"Horrific mass shootings aren’t the only sign that the world is pining under the effects of sin and darkness."
But some Christmas songs seem painfully fitting: “Long lay the world in sin and error pining.” And this plea: “O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free Thine own from Satan’s tyranny.” Dark Day
- 70 views
It is an impossible thing to believe that he meant two swords were enough for any fight they may have. We must therefore conclude that Messiah was, as usual, teaching them something.
One lesson he was likely teaching is two swords are better than none. You still have Jesus telling his disciples to get “two swords” or “two guns” as you said before. That’s about 16 percent of his disciples armed, while the rest are not, or more than are concealed carry holders here in the US. If not enough for ANY fight they might have, they now have procured the means of lethal force at the command of Jesus.
I think you’ve stepped into a very old debate. Going back to our days as English\British colonies, American (for want of a better descriptive) Baptists (for the most part) have not been pacifists. The small minority of Baptist pacifists are usually folks whose “denominational” background is based on the Continental Baptists\Anabaptists.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Shaynus,
So who, exactly, is in imminent danger of being lynched? Why the panic?
Kevin
”If you can’t see the moral goodness of jumping in and stopping a child from getting murdered, then who is sick?”
There was no girl being murdered except in your mind. Lets stay within the realm of reality and not wander off into ‘what if’.
You also said:
”they now have procured the means of lethal force at the command of Jesus”.
When Peter tried use force he was told to put his sword back into its place.
[Huw] When Peter tried use force he was told to put his sword back into its place.
Several have pointed out there is a difference between Peter trying to usher in the kingdom and a random citizen protecting his or another’s life. Your hermeneutics are sadly lacking here Huw.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Kevin T. Bauder]Shaynus,
So who, exactly, is in imminent danger of being lynched? Why the panic?
Kevin
I was speaking in metaphor. Please re-read, and let me know if you still can’t understand the point. The urgency of the situation is that on January 3rd legislation will be introduced and it could move very quickly on emotion alone, and it will be broad, sweeping, and not get to the heart of the problem of violence.
[Huw]”If you can’t see the moral goodness of jumping in and stopping a child from getting murdered, then who is sick?”
There was no girl being murdered except in your mind. Lets stay within the realm of reality and not wander off into ‘what if’.
You also said:
”they now have procured the means of lethal force at the command of Jesus”.When Peter tried use force he was told to put his sword back into its place.
Huw,
I agree with Chip here. Jesus told Peter to put up his sword in the context of that situation, yet he told his disciples to get them in other situations. You’re not going to be able to come up with consistent reasons for why unless you look at the context in which he was speaking, and also the entire Bible and what it says about self defense and protection of innocents with lethal force.
Jesus told lots of people to do lots of things, but we aren’t to take on every command in every verse to every character upon ourselves. We have to parse out where we fit in the story. If Jesus said to Judas “what you’re going to do, do quickly” that doesn’t mean that all people everywhere should do whatever they’re going to do quickly. Jesus telling Peter to put up his sword, divorced from the context isn’t any way to read the Bible. I would never advocate violence to usher in the kingdom.
”several have pointed out there is a difference between Peter trying to usher in the kingdom and a random citizen protecting his or another’s life”.
What on earth are you talking about?
The problem here is not a matter of hermeneutics, it’s a matter of gun control. You don’t like it and you don’t want it. You would prefer to twist the scriptures to suit your own agenda rather than agree the public ownership of weapons be restricted or even banned. I notice you have a family. It is my sincere hope you never come to regret the stand you are making.
[Huw]”several have pointed out there is a difference between Peter trying to usher in the kingdom and a random citizen protecting his or another’s life”.
What on earth are you talking about?
The problem here is not a matter of hermeneutics, it’s a matter of gun control. You don’t like it and you don’t want it. You would prefer to twist the scriptures to suit your own agenda rather than agree the public ownership of weapons be restricted or even banned. I notice you have a family. It is my sincere hope you never come to regret the stand you are making.
