Being raped better than letting women have gun to shoot rapist with?:India and rape

[Rachel20]

The apostles were not martyred on the day of pentecost where everyone was gathered. But in various countries that they ended up preaching the Gospel. Some historical study and using a map of where they were Martyred would help you a great deal to get a better picture of scripture, timelines, environments and people involved in various historical events recorded.

You didn't answer my question Harpy.

Are you saying if the apostles were not outnumbered, they would have used swords? Why didnt they carry it at that point of time?
For eg. Thomas in India.
And thanks for the suggestion, however my question had nothing to do with geographical or historical context.

 

[Rachel20]

There is more to that verse.



Maybe for you carrying a gun is a heavy yoke.
But for others enduring a sexual assault would be a heavy yoke.
Part of the easy yoke, and light burden may be the option to own and use a gun which can repel the heavy yoke of a sexual assault.

Well this was about about India and women in India.

As I said before, and even after reading all your posts, it reiterates my point earlier on how so many people seem to have more faith in their gun.

It's not the solution for violence in India.

(thanks for trying to be sane and answer them more intelligently than the previous posters, who attacked other countries, paraded their degrees and wrote about my death. )

Indeed there are other options.
But does presence of other options negate the other option that can repel the heavy yoke of a sexual assault?
Pepper spray may fail, but I doubt anyone would say no pepper spray because it fails.
A taser may fail, but i doubt many would say no taser because they fail.
Likewise, yes guns may not work 100%, but surely we can't deny that option which can prevent the heavy yoke of a sexual assault.

Yes arms are never 100% succesful. Thank you for agreeing.


No one said to deny anyone any option, but as we agree it's not the solution that can completely prevent any form of sexual assault, I would not go handing a billion people guns and telling them it's for your protection.

 

[1still_waters]

As I said before, and even after reading all your posts, it reiterates my point earlier on how so many people seem to have more faith in their gun.

.

I don't think anyone is having more faith in a gun.
Also the Bible doesn't portray faith in God and use of arms as being mutually exclusive.
Israel would both trust in God, and go into battle.
Their problem was when they trusted ONLY in their arms.

God told them to trust in Him, but to also go into battle.

I'm only citing that to show that trust in God doesn't exclude things that on the surface look like trust in things outside of God.

 

[Rachel20]

Absolutely there were, Christ was crucified between two thieves.

It is commonly believed that Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish civil authority). He was present at the stoning of Stephan by the Sanhedrin (Acts7), imprisoned believers (Acts 8), and was enroute to Damascus with letters from the High Priest authorizing him to imprison converts (Acts 9) when he was confronted by Christ. The last time I checked a private citizen cannot "imprison" someone, only someone who acts under the authority of the civil authority.

Well, so are you saying that while dealing with authority, submit to injustice but when dealing with criminals and other ordinary citizens, use a sword/gun?

You have to remember that in the context of attack of oneself and other women, I have never said using protection is against the fact of being a Christian.

But I will say this, I am very disappointed in many American Christians.

Your country has probably the maximum number of Christian population density. Mine only has 2%.

And yet, advocating a weapon of violence as a solution, as a one size fits all maxim, has me disillusioned. I am sorry if I am being extremely honest here.

I am not trying to change your or anyone's opinion.

I just don't see anything that separates Christians from a normal citizen, at least in terms of their views.

 

[Rachel20]

Because God had a greater plan for him, God always offers a chance for a person to turn around.
Usually right before being forced to remove them from the situation, (reference Balaam as well)

We also desire mercy rather than sacrifice, If That be Possible



Who places the ones in authority, man or God?
Who is one to assert that citizens have no authority over their own life or the well-being of their own family?
Who assigned David or any number of willing men called to Gods purpose as servants of good under his authority?

The argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?
Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning—in Genesis 4. In this chapter, we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was upset in the mind due to improper motives.


Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a weapon of some sort. Whether a knife or a rock or his fist, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain’s heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.
God’s response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer.


Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also."

The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In this passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper-
is, taking vengeance—He was clearing up that it is not.


The choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace at the time. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount, Christ used this same
"you have heard it said"
figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the time.
Contrast this to Christ’s use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil’s lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words:
"it is written").
To further emphasize the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders( as sometimes leaders need correcting) on their teaching that "an eye for an eye" applies to private revenge.
Consider that in the same sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. . ." (Mt. 5:19).
Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self-defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible.

Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself in instructing his disciples to purchase swords, for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments.
The reference to "an eye for an eye" was taken from Exodus 21:24-25, which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime.
---Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. If it is excessive it is wrong. Christ own death being the perfect example of excessive corporal punishment that was unjustified and unfitting since no crime was even committed.
The religious leaders of Christ’s day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge.
---THIS is why Rachel, I made mention that if one actually DESERVES their punishment,
To accept it and turn the other cheek without fighting back.
This is different than individual self-defense in a physical context.
Without fighting back and accepting ones punishment by those in authority also sets up the stage for accepting the authority of Gods punishment without fighting back or being rebellious.
Christ is saying not to take vengeance, against justice.
Also if a lesson or point can be made by showing peace in extreme circumstances. He desires mercy not sacrifice, I agree.
So why pray tell...did Christ instruct some to sell their cloak to purchase a sword?
It wasn't to hang over the mantle.
Stephen's death was the death of a martyr. Not all are called to be a Martyr.
What I'm trying to help people understand is peace if possible.

But--- there are some called to ensure the peace of others as well as themselves
As well as for their own family, also within the biblical context of providing for their own family because lets face it.
If one is dead you can no longer provide for your children or wife or husband right?

You have a right to the life God gave you.
That's what I'm trying to help some realize.
It's not city or country specific but a worldwide right, which is so fundamental it shouldn't even have to be fought for.
LIBERTY- the quality individuals have to control their own actions. Should not have to be fought for.

If one wishes to die for Godly cause, I am all for it, and I do greatly respect anyone's position of promoting peace. If at all possible.

I have turned the cheek many times in the name of mercy, taking more than I deserve to help promote peacefully understanding and a person to reconsider their actions in arresting a situation. Often in the defense of another being subject to physical harm.
For instance Having a shotgun pointed at you from a guy hopped up on crank that is attacking your girlfriend doesn't settle well when you have no other means of defending yourself at the time than your words.

Just for the sake of argument Rachel, lets put this into the scenario of if you and I were dating, and an attacker did the same to you, would you have me sit idle by and say, "that's strong of you to be willing to be attacked so peacefully"
Lol I'm going to do what needs to be done and accept God's judgement for such. Sorry I'm not called to be one to sit down and watch it happen. Mainly because it would hurt me inside to see a fellow sister attacked by an evil person.

Through the course of life and situations and much experience, God showed me that both that there are times to not resort to mortal harm, and there are times when having yourself a form of backup insurance is justified, especially when your loved one is being attacked.
Sorry Rachel I'm not going to advocate allowing a loved one to be subject to such things while I sit there and say
"allllll right thats is it!!! Im calling the police!"
When we are perfectly capable of arresting said situation at the time when witnessing it.

Let us relate this back to Jesus
It's difficult to imagine Jesus telling his disciples to buy swords if he didn't expect them to use them, considering that he would soon state,
". . . for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."
In explaining that one who carry's or takes up or lives by a sword would die by the sword, did Jesus say it is against his word to have a sword though? No, and when he told one of his followers who cut the ear off the soldier
"'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'

Jesus did not instruct him to throw away his sword, but more that it was not needed at that time for that particular circumstance.
At the time of Jesus' capture,....Jesus never intended any resistance to his capture, nor to allow such a weapon to be used on the occasion. He had a purpose to fulfill. Resisting would only prolong Gods plan.
But when Jesus was no longer with them, their journey would not be temporary. They would need certain provisions, including a knife for preparation of food, cutting wood for fuel, and possibly as sword to fend off robbers for which the area was noted. So, once Jesus' ordeal was over, they should make sure they each had some form of protection.
Because Jesus was no longer with them physically.

