My second amendment rights and how they pertain to my place of worship.

[wjh2657]

I agree with you in principle, but are you not trying to enforce man's law where GOD's law prevails? GOD's law is interpreted in the Church by your church leaders. It could be argued that you seek government control (USC) in a church.

Just as you may not agree with the law in society, you are still bound by it. The same can be argued for the church as it pertains to GOD's law (as interpreted by the church leaders.) I don't believe weapons were allowed in the temple, so there is a precedent.

I have encountered this dilemma and have since left the church and now worship with a small prayer group in our homes (as it was done in the original Christian church!) Don't confuse Church and faith, they are not the same thing.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[nosights]

I agree with you in principle, but are you not trying to enforce man's law where GOD's law prevails? GOD's law is interpreted in the Church by your church leaders. It could be argued that you seek government control (USC) in a church.

Just as you may not agree with the law in society, you are still bound by it. The same can be argued for the church as it pertains to GOD's law (as interpreted by the church leaders.) I don't believe weapons were allowed in the temple, so there is a precedent.

I have encountered this dilemma and have since left the church and now worship with a small prayer group in our homes (as it was done in the original Christian church!) Don't confuse Church and faith, they are not the same thing.

I respectfully dissagree. God's laws superceed man's law. It is in not the other way around. I would like to know where you have found in the Bible where weapons were not allowed in the church. Also, the temple was very different from what a Church is today. Christ's coming changed this.

[jumpwing]

The Constitution recognizes the right to self-defense as "God-given." In other words, it is secular recognition of a divine right. Since that time, divine rights have been re-labeled as "human rights" but the general idea is still there: Rights to which you are entitled merely by being human.

Weapons were frequently carried in the temple because they were a common part of everyday life. Nobody was "horrified" to see a sword or knife dangling from someone's belt, and you wouldn't have mortified parents shielding their children's eyes or any other silly behavior that we might see today.

In the temple (prior to the resurrection) there was a curtain, behind which only the high priests were allowed to go. It was considered the "presence of God" behind this curtain and unauthorized personnel could expect a permanent smiting for daring to intrude. The entrances to the space behind the curtain were blocked by sword-wielding temple guards. Approaching one of these guards was a very, very bad idea, and trying to get past them would have been your last living act.

The possession of weapons in a holy structure (across many cultures, by the way) has been the norm for centuries. It's only in the last 75 years or so (in American culture) that church has been considered an "inappropriate place" for firearms; and it's still not a unanimous position among all churches and congregations.

[jumpwing]

You have no idea as to just how carefully I chose my words. It conveyed my opinion clearly and I wished him well at the end.

Choosing to be a sheep in any sense of the word clearly falls within the definition of "to each his own" especially since this particular choice increases the likelihood of being in a violent encounter. My use of sheep had a double meaning. Yes as a clueless follower but also as The Sheep of God's Pasture (John 10:27-28) The true believer would only see the second meaning but you felt it was condescending. Maybe you need to re-evaluate your belief system since a simple comment shouldn't be enough to rattle you and you clearly fell in the trap instead of the hands of your lord. Have a great Sunday morning graze.

But then this place is all about the second amendment, not the first isn't it?

I found both posts condescending, insulting, and off-topic.

[retsupt99]

I am NOT trying to say that it does. But establish how the church should not be a place where I can't exersize my 2A rights.

It's called individual state laws...MI problem, FL no problem...other states vary.

Note: Nice letter, but it does not change the laws of individual states.

[nosights]

I found both posts condescending, insulting, and off-topic.

Agreed, and Biomortis please feel free to PM me about these matters as I would be more than happy to discuss them with you.

[Old Marine]

Vengence is mine I will repay.......But it does not restrict the Lord to the tools he might use......