Facebook Gun Rights Theology = Sheer Stupidity

20130427-213657.jpg

They call it “A Word from our Creator about Gun Rights”

Guess they didn’t read Luke 11:22.

Please note the subject of Luke 11:21 is Satan whereas is is the peaceful Jesus who is the subject of 11:22

Post By Joel Watts (10,058 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

2 thoughts on Facebook Gun Rights Theology = Sheer Stupidity

  1. Jesus also said in Matthew 10:34, “I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword ” Then, in Luke 22:36, Jesus commands, ” . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment/cloak/coat, and buy one.” As with other Bible verses, divers interpretations of these verses are possible..
    .
    Despite extremes on both sides of the issue, the one thing that is abundantly clear is that, despite commands to love one’s enemies and turn the other cheek, Jesus never totally distanced himself from the sword on all occasions. Instead, Jesus offers a cautionary warning in Matthew 26:52 when he pointed out, ” . . . for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
    .
    Jesus’ caveat in Matthew 26:52 plays out on the streets of America every day. Those fortunate few able to exit the gang or organized crime lifestyles frequently point out that all of the people they used to hang with are either dead or incarcerated. All too often, the departed lived and died in a cesspool of violence.
    .
    On the secular side of things, there is a very good reason why the Second Amendment to The Constitution of the United States come between the First and Third Amendments. It was seen as part of the balance of powers necessary to keep government from running roughshod over the citizenry as had happened when the 13 colonies were part of the British Empire.
    .
    As with ownership of an automobile, ownership of a firearm comes with both rights and responsibilities. Those unwilling or unable to exercise prudent discretion should abstain from the temptations associated therewith. Yet, just because the irresponsible walk among us does not justify a blanket prohibition on the possession of either cars or guns.
    .
    Frankly, both my wife and I may be alive today because some big city street thugs correctly realized that we were packing. Moreover, having once lived in a foreign country where even the possession of a firearm was forbidden, I have seen the dangers therein. Unless that country is a police state, the stronger are all too often tempted to prey upon the weaker. .
    .
    These days, my wife and I live in a rough neighborhood. At least a third of the folks living within 100 yards of our house have prison on their resumes. Drug use is rampant. From time to time, half a dozen police cars roll in looking for one of the neighbors. So do bounty hunters. The child protection folks are also frequent fliers. Yet, for the most part, we coexist peacefully. That coexistence probably wouldn’t be possible without living by the Golden Rule and conceal/carry permits.

Leave a Reply, Please!