Question for Christians: Would you turn in your guns if ordered to by government?

[westwall]

.
that's a stretch -
.
View attachment 521221
.
midnight mass for the innocent defenders of the holy spirit, christianity.

Yeah, those are evil DEMOCRATS, not Christians.

You should learn the difference.

 

[ding]

I think I would, reluctantly. I say "reluctantly" because only good guys with guns can stop guys like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

So, would you turn in your guns?

Romans 13:1–2​

English Standard Version​

Submission to the Authorities
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Render to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's... so no.

Man has no authority to render laws which are against the Natural Law. Inalienable rights such as the right to own property and defend one's property come from God, not man. So they aren't man's to take away.

 

[ding]

.
that's a stretch -
.
View attachment 521221
.
midnight mass for the innocent defenders of the holy spirit, christianity.

Christians who were Democrats believed they were morally superior to blacks and formed the KKK to take back their states from black state legislators after the civil war. Christians who were Republicans put an end to it.

 

[ding]

Yeah, those are evil DEMOCRATS, not Christians.

You should learn the difference.

They were both. It just so happens that Christians who were Republicans put an end to it.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I think I would, reluctantly. I say "reluctantly" because only good guys with guns can stop guys like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

So, would you turn in your guns?

Romans 13:1–2​

English Standard Version​

Submission to the Authorities
13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

You've massively butchered the application of Romans 13.

It's not demanding blind obedience to government. The Greek used makes this clear, we just have a simplified warped English translation.

What is used is the term "hupo-tasso", which means to "submit" or be subject to, to arrange things in an orderly manner. It's social order. Hupo-tasso is used in Ephesians 5:22 to encourage husbands and wives to submit to one another, and it reflects God’s concern for order and respect. Paul was referring to the need for gov't authorities to keep the peace. God is a God of order, not anarchy/chaos.

If blind obediance to government was being demanded, the term "hupo-kouo" would have been used, which means to obey, conform, follow. Hupo-kouo is used throughout the new testament to suggest a hierarchical context, as in the relationship between children or slaves and their parents or masters (Eph 6:1 and 6:5)

to "submit" to social order does not mean to "obey" any government. So, the scripture your quoting does not call for the demand you're making.

Paul, Peter and other followers of Jesus deliberately disobeyed Roman laws that were in conflict with God’s commands, but they still submitted to the authorities by accepting the legal consequences of their actions.

 

[BreezeWood]

Yeah, those are evil DEMOCRATS, not Christians.

You should learn the difference.

.
I'm not the deceiver - they are the bible belt, they'll join whoever is burning the next cross. whichever party that might be.
.

.
their social gathering before sunday school - bible class.

* not many africans in the republican party, wonder why ...

 

[westwall]

.
I'm not the deceiver - they are the bible belt, they'll join whoever is burning the next cross. whichever party that might be.
.
View attachment 521515
.
their social gathering before sunday school - bible class.

* not many africans in the republican party, wonder why ...

They were, and ARE Democrats. They used religion to justify their evil deeds. And good christians killed them when they came to do their dirty work.

It's not my fault you are an ignorant twit.

 

[BreezeWood]

They were, and ARE Democrats. They used religion to justify their evil deeds. And good christians killed them when they came to do their dirty work.

It's not my fault you are an ignorant twit.

.
well they are christians ...

nothing new for a christian to deceive others of their true and past behavior - they wrote the 4th century christian bible ... the crucifiers - as they are seen below.
.

.
there is not a century christianity has not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent.

 

[westwall]

.
well they are christians ...

nothing new for a christian to deceive others of their true and past behavior - they wrote the 4th century christian bible ... the crucifiers - as they are seen below.
.
View attachment 521589
.
there is not a century christianity has not been at the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent.

No, they are scumbags masquerading as christians. It's kind of like Simon of Montfort (look him up, I know you have no clue who he was), who used the mantle of religious piety to take lands away from their lawful rulers. Christian in name only.

 

[BreezeWood]

No, they are scumbags masquerading as christians. It's kind of like Simon of Montfort (look him up, I know you have no clue who he was), who used the mantle of religious piety to take lands away from their lawful rulers. Christian in name only.

.
well, I agree with your assessment - your issue though is that there were no real "christians" to be found to stop them ... old story. were you to busy praying.

are you a southern rebel - defending your culture, of course slavery was never really a part of it.

in fact, truth be told the christian bible is the culprit, desert religions, have always been and will always be. the problem.

needs an overhaul.