Lina's experience mirrors my own. My dismantling ( my term for what I was going through) happened 25 years ago, and it took 8 long painfu,l confusing years to begin to recover. What changed during those dark years was the stripping off of religion, and thinking and saying what was expected of me as a believer, but allowing my brokenness and afflictions to reorient me to a real authentic walk with Jesus on a path of suffering. Church people around me did not understand and felt the need to "fix" me. I was in a process and there was no rushing it. I am still wrestling with questions, and Jesus is ok with that. My walk with him is much more organic, no religious performance or hoops to jump through. I am currently homeless church wise, because of the whole weirdness of insinuating faith into a political worldview, which feels dangerous and idolatrous. I was labeled a Marxist and shown the door. I've never even read Karl Marx. I do see movement towards fascism in many church ideologies, and that truly alarms me. I too am hard to pin down. I just want truth, justice, and righteousness. The Sermon on the Mount says it all. The Holy Post broadcast is the high point of my week. Thanks Sky and Phil for doing this week in and week out. You are life savers. God bless. I am going to purchase Luna's book, and send one to my sister for her birthday. She is also disillusioned but hanging on to Jesus.
Really appreciated the interview with Lina. The closing question is where it's at in my mind. My former church broke from the Harvest Bible Chapel brand and I remember being in a room with some of the pastors and our senior pastor said that God had hardened James MacDonald's heart. I didn't have the guts to say it at the time, but it was clear to me that if God had hardened James' heart He had used us to do it. We bought the books, attended the conferences, shared the sermons, and on and on. We were content to reap the rewards and on a number of occasions cover for MacDonald to continue reaping those rewards. Responsibility runs both ways, from pew to pulpit and back again. The leader is just a more visible member of the body, Christ is the only head.
I believe the whole crux of the gun issue can be summed up with the promotion of a culture of fear. Fear can be used to manipulate the masses to be reactive rather than responsive. In addition, pushing a narrative that generates fear is profitable. Money pours in to the manufacturing of guns, the idea that there is a threat around every corner, sells the "need" to arm oneself to the teeth. When everything is seen through a lens of fear, people will give power over to unethical ideologies, and strongman leaders. Self defense becomes paramount to self preservation. Jesus says throughout the gospels, " FEAR NOT " This an antidote to the insane "need" to own guns, much less AR15's. The opposite of Love is not hate, but fear. Authoritarian forces know this; and use it to control the masses. Just a thought.
This was a really great episode to listen to, especially the interview! Just hearing Psalm 22 being mentioned in it and it reminding all of us that lamenting is a apart of the Christian life and we shouldn't be afraid of that. I'm currently trying to handle a lot in my life with work, school, personal and church lives. It's very hard to manage all of it and I know that I'm not going to be great all the time and have my own shortcomings, but that doesn't mean I give up. I'll do better next time. I have to learn from my own sorrows, my own mistakes, my own miseries, so that I can fully grow and develop in being a good a faithful Christian.
For anyone on a deconstruction journey like Lina's, you should read "small gods" by Terry Pratchett... which is kinda strange given that Pratchett was (for most of his life) an atheist. Yet, the book helped me understand that faith and religion aren't mutually exclusive and helped me navigate through that very rough area in my life. I still don't believe in organized religion and have a LOT of baggage to get through (I'm current in therapy for religious trauma syndrome) but I still have a stronger faith than I did when I was trying to be "super-christian" for the first twenty-some years of my life
Glad to see you discussed Christian self-defense. It is not in the NT. Phil, justice, protection, safety for your family is not self-defense. Motives matter, as Jesus makes clear throughout his ministry (i.e. Sermon on the Mount). If you want to argue defending the vulnerable, great, but it is not necessarily using violence, especially guns. You may stand in the gap, put yourself in harms way. For example, as a high school English teacher, I have contemplated having a baseball bat in my room in order to stop a shooter who enters the room in order to save my students life, to save the shooter from committing murder, by neutralizing the shooters ability to shoot. I can do that without killing the shooter, and, of course, I would be laying my life on the line for my kids in my class. Would that be using violence? Yes. Breaking and arm or leg is not good, but avoiding the deaths in that situation is better.
French pacifically said that suicides went "up and up" in Australia post the gun laws and that's what was false about his statement regarding Australia suicide rate.
Having heard reports about Australia from a wide range of sources, yes the rate of suicides by guns did go down. Suspect the number of "successful" suicides went down. Gun suicides tend to be the most "successful"
Mike is exactly right at at 28:26, many American Christians love to quote the "buy a sword" verse, without the context. Jesus tells them to buy/have a sword in order for his disciples to be considered "transgressors". One of my youth group leaders often highlighted this strategy for reading things in context; when you see the word "for" (or "therefore"), look around to see what it's there for. So in Luke 22, it should all be read together: 36“Now, however,” He told them, “the one with a purse should take it, and likewise a bag; and the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. 37 *FOR* I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about Me is reaching its fulfillment.” When Peter actually tried to use one of the swords as a weapon, the action was roundly condemned by Jesus, who then uses the example to make a universal statement about anyone who "lives by the sword".
@Rasskaz Forge But Jesus also elaborates on the "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand...." principle in both the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, saying that the principle of equal harm for harm no longer applies to his followers.
@Rasskaz Forge Huh? Romans 13 most certainly does not say that civil government is required to obey the law of God. Romans 13 tells citizens to be subject to the authority because God is using them as his servants. It's not about what government is doing, but what God is doing through imperfect, fallen man. This is a letter to the ROMANS. Paul was definitely not accusing Caesar of obeying God's laws, I can assure you of that.
@Rasskaz Forge Exactly why Romans 13 is not about governments obeying God's law. It's about God using broken people and institutions in the pursuit of his will. It was a call to understand that God works even when things are terrible - and SO, God was not calling on Christians to overthrow the Roman government, though it may be flawed, destructive, or even evil. Eye for an eye is not a commandment either personally or corporately. And it's a real twisting of the scripture to translate into a right of self-defense anyway.
Remember self-defense doesn't mean killing the attacker. Following God's will in self-defense is not about whether you have a gun, but rather how you use the gun. Only kill as an absolute last resort. A great many acts of wickedness have been prevented by a victim possessing a weapon without having to use it.
Yeah, that is absolutely true. Only kill as a last resort. This doesn't apply to government however. Paul's letter to the Romans makes clear that government's authority over life and death is wide-reaching. God has given the state the power to kill its citizens if they violate peace and good order.
At 40:00, this was my issue with David's viewpoint - the Bible never explicitly states that there is an inherent right to self-defense. The best you can say is the Bible doesn't specifically say self-defense is wrong.
@@Christ2010Grad That is a legal defense argument. If someone breaks into your house at night and you accidentally kill them in a scuffle, you won't be held legally accountable for that death. It doesn't mean you have the right to take a life should someone break in at night. Note also that it is not legal during the daylight, so why would that mean you have a full right to lethal self-defense (which is what a gun is)?
@@dckmusic I would advise you to not take the words nighttime and daytime to literally. The essential thing in that passage is that killing should NOT be the 1st resort when defending oneself. It’s to be the last resort.
