Luke 11:21 - Theologically sound RKBA justification?


PDA






campergeek
July 28, 2005, 01:29 AM
Like some others here, I particularly like Luke 11:21, on its face, as scriptural justification for arming oneself for defense. After all, it's hard to argue when Jesus says:

"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe." (NIV)

However, in context, this passage is part of Jesus' response when challenged about under what authority he casts out demons. The parable of which this is part compares Satan (the "strong man" in this verse) to Christ "someone stronger" in the next: "But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils."

So my questions is to the Biblical scholars in the group: Is the usage of this verse applied to our cause weakened by the fact that the "strong man, fully armed" with whom we relate in an RKBA sense is a reference to the devil when taken in context? That is to say - if this verse were to be used in a discussion with other Christians, could they come back to say that obviously Christ isn't arguing for the adversary, but rather against the "strong man" as being overtaken by someone stronger - in this case, Christ.

Or, do you stand on the position that, regardless of the target of the "strong man" in this case, the factual manner in which Jesus makes the statement establishes it as a truth which could be equally applicable to any good or evil "strong man"?

Just curious of some other thoughts & interpretations.

If you enjoyed reading about "Luke 11:21 - Theologically sound RKBA justification?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Uncle Alvah
July 28, 2005, 01:53 AM
I'll try this one out.
To me, the Bible is a living, dynamic, enduring document, able to transcend both space and time. It will last for all time. It is not a Rubicks cube, something to be "figured out" or "solved". The verse you quote, placed in a deep historical perspective, can well be interperted as you say. However, because of the ageless truths put forth in the Bible, a modern interpertation is viable as well. The messages and directives of the Bible, are not frozen in time.
Much the same as the interpetation of "If a man has no sword...." can have a different, yet still accurate interpetation of the verse, when juxtaposed against the background of the times we live in, as opposed to the "way things were then".
Any of that make sense to anyone?

Lone_Gunman
July 28, 2005, 02:02 AM
Modern "interpretations" of the Bible are like modern interpretations of the Constitution...

The interpretter twists the words around to justify whatever point he is trying to make.

Many people have tried to re-invent the Bible to justify whatever current social behaviour they wish to engage in.

S_O_Laban
July 28, 2005, 02:26 AM
Campergeek: I don't consider myself a biblical scholar, but questions about self defence certainly don't hinge one way or the other over a single passage of scripture.

I belive the passage stands on it's own, being both common sense and "The truth." The potential reference to the Devil does not IMO weaken the soundness of the statement.

If you had to pick only one passage to base your argument on... I wouldn't pick this particular one though.... :D

Twycross
July 28, 2005, 03:29 AM
I do not believe that this passage has much of anything to do with self defence, as 1) SD has absolutely nothing to do with the context surrounding the verse, and 2) even if it did, Jesus does not comment on the morality of being armed. He simply states that the man was armed, to aid the message he was trying to communicate through the parable. In the event that I went to the Bible to argue for SD, it would be from a passage which does have to do with it, probably from the Old Covanent Law (which does grant that right).

Coronach
July 28, 2005, 03:45 AM
From the Forum Rules:We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".Keep this on the High Road, gentlemen. No, no one has said a single thing that gives me pause thus far, but as the quote says, we've had prior experience with these threads. Discussing the origins of RKBA in judeo-christian theology, A-OK. Turning this into a debate on the merits of a religion or the proper way to interpret religious text will cause us to close it.

Thank you,
Coronach

abaddon
July 28, 2005, 04:09 AM
I really don't think you can apply this verse to self-defense. My main reason for saying this is that Jesus didn't apply it to self-defense - he applied it to the accusation of him being a demon. All it does is assume that a strong man will try to stop a thief from stealing from him. It doesn't say whether or not the strong man is justified in preventing this.

You correctly applied the story to the context of the original accusation. By taking this verse out of that context to fit your beliefs I think you are doing the Bible a disservice. Even if your beliefs are right about the validity of self-defense (which I believe they are) you are using the Bible for your own purposes rather than taking the information as it is presented. If Jesus wanted to explain the validity of self-defense he would have used this parable (or another parable) in that context.

