Would God approve of Guns

[Cekoviu]

Citation needed.

The firstborns of Egypt being murdered. "Behold, I will slay your son, even your first-born" – Exodus 4:23
There was not reason for the firstborns being killed and it was done with malice there for it was murder, and this was done by god himself.

But of course, that great truth of life, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

Why should I not love my guns and have my own religious beliefs?

Yeah, but they were doing something on behalf of god, at the least (though that does make him a hypocritical asshole, but beside the point). Hoarding guns is not something that God needs or wants you to do.

God would want me to have guns so I could defend myself, well at least there isn't anything in the bible that says I can't have guns.

Aaaaaand we're circling again. I'm clearly never going to get through to you.

[Confederate Norway]

The firstborns of Egypt being murdered. "Behold, I will slay your son, even your first-born" – Exodus 4:23
There was not reason for the firstborns being killed and it was done with malice there for it was murder, and this was done by god himself.

A. Just because you don't think it was necessary does not mean it was done with malice.
B. God cannot commit murder by definition, as murder is killing without just cause, and/or authority. God has infinite authority as the creator of all the universe, to destroy His creation should ever he choose.
C. The plagues were in fact necessary, for a number of reasons, but primarily because Pharaoh wouldn't capitulate.


However, this has jack all to do with what you said. You said the bible has stories of God's followers breaking God's law and having no recourse. This is not an example of that. Try again.

A. It really does seem God do so with malice, If he did not have malice he would of not of killed firstborns who did nothing wrong.
B. That logic is so poor. God did not have a just cause to kill firstborns who have done nothing wrong. If god can kill his own creations when ever he pleases then should mothers and fathers be able to kill their own children when ever they please?
C. God could of just killed the Pharaoh if he wanted to, he did not have to kill so many innocent people.
It may have to do jack with what I said, but it is greater evidence because God himself broke his own rules. If God himself broke his own rules then his followers in the Bible would of too. If God breaks his own rules then his rules are meaningless and I can do so too.

[Tabor-Zion]

First off, there's not a single contradiction in the Bible. Anyone who says that hasn't seriously tried to understand it or have even looked into it. Secondly, yes he would and he did, the Lord affirmed self-defense in both Exodus 22 and Luke 22

[Tabor-Zion]

And the post above me misses the point. Nobody is innocent. All have sinned. All deserve death, life is just the delay of that justice but Hell will be given to all. The only way out is to accept Jesus' substitutionary death

[Confederate Norway]

First off, there's not a single contradiction in the Bible. Anyone who says that hasn't seriously tried to understand it or have even looked into it. Secondly, yes he would and he did, the Lord affirmed self-defense in both Exodus 22 and Luke 22

"Behold, I will slay your son, even your first-born" – Exodus 4:23. Is this not a contradiction to "You shall not murder”? And what about all the prophecies in the Bible that have never came true?

[Tarsonis]

A. Just because you don't think it was necessary does not mean it was done with malice.
B. God cannot commit murder by definition, as murder is killing without just cause, and/or authority. God has infinite authority as the creator of all the universe, to destroy His creation should ever he choose.
C. The plagues were in fact necessary, for a number of reasons, but primarily because Pharaoh wouldn't capitulate.


However, this has jack all to do with what you said. You said the bible has stories of God's followers breaking God's law and having no recourse. This is not an example of that. Try again.

A. It really does seem God do so with malice, If he did not have malice he would of not of killed firstborns who did nothing wrong.

There’s too much to go into here to explain why this is not an accurate assessment of the situation, but I’ll settle with that conclusion is not adequately substantiated by the premise.

B. That logic is so poor. God did not have a just cause to kill firstborns who have done nothing wrong. If god can kill his own creations when ever he pleases then should mothers and fathers be able to kill their own children when ever they please?

1. I said and/or. Not just and.

2. No because they’re also God’s creation.

C. God could of just killed the Pharaoh if he wanted to, he did not have to kill so many innocent people.
It may have to do jack with what I said, but it is greater evidence because God himself broke his own rules. If God himself broke his own rules then his followers in the Bible would of too. If God breaks his own rules then his rules are meaningless and I can do so too.

1. Killing Pharoah wouldn’t have accomplished anything.
2. God did not break His own rules, God’s rules were for mankind, He is by no means bound by them.
3. Incorrect, as the rules apply to you and not to Him.
4. Just because you think he broke the rules, doesn’t mean he did in actuality.

[Tarsonis]

First off, there's not a single contradiction in the Bible. Anyone who says that hasn't seriously tried to understand it or have even looked into it. Secondly, yes he would and he did, the Lord affirmed self-defense in both Exodus 22 and Luke 22

4 Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Let’s be honest, there are some overt contradictions. But sometimes even contradictions have nuance.

