The armed Christian

[Pastor4Jesus]

DISCLAIMER; THIS THREAD ADDRESSES THE HIGHLY RADICALIZED AND MILITRIZED ISLAMIC TERRORIST. I DENOUNCE ALL TERRORIST ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING THOSE THAT CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIAN. I HAVE NO BIAS AGAINST ANY RELIGION OR ATHEIST BELIEFS. I PERSONALLY LOVE MY PEACEFUL MUSLIM BROTHERS AND SISTERS, AND PRAY THAT THEY PRACTICE THE RELIGION IN A NORMAL NON-RADICALIZED AND REJECT THE RADICAL FALSE PROPHETS.



I think all Christians should be armed where legal and if its not legal those Christians should diligently work to change policy to make it legal. I would suggest that all Christians have several weapons which would include a battle rifle and a pistol then a back up of each with at least a thousand rounds of ammo for each. Also provisions should be stored for a month or more.

Why do I say this? Self defense. There is a radical element in Islam that is intent of destroying the United States, Israel, and what she stands for (the perceived Christian West and values). Of course I am speaking of the highly radicalized/Militized Muslim element. With lets talk about it Obama in office I predict a major terrorist attack on the USA or the west before he leaves office.

As the Islamic terrorists demonstrated they would use any weapon from a box cutter to a AK-47 to explosives to airliners filled with fuel to kill citizens of the west. Their MO in areas where they have free reign is to support coups and takeovers. Considering those facts, I don't think its too conspiracy theorist extreme to envision well funded terrorists attempting to take over a small town or part of a city. Maybe if the terrorists know that a particular group of citizens may be heavily armed, maybe they will pick on someone else. Going armed would send a message to radical Islam and more importantly if all Christians would go armed it would serve a practical purpose if terrorists decide to make an example out of your town.



P4JC

[East of Eden]

I don't object to those who wish to protect themselves, within reason of course. I don't see that Christianity is really a rallying cause to that end. The verses that come to mind are as follows:

If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.

If a soldier demands that you carry his gear for a mile, carry it two miles.

A burning candle he will not snuff out. A bent reed he will not break.

Lest I be accused of quote-mining, the entire religion of Christianity, for those of us who believe in it, was founded by a man dying for his enemies, and brought to the world by a group of martyrs. I can't think of a religion less fit support the idea that we ought to use violence as a primary means of solving our problems.

Rev. 13:10 is a reference to Jer. 15:2 and 43:11. Jer. 43:11 is a prophecy about King Nebuchadnezzar's future attack on Egypt. It says, "He will come and attack Egypt, bringing death to those destined for death, captivity to those destined for captivity, and the sword to those destined for the sword." You are taking this verse out of context if you imply it is a command for today's Christians to not resist death, captivity, or the sword.

Interestingly, a fragmentary text now owned by the British Museum in London states that Nebuchadnezzar carried out a punitive expedition against Egypt in his 37th year (568-567 BC) during the reign of Pharaoh Amasis. See also Eze. 29:17-20.

As far as Matt. 5:41, not that neither here nor anywhere else did Jesus reprimand a soldier for bearing arms.

Is. 42 is about the future Messiah, and is quoted in part in Mt. 12:18-21 with reference to Christ. There are four "servant songs" in which the servant is the Messiah. The part you brought up is about someone who is weak, and a servant who will mend broken lives. Again, I don't see anything here that says today's Christians can't protect themselves, or for that matter have a police force or military.

Nobody is claiming violence should be the 'primary means' of solving our problems. I have guns and a concealed carry permit, but the chances of me ever having to use them to defend myself are slim. My idea of the 'primary means' of solving our problems is for we Christians to be more deeply committed to Christ and for non-Christians to accept Him as Lord and Savior.

[Jester]

Rev. 13:10 is a reference to Jer. 15:2 and 43:11. Jer. 43:11 is a prophecy about King Nebuchadnezzar's future attack on Egypt. It says, "He will come and attack Egypt, bringing death to those destined for death, captivity to those destined for captivity, and the sword to those destined for the sword." You are taking this verse out of context if you imply it is a command for today's Christians to not resist death, captivity, or the sword.

I'm not arguing that it is such a commandment. I was arguing that this event, and God's clear communication about it, establishes that we cannot automatically assume that God wants us to resist violence through force in every situation. This does not deny the right to bear arms, but does relate strongly to the implication in the original post that it is every Christian's duty to be armed in the current situation.

As far as Matt. 5:41, not that neither here nor anywhere else did Jesus reprimand a soldier for bearing arms.

I have no objection to bearing arms either; nor am I a pacifist. I do, however, object to the idea that the use of violence, even for self defense, is not automatically advised within Christianity.

The part you brought up is about someone who is weak, and a servant who will mend broken lives. Again, I don't see anything here that says today's Christians can't protect themselves, or for that matter have a police force or military.

Then it seems I have miscommunicated (apologies). I did not mean to claim that Christians must not defend ourselves. I merely meant to point out that defense of a nation, or even one's self, is not a foregone conclusion within Christianity as the original post seemed to claim.

Nobody is claiming violence should be the 'primary means' of solving our problems. I have guns and a concealed carry permit, but the chances of me ever having to use them to defend myself are slim. My idea of the 'primary means' of solving our problems is for we Christians to be more deeply committed to Christ and for non-Christians to accept Him as Lord and Savior.