I think that God leaves a lot of these questions open for a reason - he is interested in saving both pacifists and gun-nuts. He is more interested in the inner nature of a man's soul than he is in the inconsequential beliefs that person has. The only truly consequential beliefs are the ones that relate to the inner nature of a man's soul.

c_yeager
July 28, 2005, 04:29 AM
Modern "interpretations" of the Bible are like modern interpretations of the Constitution...

The interpretter twists the words around to justify whatever point he is trying to make.

I would say the same, only without the "modern" part. ALL interpretations of the bible have a bias, just because it is old doesnt mean it isnt there. However, if one doesnt read Hebrew and Aramaic then they are pretty much resigned to accepting this bias.

Taurus 66
July 28, 2005, 04:41 AM
Or, do you stand on the position that, regardless of the target of the "strong man" in this case, the factual manner in which Jesus makes the statement establishes it as a truth which could be equally applicable to any good or evil "strong man"?

Well did Jesus actually make this statement or did Luke? Was Jesus himself armed? Had Jesus made this statement, would he have "practiced what he preached" and killed an intruder if so be it?

bogie
July 28, 2005, 09:36 AM
Did Jesus or Luke make that statement?

Sheesh. Some translator, working for some king, whipped that one out.

Double Naught Spy
July 28, 2005, 10:14 AM
Luke 11:21 is not a justification of RKBA. It is just an observation on keeping possessions safe.

It is about as much justification for RKBA as it is a justification for the use of lethal force in defense of property. Note that the passage refers to possessions and not family or loved ones.

TonyB
July 28, 2005, 10:19 AM
I'm not sure if Jesus himself was armed..but his "boys" were..the the garden Peter cut off that soldier's ear..so he was armed......I believe God gave most of us common sense....that tells me to be armed..... :cool:

Hawkmoon
July 28, 2005, 12:06 PM
Even though in another passage Jesus advised the twelve to sell their cloaks to buy a sword, I believe he admonished Peter for using his sword against the soldier, so taken in full context this probably isn't a good argument for the RKBA, either.

This isn't from the Bible. Dunno if you're Roman Catholic (I am not), but the following quote from the recently-departed Pope seems interesting, considering the source:

"Legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone
responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the
State"--Pope John Paul II, 1995

cordex
July 28, 2005, 12:22 PM
Even though in another passage Jesus advised the twelve to sell their cloaks to buy a sword, I believe he admonished Peter for using his sword against to soldier, so taken in full context this probably isn't a good argument for the RKBA, either.
But look at the context of that admonishment.
John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
(emphasis mine)
Christ didn't tell Peter to throw the sword away. Nor did he tell him to never use a sword in defense. Rather, he said (paraphrasing) "This is something I must do. Now is not the time to defend me. Now put that sword back on your hip."

campergeek
July 28, 2005, 01:05 PM
Thanks for the replies so far, and thanks for keeping this on the High Road. While I posted in the hopes of hearing some different opinions on the use of this verse, I certainly don't intend to start a war of interpretation.

To clarify the discussion, like others I don't think this verse is applicable to self defense in all cases. However, if a bible-believer is asked by another believer why they keep or carry guns in their home, then Luke 11:21, on its face, is a pretty clear endorsement. My main concern was whether or not that argument could be shot full of holes when the verse is put into context.

Personally, I don't think there is any one, or any collection of verses on which to base an argument. Like others whom have posted, I don't think we can (well, we can, but not appropriately) use the Bible to prove our own points. Rather, we should mold our perspectives to fall in line with the Bible. By researching scripture we can find whether our stance is in agreement with, or contrary to Biblical teaching. That's kind of why I started this thread.

S O Laban, along these lines you said:

If you had to pick only one passage to base your argument on... I wouldn't pick this particular one though....