As Harpy so well noted...Some are called to know how to use a weapon and do so tactfully and efficiently, some are not capable, nor were called to by God.
Some are called to be an Olympian Gold medalist, some are not.
Some are called to die a Martyrs death, not all are.

Romans 13:4
For the one in authority is God's servant for your good.

It would stand to reason that servant must be on Gods side to be used for good.

Mr. MidniteWelder I would really appreciate if you stopped trying to teach me.

I can read the verses and I can read them in context as I showed you earlier. Did you read my questions to you in red?

People in authority having guns, is not something I said is not allowed or they're not being Christian. You're using the Scripture, talking about intentions etc to make it seem that turning the other cheek was only for so-and-so people and only for so-and-so context.


I have the Bible as well and I understand what liberty and etc means.

1 John 2:27

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.


I may not be American but that doesn't mean you try to teach me English

And because of this, we enjoy the liberty (look that word up, its a good word) of protecting ourselves and loved ones need be.

There is a difference between a citizen and authority in India.

You should continue your teaching to your fellow Americans but please refrain from pushing your ideals onto India.

 

[Rachel20]

Straw man

 

[Rachel20]

I don't think anyone is having more faith in a gun.
Also the Bible doesn't portray faith in God and use of arms as being mutually exclusive.
Israel would both trust in God, and go into battle.
Their problem was when they trusted ONLY in their arms.

God told them to trust in Him, but to also go into battle.

I'm only citing that to show that trust in God doesn't exclude things that on the surface look like trust in things outside of God.

Well it's obviously a personal conviction as I've said.

I want to honour God by refusing to take anyone's life. I don't want even the possibility around. My own life being in question.

Very hard stuff to swallow. Goes against the grain of logic. However I live by faith, not sight. And my faith rests in God that he will protect me when I call out to him even if I don't have a gun.

 

[Rachel20]

Republic Day in India here.
Where people in India showcase their arms

 

[MidniteWelder]

Im sorry if I upset you Rachel,
I find it difficult to understand where your personal assertion comes from that only those in authority such as cops or military should utilize a firearm, which is a common misconception projected by media and govt wishing to disarm the general public to make them subordinate.
Such an assertion in and of itself turns part of the focus to cops and military, which is the only reason I addressed that aspect.
I find this inconsistent with your stance that only those people should have guns while at the same time you are asserting you never said it is un-Christianlike for someone to defend themselves.
I don't see the difference whether the person defending themselves are black, white, chinese, australian, Indian police officer, military, or citizen.
I also note that I made it clear that each person has a different calling and understand your position.
Why are you not understanding others?

If it pleases you I promise never to use any method to defend you if ever being subject to attacked by someone.
I don't want to be a stumbling block for you.

 

[Praus]

want to hear our words to shake the dust off our feet and move on. So I think I will join my friend AOK, shake the dust off my feet and move on.

God bless you good luck.

 

[Praus]

that only those in authority such as cops or military should utilize a firearm, which is a common misconception projected by media and govt wishing to disarm the general public to make them subordinate.

Do you mean the US media?

 

[Rachel20]

Im sorry if I upset you Rachel,
I find it difficult to understand where your personal assertion comes from that only those in authority such as cops or military should utilize a firearm, which is a common misconception projected by media and govt wishing to disarm the general public to make them subordinate.

My personal assertion comes from the fact that I believe Jesus died for everyone and his sacrifice is too precious that I don't want to take another's life.

I told you, I would rather we had total disarmament. There is no inconsistency.

Also, if I were not a Christian , I would be completely agreeing with you MidniteWelder. What you say makes complete sense.

