Announcement - Special message from GB - prepare for civil unrest

Driven

Well-known member
For now, we've been given permission to use animals for food. That may or may not continue into the new world. There are already people in this world trying to push us away from meat, to a lab grown synthetic substitute. I shouldn't need to point out that the funding for this comes from the same people funding the experimental injections everyone is so keen to have these days, but I just did.
There have been ongoing debates as to nutrition deficit in strictly vegetarian diets as well as health concerns of those who consume too much meat. In a very short time, we will be lucky to have a scrap of bread let alone manna.
We've got a bigger dog in this fight than food choice.
Hi BB, What I consider is the fact that animals have very limited life anyway. So, while many believe we will become vegetarian and I have no problem with that because I love vegetables, I am just not so sure that we will not continue eating animals but just treat them more humanely and perhaps eat them less. Once they die they go back to the ground anyway, so I don’t see it as problematic that we would continue to eat them. I think of the 4 weather seasons that we have. Those seasons were not originally part of the earth’s weather system but they came about after the flood and yet we will always have them now. And, isn’t it wonderful to have diverse seasons? Just things that rattle around in my brain.
 

Driven

Well-known member
So I read this entire thread, and now I'm going to make my comments on it. This has been touched on to some degree, but I think the true context when it comes to the use and ownership of guns and what the bible says and more importantly the refinement that Christianity brought to the understanding can be separated into two very distinctive and to some degree opposite categories, with a third subcategory. The first 2 being self defense and revenge. IMO, every scripture used by Jesus, "do not return evil for evil" etc, is indeed the Christian philosophy but I would argue none of the scriptures Jesus used had to do with self defense with the possible exception of his arrest, which I'll get too.

Not that long ago there was an experience "video" from JW.org where one of the GB was describing what they went through during WWII, and he made the comment that JW's are not pacifists! What is a pacifists, Ghandi is the best modern example, someone who would not defend himself.

The WT has written articles, one recently that stated something to the effect that if someone broke into your house you had a right to defend yourself and even if that person died in the act of self defense you would not be blood guilty, if however you used a firearm to defend yourself then you would because the firearm is meant to "kill". It is a clear and complete contradiction and a stretch indeed.

I was raised "in the truth" and fortunately my parents believed in self defense and allowed me to defend myself while growing up in school. When i was just 5 years old much larger a neighbor would bully me. As I got older I learned how to fight. Once when I was in Middle School, (12 or 13) a kid started making fun of me for being one of JW's. He rode my bus and lived in my neighborhood. I got dropped off first on the ride home, and I was "righteously indignant" and I was able to cut through neighbor yards, and meet him at his bus stop as he was dropped off and beat him up. I went home and bragged about it. It was the only time I ever got in trouble for fighting, that is from my parents.

I of course never forgot that and the point was never clearer since that experience. That was a line we as Christians never cross, and I'll never forget it.

2.5 million Floridians have CCL, and the argument that somehow this would turn into a wild west situation bears out the falsity of that claim. These are all "law abiding" firearm owners, responsible people that as the saying goes, "it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

So, as far as any self defense situation, as far as I am concerned I am going to defend myself and family. I did not buy or own any guns until I had children. But as I have gotten older the issue has become more and more clear to me. The bible in no way, implies bloodguilt for any self defense situation where an attacker is killed. The only exception to that is "taking up arms" against the government or in a case where instead of relying on Jehovah's Army to act against Satan's government we say join a Militia. I think what Jesus meant where some Bible translations render that "live by the sword" would clearly indicate he was refer to Military service. They brought soldiers to arrest him, and clearly as someone pointed out, the Apostles were no match for those professional military men. Not to mention it was going directly against God's purpose.

Now this issue is clearly a conscience matter, and should be allowed as such and not dictated by the "Masters of are Faith" the GB. But when it comes to gun ownership and use, as @BillyRay pointed out, it is a tool but a dangerous one, and anyone who owns and uses firearms MUST treat every gun as if it is loaded always, unless as he pointed out, it's disassembled.

So in summery, the Bible allows for self defense, not revenge and the only exception to self defense is if you are attempting to defend yourself from unjust arrest by the government, or join the military or militia.