[Confederate Norway]

The firstborns of Egypt being murdered. "Behold, I will slay your son, even your first-born" – Exodus 4:23
There was not reason for the firstborns being killed and it was done with malice there for it was murder, and this was done by god himself.

Why should I not love my guns and have my own religious beliefs?

God would want me to have guns so I could defend myself, well at least there isn't anything in the bible that says I can't have guns.

Aaaaaand we're circling again. I'm clearly never going to get through to you.

Well debating is pretty pointless tbh. You rarely ever do you change someones mind in a debate.

[Cekoviu]

Aaaaaand we're circling again. I'm clearly never going to get through to you.

Well debating is pretty pointless tbh. You rarely ever do you change someones mind in a debate.

It happens occasionally, if rarely. I've spent a shitload of time debating people online and I've changed people's minds at least once or twice - it pays off!
oh god, what have i done with my life

[Confederate Norway]

A. It really does seem God do so with malice, If he did not have malice he would of not of killed firstborns who did nothing wrong.

There’s too much to go into here to explain why this is not an accurate assessment of the situation, but I’ll settle with that conclusion is not adequately substantiated by the premise.

Fair enough. I will just say when "I will slay your son" that does seem pretty ill willed and evil.

B. That logic is so poor. God did not have a just cause to kill firstborns who have done nothing wrong. If god can kill his own creations when ever he pleases then should mothers and fathers be able to kill their own children when ever they please?

1. I said and/or. Not just and.

2. No because they’re also God’s creation.

1. I am confused on by what you mean by this? Could you explain this to me more by what you meant?
2. Good answer, I just don't get how an all loving god can just kill his creations when ever he wants. Why would God do such a cruel thing?
3. I notice how you underlined authority. When I looked at the definition of murder it said nothing about authority not having to be involved for it to be murder.

C. God could of just killed the Pharaoh if he wanted to, he did not have to kill so many innocent people.
It may have to do jack with what I said, but it is greater evidence because God himself broke his own rules. If God himself broke his own rules then his followers in the Bible would of too. If God breaks his own rules then his rules are meaningless and I can do so too.

1. Killing Pharoah wouldn’t have accomplished anything.
2. God did not break His own rules, God’s rules were for mankind, He is by no means bound by them.
3. Incorrect, as the rules apply to you and not to Him.
4. Just because you think he broke the rules, doesn’t mean he did in actuality.

1.Well then how would killing firstborns of accomplished anything? It seems to me God just wanted vengeance.
2. So he can be how tyrannical as he wants? This really does not make sense for an all loving God.
3. That will depend because right now I am kind of losing my faith in him, so because of that I may not even believe in a God anymore so I wouldn't have to go by his rules. Tbh i'm sure how much faith I had to begin with. I can't believe in a God that would do such messed up things and have people like you defend him.
4. By using your logic then just because you think God is real does not mean he is real. That's not a good argument.

Also Sorry that the quoting is a bit messed up. I tried the best I could.

[Tarsonis]

There’s too much to go into here to explain why this is not an accurate assessment of the situation, but I’ll settle with that conclusion is not adequately substantiated by the premise.

Fair enough. I will just say when "I will slay your son" that does seem pretty ill willed and evil.

In my experience threats don’t work so well if they’re not foreboding.

B. That logic is so poor. God did not have a just cause to kill firstborns who have done nothing wrong. If god can kill his own creations when ever he pleases then should mothers and fathers be able to kill their own children when ever they please?

1. I said and/or. Not just and.

2. No because they’re also God’s creation.

1. I am confused on by what you mean by this? Could you explain this to me more by what you meant?

I said murder was described as just cause and/ or authority. One does not necessarily need both, one will suffice. For the same reason we genocide entire ant colonies and no one finds it morally repugnant, we by nature of our election have dominion over them. In that same way God has dominion over us.

2. Good answer, I just don't get how an all loving god can just kill his creations when ever he wants. Why would God do such a cruel thing?

Keep in mind that God sees things on the cosmic level where we only see them at a local level. To God’s perception, A person in the after life would be metaphysically no different than a person alive on earth. We find killing repugnant because once killed that person is no longer with us. Where as to God, killing is merely the act of moving specimens from box A to box B.

3. I notice how you underlined authority. When I looked at the definition of murder it said nothing about authority not having to be involved for it to be murder.

I may have the just cause to defend myself against a murder, but I wouldn’t have the authority to execute him for his previous crimes.

