• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

How to be Christlike: Why I'm a Violent, Gun Toting Prepper

Gun laws in Great Britain
The guiding laws for firearms in Scotland are the Firearms (Scotland) Rules 1989 and the Firearms Act (1968). All handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles are prohibited. A few pistols are licensed on a Firearm Certificate for exactly the same reasons as the rest of Great Britain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42749089

The fallen nature of man is violent.


Proverbs 25:26

Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.

The Matthew scripture is about forgiveness and not looking for revenge. It is not about being a door mat.

1 Timothy 5:8

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Are we not suppose to provide our house hold and family with security?

Luke 22:36-38

36 Then He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money pouch must carry it as well as a travel bag. And whoever does not own a sword must sell his cloak and buy one.

37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And he was counted with the lawless.’ For what is written about Me is being fulfilled.”

38 But they said, “Master, look here! Two swords!”

And He said to them, “It is enough.”

He obviously wasn't talking about a bible. He was telling the disciples to be prepared to defend themselves but not to go to war.

Exodus 22:2-3

If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Shows the difference between protection of ones property (self-defense) and revenge.

Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of G-d, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

There is a big difference between self defense and revenge.

1 Samuel 13:19-20

Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, “Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears.” But every one of the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his sickle.

I will defend my family, my neighbors, my community, my faith. I will never allow anyone to disarm me and make my family, my neighbors, or my community slaves. Nor will I let anyone deprive me of my faith.
 
Kevin said:
Gun laws in Great Britain
The guiding laws for firearms in Scotland are the Firearms (Scotland) Rules 1989 and the Firearms Act (1968). All handguns, semi-automatic and pump-action non-rim-fire rifles are prohibited. A few pistols are licensed on a Firearm Certificate for exactly the same reasons as the rest of Great Britain.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-42749089

The fallen nature of man is violent.


Proverbs 25:26

Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked.

The Matthew scripture is about forgiveness and not looking for revenge. It is not about being a door mat.

1 Timothy 5:8

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Are we not suppose to provide our house hold and family with security?

Luke 22:36-38

36 Then He said to them, “But now, whoever has a money pouch must carry it as well as a travel bag. And whoever does not own a sword must sell his cloak and buy one.

37 For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And he was counted with the lawless.’ For what is written about Me is being fulfilled.”

38 But they said, “Master, look here! Two swords!”

And He said to them, “It is enough.”

He obviously wasn't talking about a bible. He was telling the disciples to be prepared to defend themselves but not to go to war.

Exodus 22:2-3

If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him, but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him. He shall surely pay. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.

Shows the difference between protection of ones property (self-defense) and revenge.

Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of G-d, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

There is a big difference between self defense and revenge.

1 Samuel 13:19-20

Now there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, “Lest the Hebrews make themselves swords or spears.” But every one of the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen his plowshare, his mattock, his axe, or his sickle.

I will defend my family, my neighbors, my community, my faith. I will never allow anyone to disarm me and make my family, my neighbors, or my community slaves. Nor will I let anyone deprive me of my faith.
Click to expand...

And, I would think, you have every right to do so under your faith and provisions God has provided you.
 
FollowingHim said:
The early church fathers consistently opposed violence, and many forbade Christians from joining the military, or forbade churches from baptising soldiers until they left the military.
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/doctrine/ecvowams.htm

That should be enough reason for us to stop and think very carefully about this issue ourselves also.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely not reason for us to think carefully about this. The early church fathers believed all kinds of heresies. I can show you scripture that shows Jesus REALLY thought highly of warfighters.
 
Hey guys, sorry I ghosted. I haven't been on BF for a few days. So I think we can safely say that Christians are at the VERY least allowed to have weapons and possibly even commanded to have them. I don't think I see any opposition to that statement. Any alternative interpretations to Jesus' Words at the Last Supper would have to leap rather awkwardly over the most obvious interpretation that seems to be given as a command. I am sure there are deep spiritual and allegorical truths here as well but the you can't really argue that they were couched in an instruction to buy a sword. There may be other interpretation but someone could literally go buy a sword and say Christ instructed them too and you couldn't deny it. And this was the last instruction of Christ's teaching ministry. The last thing He told the disciples before everything went off the rails was to buy a sword. And then when a couple them popped up with swords He DID NOT correct them. He did not say, "No you knuckleheads! That's not what I meant!" He had a clear chance to articulate that He wasn't talking about literal weapons and He did not. Weapons carry by Christians is definitely allowed and possibly required.

So that then begs the question, why? If we're to turn the other cheek then why are we to carry offensive weapons? If Jesus was a nonviolent hippy who wanted us to leave the opposition of evil to God and God alone, then why do we need swords? Is it possible that there is something about this topic that we don't understand? Is there an example of some other universally known spiritual "truth" that the church has gotten wrong for centuries?

