SITE NOTICE | MORE..Church App 50% Setup Sale! For a limited time, get your own church app for either iOS or Android platforms for a one-time setup charge of only $99 (each platform). Simply the easiest way to get your own native app! .. click for more info!
Evangelical Christian leaders in America have expressed their support for stricter gun regulations following December's tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where 26 people were fatally shot.
In a poll conducted by the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), 73 percent of church leaders agreed that there needs to be stricter gun regulations, in hopes that tragedies, such as the ones that occurred in Newtown, can be prevented or minimized in the future.
"Evangelicals are pro-life and deeply grieve when any weapons are used to take innocent lives," said Leith Anderson, President of the NAE. "The evangelical leaders who responded to the NAE survey support the Second Amendment right to bear arms but also want our laws to prevent the slaughter of children."...
Neil wrote: OK, I'll indulge you: If the Queen's laws are oppressive, you emigrate to a place where one can legally defend himself. Liberty-loving Britons have been doing that in coming here, for centuries going. Now answer my question: How would you stop a rape in progress absent physical force, which in the UK is apparently a state monopoly?
Pepper spray which might be legal in England, though I doubt the personal stun guns might be. Also perhaps a walking stick that is basically a steel bar. Of course that might get taken away from you. Here in Nebraska they are going to try to increase the penalty of taking away a police officer's weapon. Anyway, these might be useful devices for those who think killing is the proper answer to even getting a dirty look from someone.
John UK wrote: Sorry bro, it was an imaginary scenario about Billy I put up. But who knows, it may have happened and they were forced to hand them in. You've been to Romania with Bibles? I used to read books about Brother Andrew and others such - great inspirational reading!
No problem with Billy G. Your point is still valid. Yes, I use to bring bibles and other Christian materials into Romania. Also medicine when I could get it. I also remember reading about Brother Andrew's adventures and they in fact did give me inspiration to do what I did. Although at the time I never gave much thought to his theology. The biblical character that gave me the most impetus was Onesiphorus, 2 Ti chapter 1.
Frank wrote: Yes, it is a difficult issue and I think you and I would agree that if something is a Christian duty, then we have a Christian mandate. I didn't know that about Bill G's crusades, but I remember when going into Communist Romania there were 3 signs at the border representing things not allowed to be brought in; one was bibles; another was porno; and the last was guns. I only brought the bibles in. I know of no Christian group that would have provided guns to them or for that matter to any Christians group regardless of what culture they live in. That fact supports your thoughts against it being a duty or mandate. I broke lots of local laws, but not that one.
Sorry bro, it was an imaginary scenario about Billy I put up. But who knows, it may have happened and they were forced to hand them in.
You've been to Romania with Bibles? I used to read books about Brother Andrew and others such - great inspirational reading!
John UK wrote: But I can just see the headlines in the 1950's paper, when Billy G came over for his crusades: "Gun-toting Americans come to the UK to preach the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ." When asked why the 6 shooters, one of Billy's team said: "We only carry them for our own safety, as we know the UK is full of lunatics."
Yes, it is a difficult issue and I think you and I would agree that if something is a Christian duty, then we have a Christian mandate. I didn't know that about Bill G's crusades, but I remember when going into Communist Romania there were 3 signs at the border representing things not allowed to be brought in; one was bibles; another was porno; and the last was guns. I only brought the bibles in. I know of no Christian group that would have provided guns to them or for that matter to any Christians group regardless of what culture they live in. That fact supports your thoughts against it being a duty or mandate. I broke lots of local laws, but not that one.
Frank wrote: Brother John! What an interesting debate and I can understand both sides of the issue.
Thank you bro for sharing your take on the issue. I am finding it very hard to reach a sensible conclusion for lack of biblical principles. It seems that many of my American brothers may be swayed by "what has always been" rather than the Bible, unless of course "what has always been" is based upon biblical premises.
I always sit on the fence until sufficient biblical proof is offered which concludes the matter.
But I can just see the headlines in the 1950's paper, when Billy G came over for his crusades: "Gun-toting Americans come to the UK to preach the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ." When asked why the 6 shooters, one of Billy's team said: "We only carry them for our own safety, as we know the UK is full of lunatics."
What an interesting debate and I can understand both sides of the issue. The question to me is do I have a God given duty to own a weapon to protect myself, my family or someone else. There is a difference between a right, as in America, or a duty which would then apply to all Christians in whatever culture they reside in. If a ‚Äúduty‚ÄĚ, then I also have a mandate to disobey any manmade laws that would prohibit that duty. I personally feel I have a responsibility or duty unto the Lord to protect my house from those who would do my wife harm, but if I shot someone, it would be to stop the crime, not to kill the person. If they died, then I would conclude I did the right thing and the Lord determined the outcome. I would hope they didn‚Äôt die, but that issue would be out of my hands. So if I lived in a culture that prohibited owning a weapon, I would personally disobey that law and seek to get a weapon. However, if someone felt that obeying the law was more appropriate than disobeying that local law, then they have not sinned if they choose to not own a weapon; even if not owning a weapon resulted in a violent crime taking place that they could have stopped. The Lord would bless that individual because he did what he felt was the right thing to do.
