Would God approve of Guns

[The Liberated Territories]

I don't believe God exists, but if he did he'd probably disapprove. Mostly because he's a massive killjoy.

IDK man, did you hear what happened to the Midianites?

They didn't have guns back then tho

[Otira]

Old Testament God also tells the Hebrews to kill a lot of people, so maybe the "Thou Shall Not Kill" bit relates only to non-religious killings?

[Free Arabian Nation]

IDK man, did you hear what happened to the Midianites?

They didn't have guns back then tho

True, true.

[Jeoloba]

I find this to be irrelevant, as I do not believe in God, so in that case there wouldn’t really be anyone to approve of guns. I have never been given any sort of reason to believe in a God, and there is no evidence towards the existance of a God.

It's a hypothetical question, I my self do not believe in religion either. If he was real do you think he would approve of guns?

[Novus America]

Old Testament God also tells the Hebrews to kill a lot of people, so maybe the "Thou Shall Not Kill" bit relates only to non-religious killings?

Again the proper translation is “you shall not murder”.
You shall not kill is just a bad translation.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

No. It is merely a tool designed to inflict sever physical harm.
Also,

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” -Matthew 10:34

The context makes the interpretation that there peace symbolized unity, and sword division (merely that resulting from differing religious views) appear quite valid. This is also supported by the next two verses stating the family members going against one another.

[Kowani]

Old Testament God also tells the Hebrews to kill a lot of people, so maybe the "Thou Shall Not Kill" bit relates only to non-religious killings?

Again the proper translation is “you shall not murder”.
You shall not kill is just a bad translation.

I believe some of the divinely ordained killings would still count as murder, though.

[Great Algerstonia]

I find this to be irrelevant, as I do not believe in God, so in that case there wouldn’t really be anyone to approve of guns. I have never been given any sort of reason to believe in a God, and there is no evidence towards the existance of a God.

It's a hypothetical question, I my self do not believe in religion either. If he was real do you think he would approve of guns?

Would God approve of guns? Probably not. However, he isn’t in any sort of power to act on it. Last I checked, God does not have any say in national politics, if he exists.

[Jeoloba]

Old Testament God also tells the Hebrews to kill a lot of people, so maybe the "Thou Shall Not Kill" bit relates only to non-religious killings?

Idk that's I chose the option "Idk, too many contradictions".

[Jeoloba]

Old Testament God also tells the Hebrews to kill a lot of people, so maybe the "Thou Shall Not Kill" bit relates only to non-religious killings?

Again the proper translation is “you shall not murder”.
You shall not kill is just a bad translation.

Well it's pretty clear that the Hebrew killing people can also be classified as murder.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

It's a hypothetical question, I my self do not believe in religion either. If he was real do you think he would approve of guns?

Would God approve of guns? Probably not. However, he isn’t in any sort of power to act on it. Last I checked, God does not have any say in national politics, if he exists.

Seeing as the OP quoted the Christian Gospel of Matthew, it seems relevant to note that the same Scriptures also state that Jesus did not desire to rule nations (yet).

[Hatterleigh]

yah

[Jeoloba]

No. It is merely a tool designed to inflict sever physical harm.
Also,

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” -Matthew 10:34

The context makes the interpretation that there peace symbolized unity, and sword division (merely that resulting from differing religious views) appear quite valid. This is also supported by the next two verses stating the family members going against one another.

I am going to edit it. Your not the first person to bring this up.

[Hatterleigh]

Again the proper translation is “you shall not murder”.
You shall not kill is just a bad translation.

Well it's pretty clear that the Hebrew killing people can also be classified as murder.

No, the two aren't the same. You can kill someone, doesn't mean it's murder.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Also, because the language/wording is often at least somewhat open to interpretation, people will tend to interpret everything however they desire. This would not be possible if the original language were in legalese Lojban, or had a dictionary in which every use of every word were unambiguously defined with references to its use, with the words used in all definitions defined similarly.

[Jeoloba]

Well it's pretty clear that the Hebrew killing people can also be classified as murder.