@Rasskaz Forge I think what is getting lost with this pair of verses is that it is not permissible to kill someone just because they break into your house at night and not if they do during the day. I believe the underlying message here is that there is an occasion when we are put in a serious threatening situation that defending ourselves may lead to harm or death of the person we are defending ourselves against, but in many circumstances the threat alone is not enough to justify the other person's death. Restraint and proportional response is our responsibility. Taken in the wrong way, we get things like Kyle Rittenhouse who simply felt threatened (or says he did) by a person and shot them when there perhaps was no reason for that level of response. There are many who believe if someone steps on their property to steal something, they are free to kill them because of the threat. That is not what these verses suggest, and in the context of the whole chapter, we should always be ready to show mercy to people. Also, at this point, taking one's property could, in effect, be taking one's "life" as that is all they have to live - their livestock or food supply or whatever. A thief breaking into my house today to steal a TV is not the same and killing him is not a proportional response in my view.
Thank you for the interview. I related on many points to what she said and hope to read her book soon. I especially think that having an advocate or person to relay these thoughts too is especially helpful. Saying that it's ok to question and turning to the Word and digging into what it says rather than looking at surrounding circumstances. This is why I think "Bible" studies should be based on the Bible and not someone's work. Learning how to be built up by foundation in Christ rather than be dependent upon other people. I learned this initially from A.J. Swoboda's book and hope to be that advocate for others to step away from the crumbling foundations of societal and cultural churches into the foundation of the church built upon Christ and the Word.
The military is also trained for self preservation. Jocko's book is absolutely unreadable when you realize how little care he has for civilians in war zones. The US doesn't even keep track of civilian deaths in war zones anymore. It is very rare that a mission puts soldiers in harm's way which is proved by how few soldiers die in modern wars but civilian deaths are so common we can't even count. When the robots fight the wars, the only casualties will be civilians. The days of lining up to fight knowing 20-50% of those going in will die have been over for decades.
Thank you! One little verse ripped out of its context in Luke does not nullify the sermon on the mount. The Spirit of Jesus climaxed in His greatest act: lovingly giving his life on the Cross; I want to live my life in that same spirit- how can I spend my life for Jesus? Quickly like Stephen or slowly like Paul and John?
Thank you , Lina, for sharing your struggles and point of view of "the church system" as you have experienced it. I do so relate and have searched the scriptures to find answers to my own questions and pain experienced throughout the years in the church communities I and my family have been involved with - I cant help but trip over scriptures (especially in the New Testament) that remind me that the first is last and the last is first. As Jesus came to earth to serve, so I should. I have come to realize that to practice this I need to be grounded in walking and talking with Jesus from moment to moment. My faith is not lived through another person's experience and words, but 'hearing' the Holy Spirit download his words in my spirit. This brings me to Matthew 23:8-12. I am wondering if our churches need to restructure this hierarchy system and develop a discipleship where all are experiencing this (narrow) walk with Jesus and encouraging each other as the early church seems to have done (Acts 2: 44-47). We are all part of this loving heavenly puzzle called the body of believers (1Corinthians 12,13).
Faithful counseling, that you are advertising, does not take ANY health insurance. I think this is a hugely problematic ethical issue, especially when the counselors claim to be Christians. "Financial Aid" is not at all the same thing.
Thank you for following up on the David French episode… I was very upset some of his comments. I respect him greatly, but was confused with so much of what he said… Thanks for calming some of us down this week.
Part of the crises & mess in (some parts of) US evangelicalism seem (to be increasingly) to be coming back to a basic misunderstanding about authority & wisdom. I don't know where I saw this first: "Authority is to power as wisdom is to intelligence". (... which - well - could be parsed a few ways ...) It has occurred to me that reaching for the latter of these pairs is a concession of defeat in respect of the former? In relation to the US, in particular, could it be adjacent to seduction by capitalism? 🤔
As I understand it, the original California law was a poorly-worded piece of legislation listing off “mammals, reptiles and fish” or something similar rather than just referring to “animals”. And it’s way easier to get a legal ruling that bees are fish than to rewrite the law
I loved this discussion, I appreciate seeing more than one side of biblical interpretation when it comes to self defense. Whether self defense is really seen as a virtuous thing in the Bible has always been a question of mine when we enter the discussion around Guns. Definitely gonna check out Mike’s podcast!
On the discussion about Christians and self-defense, Leo Tolstoy wrote a work called "The Kingdom of God is Within You", in which he expresses his own understanding of Christian non-resistance and the opinions that have circulated on this topic from different Christians in different parts of the world.
As a gun owner that used to live in NY, I think my basic objection to a lot of the gun laws is that they paint anyone who has these weapons as those who seek to do harm. All of the gun owners I know are not murderous killers. We have done nothing wrong with our firearms. We use our guns for hunting and recreational shooting. When gun bans are passed it's not the killers and the murderers that suffer. It's the law-abiding citizens that suddenly have to find a way to send their guns to out-of-state relatives, or reenact the confiscations that preceded the Nazi take-over of Germany. I'm not a gun shootin' bible-thumpin' right-winger, and I do think there needs to be regulation for firearms, and that less guns is good in pretty much any society, but banning something like firearms just sends them underground. It doesn't solve anything. As for Skye's strawman jab about people owning fighter jets, I personally don't have a problem with it if the person can afford fighter jet pilot lessons and has the 38 million to spend on a personal tomcat. As long as they're adhering to gun safety regulations, I don't even have a problem with them using conventional payloads. My two cents, because this is the internet, and that means everyone wants to know what I think.
This is going to sound super condescending and that's not my intent. Genuinely asking, what is it about proposed laws specifically that make you feel like you're being painted as a harmful person? I'm Canadian so I don't know 100% what the climate is down there, but I thought what people really wanted was sensible background checks, and that the only weapons people really wanted ban were like the military grade assault rifles that aren't used for recreational hunting. As an outsider I'm having a hard time understanding what is so bad about a few sensible background checks and banning guns that you can't even use recreationally. As a gun owner, can you give details about why people are so against this? Is there something we're missing?
@@amy-suewisniewski6451I totally don't take it as condescending. The banning of these guns implies that people who have peacefully owned these weapons for decades no longer can be trusted with them. The "S.A.F.E. Act" in NY (the state not the city) would rule that if I go there with my current firearms, I am a felon. I have always taken great care that my firearms would never cause anyone harm, and yet because I am merely in possession of these guns, I am considered a threat to the safety of others. The vast majority of civilians down here don't have modern-era military grade assault rifles. Fully automatic guns require permits from the government to own, so they are really really rare outside of military circles, so already they aren't what's out on the streets, (unless you've got some really illegal connections). Guns are like motorcycles down here. They aren't necessary, lots of people get killed by them, but they have an appeal to a wide range of responsible hobbyists. If you ban them, the millions of citizens that take safety and responsibility for their passion will feel slighted, like they've somehow committed crimes that they would never dream of doing. Gun crime is a real problem. I know, I live in Cleveland, but turning responsible, law-abiding citizens into felons for ownership of weapons they would never turn on their neighbors isn't a step forward.
