Actually, instead of owning a gun to “defend against a baddie”, you should welcome anyone who holds a gun to your head, because they’re about to bring you to God.
Just like every time the pope takes a ride in the popemobile.
Under OP’s logic, you should let a priest molest you instead of killing the pest lol
It’s not my logic. It’s the logic presented in the Bible.
Jesus also said not to harm children but here we be
Not a Christian but… F* my wife/kids/loved ones, right? And I should just stand for immorality and violent threats? Turning the cheek is one thing (I’ve done it, or well, I didn’t retaliate at least and the other person apologised profusely for their outburst), and anything that’s underneath it, but anything else is neither reasonable nor part of the teachings of Jesus. I hope you’re young, or else idk… Your thought process is extremely superficial and limited even in the superficiality.
What would Jesus do?
Jesus never owned a gun, they didn’t exist back then.
People always askin Jesus to take the wheel, like he knows how to drive a car.
deleted by creator
Christian tradition teaches that we are the hands of God; that God gets things done in the world through the instrumentality of human action. When you do an act of kindness for your neighbor, you are instantiating God’s kindness; when you defend your neighbor from harm or oppression, you are instantiating God’s protection.
One of the big differences between Martin Luther King Jr.'s ideology of nonviolence and Mahatma Gandhi’s ideology of nonviolence is that King accepted self-defense while Gandhi rejected it. Dr. King carried a pistol in his early career, and was later defended by armed bodyguards; while Gandhi rejected armed protection and called for oppressed people to surrender to their oppressors. So empirically, rejection of self-defense is less Christian and more Hindu.
Your “empirical” sample size of one may be too small to get an accurate reading on the views of contemporary Christianity.
Ecclesiastes 3:4 - “there is a time to kill and a time to heal”
Don’t only look at one part of the Bible. As important as the gospels are, you need to look at all of scripture to get the full picture. Yes, “turn the other cheek” and “give them your shirt as well”, but do those as part of loving your neighbor as you love yourself.
Ecclesiastes is old testament, jesus brought the new covenant, if you claim to be a follower if christ then not only are you no longer bound by the edicts of the old testament but are actively denigrating christ’s sacrifice by failing to adhere to the new instead
A. Then why is it still in the Bible? The old testament didn’t cease to be scripture when Jesus died. If it did, why did Jesus explain it to his disciples after his resurrection (the road to Emmaus, Luke 24), and why do a lot of the letters in the new testament reference bits of the old testament?
B. “Do not think I have come to abolish the law or prophets, I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17). Jesus makes sure that the law and prophets (aka old testament) are still there, still honored, and still seen as God’s word. What he did on the cross means we have another way to seek salvation in grace.
Because Jesus didn’t compile the bible. That was done centuries after Christ. The Old Testament is mostly relevant for prophezising of Christ, so of course, Christ used the Old Testament to prove that he was the one that the prophecies refer to. It’s basically the spiritual back story.
Because the people who put the bible together were a bunch of fucking politicians long after jesus was dead, fucking duh
If anyone shoots you in the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