Perhaps you would add something like:

"Behold, the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes"? ;)

Dave R
July 28, 2005, 01:13 PM
Legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State"--Pope John Paul II, 1995 That's as good a quote as I have heard on that subject. Thanks for sharing that, Hawkmoon.

Lennyjoe
July 28, 2005, 01:24 PM
I'm assuming since I have that quote below that I must answer the question at hand.

I have a right to protect my family, my home and my possessions. The bible verse, though not specifically related to the 2nd Amendment, pretty much sums up what I believe is true. If you, a father, remains strong in your house and have the means to protect it (arms) then your family and posessions will be safe. If you become weak then your family will be vulnerable to today's influences and you can loose your family and that which you posess.

Material posessions mean little to me, but family is above everything else. So maybe the word posessions is not the appropriate word and family should be but our Lord didn't say it that way.

On that note, lets move on and get back to what really matters. Our rights that we are loosing everyday and how to stop the madness.

alpineman
July 28, 2005, 01:24 PM
On another discussion board, I use Luke 22:36 as my signature line: "But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip, and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

An RKBA argument if I've ever heard one. In Luke, that's just before Jesus is arrested. To me, that says (very loosely translated), "I'm about to be outta here, and things are about to get ugly. Arm and take care of yourselves." Now, I'm NOT a Bible scholar, but ever since I've been a gun owner, I've kept that one in mind. (Not to push my beliefs on THR ... I'd hate to be the jerk who got the thread shut down...)

halvey
July 28, 2005, 02:10 PM
I would say the same, only without the "modern" part. ALL interpretations of the bible have a bias, just because it is old doesnt mean it isnt there. However, if one doesnt read Hebrew and Aramaic then they are pretty much resigned to accepting this bias.

I disagree.

Translate: To render in another language.
interpret: To explain the meaning of.

See this has been the problem for centuries. A simple translation is no different than translating a letter from German to Spanish. In the english language, different words can mean multiple things. Like some could take the word "translate" to also mean something similiar to interpret. The problem isn't the original languages or what the "meaning" of the bible is. The problem is the english language keeps changing. Check out the 1611 translation of the bible with the "thee's" and
"thou's". It is harder to make sense of.

CZ 75 BD
July 28, 2005, 02:37 PM
Let's continue reading through verse 22 "But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils."

carebear
July 28, 2005, 02:59 PM
As my pastoral team is fond of saying, "Any text, out of context, is pretext."

We'd all have a lot fewer "religious" arguments if people didn't take their preconceived ideas and go fishing for justification in Scripture. There's enough there that, if you wanted to, you could pull out individual verses to justify most anything.

The key to Scripture is to read for overall consistency and context, both of the direct subject but also the socio-political situation surrounding.

I shy away from "pulling out" individual verses to prove my personal opinions. I'd rather look to the totality.

One well put together argument I like (that does include that verse in its totality) is at http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog/religion.htm . Even so, he is still going into Scripture for justification, on a matter which, like so many others, really should rest on one's personal relationship with G-d alone.

Hawkmoon
July 28, 2005, 02:59 PM
Let's continue reading through verse 22 "But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils."
So, shall we regard this as a Biblical way of advising us to always have enough gun? :neener:

richyoung
July 28, 2005, 03:02 PM
In a larger sense, you can't make a distinction between a PERSON and their POSSESSIONS. Some "partialists", (to coin a word) will admonish you that , "Well, you can use deadly force to protect your life, but don't you DARE use it, or even threaten to use it to protect yor property - it's illegal, (as it is in some circumstances, but I advise you not to steal car rims or rustle livestock or farm equipment at night in Texas...), and immoral, (patently false....). THINK about it - why does the bank have a guy in uniform with a .357 Magnum on his hip? It ISN"T to save the lives of the employees and patrons, but rather to DETER possible THEFT OF PROPERTY with the (implied) threat of deadly force. Same for armored cars - if it is IMMORAL to use deadly force to protect property, why are armored cars carrying armed security, rather than simply "giving the robber what he wants", as the poor simple citizens are advised to do? Why does the armed forces have armed guards? Why do we HAVE armed forces? Isn't resisiting an invasion "using deadly force to protect property"? If someone is taking or destroying your property, you have a right and a duty in almost all jurisdictions in the United States, to hold that person for authorities - in effect, to make a citizen's arrest. This is the same authority by which a policeman outside of his jurisdiction arrests someone. In almost all jurisdictions, the law recognizes that just yelling, "Stop, theif" is probably not going to work, and allows the use of reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, to effect such an arrest - understandably, some felons attempt to attack their detainer and continue their crime spree. These laws were added BECAUSE people USED to just shoot or lynch such criminals on the spot - juries of the day, (much like the OJ and MJ trials, but for different reasons...) simply refused to convict people in such circumstances. Your stuff is YOUR stuff - it took you part of your life to make it or earn the money to buy it. From the Dred Scott decision: "Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of person and placed on the same ground by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. " The verse quoted simply recognized, for use in a parable, the (then-universally) understood principle that theft was to be resisted, even with deadly force. Interestingly, this same principle is the justification for defending your wife (wives, at the time..), and children - they weren't considered "people" as such, but, along with slaves, livestock, indentured servents, handmaidens, and concubines, were a particular class of property known as "chattels" - as such the "master" (owner) had more restrictions on their treatment and disposal, and more obligations to them, (like protecting them) - but they were still property. Thats why you had to pay a dowry to get married - either with a period of servitude, or gold or livestock - ("How many goats for the pretty one? That's too much - how much for her older sister with the crossed eyes?")

hso
July 28, 2005, 03:28 PM
I'm not sure I'd use this out of context with a knowledgable Christian who is a student of the bible.

The verse is related to Jesus's response to the naysaying of the crowd after he's driven out a demon. It illustrates that evil may be strong, "strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe", but that through the greater raw power of god, "But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils.", it can be defeated.

As such I don't think I'd want to have a Christian RKBA-fencesitter associate me with the demon cast out.

tuna
July 28, 2005, 03:40 PM
By quoting random verses from the Bible (or any book for that matter) you can say anything to support any argument. After all, Satan himself was able to quote the scriptures pretty well to Jesus when he was tempting Him in the desert. For this reason, you have to look at the whole picture.
While many quote the Gospel of Luke for the seemingly pro-gun (pro sword?) stance, all the Gospels agree that when Jesus was arrested, Peter had a sword and cut off the ear of a soldier (or struck him, in any case, the sword was there). Had the New Testament been meant to give credence to being disarmed, Peter would not have had the sword, since I'm pretty sure Jesus would have told him he doesn't need it at some point.

carebear
July 28, 2005, 03:47 PM
Again, check this essay, it addresses every point (and verse) that's been raised thus far.

http://home.sprynet.com/~frfrog/religion.htm

It ain't Gospel, but it is a well-reasoned argument.

Lennyjoe
July 28, 2005, 04:12 PM
The passage from Luke 11:21-22, "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe. But when one stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his plunder" tells us that we must be ever vigilant against those who would do us evil and be prepared with our weapons to defeat them
From the link above.

Jim K
July 28, 2005, 04:26 PM
Christ certainly knew that His followers were armed, yet He did not tell them to leave their swords at home, or to turn them over to the authorities. He told Peter to "put up your sword", not to turn it into a buyback program or surrender it to the soldiers. The Brady Campaign can take little comfort from that part of the Bible.

In truth, Jesus was operating at a higher level than either His followers or the soldiers. He was not a simple revolutionary to be arrested by the authorities or, conversely, protected by His followers; He was the Savior, and He knew that His death was necessary for the redemption of mankind. So bloodshed and killing, either of His apostles or of the soldiers, was not necessary and would have been pointless. His mission would have to be fulfilled, regardless.