@@Hogwa5hGaming Would you say then that a fairer compromise would be no ban on any guns but harsher background checks to own and purchase these weapons?
@@amy-suewisniewski6451 that's my stance. Other gun owners may disagree but I think a higher level of scrutiny for gun sales would be a much better option than penalizing the innocent.
Nearly every school shooter bought his weapon legally and was a law abiding citizen right up to the day before the shooting. It’s not about you personally, our society cannot be trusted with assault weapons.
And this is what happens when three comic genius-guys get together with no female intervention. The laughter was infectious! Great gun discussion and I loved, loved, loved Lina. Now I'm off to check out the new merch...;)
How do people overlook their tendency to switch between the two documents as sacrosanct despite their clear contradictions. When Jesus doesn't fit they swing to Jefferson and back again
To the state of California. Just protect the bees!!!!! There is no need to charge their identity to something they are not. Don't make things so complicated.
lol I get you. It's weird. But it's also not THAT weird. Tomatoes are classified by the US as fruit? vegetable? That's right, they're both! Depending on the law. They're scientifically one thing, but they're regulated as the other commercially* - because that's how they're traded and sold. Laws are pragmatic because none of us want Congress to sit there naming off every type of creature that can or cannot be included under a specific law. We have no choice but to build in some ambiguity. That's why they counted sponges, clams, and frogs as fish - which they most definitely are not. And why "fish"? Because that's the legal purview of the department tasked to oversee it. Laws! In this case, the provision is meant to prevent CA from having to invest all-new bureaucracy (which I think none of us likes) just for the bees, when there's perfectly established bureaucracy already in place. Endangered species act already comes with funding, staff, policies, rules, etc. Use that. Save government/taxpayer dollars. Prevent regulatory overlap. Honestly, small government, fiscal conservatives should be happy about this.
Wild how these people blend the Constitution and Bible to create fables of how they work together to fit their world view. The Bible is full of fables and the Constitution is full of flaws so I guess it makes sense in a perverse kind of way
Grace and Peace to you. I would be delighted to discuss this on Telegram with you and anyone else who reads this comment. You can find the Telegram link in the About section of my UA-cam page. I'd post the Telegram link here, but UA-cam would remove my post. I look forward to speaking with you. God bless you.
Also…the wild interpretations of Luke 22:36 blows my mind. It’s alluding to prophecies? It’s foreshadowing his own death and he wants to set up a reason for the Romans to kill him? No no no no…. Jesus HIMSELF tells us what’s going on in verse 35. It’s as plain as day… Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing.” They answered. Then he tells the to bring a purse, sword, and cloak. His point is very clear. He is telling them that the supernatural provision that they had experienced in the two prior missionary sendings that they had gone out on over the course of his ministry were coming to an end. Don’t expect to see the same going forward. You better bring some money with you, you better bring the right kinds of clothes for whatever journey you are going on, and you better bring a basic tool of self defense. The type of sword would have been a traveler’s sword though. What we would commonly call today a “dagger”. Not a broadsword or claymore or a “weapon of war”. So if we would hold true to the text…the kind of weapon Jesus was telling his people to arm themselves with would be, today…a pistol. Then we see more insight. Because the disciples DO instantly go to “weapons of war” mentality. Because Peter had sword and probably Simon the Zealot did too. And they are like “Oh boy! Here it is! The call to arms! Jesus is going to kick out the Romans and re-establish the kingdom like we have been waiting for!” And he rebuked them. He shuts that kind of talk down.
This seems like a wild interpretation of the passage that goes out of its way to ignore the verse in between the two you want to reference. Where does it suggest anything about God tasking them with their own protection? If anything, he continues to hammer home that he will not be defending himself and instead it is his lot to suffer unjustly. If the type of sword was a traveler's sword/dagger - then how could Jesus have possibly tasked the (at least) 12 of them with their basic self-defense with TWO DAGGERS? If that were enough, then maybe the supernatural provision was still well and good haha. Let's keep going in the passage. Where in this story does Jesus or his disciples use a sword to defend themselves? Never? Literally never again? Yep, you got it! Peter does use one of the two swords they have to lop off the ear of the arresting guards (not self-defense - unless we're pro-resisting arrest now), for which he gets rebuked by Jesus - and presumably disarmed by the guards. And then the sword comes into play exactly 0 times after that for the disciples. The sword doesn't really play any role at all, in fact, until Paul's jailer almost commits suicide with his sword, which Paul stops (sword is a pistol, eh?). And until Revelation, when the sword is used to cut down humanity. Gonna be honest, having trouble seeing the Christian self-defense angle here.
@@Cyrribrae - let me begin here by saying that ultimately…what you envision and what I envision likely would play out the same for Christians. But here’s the thinking… 1) I don’t believe that the incident in the garden on the night of Jesus betrayal is a proper example to use for the broad issue of self-defense. That was a one-time special moment. Jesus was going to die for the sins of the world and so he had to relinquish his access to the right of self defense…at that particular moment. But because it’s exceptional…it does not mean that it is the new rule and standard for all Christian living. 2) As much as “soft” Christians love to discount and dismiss the Old Testament…it has not all been set aside. And the same God who wrote the New Testament put the truths of the Old in there. And we know that ALL scripture is God breathed and “useful” for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. All of it. Not just the New Testament. And the narrative stories of the Old Testament show that the right to self defense exists. From the story of Nehemiah defending the wall as they rebuilt it…to the Jews defending themselves in Esther. To all the stories of the Kings and their battles… The right of self defense exists. And what kinds of weapons did the Israelites bring with them when mustered into an army in an emergency to fight the Phillistines around them? The “weapons of war” of their time. 3) I do believe…however that the use of deadly force should be heavily HEAVILY restricted for the Christian. When the disciples pulled out the two swords…the “that’s enough” language may not have been in the sense of “two swords is sufficient”. But rather “that’s enough!” As in “cut that crap out!” or “Enough of that kind of talk!” …or… “That’s enough of that!” Because they were always in the gospels pressing and looking for Jesus to become the revolutionary King. And as soon as he tells them to do something like bring a basic tool of self defense….they start pointing that they have two weapons…and is it time to use them to start the revolution and get more? You can just see Jesus eye-rolling at them. Anyway…in our day it might be like the Christian being told to get a pistol to defend your family…and Christians thinking that that means they need to buy an arsenal of fully-automatic machine guns. You can just see Jesus in heaven eye rolling at American Christians for doing just the kind of thing the disciples did. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. If we have an right to self defense overall…(and I think the entirety of scripture indicates that) then it would seem that Christians have that right heavily restricted to the least powerful weapons which they plan to almost never use. And the only context for their use is basic defense against common criminals…like they might encounter in public in their travels and need a travelers “sword”. The pistol of our day. I see nothing that indicates Christians should arm up to be able to violently overthrow the government. A position I used to believe but have since forsaken. 4) Flee - I think it is very clear that when widespread government-level persecution happens…it is not the Christians place to rebel and overthrow the government. Romans 13.1-2 makes that clear. Instead it is the indication that we should pull up stakes and move. That is what Christians in Acts did. That’s what faithful Christians in this era have always done. They don’t start violent revolutions.