I am of course being a little sarcastic. Of course we know that the church can get things wrong for millenia and I suggest that this is another area where it has. I should also admit that I started this thread a little bit as a sounding board on the whole topic to save me some research and both @rejoicinghandmaid and @Kevin have turned up some good stuff.

And as always when we want to get at the heart of what God wants from us we have to start in the Old Testament. When He brought the children of Israel in to the Promised Land He set them up with out any police force, no military, no legislature and not even an executive power. He put a bunch of heavily armed men in a rural setting with His Law and nothing else. We all know that it didn't go well but has any human attempt at self governance ever gone well? The English have done better than anyone else but even they haven't been without their failures.

That's commentary though. Where we are at the moment is this discussion is that we have established, rather quickly and painlessly as far as I can tell, that weapons are something that Christians are supposed to have and even to carry. The new question is why, and does that conflict with the well know calls to non-violence that Christ was supposed to have issued?
 
Where we are at the moment is this discussion is that we have established, rather quickly and painlessly as far as I can tell,

I don't think so. But, what I think doesn't really matter. In the end the truth will be known.

I will tell you this. In my profession I regularly transport hundreds of passengers, a good portion of them drunk, and a portion of them aggressively drunk, and very small percent down right evil. When I leave the dock there is no one to help me. The safety of the other passengers, the crew, the vessel is my responsability. I leave the police with guns on shore. I do this on a regular basis. I have had to use my faith many times and the one thing i know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that God has been there many many times. I trust him with my life, wth my families life, my passengers and crews life, and my vessel. I don't need to stand behind a gun. That's what I know and have experienced for many many years. I don't know about the experience of others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cap said:
Where we are at the moment is this discussion is that we have established, rather quickly and painlessly as far as I can tell,

I don't think so. But, what I think doesn't really matter. In the end the truth will be known.

I will tell you this. In my profession I regularly transport hundreds of passengers, a good portion of them drunk, and a portion of them aggressively drunk, and very small percent down right evil. When I leave the dock there is no one to help me. The safety of the other passengers, the crew, the vessel is my responsability. I leave the police with guns on shore. I do this on a regular basis. I have had to use my faith many times and the one thing i know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that God has been there many many times. I trust him with my life, wth my families life, my passengers and crews life, and my vessel. I don't need to stand behind a gun. That's what I know and have experienced for many many years. I don't know about the experience of others.
Click to expand...
Ok, let's fall back then and re-examine the line of thought. Nothing else makes sense from this point on if we don't have the starting point set.
We examined two different accounts of the Last Supper that quote Jesus as telling His disciples to acquire swords and when two of the disciples then showed that they had swords Jesus said something that at the moment the disciples would have taken as approval for the sword carriers.
From this it can be very clearly understood that Jesus at the bare minimum did not disapprove of the disciples, including Peter, carrying weapons. Yes, you can come up with "deeper" meanings but they have to come through the literal meaning which is that Jesus buy a sword and those people around Him clearly took it to be a literal instruction.
 
ZecAustin said:
He put a bunch of heavily armed men in a rural setting with His Law and nothing else. We all know that it didn't go well but has any human attempt at self governance ever gone well?
Click to expand...
Actually, I think that it started out pretty well, it just deteriorated like everything does.
Judges 17:6 (KJV)
In those days [there was] no king in Israel, [but] every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.

I think that we misunderstand this verse, that it could be written: “and every man knew the law and followed it to the best of his understanding”.
Maybe a deep look at the Hebrew will call bullsnot on my belief, but that is where I go in the meantime.

I love the concept that a heavily armed society could walk in righteousness towards one another.
 
Last edited:
@Cap, I hear you, but I think that you take it too far. You may have seen the list of how the apostles died, if any of them died of old age it was an exception.
Most of them were killed, and many in horrific ways, for preaching the gospel.

Is the middle of the Righteous Road where we carry a sword, but are fully dependent on YHWH for our protection? Where we only pull it out when we have His permission and leading?

One thought: If word had spread that the disciples were a sword-free-zone, would that have made them a target?
Maybe just carrying and never pulling it out was the balance?
 
steve said:
Maybe just carrying and never pulling it out was the balance?
Click to expand...
As long as we are not looking for anything more spiritual than whether or not to carry and whether or not to pull it, this is my understanding exactly.

"Put up your sword into its place" (It is assumed that the sword has its place and it is at your side)

for those that take up the sword will perish with the sword (and there the sword shall remain, on the mortal warning of Jesus)

For me this has nothing whatever to do with warfighters (soldiers). The bible is clear, no man goes to war at his own expense. If you sell your cloak for a sword, it is not for war. Warfighters go to war armed and provided for by those who sent them. John the Baptist, in whom was the Holy Ghost from the womb, spoke to the soldiers saying not to extort money and to be satisfied with their pay. A soldier who does not kill is a sad contradiction. Soldiers are there to project force at the behest of their nation during war, and wars will continue until the end. There is no changing that, and we are not called to change that.
 