Jim

Mr. James
July 28, 2005, 05:03 PM
Well said, Jim - and cordex!

lee n. field
July 28, 2005, 06:34 PM
Or, do you stand on the position that, regardless of the target of the "strong man" in this case, the factual manner in which Jesus makes the statement establishes it as a truth which could be equally applicable to any good or evil "strong man"?

Jesus' statement strikes me as a simple statement of fact, from which he make a point.

Tory
July 28, 2005, 11:19 PM
Self-preservation is the Prime Directive for all sentient life forms. The First Corollary is protection of your offspring. :scrutiny:

Bibles, Torahs, Korans and the teachings of Confucius or the Buddha just put a philosophical patina on a biological imperative. I don't need the surplusage.

Texian Pistolero
July 28, 2005, 11:26 PM
I don't think that ANY of Jesus's statements DIRECTLY and DEFINITIVELY address RKBA.

On the plus side, he never takes the context to denounce weapons ownership.

His prediction that there will alwayy be war and rumors of war keep him very much out of the camp of a humanist secular world vision.

Matthew 24:6
"You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come."

marshall3
July 28, 2005, 11:35 PM
The verse about the strong man armed....Jesus is just mentioning an easily understood truth to illustrate His point. Everyone knows that a strong armed man can defend his home. It's just taken for granted.

Excellent verses for being armed are also found in Nehemiah and Esther.

Neh 4:16 And it came to pass from that time forth, that the half of my servants wrought in the work, and the other half of them held both the spears, the shields, and the bows, and the habergeons; and the rulers were behind all the house of Judah.
Neh 4:17 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.
Neh 4:18 For the builders, every one had his sword girded by his side, and so builded. And he that sounded the trumpet was by me.

Est 9:2 The Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, to lay hand on such as sought their hurt: and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them fell upon all people.
Est 9:3 And all the rulers of the provinces, and the lieutenants, and the deputies, and officers of the king, helped the Jews; because the fear of Mordecai fell upon them.
Est 9:4 For Mordecai was great in the king's house, and his fame went out throughout all the provinces: for this man Mordecai waxed greater and greater.
Est 9:5 Thus the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and slaughter, and destruction, and did what they would unto those that hated them.

Obviously, taking up arms in self-defense is quite a Biblical thing to do. Amen. End of Pastor's sermon.

Hawkmoon
July 28, 2005, 11:36 PM
While many quote the Gospel of Luke for the seemingly pro-gun (pro sword?) stance, all the Gospels agree that when Jesus was arrested, Peter had a sword and cut off the ear of a soldier (or struck him, in any case, the sword was there). Had the New Testament been meant to give credence to being disarmed, Peter would not have had the sword, since I'm pretty sure Jesus would have told him he doesn't need it at some point.
Yes, but ...

Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the "Synoptic Gospels" because they run basically parallel and relate the story of the ministry, trial (?) and crucifixion of Jesus in much the same way, whereas John, the fourth Gospel, doesn't run parallel to the other three at all. But it is interesting and perhaps significant that there are differences between/among the three Synoptic Gospels. This is a good example.

All three agree that one of the disciples used his sword to cut off the ear of a slave of the high priest. But they differ as to what took place immediately after.

In Luke, Jesus said, "No more of this" and healed the wounded ear. Then Jesus said his piece about "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs? ..."

In Mark, it is related that one of the disciples struck off the ear of the high priest's slave, but there is no mention of Jesus saying anything about that, or of healing the ear. Mark jumps directly to "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? ..."

In Matthew, after relating that one of the disciples cut off the slave's ear it says that Jesus reacted by saying, "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. ..." But Matthew says nothing about healing the wounded ear. Matthew then moves on to the "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? ..." passage.

A very long time ago I took a college class in which this was discussed. I have no idea what current scholarly thinking is, but back then the theory was that one of these three (don't recall which, sorry) was written down first, and that the other two were basically copied from the first, with additions and deletions to suit the particular bias of whoever wrote them. None were first-hand accounts, because they were not written until a couple or three hundred years after the birth and death of Jesus.