There I have spoken! LOL!
It’s a thoughtful reply from Nomex (who I have great respect for) and I agree that self-defense is a conscience matter. I think one error Dane500 made was to 1) imply that if we don’t have a weapon then we are not defending our family and I think there are other ways to defend oneself and one’s family and 2) we are blood-guilty if we don’t use extreme methods of self-defense. Really think about that. Jehovah allowed Jesus to die at the hands of criminals. Was he blood-guilty? No. The blood guilt is on the perpetrator of violence. That being said, I do think each family head is responsible to care for and possibly defend their family, but I don’t think that excluding weapons means that you are not defending your family. And I don’t think that reliance on Jehovah and prayer should in any way be downplayed.

I also appreciate how Nomex put issues into separate categories, such as defending from official government action versus a criminal. Those are also different issues. There are nuances to everything. It is not black and white and certainly I am appreciative of all comments and thoughts because it makes us each consider our own faith and beliefs.
 

TruthLover

Well-known member
I've always been family oriented had a strong desire to be a father as far back as I remember I bought my pistol a few years ago at the time it was simply because as someone who was molested as a child and my sister was for far longer it was important to protect my future children from any pedos, kidnappers or anyone that would otherwise severely harm, take or end them and I knew that the longer I waited the harder it would be to acquire one given every growing restrictions and regulations etc. I'm 27 now and haven't so much as had a first date with a girl yet but I feel the same. Ive mentioned the event several times but when the elders interrogated me a couple years ago because they had been snooping at my car and saw target paper from the range (a while before I even got my ccw permit or weapon) one thing that irritated me was the younger of the elders had two young daughters and he indicated he would not protect them if the need arose and had no sympathy as a father for how I felt/my position. Some father he was... all they cared about was unsuccessfully attempting to get me to acknowledge verbally the notion that watchtower articles + every word out of the GB's mouth is channeled verbatim from Jesus himself I'm not exaggerating in the slightest.

As for David he wrote in Psalms

144 Blessed be Jehovah my Rock, Who is teaching my hands for fighting, My fingers for warfare; 2 My loving-kindness and my stronghold, My secure height and my Provider of escape for me, My shield and the One in whom I have taken refuge, The One subduing peoples under me.


I don't think this topic is one that should dominate this forum so while I'm hardly one to dictate anything and wouldn't mind some more discussion I think in a day or two we should give the thread a break for a bit.
Thank you for sharing TGP.
I'm really upbuilt knowing you and ones on this forum are out there. You sound like you would make a good father. It's hard to understand how people can be so heartless.
It's easy for those elders to say that, but being faced with it they may think differently. Many just don't seem to deeply consider anything in order to feel deeply, as if they just go through life on auto pilot. Really sad.
 

Nomex

Well-known member
So, while many believe we will become vegetarian and I have no problem with that because I love vegetables, I am just not so sure that we will not continue eating animals but just treat them more humanely and perhaps eat them less.
Many of those same people think a Lion that Jehovah clearly created as a Predator, with literally "eat straw" In the "New System" and other that we will have no technology! Many absurdities among God's people...LOL.

I just think about the fact that in Genesis it says "let us create them in our image", what better way do we reflect the "image" of God and Jesus than our incredible ability even while imperfect to create things, in all the inventions.
It’s a thoughtful reply from Nomex (who I have great respect for)
That means a great deal to me, thank you so much.
I think one error Dane500 made was to 1) imply that if we don’t have a weapon then we are not defending our family and I think there are other ways to defend oneself and one’s family and 2) we are blood-guilty if we don’t use extreme methods of self-defense.
I understand where it looked that way, but I took as a defense of his own viewpoint, as I mentioned I have given this matter a great deal of thought, but I think many of us JW's have the tendency to still carry the strong influence of that the WT indoctrination with us, so I interpreted @Dane500 to just be laying down the ground work for why he strongly disagrees with the WT's contradictory stance on this subject. I do not think anyone should be pushing their point of view although a strong opinion on a matter can come across that way.


I think it really depends on each individuals disposition as far as their personality goes. I thought about this also since I made the comment earlier, I wrote in another thread about the GB that "what we need is God's Kingdom, not a vaccine." I think we could make a similar argument but with a slightly different thrust, self defense may have a place but what we really need is God's Kingdom. I do see this slightly differently though, because in a matter of self defense a person committing crimes chooses that dangerous life style, so it's kind of like reckless driving. Sooner or later their luck runs out. I'd rather not my luck run out the same time theirs does!

