it for defence that he asked them to carry them?

Let us see.

Luke 22:36-38
36 Then he said to them: "But now let the one who has a money bag take it, likewise a food pouch, and let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one. 37 For I tell you that what is written must be accomplished in me, namely, "He was counted with lawless ones." For this is being fulfilled concerning me." 38 Then they said: "Lord, look! here are two swords." He said to them: "It is enough."

As the account relates, the sole reason for the carrying of swords was for the fulfilment of prophecy. There was no instruction to use the sword at any point.

However Peter did, so how did Christ react to that. Let's read on.

Matthew 26:
51 But look! one of those with Jesus reached out his hand and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, taking off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him: "Return your sword to its place, for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than 12 legions of angels? 54 In that case, how would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must take place this way?

Jesus rebuked him and warned that all those taking up the sword will perish by the sword.

So no, there is no way any Christian should carry arms, for any reason.

If you use a weapon to protect the lives of yourself or your loved ones, how are you showing faith n Jehovah's provision of the resurrection?

Did Jesus not say that if you go against the rules to save your lives you will lose them?

Do you really want to lose out on the perfect life to come just for a few more years in this decidedly second rate one?

Do you put material things before human life?

Your life is no more valuable than that of any other human being. Life is a gift from Jehovah, who are you to take it away?

Self defence may be justifiable in human law, because humans cannot resurrect you, but Jehovah can, so if you take another's life you may well lose your eternal life, whilst guaranteeing the resurrection of the one you killed.

Well you are left with some difficult points. One it means thou shalt not murder. Two justice and natural law demand the right to defend themselves against unwarranted aggression. Three if not for Christians defending themselves you'd be facing Mecca 5 times a day.

Any killing not authorised by God is murder in his eyes. Since we are commanded by his son to love our enemies that rules out any killing at all.

Human Justice and human law do, yes, but there are no more natural law and justice than Jehovah's and he outlaws killing for any reason.

Where is the human justice if you kill someone and lose out on a resurrection whilst guaranteeing the resurrection of the one you have killed?

It is you who has lost the most, not the one you killed.


You are right my life is not more intrinsically valuable than another persons. That does not mean I do not have the right to defend myself. And what if I see someone who is going to kill 5 other people. Do I not have a duty to preserve those five at the expense of one who will unjustly attack them?

According to God it does.

No you do not. Your duty is to trust in Jehovah to do that job, which he will, by resurrection if need be.

The point ebing that death followed by resurrection is no different frm having a very long night's sleep without dreams, and eternity still in front of you when resurrected.
Yet death for those who deliberately disobey God's principles means no resurrection, no eternity.

Better to die to this life faithful, and wake to eternity, than to live this life unfaithful and get no more after your few years in this life are over.

Again don't forget the scriptural principle Jesus laid before us with interjections in parentheses:

Matthew 10: 39 Whoever finds ( by being disobedient) his soul (life) will lose it (and get no resurrection), and whoever loses (through his obedience) his soul (life) for my sake will find it (when he awakes in the resurrection).

The principle is simple.

Obey and live (even if that is after the resurrection).
Disobey and die.

There, Christ and his father are saying "Do you really have faith in the promises Jehovah has made?"

In the end it really is as simple as that. No negotiation, no argument. You are either obedient or not. You either live, or not (after Armageddon).

It is all down to trust and the knowledge which inspires it. That is why Jesus said at John 17:3 "This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ."

Once you really know him you cannot help but trust him.
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 4:21:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 3:07:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 1:57:03 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
It matters because Jesus said to eat his body and drink his blood, which turned out to be different than what people were thinking.

Very true, and many disciples ceased following him because they insisted on taking the figurative as literal.


The sword of the spirit is said to be the word of God. The ear of the soldier was struck.

I don't think there is any relevant connection there but it is a good analogy, so who knows.


In other words, is it not possible that Jesus' disciples were carrying around scripture, and when Peter attacked the soldier, he was doing so with scripture?

No, that is not possible. As Matthew points out in his account they were carrying literal swords so that Jesus could be counted amongst lawless ones as the prophecy foretold.

That is how Jesus explained asking them to.

However Jesus made t very clear to Peter that he should not have used it, in that same account.


I'm not ruling anything out.

It is always important to compare Gospel accounts for the simple reason that only two, Matthew's and John's, were written by eye witnesses. Luke's and Mark's were created from research and so, though accurate, do not carry as many details as Matthew and John, in some places.

It was just a wild thought to stir discussion. I'm not really committed to it.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 4:33:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 10:23:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:17:47 AM, tarantula wrote:
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.

You already abandoned your 4 wives and children. You have no family left to protect.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2016 4:34:08 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/15/2016 4:33:14 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:23:44 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/15/2016 10:17:47 AM, tarantula wrote:
I am so grateful I live in the UK where guns for self-protection aren't permitted.

Yeah me too, it does rather remove the problem doesn't it.

You already abandoned your 4 wives and children. You have no family left to protect.

Says the DDO champion of liars.