Which, I guess, is a long-winded way of suggesting that it is difficult to use the New Testament to support the RKBA, because you not only have to look at each passage in context, you also have ensure that one of the other Gospels doesn't flat out contradict the passage you want to use, either in fact or in context.

ksnecktieman
July 28, 2005, 11:51 PM
If I understand it properly, the verse Luke 22.36 about the purse, the cloak and the sword is advice from Jesus to the desciples, to arm themselves for defense in their travels?

Taurus 66
July 29, 2005, 12:17 AM
Duplicate

Taurus 66
July 29, 2005, 12:19 AM
http://www.thewinds.org/images/jesus_gun.jpg

RKBA! :evil:

BigG
July 29, 2005, 12:54 AM
It could just as well be a metaphor for guarding your mind or body (house) and thus avoiding sin (robbery). YMMV JMTC

stevelyn
July 29, 2005, 02:00 AM
What's wrong with this picture?

1) He has His booger hook wrapped around the bang switch.

2) He is making a tactical error by standing in front of the door while knocking, rather than taking advantage of the cover offered by the stone wall, and standing off to the side.

3) His left hand is occupied by having to hold the AR rather having it slung across body with a proper tactical sling.

4) Knocking on the door using the pistol.

5) Instead of attempting entry by Himself, an archangel should be deployed with a ram to breach the door.

6) Cloak should be tactical black.

:D :neener:

carebear
July 29, 2005, 03:48 AM
with additions and deletions to suit the particular bias of whoever wrote them.

well, as a Christian, current Biblical scholarship agrees the reason they emphasize different things and state things using certain terms, in certain ways, is not "bias" per se but rather that they are aimed at telling the same story to different audiences. The Jews and the Gentiles in particular.

The Jews (the Gospel of Matthew IIRC)needed to be shown those aspects of the Christ's life that would show the promised fulfillment of Torah/OT prophecy (especially considering their misapprehension of the Messiah as a physical King and Conqueror) <misapprehension from a Christian worldview mind you, no offense to the people of Israel intended> while the Gentiles (pagans) could give a fig about some provincial Jewish prophecys and would need the story based on factors that would resonate to their experience.

Different audiences = different versions of the same story.

Each, in the couple centuries (that's AD 70 to AD 100 for the earliest attributable writings in a minority society that was reduced to oral transmission for the first few decades due to active repression) does a pretty good job of maintaining a consistency of message given the context of the times the were finally recorded in and the intent of their authors (actual or attributed).

Oh yeah, swords are cool, cause you can swash about with your hand on your hilt. Try that with a pistola at 3:00 and you just look a little "nancy". :evil:

Don't Tread On Me
July 29, 2005, 06:50 AM
There is absolutely NO reason to search for religious justifications for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. None, zero...nothing.


It would be advisable to stray away from faith based arguments or justifications in our ever growing secular society. It just doesn't gain any respect, and would actually hurt our cause outside of the Bible Belt. The bias against Christian faiths are so bad in mainstream America, it is an instant negative to associate any argument with the faith.


As for our founders, there is zero historical evidence that supports there was any consideration of religious ideas, faith based systems, or Judeo-Christian ideas when framing the 2nd Amendment. If they felt it wasn't necessary to go that route, then it isn't.

Finally and most importantly, it hurts our cause because when you search for yet another justification, it makes others assume you need them, or that the previous ones are insufficient.


Bottom line, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in place for American people to preserve their liberty against tyrannical government. Whether it be by deterrance, or by actually shooting them. I know people don't like to hear it, but that's how it is.


Other, lesser justifications are a Right to Self Defense, hunting/sporting (which are Right in my opinion since hunting and sporting can fall under ones Right to freely move or engage in activities that harm no one else) That is more of a derived Right. The same way you can't ban football is the same reason you can't ban hunting or sporting with firearms. There is no reason to.