I do think that this tendency certainly contributes to the caviler attitude JW's have about taking the vaccine, the attitude that if they die they'll be resurrected because they obeyed Jehovah, but is that really respectful of the life Jehovah has given us and clearly they are not obeying God, the one who would be doing the resurrection. I know some of those same people who have said they would rather die then defend themselves and take another persons life, but what about your life Jehovah gave you? And what about in my case the gift of children Jehovah gave me. Is not their life worth more than someone trying to do us harm?

As I said, it is a complicated and nuanced issue indeed and not so black and white as WT paints this picture. Now again whether you have this disposition, and nothing is more serious than to contemplate taking someone else's life, even if self defense, but to dismiss someone's conscience because the GB forces a certain issue...well we all know where I stand on that! And most of you know how I feel about judging one another, that's the job of Jesus and the Sealed anointed.
 

BagdadBill

Well-known member
Hi BB, What I consider is the fact that animals have very limited life anyway. So, while many believe we will become vegetarian and I have no problem with that because I love vegetables, I am just not so sure that we will not continue eating animals but just treat them more humanely and perhaps eat them less. Once they die they go back to the ground anyway, so I don’t see it as problematic that we would continue to eat them. I think of the 4 weather seasons that we have. Those seasons were not originally part of the earth’s weather system but they came about after the flood and yet we will always have them now. And, isn’t it wonderful to have diverse seasons? Just things that rattle around in my brain.
I think you’re right and I’m OK with either way. I do think that if a person chooses vegetarian, they won’t have to worry near as much about dietary needs. Vegetarianism has changed a lot since the 60s. Manjula’s Kitchen website helped me move more toward less meat. I went veg only for about a year. I did alright with it but you need recipes and ideas so it doesn’t get too repetitive and boring. I can tell you I’m a better cook now though.
 

Ms_ladyblue

Well-known member
I think you’re right and I’m OK with either way. I do think that if a person chooses vegetarian, they won’t have to worry near as much about dietary needs. Vegetarianism has changed a lot since the 60s. Manjula’s Kitchen website helped me move more toward less meat. I went veg only for about a year. I did alright with it but you need recipes and ideas so it doesn’t get too repetitive and boring. I can tell you I’m a better cook now though.
@BagdadBill Good for you, that you’re a good cook. I’ve always thought men were just as good cooks as women. About being vegetarian, what about getting protein? I love veggies, especially my salads, and I usually add gr chicken to it but don’t you need protein from the meat?
 

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
Great point BTD. If we follow this admonition that is CLEARLY stated in the bible, would we then build an arsenal, put a lot of money, time and training into planning for a life and death struggle that may not happen, just in case?
Many see that as the solution. When ever I am confronted with self preservation, the scripture about even if we should hide in the deepest of caves, it won’t save us.
 

Dane500

Member
I thought I did that already but here is probably the most obvious to me,

You said: “‘Ecclesiastes 9:18) Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but just one sinner can destroy much good.’….

So Ecclesiastes 9:18 is in reality a recommendation not to solely rely on wisdom, but to also keep yourself armed just in case. You should always be prepared for a non-peaceable encounter. (Ro 12:18)”

My point is that your “interpretation” of Ecclesiastes is about as twisty as it gets. That scripture is not in any way a recommenation to keep yourself armed just in case and to always be prepared for a non-peaceable encounter. So rather than ask me to reply once again to your comment, you let me know what in my replying comment is incorrect and why.
Thank you very much Driven.

Yes, i saw your response, but you covered many points there and trying to respond to all of those at once is like trying to have multiple conversations at once, which is why i requested a single scripture. After that is discussed we can move on to the another if you wish. And having you pick he scripture i can't be accused of picking an easy one and avoiding a difficult one.

Now, as for Ecclesiastes 9:18, Solomon liked to make statements referring to opposing points, like two sides of a coin, with the word "but" in between. Here are a couple of examples:

(Ecclesiastes 4:11) if two lie down together, they will stay warm, but how can just one keep warm?

(Ecclesiastes 4:12) someone may overpower one alone, but two together can take a stand against him.

(Ecclesiastes 5:2) the true God is in the heavens but you are on the earth.

