Conversation with an anti today

[medalguy]

This afternoon I was leaving a store and while walking to my truck saw another vehicle with a bumper sticker that read "Would Jesus own a gun and vote Republican?"

Well I had to stop and speak to the driver of that car who was just getting out of her car. I asked her about the sticker and why she believed that all guns were bad. Her reply was that they were only made to kill.

I couldn't let that go by, so I informed her that I have owned guns for almost 60 years, and I have never hurt anyone with a gun, and as far as I knew, none of my firearms had ever hurt anyone but that I did target shoot about every week. That still didn't seem to move her any, so I mentioned that the Bible supported the position that yes, Jesus would probably have owned a gun.

That really set her off. I asked her if she knew her Bible, and she said that yes she did. I asked her if she was familiar with Luke 22:36 which said "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." That was a passage I have used before in discussing guns with those who seem to disagree with us.

She wasn't sure exactly how to respond, so I threw her another line. It's not in the Bible, but there's another saying that lots of people think is in it, "God helps those who help themselves." I told her that that passage convinced me that Jesus would indeed vote Republican because He didn't seem too inclined to give people things they did not deserve.

With that, she said she had things to do she had to go, and walked away. I don't think I convinced her of anything but I did have a bit of fun with her.

 

[Cee Zee]

Jesus certainly did advise some of His followers to buy themselves a sword so they could protect themselves as they spread the gospel in a world that hated them with a passion. The Jews were bad enough but before too long the Romans were throwing them to the lions for entertainment or using them as human torches to light their streets.

It is an evil world and men have need of self protection. There are times to submit and become martyrs but mostly it's OK to defend yourself. Obviously it's better when you don't need to do that but in today's world I'd be a fool to drive into the city without one because you just never know when the next riot will take place among other things.

 

[jdub3]

I agree with your first position, but not about the part that Jesus would vote Republican because he didn't want to give people stuff they didn't deserve. That, to me, sounds like you trying to twist words to fit your idea of the way things should be. What about him turning water into wine and feeding all those people with the fish and bread? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeding_the_multitude

I'm no bible scholar. I think the bible is a hugely flawed manuscript written generations after Jesus' death and then revised and edited for hundreds of years after that to serve various purposed.

I'm also not a republican nor Democrat. I don't really like either party to be honest.

Edit: Whenever I hear that guns are only made to kill people, I reply (in my head at least) that they are only made to fire projectiles using a controlled combustion (not explosion correct?).

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That's an interesting scriptural passage, but the commonly held belief is that Jesus' statement was meant solely to fulfill prophesy. His followers obtained two swords, which Jesus proclaimed "enough". Apparently, they were enough to justify an accusation that Jesus was head of a band of criminals.

Remember that later on at his arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter cut the ear off of one of the arresting guards with one of the swords. Jesus healed the guard and rebuked Peter, telling him to put the sword away and that all who take the sword shall die by the sword. (Mathew 26:52)


Now, this doesn't mean that Jesus would not have owned a gun. Jesus ate fish and meat (lamb, at least), which means he was not adverse to the killing of animals to eat. Hunting would have been a legitimate use of a gun for that purpose, I suspect. But since he never took up a weapon against another human being, there is no reason to suspect that he would have done so with a firearm.


As for His political aspirations...I rather suspect that Jesus would have stuck with "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's".


As for guns only being made to kill...the fact is that we kill every day in order to survive. It's the way of life. Her objection is the taking of human life...but so, too, must we sometimes kill another human to avoid being killed ourselves.

Her misconception, however, is in placing the blame for such killing on any given inanimate object as being responsible for such killings. Mankind has proven quite adept at killing each other over hundreds of thousands of years, with and without any sophisticated weapons.

But the big difference between mankind in modern times and mankind of millennia ago, even a few short centuries ago, is that such actions are no longer the one-sided subjugations and killings of the weaker by the stronger. Through the ability to project physical power at a distance through the use of the firearm, the weaker have finally leveled the battlefield against the stronger and are no longer the meek prey they once were to the stronger.