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? ) Quran 2:62 '' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques ) Quran 22:40 [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might. Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ? ( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? ) Quran 5 48 ''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions Islam mean "submission" to God ( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God ) Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God? Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work. Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God ) The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by Good Deeds ) God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him. ( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa ) Quran 5:5 ''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And lawful in marriage are chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.'' Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion. Question to Muslim and Christian: Does God / Allah only answer your pray ? And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray? Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity? Quran 5:48 '' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise ) On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils. '' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. '' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
@Michael Ward Which is a bit of a weird statement for people to make. Phil and Skye say things I don't agree with all the time. It's part of being part of a community. I think those on the other video are being a bit harsh with their interpretation of what he is saying.
You guys drive me absolutely nuts when you say "The 2nd Amendment only covers the right to own a firearm in the context of a well-regulated militia." That is NOT what the 2nd Amendment says. All it says is that a militia is necessary to ensure the security of a free state. It does not even say - and get this through your head - that the militia is ALWAYS ACTIVE. It could be the case that the militia is put into an inactive state for YEARS. And then...when a really bad emergency happens and the state sees the writing on the wall....they call up the militia and put out the call to the people that it's time to start training. NOWHERE does it say that the militia needs to always be up and running like the National Guard. Everyone who deploy the whole "in the context of a well-regulated militia" talking point guys are just.... adding it in there. In the event that the state needs to muster the militia as a BACKSTOP to some type of emergency...the PEOPLE need to be able to bring their "weapons of war" with them when the call is put out. So the rights of the people to keep and bear THE KINDS OF ARMS that would be needed in such a situation...must always be accessible to the public. I would say that ANY weapon currently fielded by a regular infantry unit is a type of "arms" that is protected under the 2nd Amendment. So we ALREADY have a major imposition going on. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is already there stabbing us in the back telling us that we basically can't buy machine guns. But machine guns would be needed if you had to answer a call to be mustered into an irregular militia unit to train for an impending invasion or some other kind of disaster. I'll say it again.... NOWHERE does the 2nd Amendment say that the militia needs to be a standing, continuously operational unit. If the militia is set to an inactive state for years...the people's rights to buy the kinds of weapons that they WOULD need should the militia be called up again...shall not be infringed. Stop adding extra qualifiers to the 2nd Amendment that are not there.
Yea, but nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say even a third of the extra stuff gun advocates attribute to the amendment either. It's literally just one sentence of text. And considering there is only one sentence, trying to suggest that "militia" has nothing to do with the "right to bear arms" in that ONE SENTENCE, seems an even bigger stretch. No other amendment, let alone any whose full text is just one sentence, wastes any time on asides or explanations. Regardless, you proved Skye's point. "ANY weapon currently fielded by a regular infantry unit" is protected by 2ndA. Really? So not only should private citizens be allowed to keep Javelins, Carl Gustafs, Stingers, Claymores, M107 anti-material rifles just at home... but it's in fact *a major imposition* that the government does not allow us to do so? I'm obviously not gonna convince you of anything here, but man is it not at least possible that you've overthought this a little?
@@Cyrribrae - no. It is not possible that I have overthought it. And to be clear…I actually AM for more “gun control.” But I am a “have your cake and eat it too” kind of person. My own thoughts on this are that we should create a system where it IS possible for some people to purchase any and all weapons used by infantry units…and at the same time create a situation where these weapons would “almost” never be used in a criminal way. (I say “almost” because you cannot reduce incident rates to zero over the long haul and people who want to see zero deaths from weapons are not serious debaters because nothing can be reduced to zero given enough time if it is in the hands of sinful people.) Such a system would require that we amend the Constitution and update the 2nd Amendment. I believe we should do that and create a “tiered” system which gives us the best of all worlds. At “Level 1” a basic revolver could be purchased by anyone with a basic background check. Just like today. So women who seek a gun to ward off an evil boyfriend are not told “Sorry….looks like it’s time to die at his hands because we have to make you wait 30 days for the waiting period.” This level would also cover pump shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles. At Level 2 though you would need to start joining a “club” that we would set up. And you would need to get a “sponsor” at the club to spend time with you and sign off on your “Level 2 Certificate”. If you were a wacko…they wouldn’t. You would also have to show your sponsor your gun safe before they sign off for you. Level 2 people could buy semi-auto pistols and rifles. To get to Level 3 you would need a Level 3 or above certified sponsor. Same deal. Spend time together. Shoot together. And once the sponsor feels confident that you are competent and not a threat and re-verifies that you have the gun safe…they sign off and you can buy fully automatic assault rifles. Same thing with Level Four. Pass this level and get your mentor to sign off and you can buy a belt-fed Machine Gun. And on it goes. At higher levels it might require that you also go to a military base where they have a one-week training for the higher level weapons systems. This process would work. Would SOME person eventually slip through the cracks and use a machine gun in a crime? Yes. But the reduction in dead bodies overall (the rate of which likely would fall off a cliff) would prove the concept to be a big win. Such a system would work….but it cannot be set up as things are today. We need to Amend the Constitution to make it happen.
@@BrianReplies Heh. I won't debate policy further, but it's interesting that you suggest this. I'm going to suggest, without meaning any offense, that you are only able to unironically make this suggestion because you have never been (unreasonably) questioned on your worthiness to represent our country. Thousands, if not millions, of US citizens don't get that privilege every day. Codifying the old boys club / country club into law is not my idea of sound policy. I'll leave it that.
Ya know interpretation of the Bible should be child like. That is all. Submit to evil is not biblical I don't care what your college degree says. Your smug attitude is not healthy in this crazy world. I will be unsubscribing to this liberal format
Dude ar not in closet in gun safe that cool hope you can protect your family with sharp stick I'm serious. I just disagree with ya hope we still bros in christ hope you and your family all good
Two things are true this week. I miss Christian + Kaitlyn and, I am also pleased that Mike is here. Mike is a great sport 😃
Lina's experience mirrors my own. My dismantling ( my term for what I was going through) happened 25 years ago, and it took 8 long painfu,l confusing years to begin to recover. What changed during those dark years was the stripping off of religion, and thinking and saying what was expected of me as a believer, but allowing my brokenness and afflictions to reorient me to a real authentic walk with Jesus on a path of suffering. Church people around me did not understand and felt the need to "fix" me. I was in a process and there was no rushing it. I am still wrestling with questions, and Jesus is ok with that. My walk with him is much more organic, no religious performance or hoops to jump through. I am currently homeless church wise, because of the whole weirdness of insinuating faith into a political worldview, which feels dangerous and idolatrous. I was labeled a Marxist and shown the door. I've never even read Karl Marx. I do see movement towards fascism in many church ideologies, and that truly alarms me. I too am hard to pin down. I just want truth, justice, and righteousness. The Sermon on the Mount says it all. The Holy Post broadcast is the high point of my week. Thanks Sky and Phil for doing this week in and week out. You are life savers. God bless. I am going to purchase Luna's book, and send one to my sister for her birthday. She is also disillusioned but hanging on to Jesus.