(more: Ec 2:11, 21, 26; 4:11, 12; 5:2; 7:4, 26, 29; 8:12, 13; 9:5; 10:2, 6, 12)


He did the same thing in Proverbs. Here is a small example:

(Pr 3:32-35)
For Jehovah detests a devious person,
But His close friendship is with the upright.
The curse of Jehovah is on the house of the wicked one,
But he blesses the home of the righteous.
For he mocks those who ridicule,
But he shows favor to the meek.
The wise will inherit honor,
But the stupid ones glorify dishonor.


Here is what is in the Ramble:

(Ecclesiastes 9:18) Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but just one sinner can destroy much good.

Note the use of the word "better". The original Hebrew word "towbah" is translated in most other locations as "good". Here the scripture could literally be translated: "Wisdom is (more good) than weapons of war", showing that both options are considered to be good since both can be used for the cause of good, one is just better, or more good.

The first half of that scripture is similar to this modern saying: "The pen is mightier than the sword." In both instances smarter is better, but regardless of how smart or wise you are, if you are being attacked with a 'weapon of war' written words will not save you and trying to talk your way out of the situation is useless if the attacker is intent on harming you. As the counter argument in the second half of that verse points out: "just one sinner can destroy much good." If we added a counter argument to the modern saying like that verse has it could go something like this:

The pen is mightier than the sword, but a well written letter won't protect you if you are being attacked.

So Ecclesiastes 9:18 is in reality a recommendation not to solely rely on wisdom, but to also keep yourself armed just in case. You should always be prepared for a non-peaceable encounter. (Ro 12:18)

(end quote)

In that verse Solomon is referring to both wisdom and weapons of war as good. It's like saying that Jehovah is better than Jesus. That does not mean that Jesus is not good, Jehovah is just better.

Remember, this is the old testament. Solomon is a king who has an army, and he is a powerful king because of that army. (1Ki 4:1-5) And Jehovah is called the God of armies. (Amos 4:13) Weapons of war are not thought of as evil. They are highly valued.

Using his style of comparing opposing points of view, he said wisdom is better than weapons, but ...

The opposite of wisdom being better than weapons of war would be weapons of war being better than wisdom, right?

So he adds the other side of the coin by giving an example of why wisdom is not always better than weapons of war: "just one sinner can destroy much good."

So if one sinner can destroy the good you have accomplished with your wisdom, how can you protect that good accomplishment from destruction? With weapons of war.

To me it seems clear what Solomon was saying. If you think he meant something else, please share with my your reasonings and scriptures.

(Ecclesiastes 7:5) Better to listen to a wise man’s rebuke than to listen to the song of fools.

I welcome your rebuke.
 

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
So I read this entire thread, and now I'm going to make my comments on it. This has been touched on to some degree, but I think the true context when it comes to the use and ownership of guns and what the bible says and more importantly the refinement that Christianity brought to the understanding can be separated into two very distinctive and to some degree opposite categories, with a third subcategory. The first 2 being self defense and revenge. IMO, every scripture used by Jesus, "do not return evil for evil" etc, is indeed the Christian philosophy but I would argue none of the scriptures Jesus used had to do with self defense with the possible exception of his arrest, which I'll get too.

Not that long ago there was an experience "video" from JW.org where one of the GB was describing what they went through during WWII, and he made the comment that JW's are not pacifists! What is a pacifists, Ghandi is the best modern example, someone who would not defend himself.

The WT has written articles, one recently that stated something to the effect that if someone broke into your house you had a right to defend yourself and even if that person died in the act of self defense you would not be blood guilty, if however you used a firearm to defend yourself then you would because the firearm is meant to "kill". It is a clear and complete contradiction and a stretch indeed.

I was raised "in the truth" and fortunately my parents believed in self defense and allowed me to defend myself while growing up in school. When i was just 5 years old much larger a neighbor would bully me. As I got older I learned how to fight. Once when I was in Middle School, (12 or 13) a kid started making fun of me for being one of JW's. He rode my bus and lived in my neighborhood. I got dropped off first on the ride home, and I was "righteously indignant" and I was able to cut through neighbor yards, and meet him at his bus stop as he was dropped off and beat him up. I went home and bragged about it. It was the only time I ever got in trouble for fighting, that is from my parents.

I of course never forgot that and the point was never clearer since that experience. That was a line we as Christians never cross, and I'll never forget it.

