Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

RSS Robot

Guns: 'packing Heat In Church' Increasingly Allowed In U.s.

Recommended Posts

As gun control takes high priority on Capitol Hill, state legislatures increasingly are allowing concealed guns in the church, either for personal protection or for worshippers designated as church security personnel. Arkansas is the eighth state to pass legislation allowing concealed guns specifically in churches.

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When was it not allowed?  There has never been a time in my local church where if some nut burst in shooting that he wouldn't receive a hail of return fire.

 

This is like watching tv shows where the cops always check to see if the gun was registered and the suspect was licensed to carry it no matter where the show takes place.  

 

In any case, the politicians who may or may not have banned guns in churches in the first place have now ridden in on their white horses to our rescue granting us the right to carry while worshipping the Lord.  Fools!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When was it not allowed?  There has never been a time in my local church where if some nut burst in shooting that he wouldn't receive a hail of return fire.
 
This is like watching tv shows where the cops always check to see if the gun was registered and the suspect was licensed to carry it no matter where the show takes place.  
 
In any case, the politicians who may or may not have banned guns in churches in the first place have now ridden in on their white horses to our rescue granting us the right to carry while worshipping the Lord.  Fools!

Not a Christian response in accord with the teachings of Christ or His Apostles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is right about this is that these states involved all have one thing in common in their law. Namely: It is up to the "administration" (pastor, presbytery, board of deacons, etc.) as to whether to allow or not. If it's posted as "no  weapons" and you are caught carrying, you are in violation of the law.

 

To blanket restrict instead of putting it in the hands of the church is the state telling a church what to do while it allows other non-state owned entities do make their own determination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a Christian response in accord with the teachings of Christ or His Apostles.

really?

 

Luk_22:36  Then said he unto them, 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really?

Here is a page that discusses the facts.

 

Didn't you guys all know you are all bitter clingers and I quote:

 

""And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,"  Barack Hussein Obama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a page that discusses the facts.

 

Didn't you guys all know you are all bitter clingers and I quote:

 

""And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,"  Barack Hussein Obama

 

I liked the link you shared above. I'll continue to "cling."

 

To the OP...

I know there are some states who already have laws permitting designated members of a church to CC. I know of churches which practice this law. 

Edited by 1Tim115

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really?

That is a very much abused verse, taken totally out of context, which doesn't apply at all nor does it override the clear teachings of Christ or the Apostles on the matter at hand or their examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what would be a biblical response John?

1 Peter 2:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is right about this is that these states involved all have one thing in common in their law. Namely: It is up to the "administration" (pastor, presbytery, board of deacons, etc.) as to whether to allow or not. If it's posted as "no  weapons" and you are caught carrying, you are in violation of the law.

 

To blanket restrict instead of putting it in the hands of the church is the state telling a church what to do while it allows other non-state owned entities do make their own determination.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, I don't get it, care to elaborate?

What does this say the example we are to follow is?

 

1 Peter 2:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is being persecuted for Christian beliefs and dealing with a crazy person bent of doing evil the same thing?  I say not.  I think it is one thing to be persecuted for Christ and our beliefs and very much a different thing if someone breaks into your house with the intent of doing you harm.  

 

 

Romans 13:1-4  Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.  (2)  Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.  (3)  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:  (4)  For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very much abused verse, taken totally out of context, which doesn't apply at all nor does it override the clear teachings of Christ or the Apostles on the matter at hand or their examples.

I don't think it is taken out of context at all! the lord was getting to leave His disciples and he advised them to buy a sword, what do you think they were going to use the sword for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this say the example we are to follow is?

 

1 Peter 2:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

 

 

 

 

 

 

A misapplication of a verse if there ever was one.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is taken out of context at all! the lord was getting to leave His disciples and he advised them to buy a sword, what do you think they were going to use the sword for?


Not for shooting people, that's for sure!!!!
:D
(that was a joke folks!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it is taken out of context at all! the lord was getting to leave His disciples and he advised them to buy a sword, what do you think they were going to use the sword for?

What was the sword used for? There needed to be a sword so after Peter did the wrong thing, God received glory by Jesus healing the man's ear and rebuking Peter for taking up arms.

 

When we read the accounts of Paul we learn that only was he persecuted for his faith, he was also attacked by robbers and others and yet he chose to obey the Words of Christ regarding how Christians are to conduct themselves when attacked, robbed, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A misapplication of a verse if there ever was one.  

Does this mean Christians are not to trust God in all situations and circumstance? Christians are not to trust and obey God, walking in His will rather than our own?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I just chuckle sometimes.  Just chuckle.

 

To think that it could possibly be construed as not trusting God if a man carries a gun for protection of himself and his family is really laughable.  God uses human agents all the time in a myriad of ways.  Trust is in no way lacking simply because a person chooses to carry.  Any more than not carrying is truly trusting.  To imply that a man who decides to carry to protect his family is lacking in trust for God is to imply that one knows that man's heart.  And we all know that only God knows the heart.  Don't we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians, in particular baptists have always said that it was for the state to bear the sword.  Whenever they took up arms on their own behalf, they were usually wiped out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christians, in particular baptists have always said that it was for the state to bear the sword.  Whenever they took up arms on their own behalf, they were usually wiped out.

 

Best read a bit more about the American War for Independence...that contradicts your statement.  

 

There have always been people of any denomination who didn't want to bear sword.  That doesn't make it wrong to do so.  If someone enters our homes or our churches intent on killing those inside, there is nothing wrong with being armed to prevent carnage.  Nor is that absolutely a lack of trust in the Lord. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still ask of those who say carrying is not trusting in God, do you carry full insurance? Life, home, auto above what the law requires? Are these not taking our trust away from God just as much? "If I die my family will be protected by X number of dollars from my insurance" rather than "if I die God will take care of my family".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil laws should always be the same inside and outside a church building.

Agreed - and those same civil laws should not infringe on a person's God-given right to carry a gun if they so choose. If they don't choose, that is their business.  But Christians who try to elicit guilt as to trusting God versus having a gun don't allow that choice.  Kinda like progressives, actually...

 

I'd like to add to rancher's point: how many who think carrying a gun shows lack of trust in God lock their doors?  Doors are not locked to keep people IN, but to keep unwanted people OUT.  The very same argument that having a gun for protection proves lack of trust in God can be applied to door locks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 49 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...