Really appreciated the interview with Lina. The closing question is where it's at in my mind. My former church broke from the Harvest Bible Chapel brand and I remember being in a room with some of the pastors and our senior pastor said that God had hardened James MacDonald's heart. I didn't have the guts to say it at the time, but it was clear to me that if God had hardened James' heart He had used us to do it. We bought the books, attended the conferences, shared the sermons, and on and on. We were content to reap the rewards and on a number of occasions cover for MacDonald to continue reaping those rewards. Responsibility runs both ways, from pew to pulpit and back again. The leader is just a more visible member of the body, Christ is the only head.
I believe the whole crux of the gun issue can be summed up with the promotion of a culture of fear. Fear can be used to manipulate the masses to be reactive rather than responsive. In addition, pushing a narrative that generates fear is profitable. Money pours in to the manufacturing of guns, the idea that there is a threat around every corner, sells the "need" to arm oneself to the teeth. When everything is seen through a lens of fear, people will give power over to unethical ideologies, and strongman leaders. Self defense becomes paramount to self preservation. Jesus says throughout the gospels, " FEAR NOT " This an antidote to the insane "need" to own guns, much less AR15's. The opposite of Love is not hate, but fear. Authoritarian forces know this; and use it to control the masses. Just a thought.
School Buses Are 27x More Dangerous Than School Shootings (He runs through the math thoroughly)
ua-cam.com/video/7MYOLO0Hwrs/v-deo.html
This was a really great episode to listen to, especially the interview! Just hearing Psalm 22 being mentioned in it and it reminding all of us that lamenting is a apart of the Christian life and we shouldn't be afraid of that. I'm currently trying to handle a lot in my life with work, school, personal and church lives. It's very hard to manage all of it and I know that I'm not going to be great all the time and have my own shortcomings, but that doesn't mean I give up. I'll do better next time. I have to learn from my own sorrows, my own mistakes, my own miseries, so that I can fully grow and develop in being a good a faithful Christian.
Great discussion
Faithful is an opposite if not the opposite of fearful. I continue to lament the prevalence of fear as a "Christian" motivator.
For anyone on a deconstruction journey like Lina's, you should read "small gods" by Terry Pratchett... which is kinda strange given that Pratchett was (for most of his life) an atheist. Yet, the book helped me understand that faith and religion aren't mutually exclusive and helped me navigate through that very rough area in my life. I still don't believe in organized religion and have a LOT of baggage to get through (I'm current in therapy for religious trauma syndrome) but I still have a stronger faith than I did when I was trying to be "super-christian" for the first twenty-some years of my life
Glad to see you discussed Christian self-defense. It is not in the NT. Phil, justice, protection, safety for your family is not self-defense. Motives matter, as Jesus makes clear throughout his ministry (i.e. Sermon on the Mount). If you want to argue defending the vulnerable, great, but it is not necessarily using violence, especially guns. You may stand in the gap, put yourself in harms way. For example, as a high school English teacher, I have contemplated having a baseball bat in my room in order to stop a shooter who enters the room in order to save my students life, to save the shooter from committing murder, by neutralizing the shooters ability to shoot. I can do that without killing the shooter, and, of course, I would be laying my life on the line for my kids in my class. Would that be using violence? Yes. Breaking and arm or leg is not good, but avoiding the deaths in that situation is better.
well said!
French pacifically said that suicides went "up and up" in Australia post the gun laws and that's what was false about his statement regarding Australia suicide rate.
Having heard reports about Australia from a wide range of sources, yes the rate of suicides by guns did go down. Suspect the number of "successful" suicides went down. Gun suicides tend to be the most "successful"
I think you mean “specifically”…
Mike is exactly right at at 28:26, many American Christians love to quote the "buy a sword" verse, without the context. Jesus tells them to buy/have a sword in order for his disciples to be considered "transgressors". One of my youth group leaders often highlighted this strategy for reading things in context; when you see the word "for" (or "therefore"), look around to see what it's there for. So in Luke 22, it should all be read together: 36“Now, however,” He told them, “the one with a purse should take it, and likewise a bag; and the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. 37 *FOR* I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about Me is reaching its fulfillment.” When Peter actually tried to use one of the swords as a weapon, the action was roundly condemned by Jesus, who then uses the example to make a universal statement about anyone who "lives by the sword".
@Rasskaz Forge But Jesus also elaborates on the "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand...." principle in both the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, saying that the principle of equal harm for harm no longer applies to his followers.
@Rasskaz Forge Huh? Romans 13 most certainly does not say that civil government is required to obey the law of God. Romans 13 tells citizens to be subject to the authority because God is using them as his servants. It's not about what government is doing, but what God is doing through imperfect, fallen man. This is a letter to the ROMANS. Paul was definitely not accusing Caesar of obeying God's laws, I can assure you of that.
@Rasskaz Forge Exactly why Romans 13 is not about governments obeying God's law. It's about God using broken people and institutions in the pursuit of his will. It was a call to understand that God works even when things are terrible - and SO, God was not calling on Christians to overthrow the Roman government, though it may be flawed, destructive, or even evil.
Eye for an eye is not a commandment either personally or corporately. And it's a real twisting of the scripture to translate into a right of self-defense anyway.
Great explanation i am in agreement.
To Samthelina, I commented. Your argument is one that makes sense to me. Not the person who challenged your position.
Remember self-defense doesn't mean killing the attacker. Following God's will in self-defense is not about whether you have a gun, but rather how you use the gun. Only kill as an absolute last resort. A great many acts of wickedness have been prevented by a victim possessing a weapon without having to use it.
Yeah, that is absolutely true. Only kill as a last resort.
This doesn't apply to government however. Paul's letter to the Romans makes clear that government's authority over life and death is wide-reaching. God has given the state the power to kill its citizens if they violate peace and good order.
At 40:00, this was my issue with David's viewpoint - the Bible never explicitly states that there is an inherent right to self-defense. The best you can say is the Bible doesn't specifically say self-defense is wrong.
What do you make of Exodus 22:2-3?
@@Christ2010Grad That is a legal defense argument. If someone breaks into your house at night and you accidentally kill them in a scuffle, you won't be held legally accountable for that death. It doesn't mean you have the right to take a life should someone break in at night. Note also that it is not legal during the daylight, so why would that mean you have a full right to lethal self-defense (which is what a gun is)?
@@dckmusic I would advise you to not take the words nighttime and daytime to literally.
The essential thing in that passage is that killing should NOT be the 1st resort when defending oneself. It’s to be the last resort.
@@Christ2010Grad That was what I intended to say but clearly didn't explain in my haste.
@Rasskaz Forge I think what is getting lost with this pair of verses is that it is not permissible to kill someone just because they break into your house at night and not if they do during the day. I believe the underlying message here is that there is an occasion when we are put in a serious threatening situation that defending ourselves may lead to harm or death of the person we are defending ourselves against, but in many circumstances the threat alone is not enough to justify the other person's death. Restraint and proportional response is our responsibility. Taken in the wrong way, we get things like Kyle Rittenhouse who simply felt threatened (or says he did) by a person and shot them when there perhaps was no reason for that level of response. There are many who believe if someone steps on their property to steal something, they are free to kill them because of the threat. That is not what these verses suggest, and in the context of the whole chapter, we should always be ready to show mercy to people. Also, at this point, taking one's property could, in effect, be taking one's "life" as that is all they have to live - their livestock or food supply or whatever. A thief breaking into my house today to steal a TV is not the same and killing him is not a proportional response in my view.