Thus, eliminating the firearm does not eliminate criminal activity...it merely tips the balance of power back into the favor of the stronger over the weaker.

 

[MEHavey]

Simon Peter carried [and most definitely used] a CCW sword.
That's enough for me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

 

[Thermactor]

Anti-gunners aren't often well-versed in Scripture. They can tell you all about a flying spaghetti monster though.

 

[Normandy]

And, when folks say that the constitution only authorized muzzle loaders, here's what I say: The "assault weapon" of that time was a muzzle loader. The "assault weapon" of today includes AR15, AK47, etc. You cannot resist tyranny, or an enemy carrying an AK47, with a muzzle loader.

 

[Yo Mama]

When someone has a message like she did, on her car for everyone to see, she wants the attention. It doesn't matter if she is educated, she just wants the looks no matter if they are good or bad looks.

And, when folks say that the constitution only authorized muzzle loaders, here's what I say: The "assault weapon" of that time was a muzzle loader. The "assault weapon" of today includes AR15, AK47, etc. You cannot resist tyranny, or an enemy carrying an AK47, with a muzzle loader.

Respectfully, you'll get nowhere with this dialogue. Libs have no clue what you mean by resisting tyranny, they have lost history that they don't like to admit.

Also, a better way of comparing, is that in the Constitution the first amendment makes no mention of a computer, so email, internet, ect is all UNPROTECTED

 

[Cee Zee]

John Gill, who spent his entire life studying the Bible and wrote a massive work detailing every aspect of every verse, says Jesus did mean to encourage people to protect themselves as they traveled around and encountered lots of hostile people who thought they were spreading heresy. I have a huge amount of respect for Gill and his work and I have rarely found anything he has written that doesn't coincide with the complete Bible. I will say that Gill's words on this subject are somewhat unclear in the way they are written. I could be wrong about how he interprets the verse. Matthew Henry talks about Christ saying 2 swords were enough for 12 men and that they were subject to robbers etc. in their travels. Christ did not forbid his disciples from carrying a sword but He certainly didn't encourage it. He did tell Peter not to use his sword shortly after the statement about trading your clothes for a sword. Still Peter did have a sword and he as right beside Christ for a long time. I don't think of the Bible as a call to arm ourselves but at the same time I don't see it as a gun (or sword) grabbing work either. Also we probably shouldn't overlook the Old Testament and the armies that were involved in doing God's work there. I'm sure not saying we are given that type of charge but again it's evidence that the Bible isn't an anti-self defense work. In fact the Old Testament often encourages followers to take up the sword but again that's not us. As we know, "To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven, " and that includes, " a time for war and a time for peace."

And for those that think the Bible was put together hundreds of years after the fact all I can say is look up the Dead Sea Scrolls because scholars had to reject the POV that the Bible was mis-translated over the centuries by people who had an agenda. That was the commonly taught attitude in universities until the Scrolls, which are documents from the time of Christ and before, were discovered and translated and they blew that theory completely out of the water because they contain versions of Old Testament books that are essentially identical to what we have now in the Bible. They even kept the contents of the scrolls secret for decades because they wanted to develop a new criticism so they could push their own anti-Christian agenda. The current "scholarly" criticisms of the Bible center on details they think couldn't have happened and therefore prove the whole to be corrupt. That doesn't work either BTW. This forum isn't the place for this discussion though so I won't discuss this further unless you want to take it to PM's.

 

[HEAVY METAL 1]

Last night I saw a sticker on a car that said"Jesus was a liberal"

I held my tongue.

As far as antis and there misuse of the Lord's name to justify their POV, I counter with: My life is a gift from God and it is my duty to protect it.

 

[Art Eatman]

All well and good, but at some point somebody is going to either go way overboard about their religious view or is going to find some "tidbit" which is found to be offensive.

So, enough.

 

[Robert]

Far too much religion for this thread to stay open.