Okay, so we have weapons carry as at bare minimum accepted by Christ. Now we have to figure out why right after He didn't condemn weapons carry He made the statement about dying by the sword. It seems contradictory. Why even have a sword? Why seem to encourage sword use on one hand and then just a few hours later seem to condemn any use thereof?
 
John 18

18 When Yeshua had said these things, He went out with His disciples across the Kidron Valley, where there was a garden, which He and His disciples entered.

2 Now Judah, who was betraying Him, also knew the place, because Yeshua had often met there with His disciples.

3 So Judah, having taken a band of soldiers and some officers from the ruling kohanim and Pharisees, comes there with lanterns, torches, and weapons.

4 Then Yeshua, knowing all the things coming upon Him, went forward. He said to them, “Who are you looking for?”

5 “Yeshua ha-Natzrati,” they answered Him.

Yeshua tells them, “I am.” Now Judah, the one betraying Him, was also standing with them.

6 So when Yeshua said to them, “I am,” they drew back and fell to the ground.

7 So again He asked them, “Who are you looking for?”

And they said, “Yeshua ha-Natzrati.”

8 Yeshua answered, “I told you, I am! If you’re looking for Me, let these men go their way.”

9 This was so the word would be fulfilled that He spoke: “I did not lose one of those You have given Me.”

10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the servant of the kohen gadol, and cut off his right ear. Now the servant’s name was Malchus.

11 So Yeshua said to Peter, “Put the sword into the sheath! The cup the Father has given Me—shall I never drink it?”

Matthew 26:52-54

52 Then Yeshua said to him, “Put your sword back in its place! For all who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

(Telling Peter that if he fights this battle he will die)

53 Or do you suppose that I cannot call on My Father, and at once He will place at My side twelve legions of angels?

54 How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?”

Luke 22:47-52

47 While Yeshua was speaking, suddenly a crowd came, and the one called Judah, one of the Twelve, approached Yeshua to kiss Him.

48 But Yeshua said to him, “Judah, with a kiss you betray the Son of Man?”

49 When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, “Master, shall we strike with the sword?”

50 And one of them struck the servant of the kohen gadol and cut off his right ear.

51 But Yeshua answered and said, “Stop this now!” And He touched the man’s ear and healed him.

52 Then Yeshua said to the ruling kohanim, officers of the Temple guard, and the elders who had come against Him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a revolutionary?

(Challenged the Pharisees for use of force in secret)

Mark 14:43-49

43 Right away, while Yeshua was still speaking, Judah comes up, one of the Twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, from the ruling kohanim, Torah scholars, and elders.

44 Now His betrayer had given them a signal, saying, “The One I kiss, He’s the One! Seize Him and lead Him away under guard.”

45 As soon as Judah came, he drew near to Yeshua and said, “Rabbi!” and kissed Him.

46 Then they threw their hands on Yeshua and seized Him.

47 But one of the bystanders, drawing his sword, struck the servant of the kohen gadol and cut off his ear.

48 Yeshua said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs, to capture Me as you would against a revolutionary?

49 Every day I was with you in the Temple teaching, and you didn’t seize Me. But this is so that the Scriptures would be fulfilled.

In context Yeshua wasn't chastising the use of the sword but the fact that Peter was interfering in what He had to do fullfill scripture and the Pharisee for using the threat of violence for a nefarious purpose.

Psalm 82:4

Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.

Proverbs 24:11

Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.

Ezekiel 33:6
"... 6 'But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman's hand.'


 
steve said:
@Cap, I hear you, but I think that you take it too far. You may have seen the list of how the apostles died, if any of them died of old age it was an exception.
Most of them were killed, and many in horrific ways, for preaching the gospel.

Is the middle of the Righteous Road where we carry a sword, but are fully dependent on YHWH for our protection? Where we only pull it out when we have His permission and leading?

One thought: If word had spread that the disciples were a sword-free-zone, would that have made them a target?
Maybe just carrying and never pulling it out was the balance?
Click to expand...

@steve, I respect your view and always have, if for any other reason, I respect my elders. Not that we are that far apart, but that I understand that each year spent searching for God in ones life brings a pearl of great price in their lives and I appreciate the pearls in others lives as I do my own.