Thank you for the interview. I related on many points to what she said and hope to read her book soon. I especially think that having an advocate or person to relay these thoughts too is especially helpful. Saying that it's ok to question and turning to the Word and digging into what it says rather than looking at surrounding circumstances. This is why I think "Bible" studies should be based on the Bible and not someone's work. Learning how to be built up by foundation in Christ rather than be dependent upon other people. I learned this initially from A.J. Swoboda's book and hope to be that advocate for others to step away from the crumbling foundations of societal and cultural churches into the foundation of the church built upon Christ and the Word.
The military is also trained for self preservation. Jocko's book is absolutely unreadable when you realize how little care he has for civilians in war zones. The US doesn't even keep track of civilian deaths in war zones anymore. It is very rare that a mission puts soldiers in harm's way which is proved by how few soldiers die in modern wars but civilian deaths are so common we can't even count. When the robots fight the wars, the only casualties will be civilians.
The days of lining up to fight knowing 20-50% of those going in will die have been over for decades.
Thank you! One little verse ripped out of its context in Luke does not nullify the sermon on the mount. The Spirit of Jesus climaxed in His greatest act: lovingly giving his life on the Cross; I want to live my life in that same spirit- how can I spend my life for Jesus? Quickly like Stephen or slowly like Paul and John?
Thank you , Lina, for sharing your struggles and point of view of "the church system" as you have experienced it. I do so relate and have searched the scriptures to find answers to my own questions and pain experienced throughout the years in the church communities I and my family have been involved with - I cant help but trip over scriptures (especially in the New Testament) that remind me that the first is last and the last is first. As Jesus came to earth to serve, so I should. I have come to realize that to practice this I need to be grounded in walking and talking with Jesus from moment to moment. My faith is not lived through another person's experience and words, but 'hearing' the Holy Spirit download his words in my spirit. This brings me to Matthew 23:8-12. I am wondering if our churches need to restructure this hierarchy system and develop a discipleship where all are experiencing this (narrow) walk with Jesus and encouraging each other as the early church seems to have done (Acts 2: 44-47). We are all part of this loving heavenly puzzle called the body of believers (1Corinthians 12,13).
WE need to replace the statement "thoughts and prayers" an entirely passive and apathetic to "fasting and prayers" which is active and sacrificial.
Faithful counseling, that you are advertising, does not take ANY health insurance. I think this is a hugely problematic ethical issue, especially when the counselors claim to be Christians. "Financial Aid" is not at all the same thing.
I'm a non-christian from montana, and the christian fascination with guns has never stopped being disturbing and incongruous to me
Thank you for following up on the David French episode… I was very upset some of his comments. I respect him greatly, but was confused with so much of what he said… Thanks for calming some of us down this week.
I love Mike. Invite him back more often. =3
Part of the crises & mess in (some parts of) US evangelicalism seem (to be increasingly) to be coming back to a basic misunderstanding about authority & wisdom.
I don't know where I saw this first: "Authority is to power as wisdom is to intelligence".
(... which - well - could be parsed a few ways ...)
It has occurred to me that reaching for the latter of these pairs is a concession of defeat in respect of the former? In relation to the US, in particular, could it be adjacent to seduction by capitalism?
🤔
As I understand it, the original California law was a poorly-worded piece of legislation listing off “mammals, reptiles and fish” or something similar rather than just referring to “animals”. And it’s way easier to get a legal ruling that bees are fish than to rewrite the law
I loved this discussion, I appreciate seeing more than one side of biblical interpretation when it comes to self defense. Whether self defense is really seen as a virtuous thing in the Bible has always been a question of mine when we enter the discussion around Guns.
Definitely gonna check out Mike’s podcast!
On the discussion about Christians and self-defense, Leo Tolstoy wrote a work called "The Kingdom of God is Within You", in which he expresses his own understanding of Christian non-resistance and the opinions that have circulated on this topic from different Christians in different parts of the world.
Love the early drop this morning!!
Thank you Lina.
I found myself rocking....in sync with Mike!
Great pro-life argument. We must defend others who are in danger of being killed in the womb.
As a gun owner that used to live in NY, I think my basic objection to a lot of the gun laws is that they paint anyone who has these weapons as those who seek to do harm. All of the gun owners I know are not murderous killers. We have done nothing wrong with our firearms. We use our guns for hunting and recreational shooting. When gun bans are passed it's not the killers and the murderers that suffer. It's the law-abiding citizens that suddenly have to find a way to send their guns to out-of-state relatives, or reenact the confiscations that preceded the Nazi take-over of Germany. I'm not a gun shootin' bible-thumpin' right-winger, and I do think there needs to be regulation for firearms, and that less guns is good in pretty much any society, but banning something like firearms just sends them underground. It doesn't solve anything.
As for Skye's strawman jab about people owning fighter jets, I personally don't have a problem with it if the person can afford fighter jet pilot lessons and has the 38 million to spend on a personal tomcat. As long as they're adhering to gun safety regulations, I don't even have a problem with them using conventional payloads.
My two cents, because this is the internet, and that means everyone wants to know what I think.
This is going to sound super condescending and that's not my intent. Genuinely asking, what is it about proposed laws specifically that make you feel like you're being painted as a harmful person?
I'm Canadian so I don't know 100% what the climate is down there, but I thought what people really wanted was sensible background checks, and that the only weapons people really wanted ban were like the military grade assault rifles that aren't used for recreational hunting. As an outsider I'm having a hard time understanding what is so bad about a few sensible background checks and banning guns that you can't even use recreationally. As a gun owner, can you give details about why people are so against this? Is there something we're missing?
@@amy-suewisniewski6451I totally don't take it as condescending. The banning of these guns implies that people who have peacefully owned these weapons for decades no longer can be trusted with them. The "S.A.F.E. Act" in NY (the state not the city) would rule that if I go there with my current firearms, I am a felon. I have always taken great care that my firearms would never cause anyone harm, and yet because I am merely in possession of these guns, I am considered a threat to the safety of others.
The vast majority of civilians down here don't have modern-era military grade assault rifles. Fully automatic guns require permits from the government to own, so they are really really rare outside of military circles, so already they aren't what's out on the streets, (unless you've got some really illegal connections).
Guns are like motorcycles down here. They aren't necessary, lots of people get killed by them, but they have an appeal to a wide range of responsible hobbyists. If you ban them, the millions of citizens that take safety and responsibility for their passion will feel slighted, like they've somehow committed crimes that they would never dream of doing.
Gun crime is a real problem. I know, I live in Cleveland, but turning responsible, law-abiding citizens into felons for ownership of weapons they would never turn on their neighbors isn't a step forward.
@@Hogwa5hGaming Would you say then that a fairer compromise would be no ban on any guns but harsher background checks to own and purchase these weapons?
@@amy-suewisniewski6451 that's my stance. Other gun owners may disagree but I think a higher level of scrutiny for gun sales would be a much better option than penalizing the innocent.