2.5 million Floridians have CCL, and the argument that somehow this would turn into a wild west situation bears out the falsity of that claim. These are all "law abiding" firearm owners, responsible people that as the saying goes, "it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

So, as far as any self defense situation, as far as I am concerned I am going to defend myself and family. I did not buy or own any guns until I had children. But as I have gotten older the issue has become more and more clear to me. The bible in no way, implies bloodguilt for any self defense situation where an attacker is killed. The only exception to that is "taking up arms" against the government or in a case where instead of relying on Jehovah's Army to act against Satan's government we say join a Militia. I think what Jesus meant where some Bible translations render that "live by the sword" would clearly indicate he was refer to Military service. They brought soldiers to arrest him, and clearly as someone pointed out, the Apostles were no match for those professional military men. Not to mention it was going directly against God's purpose.

Now this issue is clearly a conscience matter, and should be allowed as such and not dictated by the "Masters of are Faith" the GB. But when it comes to gun ownership and use, as @BillyRay pointed out, it is a tool but a dangerous one, and anyone who owns and uses firearms MUST treat every gun as if it is loaded always, unless as he pointed out, it's disassembled.

So in summery, the Bible allows for self defense, not revenge and the only exception to self defense is if you are attempting to defend yourself from unjust arrest by the government, or join the military or militia.


There I have spoken! LOL!
It’s a good argument. It reminds me of the seven cities of refuge for accidental killing, thus provision for such incidents have clearly been considered. Even so, there are few “Solomons”to dispense justice now on earth, especially in the States….not to mention Russia or China,..It will be such a relief to find real peace.
 

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
Thank you for sharing your experience. But just because the meat is consumed after the hunt, does that in and of itself justify the action? If one had the opportunity to grow your own food or drive to a store that sold fresh produce, then the act of hunting becomes recreation, and the sport is an option - the eating is out of entertainment and pleasure, not necessity. Wouldn't there be a difference in Jehovah's eyes that privileged us to care for the earth and his creation lovingly? I became a vegetarian late in life, and have since struggled with the simple disconnect of brothers and sisters (and the culture of the organization in general) that paints a beautiful image of paradise living in harmony with animals in the future, while at the same time unnecessarily bbq-ing animals after the meeting.
That is a good point you make, barbecuing animals after the meeting. I eat meat, but often wish I did not because I do not like anything killing at all. It is a hypocritical issue that I cannot really explain, other than to say that I do not see the killing, and that is not really a good enough excuse, but a system I grew up with. I am glad though that it pains my conscience, but that only makes the situation worse! I think Baghdad Bill hits it on the nail when he suggests that our scruples will diminish pro-rata with our hunger. I don’t think that can be refuted.
 

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
Great point about the Witnesses killed while in direct service of Jehovah.
I’m sure there were loud cries of Jehovahs name in the midst of their demise. So sad.
In a scenario where your life is threatened, one can kill with a closed fist a bat or even a push just as easily as with a gun.
I believe there’s a distinct difference between a righteous self defense situation involving a person and his loved ones and willful unjustified killing.
If faced with such danger I would cry out Jehovahs name loudly if my death seemed imminent and if Jehovahs angel doesn’t neutralize the threat, perhaps a Remington 870 express will.
I think Jehovah helps those who help themselves.
And on what may seem to be a morbid side note,
the wicked person you cause the demise of just may thank you after his resurrection having been spared the possibility of the second death outcome.
Hi Ken, love the analogy, kill a bandit so he can get a resurrection. “Die now! Before it’s too late!” How’s life treating you?
 

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
Interesting comment. Let me ask... Would you agree that each human has been instilled with a natural instinct to live - a will to survive? In fact, do you see this very same instinct in animals? I submit that the fear of death is a natural part of our make-up.

Where the potential for downfall exists is whether that fear of death will motivate us to compromise our faith. When someone puts a gun to your head and says: "renounce Jehovah or die". Then, your faith will have to be stronger than your will to live, yes?