It is my understanding that every apostle died a terrible death, except John, who lived to write the book of Revelations, and possibly beyond. They each died in the manner that their savior died, in submission to the wicked. There was no fight, their life was meant to be a sacrifice and a witness for Christ. If the apostles took away from the 'commandment' to carry a sword, why didn't they use it? None of the martyrs that followed them as the years went by ever did. But yet there is this 'commandment' to carry a sword. Did they die for nothing? Could they have saved themselves? Even Paul never fought back, he just submitted to being lead to his death. He use to carry a sword, but he stopped. Why?

ZecAustin said:
Ok, let's fall back then and re-examine the line of thought. Nothing else makes sense from this point on if we don't have the starting point set.
We examined two different accounts of the Last Supper that quote Jesus as telling His disciples to acquire swords and when two of the disciples then showed that they had swords Jesus said something that at the moment the disciples would have taken as approval for the sword carriers.
From this it can be very clearly understood that Jesus at the bare minimum did not disapprove of the disciples, including Peter, carrying weapons. Yes, you can come up with "deeper" meanings but they have to come through the literal meaning which is that Jesus buy a sword and those people around Him clearly took it to be a literal instruction.
Click to expand...

I do believe that there is a difference between warfare protection and individual (family) protection. How someone determines the level of individual (family) protection is up to them and their relationship to God. I do not and never have stated otherwise. I feel just as safe in a room filled with men who have chosen to include weapons for protection with the understanding of God as their headship for defensive purposes, NEVER offensive. As, I also feel safe in a room full of men who have chosen faith over weapons for protection. Not the milk toast faith of weakness, but the one of strength that comes from the Spirit inside them that is lead by God. Neither place is an easy place, and I respect both.

If someone gets out of their interpretation of God's Word that Christ commands, or at least accepts carrying a sword, I have no issue with that as long as it is for protection not advancement. I don't see the verses that way. I see the Son of God trying to say to them, the apostles, that Satan is getting ready to sift them. And that he was using the idea of provisions by faith to help them. But, He also said that Peter was going to fail. Therefore their faith is going to fail them, and so it's ok in their lack of faith to carry a weapon, He understands. We are all weak in faith. We all need 'things' to help us, doctors is another. Death is scary, to us.

The way that the Old Testament dealt with things of war is different than the way the New Testament deals with it. Each one of the Apostles did carry a sword, the Word of God, and their testimony. And they used it regularly. We are to do the same, as the faith we have leads us. No one is wrong in their journey to find God in this manner, He provides what we each need.

But here is a thought, if the verses in question speak of a command to carry a sword, how many swords? What kind of sword? Pistol, shotgun, rifle, semi automatic, machine gun, actual sword (that is the commandment), light saber? Didn't He say just one? If someone has more than one is that going over the commandment? What about martial arts, one doesn't need a sword but can do just as much damage if done right. Not judging, I'm asking about others thoughts?

Something else,

Matthew 26:27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

If the same criteria to determine that carrying a sword is a commandment, then couldn't it be said that this a commandment for us all to drink alcohol? I know, silly but it is something to think about.

Please disregard anything I have said here if you find nothing in it. I in no way am trying to convince someone differently than the way they think. This is a forum for talking, that's all I am trying to do, just talk.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZecAustin said:
So are we ready to deal with Matthew 11:12 then?
Click to expand...

Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. Using violence to preach the gospel. More in the sense that the current religious system was using force against the Kingdom of Heaven which is now coming against John the Baptist, and soon the Savior Himself, and those who follow Him.

But I guess the preceding thought would be, are we to fight against this violence and be justified in doing so?

Just my thoughts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cap said:
Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. Using violence to preach the gospel. More in the sense that the current religious system was using force against the Kingdom of Heaven which is now coming against John the Baptist, and soon the Savior Himself, and those who follow Him.

But I guess the preceding thought would be, are we to fight against this violence and be justified in doing so?

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the verse is saying that God's kingdom is allowing forcefulness, at the bare minimum for the time period referenced.
 
ZecAustin said:
My understanding is that the verse is saying that God's kingdom is allowing forcefulness, at the bare minimum for the time period referenced.
Click to expand...

I know there is controversy in regards to the meaning of the verse in question so you could be right, but the thing I am thinking about is, if that's true then wouldn't you have to say that God's kingdom is losing, sense everyone seems to be dieing?
 
Slumberfreeze said:
If that is so, then why did nobody rescue John? Why did he have to be executed? I know of no prophecies about John or Elijah dying that needed to be fulfilled.
Click to expand...
That is how the verse is written. It's not saying that the Kingdom of God is being subjected to violence. It says that the Kingdome of God is allowing violence, although my understanding is that forcefulness is a better modern equivalent.

I'm not sure why no one rescued John the Baptist or even if that would have been an option under God's plan. But it is a verse we have to put in to the mix here. Maybe it's not one to deal with now though. I was trying to focus on things Jesus was directly involved in since He is portrayed as such a free love hippy most of the time and because no one can really argue with Him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top