C. God could of just killed the Pharaoh if he wanted to, he did not have to kill so many innocent people.
It may have to do jack with what I said, but it is greater evidence because God himself broke his own rules. If God himself broke his own rules then his followers in the Bible would of too. If God breaks his own rules then his rules are meaningless and I can do so too.

1. Killing Pharoah wouldn’t have accomplished anything.
2. God did not break His own rules, God’s rules were for mankind, He is by no means bound by them.
3. Incorrect, as the rules apply to you and not to Him.
4. Just because you think he broke the rules, doesn’t mean he did in actuality.

1.Well then how would killing firstborns of accomplished anything? It seems to me God just wanted vengeance.

Because Pharaoh rules over the slaves. God kills pharaoh, a new pharaoh rises whose probably even more defiant. Instead the plagues were there to convince Pharaoh to let the slaves go. Remember God didn’t go straight to death of first born, He started small, non lethal turning the river Nile to blood. He enacted 9 non-lethal plagues. Each time Pharaoh refused and each time the plagues got worse. It wasn’t until the death of the first born that finally pharoah could no longer bear the price of his insolence.

2. So he can be how tyrannical as he wants? This really does not make sense for an all loving God.

We’re discussing the rules which theoretically yes God can be as tyrannical as he wants. However, the all loving God is a question fo God’s nature, which His nature is to not be tyrannical.

3. That will depend because right now I am kind of losing my faith in him, so because of that I may not even believe in a God anymore so I wouldn't have to go by his rules. Tbh i'm sure how much faith I had to begin with. I can't believe in a God that would do such messed up things and have people like you defend him.

Faith isn’t easy, and the actions of God are often hard to comprehend. We must accept that there are factors at play that we are unaware of, and what may seem to us a great offense is more than likely done for good.

4. By using your logic then just because you think God is real does not mean he is real. That's not a good argument.

Also Sorry that the quoting is a bit messed up. I tried the best I could.

But that would be accurately. Just because I think God is real does not necessarily mean God is real or not. And just because you doubt does not mean a God is real or not. God is a being not a concept. His metaphysical existence or nonexistence operates independently of your perception.

[Lost Memories]

First off, there's not a single contradiction in the Bible. Anyone who says that hasn't seriously tried to understand it or have even looked into it. Secondly, yes he would and he did, the Lord affirmed self-defense in both Exodus 22 and Luke 22

4 Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Let’s be honest, there are some overt contradictions. But sometimes even contradictions have nuance.

That passage isn't contradictory.

It's two faces of the same coin.
If you indulge foolishness you're going to be dragged into foolishness yourself. (this is about what happens to you)
If you indulge foolishness, the one acting foolish is going to feel appeased. (this is about the actor of foolishness)

If that has to be taken as an advice, it would be:
if you want to be wise, don't waste time with fools.
if you want to appease fools, play along them.

As a whole, the message should be: trying to appease someone acting foolish is a risky matter, as in exchange for the appeasement of others you get foolishness yourself, so caution is advised when dealing with foolishness.

2. I just don't get how an all loving god can just kill his creations when ever he wants. Why would God do such a cruel thing?

Because it's cruel only if you think life is all there is, but as the creator of life, god exists beyond life, and taking persons out of life doesn't mean making them stop to exist, so god removing his creations from life is amoral, as it's just a transfer from two states of existence and god alone has the authority to make that transfer at will.

For that matter we have no way to know where went or for what use were all the souls of the egyptian firstborns after they were taken.
By old testament cosmology, unless an exception was made, they all probably went to sheol, which was the afterlife in hebraism before christ came, where everyone, good and bad, went after death.
With the death of christ, the setup of the afterlife was changed, opening heaven as second alternative for where to go after-life(while before heaven was off limit for humans), during the change Jesus first went to sheol like everyone else, then by moving up from sheol to heaven he made it possible for everyone willing in sheol to follow him. Which means that if the egyptian firstborns weren't already in heaven because of some exception made, they must have come to heaven right after it was opened by christ.
(assuming i got the pre-post-christ cosmology right)

By old testament standards and context, sending people to sheol before the due time is pretty harsh for humans.
One explanation is that as a loving god; during time the nation of israel, the only human tribe to recognize god; between the carrot and the stick, god used mainly only the stick when dealing with humans. With the advent of christ the use of the carrot was re-evaluated.
(because humanity had grown a bit past its savagery, meaning a different approach could be used? who knows)

God is always the same, but the relationship and methods to interact with humanity change over time.
(my idea of it is because humanity itself develops over time, so does the human ability to interact with god)
The time context is always important to understand. Using old testament passages without time context is anachronistic.