A person should be able to defend their life and those of their loved ones. Their life is important and they have ''rights'' to carry arms and assert them etc.

But I will have you know - I have no life. ( In all sense )

I gave mine to Jesus and so I do not make a decision to take another's.

Such an assertion in and of itself turns part of the focus to cops and military, which is the only reason I addressed that aspect.
I find this inconsistent with your stance that only those people should have guns while at the same time you are asserting you never said it is un-Christianlike for someone to defend themselves.
I don't see the difference whether the person defending themselves are black, white, chinese, australian, Indian police officer, military, or citizen.

Bibe says submit to authority. Authorities carry guns. So what? I submit.


In context of India, I said I don't want others to have guns. Isn't it my right to say so?

You don't see any difference, between authority and citizen than good for you, but I am no longer an anarchist either.

I also note that I made it clear that each person has a different calling and understand your position.
Why are you not understanding others?

Please do me the same courtesy as I do you, reading your extremely long posts. I have also said the same that people have different callings.

If it pleases you I promise never to use any method to defend you if ever being subject to attacked by someone.
I don't want to be a stumbling block for you.

I never asked you to defend me nor will I ever. I asked God.

I don't care if you choose to or not to. That is up to you. At the end of the day it is still in God's hand

 

[MidniteWelder]

how many other times in History has the same motive happened, and what was the outcome?
(Think stepping stones...a slow progression)
The agenda didn't originate just in the U.S.
But it's being propagated worldwide now, i dont wish to get into politics of it as thats not the topic of this thread.
But there is a bigger picture...imagine no person in the world being able to defend themselves.

 

[Praus]

how many other times in History has the same motive happened, and what was the outcome?

They disarmed Australia a few years ago after the Port Arthur massacre and most of our Australian brothers and sisters here on CC don't seem to mind.

 

[Rachel20]

how many other times in History has the same motive happened, and what was the outcome?
(Think stepping stones...a slow progression)
The agenda didn't originate just in the U.S.
But it's being propagated worldwide now, i dont wish to get into politics of it as thats not the topic of this thread.
But there is a bigger picture...imagine none of the world being able to defend themselves.

That could be discussed in the Conspiracy Forum.



Isaiah 8:12
“Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.

 

[Praus]

how many other times in History has the same motive happened, and what was the outcome

Here's an interesting tidbit from a webpage about the history of the Geneva Bible:

-> The Reformed Reader introduction to the geneva bible for the historic Baptist faith.

Another of the ironies left us from the 16th Century is that freedom of religion and freedom of the press did not originate in England, as many people commonly assume today. Those freedoms were first given to Protestants by the Dutch, as the records of that era plainly show.

 

[MidniteWelder]

They disarmed Australia a few years ago after the Port Arthur massacre and most of our Australian brothers and sisters here on CC don't seem to mind.

Perhaps not at this time they don't mind.

That could be discussed in the Conspiracy Forum.

Isaiah 8:12
“Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.

I'm not in dread, its in the Lords hands, yet I'm also prepared if the Lord calls to either do nothing or something.

Romans 9:20
20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

2 Timothy 2:20
20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use.

 

[Praus]

There were large groups of believers. 3000 were added the day of Pentecost.

But you're saying that, given the case they were not outnumbered, they would have used a sword?

First Century A.D. Christians were serious about God.

 

[Rachel20]

First Century A.D. Christians were serious about God.

View attachment 70279

Amen! Thomas was in India!!! (looking at maps etc as suggested)

 

[Rachel20]

Perhaps not at this time they don't mind.

I'm not in dread, its in the Lords hands, yet I'm also prepared if the Lord calls to either do nothing or something.

Romans 9:20
20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory—

2 Timothy 2:20
20 In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for special purposes and some for common use.

Ok, we all agree about the Lord calling everyone for different purposes. He did use people in acts of war etc.

If the Lord calls you to implement a tool of defence, who are we to say anything.

However has God told you to tell all the Indian people to have guns?