No, the two aren't the same. You can kill someone, doesn't mean it's murder.

It was murder. The Hebrews killed them with Malice and without a valid reason. It was murder.

[Novus America]

Again the proper translation is “you shall not murder”.
You shall not kill is just a bad translation.

I believe some of the divinely ordained killings would still count as murder, though.

Fair enough. You can certainly make that argument.

[Jeoloba]

Also, because the language/wording is often at least somewhat open to interpretation, people will tend to interpret everything however they desire. This would not be possible if the original language were in legalese Lojban, or had a dictionary in which every use of every word were unambiguously defined with references to its use, with the words used in all definitions defined similarly.

Agreed, that's why everyone has different answers to the above question. A holy book should never be opened for interpretation and crystal clear just like any other book. It's a shame a lot of laws are written in the same way as the bible, open to interpretation.

[The Two Jerseys]

Hey God, which bible is the correct bible?

Forget that, tell us whether humans were created after plants (Genesis 1) or before plants (Genesis 2)?

If the answer is before, we're allowed to tell vegans to suck it, right?

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

No, the two aren't the same. You can kill someone, doesn't mean it's murder.

It was murder. The Hebrews killed them with Malice and without a valid reason. It was murder.

Yes. David, the second King of ancient Israel recorded in Scripture was prevented from making progress on the construction of a permanent temple (as opposed to the rather nomadic Tabernacle) due to killing people.^{[According to 1 Chronicles 28:3]}

[Highever]

No, the two aren't the same. You can kill someone, doesn't mean it's murder.

It was murder. The Hebrews killed them with Malice and without a valid reason. It was murder.

Er, do you mean the Egyptians? Who according to the Bible brutally enslaved the hebrews?

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Also, because the language/wording is often at least somewhat open to interpretation, people will tend to interpret everything however they desire. This would not be possible if the original language were in legalese Lojban, or had a dictionary in which every use of every word were unambiguously defined with references to its use, with the words used in all definitions defined similarly.

Agreed, that's why everyone has different answers to the above question. A holy book should never be opened for interpretation and crystal clear just like any other book. It's a shame a lot of laws are written in the same way as the bible, open to interpretation.

Though you must admit, it has prevented many repeals and amendments and court cases (although probably fewer than it caused) in the case of legislation.

---

It was murder. The Hebrews killed them with Malice and without a valid reason. It was murder.

Er, do you mean the Egyptians? Who according to the Bible brutally enslaved the hebrews?

Likely the people groups both within and surrounding the Sinai Peninsula and (ancient) Judea/Israel/Canaan. I can only think of one murder of an Egyptian by a Hebrew during the time of Exodus mentioned in Exodus (Moses murdered a slave-master for beating a slave, then buried the body in a shallow grave in the sand).

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Forget that, tell us whether humans were created after plants (Genesis 1) or before plants (Genesis 2)?

If the answer is before, we're allowed to tell vegans to suck it, right?

That is neither forbidden nor allowed (explicitly and directly and clearly) AFAIK. Of course, I may seem rather likely to conveniently forget any instances in which it was explicitly allowed.

[Zuvon]

Ares would have approved it.
Allah SWT would approve it too.
Jesus? Hmm...

[Nolo gap]

as to god or gods, there's no obvious connection between the christian bible, nor the scriptures of any religion, and the christian god, or the god of any religion.
no living human person, including me, has the slightest idea what any god would or would not approve of.

unless of course you posit that you're only referring to "good" gods. which also counts out anything to do with christianity,
because goodness and the desire to be feared, are absolute binary opposites, whatever gods, governments or anything else see fit to exist.

but back to guns, a god( or goddess) could still be good, and approve of eating flesh, but not of trophy hunting, as carnivours are a perfectly natural part of nature,
and humans are of course somewhat short changed in the teeth and claws department.

killing each other of course, faces the same objection as trophy hunting, well unless, you actually practice canabalism,
and there are some serious health problems with that.