Do you understand the second amendment? Do you oppose activist judges giving modern interpretations and inventing implied rights that simply were not there when the document was drafted? Does the meaning of the original drafters of the constitution and amendments mean anything to you?
And the Lord said, Whereunto then shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like unto children sitting in the marketplace, and calling one to another, and saying, We have piped unto you, and ye have not danced; we have mourned to you, and ye have not wept. For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil. The Son of man is come eating and drinking; and ye say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! But wisdom is justified of all her children.
Llandrindod Wells wrote: --- If Americans need to have guns at all times to defend themselves, then semi-automatic weapons and ammunition should be available with car hire when we land as tourists at your airports. ---
Your assumption that the right to bear arms has to do with need is incorrect.
The sermon by David Silversides on justifiable killing is rather good, and I have no problem with that. I also believe in capital punishment, a just war against aggressors, and defending oneself against burglars (even if the burglar dies as a result).
But unfortunately, he did not say anything about the possession of guns for self-defence. Probably because if we in the UK wanted a gun for self-defence we should not be allowed a license.
It all comes down to what country you live in, which proves that some (or even all) countries are not applying biblical principles in their laws.
So what happens now? Has the expression "God-fearing and law-abiding" lost its meaning today? Is it possible biblically to be God-fearing yet break laws of the land because they are not right? Or do we accept that all authority has been ordained of God?
In the Acts, we have apostles preaching the gospel by command of Christ, and the authorities beating them and commanding them not to preach in the name of Christ. They chose to continue the former, as they were serving Christ as Lord. But I never see them defending their lives with weaponry, except it be the sword of the Spirit.
John UK wrote: I see you're still bringing up instances from before Pentecost, even though the new covenant seems to be of quite different character from the old. You'd make a great Presby!
I didn't need to read the Presby cheat-sheet to figure out that the 6th Commandment is not merely Mosaic Law, for it was instituted back in Gen. 9:6. In what ways does the New Covenant modify it? Perhaps that sermon might edify here.
John UK wrote: What an amazing chappie you are Neil.
But to return to Christopher's point, which is at the back of my whole thinking, concerning who has a right under God to kill, Too radical?
I'm not your "chappie." Stop the Bertie Wooster talk, I find it insulting.
I knew you'd start hassling me about my reply, which I think is a dishonest diversionary tactic. I really don't care how astonished you are. There is nothing shocking about British Christians departing en masse for better places. Hundreds of thousands of Scots Irish emigrated two centuries ago.
Yes, your position is too radical because it condemns Abraham, the father of the faithful, who "smote" people to save Lot in Gen. 14. Was he condemning people to Hell, then? And as I said, possessing a weapon doesn't mean one has to use it to save life.
Let's close the MoD & DoD, since killing invading foreigners is also condemning them to Hell.
Neil wrote: Just because you're "amazed" by my answer doesn't mean it's unrealistic.
What an amazing chappie you are Neil. If I suggested that all American Christians should depart and emigrate, I suppose you'd say, "Hey John, not a bad idea." Astonishing.
But to return to Christopher's point, which is at the back of my whole thinking, concerning who has a right under God to kill, knowing that if we kill anyone in the process of an evil crime, we send him straight off to hell.
Exodus 20:13 KJV 13 Thou shalt not kill.
Being believers, we have the commandments as a guideline to our human activity. Now who then has the authority to take a life?
Matthew 5:43-46 KJV 43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
John UK wrote: 2. My answer was given 4.53am. 1. Amazing. You recommend all Christians leave the UK?
But I still would not buy a gun to defend myself, but put my trust and hope in the Lord God... I wonder if those who want the capability to kill secretly wish that they were God? Of course, Americans are brought up on stories of pioneering ranchers...
Just because you're "amazed" by my answer doesn't mean it's unrealistic. You love to play the "I'm shocked, shocked!" game, but that is not a valid objection.
You evidently have swallowed longstanding aristocratic/socialist/Hollywood stereotypes about "cowboy Americans." And your conjecture about gunowners "playing God" is uncharitable, if not silly. Taking reasonable measures to defend oneself is no more playing God than wearing a seatbelt or locking one's door.
Until the 20th Century, private firearm ownership in England was legal (though regulated in some ways). It's even in your 1689 Bill of Rights, which probably inspired our 2nd Amendment.
Where it is said, "I will never leave thee..." it was not a reference to personal safety, so that is a poor prooftext.