rolexbenz190e
Member
Photoshopped by me
Pro-2nd Amendment?
Anti-2nd Amendment?
Can anyone shed some light in this area?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is God and Jesus Pro-2nd Amendment or Anti-2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter rolexbenz190e
- Start date
Photoshopped by me
Pro-2nd Amendment?
Anti-2nd Amendment?
Can anyone shed some light in this area?
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
I'm pretty sure both are more into monarchies.
rolexbenz190e
Member
These are my thoughts on the matter:
They didn't have guns back in those days... But the sword was the AR-15 of that era in time. The best in technology back then.
Jesus said to his apostles in Matt 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Jesus obviously knew that arming the righteous would bring forth the righteous (law abiding citizens).
He told us in Luke 22:36 that if we cant afford to arm ourselves, we should sell our belongings in order to arm our selves. Both in the Old Testament and the New Testament the scriptures state that we should not just sit around around watch our homes being broken into by thieves, but should defend our property and our own family.
In 1 Tim 5:8 it says "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. " It would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one's family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property.
In Exodus 22:2 and Matt 24:43 states that if a thief was caught breaking in and was killed, there should be no punishment to he who defended their home and their family. Because the "goodman" of the house shall not "suffer his house to be broken up" or else you have denied the faith and are worse than an infidel.
To better demonstrate the biblical heritage of individuals bearing and keeping arms, during David's time in the wilderness avoiding capture by Saul, "David said to his men, 'Every man gird on his sword.' So every man girded on his sword, and David also girded on his sword" (1 Samuel 25:13). This also shows the Lord's approval for those in defense of evil to bear and keep arms.
Finally, consider Nehemiah and those who rebuilt the gates and walls of Jerusalem. They were both builders and defenders. Each man and each servant were armed with his own weapon.
"They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me." (Nehemiah 4:17-18).
Sure, Jesus did not need to ever use a firearm. Even when Peter tried defending Jesus with a sword when the high priest and his servants came for Jesus, Peter cut off the ear of the servant Malchus. When that happen, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away (not to get rid of it for good). Why did Jesus prevent Peter from defending him? Obviously because "for this purpose" He has come... If Jesus were defended, then He wouldn't have been able to fulfill his purpose on earth.
Though considering biblical background and His historic views on the right to bear and keep arms, I'm sure if Jesus was didn't have the purpose of dieing for our sins, He would have let Peter defend him with deadly force.... If not even do it him self. We already know that the Lord has already 2,301,417 confirmed kills (not including the unspecified number people he had killed in floods, Sodom and Gomorrah, slaughters, etc.) and the estimate of His grand total kill count would be around 34,000,000 people.
Having said that, I'm pretty sure He wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force to protect Himself, His family, or even the righteous. But considering His purpose here on earth, it would have been obtrusively fatuous to defend Himself.
As you can see, His history shows that He is Pro-2nd Amendment and would justify the means of deadly force if necessary to protect the lives of the innocent.
"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy." ---- Deuteronomy 32:42
They didn't have guns back in those days... But the sword was the AR-15 of that era in time. The best in technology back then.
Jesus said to his apostles in Matt 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Jesus obviously knew that arming the righteous would bring forth the righteous (law abiding citizens).
He told us in Luke 22:36 that if we cant afford to arm ourselves, we should sell our belongings in order to arm our selves. Both in the Old Testament and the New Testament the scriptures state that we should not just sit around around watch our homes being broken into by thieves, but should defend our property and our own family.
In 1 Tim 5:8 it says "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. " It would be absurd to buy a house, furnish it with food and facilities for one's family, and then refuse to install locks and provide the means to protect the family and the property.
In Exodus 22:2 and Matt 24:43 states that if a thief was caught breaking in and was killed, there should be no punishment to he who defended their home and their family. Because the "goodman" of the house shall not "suffer his house to be broken up" or else you have denied the faith and are worse than an infidel.
To better demonstrate the biblical heritage of individuals bearing and keeping arms, during David's time in the wilderness avoiding capture by Saul, "David said to his men, 'Every man gird on his sword.' So every man girded on his sword, and David also girded on his sword" (1 Samuel 25:13). This also shows the Lord's approval for those in defense of evil to bear and keep arms.
Finally, consider Nehemiah and those who rebuilt the gates and walls of Jerusalem. They were both builders and defenders. Each man and each servant were armed with his own weapon.
"They which builded on the wall, and they that bare burdens, with those that laded, every one with one of his hands wrought in the work, and with the other hand held a weapon. For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me." (Nehemiah 4:17-18).
Sure, Jesus did not need to ever use a firearm. Even when Peter tried defending Jesus with a sword when the high priest and his servants came for Jesus, Peter cut off the ear of the servant Malchus. When that happen, Jesus told Peter to put his sword away (not to get rid of it for good). Why did Jesus prevent Peter from defending him? Obviously because "for this purpose" He has come... If Jesus were defended, then He wouldn't have been able to fulfill his purpose on earth.
Though considering biblical background and His historic views on the right to bear and keep arms, I'm sure if Jesus was didn't have the purpose of dieing for our sins, He would have let Peter defend him with deadly force.... If not even do it him self. We already know that the Lord has already 2,301,417 confirmed kills (not including the unspecified number people he had killed in floods, Sodom and Gomorrah, slaughters, etc.) and the estimate of His grand total kill count would be around 34,000,000 people.
Having said that, I'm pretty sure He wouldn't hesitate to use deadly force to protect Himself, His family, or even the righteous. But considering His purpose here on earth, it would have been obtrusively fatuous to defend Himself.
As you can see, His history shows that He is Pro-2nd Amendment and would justify the means of deadly force if necessary to protect the lives of the innocent.
"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy." ---- Deuteronomy 32:42
idea
Question Everything
Photoshopped by me
Pro-2nd Amendment?
Anti-2nd Amendment?
Can anyone shed some light in this area?
An LDS artist did the original of this painting you know
The Bible is pro:
right from the mouth of Jesus:
Right to bear arms: 21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: (New Testament | Luke11:21)
lifetime NRA member for sure!!!
idea
Question Everything
frubals to you Rolex :yes: I should have read the whole thread before posting my measily little verse. You know your scripts!
just realized you started the thread too - setting everyone up eh? In any event, it is good info for everyone to know. welcome to RF!
Dunemeister
Well-Known Member
The OP and its argument shows absolutely zero exegetical sensitivity.
That is an awful lot of sword work for a god of love...Are you sure you guys worship a god of peace and love?
rolexbenz190e
Member
An LDS artist did the original of this painting you know
The Bible is pro:
right from the mouth of Jesus:
Right to bear arms: 21 When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: (New Testament | Luke11:21)
lifetime NRA member for sure!!!
I'm LDS too haha.
And as for worshiping a God of love... There is a lot of violence in the bible, but that doesn't mean God doesn't love us. But without war there is no peace... Infact, the Lord got super ****** in Numbers 32 because two tribes Israel would NOT go to war with each other. God of love, yes for sure... But that doesn't mean he doesn't know how to use his judgement wisely.