Nearly every school shooter bought his weapon legally and was a law abiding citizen right up to the day before the shooting. It’s not about you personally, our society cannot be trusted with assault weapons.
And this is what happens when three comic genius-guys get together with no female intervention. The laughter was infectious! Great gun discussion and I loved, loved, loved Lina. Now I'm off to check out the new merch...;)
Lol the only two pod casts I listen to are holy post and voxology 😂
How do people overlook their tendency to switch between the two documents as sacrosanct despite their clear contradictions. When Jesus doesn't fit they swing to Jefferson and back again
George Mason I believe pushed this "2nd amendment" for the militia to avoid a standing army.
Eye for an eye was for the courts. Jesus made it clear it was not for personal vengeance. Jesus never contradicted the OT.
Y'all posted early today. 😁
The merch is kind of lame. I would like to see it address cultural & theological issues.
Correction: Jesus handed the Constitution to James Madison. 😉😉😉
Skye is an ex-pastor😂 Phil is funny 😂
Skye is completely wrong about the states “having their own militia” in the National Guard. The National Guard is a branch of the US Military.
Two swords = Old & New Testaments. They are enough.
And then God created the fish of the air, and the bees of the sea.
To the state of California. Just protect the bees!!!!! There is no need to charge their identity to something they are not. Don't make things so complicated.
lol I get you. It's weird. But it's also not THAT weird. Tomatoes are classified by the US as fruit? vegetable? That's right, they're both! Depending on the law. They're scientifically one thing, but they're regulated as the other commercially* - because that's how they're traded and sold. Laws are pragmatic because none of us want Congress to sit there naming off every type of creature that can or cannot be included under a specific law. We have no choice but to build in some ambiguity.
That's why they counted sponges, clams, and frogs as fish - which they most definitely are not. And why "fish"? Because that's the legal purview of the department tasked to oversee it. Laws!
In this case, the provision is meant to prevent CA from having to invest all-new bureaucracy (which I think none of us likes) just for the bees, when there's perfectly established bureaucracy already in place. Endangered species act already comes with funding, staff, policies, rules, etc. Use that. Save government/taxpayer dollars. Prevent regulatory overlap. Honestly, small government, fiscal conservatives should be happy about this.
@@Cyrribrae OK. Now I understand better.
Wild how these people blend the Constitution and Bible to create fables of how they work together to fit their world view. The Bible is full of fables and the Constitution is full of flaws so I guess it makes sense in a perverse kind of way
Grace and Peace to you. I would be delighted to discuss this on Telegram with you and anyone else who reads this comment.
You can find the Telegram link in the About section of my UA-cam page. I'd post the Telegram link here, but UA-cam would remove my post. I look forward to speaking with you. God bless you.
a real tuff call---if you got em be safe stay safe---if not you are not less a person---Ban AR 15s unless you WILL prevent 911
crickets?
ringolevio a game of LIFE played for keeps----e grogan
Starting to find out why my 20 something kids grown up on veggie tails are so liberal.
I’m glad you raised them right.
*VeggieTales
Thanks for the correction
Also…the wild interpretations of Luke 22:36 blows my mind. It’s alluding to prophecies? It’s foreshadowing his own death and he wants to set up a reason for the Romans to kill him? No no no no…. Jesus HIMSELF tells us what’s going on in verse 35. It’s as plain as day…
Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing.” They answered.
Then he tells the to bring a purse, sword, and cloak.
His point is very clear. He is telling them that the supernatural provision that they had experienced in the two prior missionary sendings that they had gone out on over the course of his ministry were coming to an end. Don’t expect to see the same going forward.
You better bring some money with you, you better bring the right kinds of clothes for whatever journey you are going on, and you better bring a basic tool of self defense.
The type of sword would have been a traveler’s sword though. What we would commonly call today a “dagger”. Not a broadsword or claymore or a “weapon of war”.
So if we would hold true to the text…the kind of weapon Jesus was telling his people to arm themselves with would be, today…a pistol.
Then we see more insight. Because the disciples DO instantly go to “weapons of war” mentality. Because Peter had sword and probably Simon the Zealot did too. And they are like “Oh boy! Here it is! The call to arms! Jesus is going to kick out the Romans and re-establish the kingdom like we have been waiting for!”
And he rebuked them. He shuts that kind of talk down.
This seems like a wild interpretation of the passage that goes out of its way to ignore the verse in between the two you want to reference. Where does it suggest anything about God tasking them with their own protection? If anything, he continues to hammer home that he will not be defending himself and instead it is his lot to suffer unjustly.
If the type of sword was a traveler's sword/dagger - then how could Jesus have possibly tasked the (at least) 12 of them with their basic self-defense with TWO DAGGERS? If that were enough, then maybe the supernatural provision was still well and good haha.
Let's keep going in the passage. Where in this story does Jesus or his disciples use a sword to defend themselves? Never? Literally never again? Yep, you got it! Peter does use one of the two swords they have to lop off the ear of the arresting guards (not self-defense - unless we're pro-resisting arrest now), for which he gets rebuked by Jesus - and presumably disarmed by the guards. And then the sword comes into play exactly 0 times after that for the disciples.
The sword doesn't really play any role at all, in fact, until Paul's jailer almost commits suicide with his sword, which Paul stops (sword is a pistol, eh?). And until Revelation, when the sword is used to cut down humanity. Gonna be honest, having trouble seeing the Christian self-defense angle here.
@@Cyrribrae - let me begin here by saying that ultimately…what you envision and what I envision likely would play out the same for Christians. But here’s the thinking…
1) I don’t believe that the incident in the garden on the night of Jesus betrayal is a proper example to use for the broad issue of self-defense.
That was a one-time special moment. Jesus was going to die for the sins of the world and so he had to relinquish his access to the right of self defense…at that particular moment. But because it’s exceptional…it does not mean that it is the new rule and standard for all Christian living.
2) As much as “soft” Christians love to discount and dismiss the Old Testament…it has not all been set aside. And the same God who wrote the New Testament put the truths of the Old in there. And we know that ALL scripture is God breathed and “useful” for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. All of it. Not just the New Testament.
And the narrative stories of the Old Testament show that the right to self defense exists. From the story of Nehemiah defending the wall as they rebuilt it…to the Jews defending themselves in Esther. To all the stories of the Kings and their battles…
The right of self defense exists. And what kinds of weapons did the Israelites bring with them when mustered into an army in an emergency to fight the Phillistines around them? The “weapons of war” of their time.
3) I do believe…however that the use of deadly force should be heavily HEAVILY restricted for the Christian.
When the disciples pulled out the two swords…the “that’s enough” language may not have been in the sense of “two swords is sufficient”. But rather “that’s enough!” As in “cut that crap out!” or “Enough of that kind of talk!” …or… “That’s enough of that!”
Because they were always in the gospels pressing and looking for Jesus to become the revolutionary King. And as soon as he tells them to do something like bring a basic tool of self defense….they start pointing that they have two weapons…and is it time to use them to start the revolution and get more? You can just see Jesus eye-rolling at them.