About guns, i would assume that any weapon designed for rightful/licit uses (hunting, self-defence, etc) would be considered no different from any other tool humans create and use.
An argument could be made starting from tools of torture instead, tools of torture are harder to justify if not justifiable at all. In the same way, weapons created with the added intention to be purposely harassing, cruel, more violent than needed, would fall close to be tools of torture, so being not approvable in the same way.
Like, explosive bullets used against people(or any other living being), that's some evil shit, same for mines, and toy mines.

[Publica]

And the post above me misses the point. Nobody is innocent. All have sinned. All deserve death, life is just the delay of that justice but Hell will be given to all. The only way out is to accept Jesus' substitutionary death

Are you seriously arguing that the Ancient Egyptians should have accepted Jesus, despite the fact Jesus hadn't been born yet?

[Nolo gap]

only it isn't god. it has nothing to do with any god, should one happen to choose to exist. it is what people say to each other,
to which, nothing that was a god, would owe anything.

the link that is missing, is that between the scriptures of any religion, and any god or anything that resembles a god.

its how people work, its what people expect, which simply has nothing to do with any god.

It is how God is described.

by humans. pulling that description out of you know where.

now goodness and the desire to be feared are absolute binary opposites, whether a man, a nation or a god,
but no god owes anything to how anything human would describe one. and that includes every scripture of every religion.

[Greater Cesnica]

God gave us free will. Among the choices given by God, one is to defend your liberty and life. This includes using firearms in your own defense or in the defense of others.

[Geneviev]

God gave us free will. Among the choices given by God, one is to defend your liberty and life. This includes using firearms in your own defense or in the defense of others.

Free will doesn't mean that God approves of what you are doing.

[Greater Cesnica]

God gave us free will. Among the choices given by God, one is to defend your liberty and life. This includes using firearms in your own defense or in the defense of others.

Free will doesn't mean that God approves of what you are doing.

Of course not. But we already discussed this in the self defense thread.

[Geneviev]

Free will doesn't mean that God approves of what you are doing.

Of course not. But we already discussed this in the self defense thread.

Did we? Never mind, then.

[Greater Cesnica]

Of course not. But we already discussed this in the self defense thread.

Did we? Never mind, then.

The conversation about circumstances in which you could kill someone in self defense or in the defense of others. But yeah.

[Geneviev]

Did we? Never mind, then.

The conversation about circumstances in which you could kill someone in self defense or in the defense of others. But yeah.

I don't think I mentioned God there, but okay.

[Greater Cesnica]

The conversation about circumstances in which you could kill someone in self defense or in the defense of others. But yeah.

I don't think I mentioned God there, but okay.

We weren't talking about spirituality. I was talking about the actual discussion of use of deadly force and firearms specifically.

[Bread Herbert]

Will guns approve of God?

[Greater Cesnica]

Will guns approve of God?

In other news, a Sig Sauer MCX has disappeared from ATF custody on its way to be destroyed. Witnesses report seeing a white light and the rifle propelling itself using its own recoil up through the clouds and beyond.

[Voluntua]

(As a clarification, I am christian and I am speaking about the will of the abrahamic God. I think the starter of the discussion is talking about Him too, because he cites the Bible - both testaments -, but just to be clear. Also, english is not my mother tongue, so please forgive me if I have made any mistakes.)
I think so because guns are tools of homicide, which is clearly against You shall not kill. Yes, homicide also includes cases of legal self-defense, but when we look at the example of the saints, we can see many of them refused to defend themselves, not just when they were sentenced to death by an authority, but even when they were attacked by murderers who were acting against the law.
The quote that has been brought up as a contradiction to the sixth Commandment (Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.) is, I think, not really about a literal sword, but rather a weapon against death and evil, a chance of Salvation that humanity was about to obtain by the Death on the Cross. Jesus clearly had no worldly power nor did He claim to have any (My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.). He clearly did not talk about a political struggle (unlike Mohammed, for example), but rather a spiritual one, where guns can not help.
As my last point, let us not forget what Jesus said to the disciple who tried to defend Him from being arrested: all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

[Crockerland]

Would God approve of breathing? How about drinking water?

I'd assume so. Self-defense is a fundamental right of every living organism, and every living being on Earth defends itself from attack. There is no meaningful distinction between killing someone with a gun and with any other weapon. People at the time of the Bible used whatever weapons were available to them and they were likely to be attacked with, most swords, spears, and bows.

Nehemiah 4:14,
"After I looked things over, I stood up and said to the nobles, the officials and the rest of the people, 'Don’t be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your families, your sons and your daughters, your wives and your homes.'"

Esther 8:11
"By these letters the king permitted the Jews who were in every city to gather together and protect their lives -- to destroy, kill, and annihilate all the forces of any people or province that would assault them [...]"