Is trying to protect ourselves a compromise of our faith? Is doing nothing - and dying because you refused to defend yourself or your family a compromise of our faith? Is it a waste of the gift of life? Is that needless? Is that wasteful? Is it virtually suicidal? I really don't know. My questions are genuine and I'm searching for answers. I certainly need to do more research and pray about the matter.
You raise an interesting thought in weighing the morality of mortality on both sides of the equation. Jehovah allowed for accidental death through the cities of refuge, and also for corporal punishment, So too your point of responding to a gun pointed at one’s head, in that the question does not necessarily demand an answer, but a reaction. Of what that action may be, is debatable, but perhaps justifiable given what options are available. Few have the right to demand a declaration of faith from another, therefore, the status of the person asking should be a factor in our response.
 

kenmuldoon55

Well-known member
Hi Ken, love the analogy, kill a bandit so he can get a resurrection. “Die now! Before it’s too late!” How’s life treating you?
LOL love it 😂, or as John Wayne once said during a massive Indian attack “kill em all and let God sort em out”.
Doing good thanks man!
Wife’s in remission after 4 rounds of chemo so we’re pretty up beat right now.
How are your gas prices over there?
Where I live its over the five dollar mark.
You guys in the UK have always paid dearly for petrol so I don’t expect sympathy from you or Mick.
Seems the breaking point is getting near.
Something’s gotta give. Take care brother.
 
Last edited:

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
i hâve struggled with this myself. Is Jehovah an interventionist God? If so, where does his intervention meet and cross paths with the issue Satan raised before the entire assembly of angels?

@Driven i always though that Luke 22:36 was regarding protection against wild animals, not people. Anyway- I fall in line with your thinking on this issue.
I have never considered the issue of being interventionist in terms of Jehovah’s actions with man. Clearly He has intervened - throwing Adam out, saving cain from death by others, flood, plague, fire so powerful as to raise even the trace of a city, Christ and the sacrifice. So yes, maybe He is interventionist. The only scripture I can point to is that “to whom He chooses He gives it”. Whether He does that outside of His purpose, is illustrated in Job’s case where prior to Job’s downfall, Jehovah had laid a ‘fence’ around him and Satan challenged Jehovah to take it all away from Job, and see if he did not curse him to His face. Jesus also intervenes in that he says that he is with the anointed until they meet again in the heavens, and I have no doubt, believing in equality, that man can be blessed for his loyalty and faith, prior to the new system. Equally, that we can be let go!
 

BARNABY THE DOG.

Well-known member
@Dane500

Dane wrote:
“include personal protective equipment"
Christ also promoted having "personal protective equipment". And what was that equipment he ordered his followers to have? A sword. The best form of personal protection available at the time.

(Luke 22:36) let the one who has no sword sell his outer garment and buy one.

My response
: The first rule that I have in understanding scripture is that the bible harmonizes. If we find a particular scripture that doesn’t harmonize it is likely our understanding of it that isn’t correct. Jesus did say he protected his apostles but I think it’s obvious he didn’t use a weapon to protect them. The context of John 17:12 is a prayer by Jesus to Jehovah and he asks Jehovah to watch over them. He does not say that because he would be gone they needed to protect themselves. That is an extrapolation that I disagree with and I think the context of the prayer was their spirituality and their ability to carry on the preaching work that Jesus started and trained his disciples to do. This prayer at John 17 really has nothing to do with physically protecting themselves. Inserting that idea is taking verse 12 out of context. See John 18:6-9 which explains exactly how he protected them:

John 18:6-9: “However, when Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. So he asked them again: “Whom are you looking for?” They said: “Jesus the Naz·a·reneʹ.” Jesus answered: “I told you that I am he. So if you are looking for me, let these men go.” This was to fulfill what he had said: “Of those whom you have given me, I have not lost a single one”.

My response continued:
Regarding Luke 22:36, it is true that Jesus said to buy a sword. What I don’t think is clear is exactly what he meant from that if this verse is taken solely on its own. Many believe he told them to buy a sword so that he could then teach the lesson in Matthew 26:52. I’m not sure I buy that explanation either, but if we take into account all of Jesus CLEARLY stated teachings here are some important ones that also were part of the refinement to Christianity and different from what the Jewish leaders taught and the Law allowed.

Matthew 5:43-48: “You heard that it was said: ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ However, I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you, so that you may prove yourselves sons of your Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise on both the wicked and the good and makes it rain on both the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Are not also the tax collectors doing the same thing? And if you greet your brothers only, what extraordinary thing are you doing? Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? You must accordingly be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Dane
wrote: (Mark 14:48) But in response Jesus said to them: “Did you come out to arrest me with swords and clubs as against a robber?
Jesus did not condemn the mob for having swords and clubs, but for intending to use them inappropriately against an innocent person. And how are swords and clubs appropriately used? Jesus tells us: "against a robber."