The Right to Self Defense is tied into the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment in that you are defending your life when you defend your liberty, but I was refering to it as the justification for defense against the common criminal, aggresors etc...That is below the purpose of defending against tyranny, since one can always claim that void in the presence of police power. IE, government will protect you.


There is ZERO argument against the defense of liberty from tyrannical government simply because - who watches the watchman?


If it is just for personal interest to search for ways to connect the right of self defense or the right to defend against tyranny found in our political philosophy to religious texts or ideas, that is fine - but I wouldn't try to chalk it up as another justification.

Khornet
July 29, 2005, 07:31 AM
you can find a Biblical justification for what you do, the wonderful (or, as appropriate, frightening) thing about Jesus is that He sees straight into your heart, and knows your real motive, even though you conceal it from the world and yourself.

He therefore might say nothing about Peter's sword bearing, but much about another's.

tuna
July 29, 2005, 10:08 AM
What's wrong with this picture?

Finger on trigger and hammer down.

richyoung
July 29, 2005, 11:08 AM
There is absolutely NO reason to search for religious justifications for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. None, zero...nothing.


I must respectfully disagree. So long as some denominations insist that it is immoral or "unChristian" to be armed, such justification is indeed very necessary. Further, to deny that our nation and its system of laws was strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian principals is to fly in the face of the statements and writings of the Founding Fahers.

Hawkmoon
July 29, 2005, 11:20 AM
Very well stated, Don't Tread ...

And Rich, he didn't say that Judeo-Christian principles weren't at work in the founding of the country (although one might argue the theological bias of various of the Founding Fathers), he said it wasn't a factor in drafting the 2nd Amendment. In that I agree completely.

jes1994
July 29, 2005, 08:14 PM
Halvey,Check out the 1611 translation of the bible with the "thee's" and "thou's". It is harder to make sense of.
Thee, thou: second person singular

Ye, you: second person plural

As opposed to modern day grammatically correct English that uses 'you' for both singular and plural. The KJ translaters were using a certain grammatical construct in order to be more precise.

Personally, I think that this relates to why in everyday spoken language we use phrases like "y'all" and "youse guys"... as humans we need a way to distinguish between 'you' singular and 'you' plural. But that last part is purely personal speculation on my part.

jes1994
July 29, 2005, 08:15 PM
Campergeek, if this verse were to be used in a discussion with other Christians, could they come back to say that obviously Christ isn't arguing for the adversary, but rather against the "strong man" as being overtaken by someone stronger - in this case, Christ.I don't think it's advocating either, but rather advocating that if someone is trusting anything other than God then they will eventually find themselves faced with a stonger opponent. Cross reference the verse with Eph 6:11-13 to see why.

I've debated this stuff online quite a bit on purely Biblical grounds with some of the most Biblically literate folks you'd ever hope to meet in this world. If I had tried to make a case for self defense on the basis of this verse, they would have shot me down without even having to take aim. As it ended up, we've agreed to disagree, but I do think that they grant that I've made a reasonably Biblical case for self defense.

Let me know if you're interested, and I can summarize some of the previous stuff I've done in regard to this.

(subject to moderator approval in light of the aforementioned forum rules, but what I'm thinking of shouldn't cause problems).

jes1994
July 29, 2005, 08:17 PM
Don't Tread On Me, There is absolutely NO reason to search for religious justifications for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. If by this statement, you're saying to not bring up religion in an otherwise secular RKBA debate, then yes, I agree. However, if you're dealing with folks in an already established religious scenario such as a church or a theological debate forum, then having religious arguments available can be a Good Thing (tm).

it hurts our cause because when you search for yet another justification, it makes others assume you need them, or that the previous ones are insufficient. If the cause is right then it should be able to withstand attacks from any angle. Having the discussion here gives everyone the necessary tools to protect that other angle. When going into physical combat, you don't ignore the flank just because you have the front side adequately guarded. Why not then do the same in verbal combat?

Bottom line, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is in place for American people<snip>

And what of the non-American people?

If you enjoyed reading about "Luke 11:21 - Theologically sound RKBA justification?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!