So, Huw…
I suppose you would also have the government place a ban on the public ownership of knives? These too are often used in the killing of innocent people.
I would certainly ban the carrying of any lethal weapon in public without a valid reason. I carry a small knife when hiking long distance, but that knife is part of a survival kit and perfectly valid.
I suppose you’ll challenge me on sharp sticks next. It never ceases to amaze me how a society will not gather to repentance while their collective sin is condemning them. Every time someone is shot the collective sin of approval grows. If a person approves of the ownership and use of weapons they are as guilty, through approval, as if they pulled the trigger themselves.
The ownership of weapons is idolatry. The obsession that goes with the ownership is idolatry. The amount of time spend practicing to kill, if the intended target is a human, then murder has been committed. As per adultery of the mind.
Those that stand in the pulpit preaching peace, peace while wearing a concealed weapon are hypocrites who know no peace, no trust and live their lives in fear of death.
Harsh words maybe? If harsh words will bring one soul to repentance then we shall ”shout it aloud and not hold back”.
Deaths by medical error outnumber firearm fatalities (accidental, legal, or illegal) by a factor of 17:1. Shall we ban the doctors or the hospitals first. This is just as ridiculous as the argument Huw is making. The ONLY basis for this argument is shockingly bad hermeneutics, which Huw put on spectacular display in his initial assertion that guns are immoral and in his follow-up attempt to explain Jesus’ command to purchase swords. This is blatant eisegesis and an affront to God when His Word is so obviously mishandled. Woe to those who put words in God’s mouth by declaring “Thus saith the LORD” when He has not said at all.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
… . on the danger of a given culture or subculture reading its socio-political norms into Scripture. It ought be a caution to us all.
It would be impossible for me to state that guns are immoral because they are not. The use of a weapon can be moral, but that use needs to be lawful.
You don’t like the doctrine because it goes directly against everything you hope is acceptable and everything you’ve been brought up to believe. My argument is not towards the world, or your city, or your town. My pleading with you is in the knowledge of the truth and the consequences for your soul.
The ONLY basis for my argument is that to kill the neighbor you are expected to love is a contradiction in terms. You might call it preventative protection, but to me its a premeditated choice to pull the trigger at some point in the future.You might be a reasonably good shot, but you don’t have the training to make life/death choices when life is at stake.
I’d say that the only person that should be allowed to carry a weapon is the person that hates guns. (smiles)
[Huw]It would be impossible for me to state that guns are immoral because they are not. The use of a weapon can be moral, but that use needs to be lawful.
You don’t like the doctrine because it goes directly against everything you hope is acceptable and everything you’ve been brought up to believe. My argument is not towards the world, or your city, or your town. My pleading with you is in the knowledge of the truth and the consequences for your soul.
The ONLY basis for my argument is that to kill the neighbor you are expected to love is a contradiction in terms. You might call it preventative protection, but to me its a premeditated choice to pull the trigger at some point in the future.You might be a reasonably good shot, but you don’t have the training to make life/death choices when life is at stake.
I’d say that the only person that should be allowed to carry a weapon is the person that hates guns. (smiles)
Your first paragraph is the only bit of sense you have been making this whole time.
I agree with you that weapons are neither moral or immoral. It is their use that can be up for moral debate.
And I believe that most of us here are making an argument for the lawful use of firearms(or any other weapon).
The laws of this land have given us the right to own and to use firearms in a manner that is lawful. (e.g. hunting, target shooting, self-defense, forming militias, etc.)
No where in the Scriptures do I see any text that supports your view that we should not own a weapon. I believe that you are trying to impose your choice not to own a gun on the rest of us. Perhaps it is a matter of conscience. However, you should not condemn a man, whose conscience allows him to carry a gun.
You seem to have got your doctrine completely mixed up. Its the weaker brother that needs to be cared for. Even if your conscience allows you to do anything you shouldn’t do so if it has an effect on a weaker brother.
Discussion