I agree with this, for certain, and personally see nothing in the Bible which suggests that you must relinquish your weapons. I only mean to say that I also see nothing in the Bible which suggests that those who don't own weapons must purchase them.
I think we agree that violence should be a last resort, and that it is, unfortunately, necessary to use at times. We may (or, I suppose, may not) be slower to claim such a time has come than yourself, but do not believe that there is any blanket ban on the use of force to be found in the Bible.

[FinalEnigma]

Nobody is claiming violence should be the 'primary means' of solving our problems. I have guns and a concealed carry permit, but the chances of me ever having to use them to defend myself are slim. My idea of the 'primary means' of solving our problems is for we Christians to be more deeply committed to Christ and for non-Christians to accept Him as Lord and Savior.

I don't think that's a proper primary means of solving problems either - even if Christianity is true. If you and I have a disagreement, for example, our current one, we're not going to solve it by you converting me. Not only would you fail if you tried, but even if you succeeded, it wouldn't solve the disagreement

Now, we don't have a problem right now, just a disagreement. if we were talking in person and shouting and arguing aggressively, we'd have a problem, but me suddenly becoming christian wouldn't solve that either. As a christian, I'd probably be very theologically similar to Jester - and still be in disagreement on this issue. The way to solve problems or disagreements isn't to convert each other, its to listen to each other, to respect one another, and to treat one another like human beings in a civilized manner. That I think, is the proper primary problem solving method.

[DeBunkem]

If everyone started packing heat, it might deter some, but most likely it would also lead to "shoot first, ask questions later." This would go for police as well as robbers.

[FinalEnigma]

one other note.

As I see it, within Christianity, there are two ways to determine how to behave.
You can hold yourself to the standard Jesus demands of you, or you can hold yourself to the standard he demands of himself.
On a lot of theological issues, this appears to me to be the divide. The more conservative groups tend toward what Jesus demands of other, the more liberal groups toward what he demands of himself (of course, that's a general observation and doesn't always apply).
I won't say one is better than the other, that'd be senseless. I don't think one is, its just two ways of looking at Christianity. The liberal way requires a bit more thought - you have to figure out for yourself what is right a bit more when attempting to model after someone than when following their commands - but that isn't to claim being liberal is superior, it works for different people.

[FinalEnigma]

If everyone started packing heat, it might deter some, but most likely it would also lead to "shoot first, ask questions later." This would go for police as well as robbers.

This is likely true. I would not pull a gun and tell someone to hand me their money if I thought they had a gun - I'd shoot them and take their money, and then sell their gun.

now, I'm not claiming that more people having guns would lead to rashes of random murders, just noting the above paragraph.

[East of Eden]

If everyone started packing heat, it might deter some, but most likely it would also lead to "shoot first, ask questions later." This would go for police as well as robbers.

Since this is a debate forum, I'll ask you to back that up. The more people who have gotten concealed carry licenses, the less crime there is with very few abusing that right. In FL there were 165 permits for misuse revolked out of almost 2,000,000 issued.

The fact is, anyone who shoots first (without justification) and asks questions later stands to go to jail for a long time.

[East of Eden]

I agree with this, for certain, and personally see nothing in the Bible which suggests that you must relinquish your weapons. I only mean to say that I also see nothing in the Bible which suggests that those who don't own weapons must purchase them.
I think we agree that violence should be a last resort, and that it is, unfortunately, necessary to use at times. We may (or, I suppose, may not) be slower to claim such a time has come than yourself, but do not believe that there is any blanket ban on the use of force to be found in the Bible.

The majority of times when a weapon is used for self defense, it isn't even fired. The sight of it often stops a criminal. I hope I never would have to shoot another human being. To me that would only be justified if my or my families lives were in danger. Property can be replaced, people can't.

[Jester]

The majority of times when a weapon is used for self defense, it isn't even fired. The sight of it often stops a criminal. I hope I never would have to shoot another human being. To me that would only be justified if my or my families lives were in danger. Property can be replaced, people can't.

I think it is within rule 5 to say that I agree completely.

[cnorman18]

The majority of times when a weapon is used for self defense, it isn't even fired. The sight of it often stops a criminal. I hope I never would have to shoot another human being. To me that would only be justified if my or my families lives were in danger. Property can be replaced, people can't.

I think it is within rule 5 to say that I agree completely.

I agree as well, and my agreement comes from personal experience. I have gone armed for more than ten years, and I have never fired my weapon in earnest; even so, it has ended three (3) potentially deadly situations by its mere presence. One was a home invasion, which ended abruptly when the invaders discovered that I was armed; one an attempted mugging which ended the same way; and the third was a deranged (literally, as in later institutionalized) former friend who was on the record as saying repeatedly that he would have murdered me and my wife except for the fact that he knew I always carried a weapon.

There is absolutely no way in Hell or Heaven that I will give up my weapon; there is absolutely no way that anyone would be safer or more secure if I did. Quite the opposite, in fact.

By the way; in those ten years, very few people - only those closest to me - have been aware that I go armed. I keep that to myself. The only time my gun comes out of my pocket is when I am about to fire it, and when I undress at night. More people on this forum know about this than in my "real life." It's not about ego or "macho," it's about being prepared for violence in a violent world, and about staying alive.