My response: To say that Jesus was promoting or giving allowance for swords clubs as being an appropriate way to deal with robbers, is in my opinion a twisting of scripture. It does not say that. Many times Jesus referred to things that the people were familiar with. He was simply pointing out how ridiculous and outrageous it was to treat him like a robber because he always conducted himself appropriately and was never a threat to anyone. We need to look at the point of the statement.

Dane wrote: Nowhere does the Bible condemn protecting oneself and ones loved ones. In fact, it requires it.
(Deuteronomy 22:8) “If you build a new house you must also make a parapet for your roof so that you may not bring bloodguilt on your house because of someone falling from it."
That verse refers to bloodguilt resulting from a failure to provide protection.
(1 Timothy 5:8) Certainly if anyone does not provide for those who are his own, and especially for those who are members of his household, he has disowned the faith and is worse than a person without faith.
Safety, security, and protection are part of what the head of the house provides "for those who are his own." Otherwise he would be "worse than a person without faith."
If you choose NOT to provide protection for your household, and something happens to any of them, that is when you become bloodguilty, because you intentionally chose not to provide protection even though you are required to do so. (De 22:8; Lu 22:36) If we shirk this God-given duty we have "disowned the faith and [are] worse than a person without faith." (1 Tim 5:8) We will have earned that bloodguilt and may lose our place in paradise.


My response: The above statements imply that not buying a gun is to choose NOT to provide protection for your household and that statement is clearly hyperbole. There are many ways to protect the family. I don’t believe that a gun is required to do that. This is a false premise. And lets be quite clear. To kill a robber who merely wants to take your material goods does not align with the christian principles that Jesus taught. Material things are not worth anyone’s life. Now if you are saying that a criminal is attacking you or your family to do physical harm, then do as Jesus did on many occasions, flee. Remove yourself if you can and go to a place of safety. If you are unable then protect yourself in whatever way your christian conscience will allow and I have no doubt that we will all protect the children and vulnerable, even if it means risking and losing our own life. Jesus set the perfect example for that.

1 John 3:16: “By this we have come to know love, because that one surrendered his life for us, and we are under obligation to surrender our lives for our brothers.”

Dane
wrote: The GB often quote this scripture to back up their opinion on this topic:
(Ecclesiastes 9:18) Wisdom is better than weapons of war
But that is only a partial quote. The whole verse says this:
(Ecclesiastes 9:18) Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but just one sinner can destroy much good.
Note the use of the word "better". The original Hebrew word "towbah" is translated in most other locations as "good". Here the scripture could literally be translated: "Wisdom is (more good) than weapons of war", showing that both options are considered to be good since both can be used for the cause of good. One is just better, or more good.


My response: Again, Christianity is a refinement to our worship as opposed to the Law. Jesus instituted teachings as I have noted above that the Jews did not like and another principle like the one Jesus taught in Matthew 5:4348 (see above) is found at Romans 12:17-21: “Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men. If possible, as far as it depends on you, be peaceable with all men. Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: “‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay,’ says Jehovah.” But “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by doing this you will heap fiery coals on his head.” Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.’

My response continued: So Christianity teaches that we conquer evil with good not guns. That is difficult for many to accept and admittedly there may be times when we cannot get away without violence in some form. What I have an issue with is that by planning ahead for something that may never happen to us by buying a gun, becoming proficient in using it and buying ammo, just seems to me that perhaps we are not taking to heart some of the teachings of Christianity as set forth in God’s word. We all must make a conscience decision for ourselves and hopefully we pray for direction and read the bible for ourselves before making those kinds of decisions. Here are some scriptures that I value:

Romans 16:19: “Your obedience has come to the notice of all, and so I rejoice over you. But I want you to be wise as to what is good, but innocent as to what is evil.”

1 Thessalonians 5:15: “See that no one repays injury for injury to anyone, but always pursue what is good toward one another and to all others.”


1 Peter 3:9: “Do not pay back injury for injury or insult for insult. Instead, repay with a blessing, for you were called to this course, so that you might inherit a blessing.”
Very well argued. All of what you say is the scriptural reasoning in seeking peace first and in the thinking of spiritual amour, the sword of truth, so to speak.
 
Top