As Christians we are not suppose to debate the Bible.

As Christians we are not suppose to debate the Bible.

 

Coach, who's debating the Bible? The Ten Commandments clearly state "Thou shalt not kill". Now, people defending the 2nd ammendment contend it's our right to bear arms, and that includes to defend ourselves. However, the question is, doesn't the defense of the right to defend ourselves with arms fly in the face of "thou shalt not kill?"

 

Jesus Himself stated "The meek shall inherit the earth". He also stated "Turn the other cheek". No man-made law gives us the right to maim and harm each other. Nor does any of Jesus' teachings.

What smoke and mirrors, I am asking questions.

 

If you want to follow the teachings of Jesus, then you would not own a gun for self defense. You might own one to hunt for food, and you might own one sport shoot, but you would never use one to kill another human being, especially in defense of property. Jesus power did not come from a gun, or sword (actually told Peter to put it away, b/c it was not of his kingdom) Jesus power comes from the Cross, which is the power of forgiveness, even to those who were crucifying him - "Father forgive them."

 

Disagree. You can use a gun in self-defense without killing anyone. Just the presence of the gun could lead the potential thief to flee...

As Christians we are not suppose to debate the Bible.

 

Then why did God give me a brain with which to think? How am I to reconcile conflicting stories in the Bible?

 

This has always been a problem for me and why I shy away from so many churches.

Then why did God give me a brain with which to think? How am I to reconcile conflicting stories in the Bible?

 

This has always been a problem for me and why I shy away from so many churches.

 

Where you been True Blue?

 

BTW, who says we are not supposed to debate the Bible? If I don't use discernment then do I simply listen to Fred Phelps and say, well he said the Bible said so, so I guess God hates . . .

 

Or do I listen to Joel Osteen and what he says about the Bible?

 

Or do I listen to my pastor, whose writings (with which I agree) got my church disassociated from our local Baptist Association?

 

Which one???

Matthew 24:6 Jesus tells his disciples "You will hear of wars, but see to it that you not alarmed. Such things must happened, but the end is still to come."

 

We have a right /duty to protect our selves, loved ones and even strangers.

 

Peter, Paul, Stephen, did this protection with their Speeches. David, Sampson, and God's chosen people fought to the death.

Matthew 24:6 Jesus tells his disciples "You will hear of wars, but see to it that you not alarmed. Such things must happened, but the end is still to come."

 

We have a right /duty to protect our selves, loved ones and even strangers.

 

That's quite a stretch.

As Christians we are not suppose to debate the Bible.

 

I've never heard that one before Coach.

 

If we did not debate and discuss various views of and about scripture then there would have been no Reformation nor would there have been many of the great Christian tenents of faith.

 

It is a healthy discourse on the Scripture that allows the Bible to have a deeper hold on our souls and our lives.

As Christians we are not suppose to debate the Bible.

As a man created in God's image he has given me the ablility to reason. Why shouldn't I use my God given talent of reason to debate/discuss/understand the Bible.

Matthew 24:6 Jesus tells his disciples "You will hear of wars, but see to it that you not alarmed. Such things must happened, but the end is still to come."

 

We have a right /duty to protect our selves, loved ones and even strangers.

 

Peter, Paul, Stephen, did this protection with their Speeches. David, Sampson, and God's chosen people fought to the death.

 

 

You have really misconstrued and (IMHO) done harm to the scriptures on this one by using Matthew 24:6 as some form of prooftext for your view. To take this one verse out of that text and use it as a prop to perform both self-defense and war is not the intent of that passage at all. In fact I've seen some who use an extreme on that verse to justify that we should just go ahead and go to war when we need or want to because afterall Jesus said there would be wars and rumors of wars.

 

Your argument about self-defense is not what was being argued. The argument was about preservation of property, not person. While self-defense of people is very possible both ethically and scripturally, these are not the issues I saw on the table in this thread.

 

I don't understand your last statement. How did Peter, Paul and Stephen protect people with their Speeches???

 

David didn't fight to the death. In fact, while a pretty good General, most of his life was spent as the king behind the lines ordering a Uriah to the front. Israel wasn't a very militaristic group (other than the conquest years under Joshua and/or the Davidic years).

 

Can you give me a glimpse into this post it was very :confused: to me.

Jesus submitted to his crucifiers, forgave them, told his followers to turn the other cheeck, told Peter to put his sword way b/c "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Jesus submitted to his crucifiers, forgave them, told his followers to turn the other cheeck, told Peter to put his sword way b/c "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

 

So where did he ever say bearing arms was wrong?

So where did he ever say bearing arms was wrong?

 

I'm not sure there is a clear cut answer but I think Ace pointed to his interpretation in Matthew 26:52

 

Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

You have really misconstrued and (IMHO) done harm to the scriptures on this one by using Matthew 24:6 as some form of prooftext for your view. To take this one verse out of that text and use it as a prop to perform both self-defense and war is not the intent of that passage at all. In fact I've seen some who use an extreme on that verse to justify that we should just go ahead and go to war when we need or want to because afterall Jesus said there would be wars and rumors of wars.

 

Your argument about self-defense is not what was being argued. The argument was about preservation of property, not person. While self-defense of people is very possible both ethically and scripturally, these are not the issues I saw on the table in this thread.

 

I don't understand your last statement. How did Peter, Paul and Stephen protect people with their Speeches???

 

David didn't fight to the death. In fact, while a pretty good General, most of his life was spent as the king behind the lines ordering a Uriah to the front. Israel wasn't a very militaristic group (other than the conquest years under Joshua and/or the Davidic years).

 

Can you give me a glimpse into this post it was very :confused: to me.

 

 

Well there is that one story about Goliath...

As Christians we are not suppose to debate the Bible.

 

Got a scripture to back this statement?

 

Debate may be the catch word, but I have always believed in the idea of "Priesthood of the Believer" which allows each of us to study scriptures and prayerfully consider how God is speaking to us individually.