Anyway…in our day it might be like the Christian being told to get a pistol to defend your family…and Christians thinking that that means they need to buy an arsenal of fully-automatic machine guns. You can just see Jesus in heaven eye rolling at American Christians for doing just the kind of thing the disciples did. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
If we have an right to self defense overall…(and I think the entirety of scripture indicates that) then it would seem that Christians have that right heavily restricted to the least powerful weapons which they plan to almost never use. And the only context for their use is basic defense against common criminals…like they might encounter in public in their travels and need a travelers “sword”. The pistol of our day. I see nothing that indicates Christians should arm up to be able to violently overthrow the government. A position I used to believe but have since forsaken.
4) Flee - I think it is very clear that when widespread government-level persecution happens…it is not the Christians place to rebel and overthrow the government. Romans 13.1-2 makes that clear.
Instead it is the indication that we should pull up stakes and move. That is what Christians in Acts did. That’s what faithful Christians in this era have always done. They don’t start violent revolutions.
Not enough people watched this episode.
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? )
Quran 2:62
'' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques )
Quran 22:40
[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ?
( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? )
Quran 5 48
''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions
Islam mean "submission" to God
( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God )
Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God?
Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work.
Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God )
The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by Good Deeds )
God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him.
( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa )
Quran 5:5
''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And lawful in marriage are chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.''
Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion.
Question to Muslim and Christian:
Does God / Allah only answer your pray ?
And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray?
Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity?
Quran 5:48
'' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise )
On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils.
'' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
'' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
I do agree more with Skye than French 🍟 ... But I wasn't what I would call "angry" with French
You should check his interview video. People there have lost their minds
@Michael Ward Which is a bit of a weird statement for people to make. Phil and Skye say things I don't agree with all the time. It's part of being part of a community. I think those on the other video are being a bit harsh with their interpretation of what he is saying.
Ya know growing up in 60s and 70s no one had guns now everybody has guns times are different now I need an AR 15. Sorry just the way it is
You guys drive me absolutely nuts when you say "The 2nd Amendment only covers the right to own a firearm in the context of a well-regulated militia." That is NOT what the 2nd Amendment says. All it says is that a militia is necessary to ensure the security of a free state. It does not even say - and get this through your head - that the militia is ALWAYS ACTIVE. It could be the case that the militia is put into an inactive state for YEARS. And then...when a really bad emergency happens and the state sees the writing on the wall....they call up the militia and put out the call to the people that it's time to start training. NOWHERE does it say that the militia needs to always be up and running like the National Guard. Everyone who deploy the whole "in the context of a well-regulated militia" talking point guys are just.... adding it in there.
In the event that the state needs to muster the militia as a BACKSTOP to some type of emergency...the PEOPLE need to be able to bring their "weapons of war" with them when the call is put out. So the rights of the people to keep and bear THE KINDS OF ARMS that would be needed in such a situation...must always be accessible to the public.
I would say that ANY weapon currently fielded by a regular infantry unit is a type of "arms" that is protected under the 2nd Amendment. So we ALREADY have a major imposition going on. The National Firearms Act of 1934 is already there stabbing us in the back telling us that we basically can't buy machine guns. But machine guns would be needed if you had to answer a call to be mustered into an irregular militia unit to train for an impending invasion or some other kind of disaster.
I'll say it again.... NOWHERE does the 2nd Amendment say that the militia needs to be a standing, continuously operational unit. If the militia is set to an inactive state for years...the people's rights to buy the kinds of weapons that they WOULD need should the militia be called up again...shall not be infringed. Stop adding extra qualifiers to the 2nd Amendment that are not there.
Yea, but nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it say even a third of the extra stuff gun advocates attribute to the amendment either. It's literally just one sentence of text. And considering there is only one sentence, trying to suggest that "militia" has nothing to do with the "right to bear arms" in that ONE SENTENCE, seems an even bigger stretch. No other amendment, let alone any whose full text is just one sentence, wastes any time on asides or explanations.
Regardless, you proved Skye's point. "ANY weapon currently fielded by a regular infantry unit" is protected by 2ndA. Really? So not only should private citizens be allowed to keep Javelins, Carl Gustafs, Stingers, Claymores, M107 anti-material rifles just at home... but it's in fact *a major imposition* that the government does not allow us to do so?
I'm obviously not gonna convince you of anything here, but man is it not at least possible that you've overthought this a little?
@@Cyrribrae - no. It is not possible that I have overthought it. And to be clear…I actually AM for more “gun control.”
But I am a “have your cake and eat it too” kind of person.
My own thoughts on this are that we should create a system where it IS possible for some people to purchase any and all weapons used by infantry units…and at the same time create a situation where these weapons would “almost” never be used in a criminal way.
(I say “almost” because you cannot reduce incident rates to zero over the long haul and people who want to see zero deaths from weapons are not serious debaters because nothing can be reduced to zero given enough time if it is in the hands of sinful people.)
Such a system would require that we amend the Constitution and update the 2nd Amendment. I believe we should do that and create a “tiered” system which gives us the best of all worlds.
At “Level 1” a basic revolver could be purchased by anyone with a basic background check. Just like today. So women who seek a gun to ward off an evil boyfriend are not told “Sorry….looks like it’s time to die at his hands because we have to make you wait 30 days for the waiting period.” This level would also cover pump shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles.
At Level 2 though you would need to start joining a “club” that we would set up. And you would need to get a “sponsor” at the club to spend time with you and sign off on your “Level 2 Certificate”. If you were a wacko…they wouldn’t. You would also have to show your sponsor your gun safe before they sign off for you.
Level 2 people could buy semi-auto pistols and rifles.
To get to Level 3 you would need a Level 3 or above certified sponsor. Same deal. Spend time together. Shoot together. And once the sponsor feels confident that you are competent and not a threat and re-verifies that you have the gun safe…they sign off and you can buy fully automatic assault rifles.
Same thing with Level Four. Pass this level and get your mentor to sign off and you can buy a belt-fed Machine Gun.
And on it goes. At higher levels it might require that you also go to a military base where they have a one-week training for the higher level weapons systems.
This process would work. Would SOME person eventually slip through the cracks and use a machine gun in a crime? Yes. But the reduction in dead bodies overall (the rate of which likely would fall off a cliff) would prove the concept to be a big win.
Such a system would work….but it cannot be set up as things are today. We need to Amend the Constitution to make it happen.
@@BrianReplies Heh. I won't debate policy further, but it's interesting that you suggest this. I'm going to suggest, without meaning any offense, that you are only able to unironically make this suggestion because you have never been (unreasonably) questioned on your worthiness to represent our country. Thousands, if not millions, of US citizens don't get that privilege every day.
Codifying the old boys club / country club into law is not my idea of sound policy. I'll leave it that.
Ya know interpretation of the Bible should be child like. That is all. Submit to evil is not biblical I don't care what your college degree says. Your smug attitude is not healthy in this crazy world. I will be unsubscribing to this liberal format
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. You can leave your AR 15 in the closet.
Dude ar not in closet in gun safe that cool hope you can protect your family with sharp stick I'm serious. I just disagree with ya hope we still bros in christ hope you and your family all good