Originally posted by KingsGambit
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Biblical Ethics 301 Guidelines
This forum is for Christians to discuss ethical issues within Christianity. Non-theists, non-christians, and unorthodox Christians should not post here without first getting permission from the area's moderators.
If you have a question about what's OK and what's not OK, please contact the moderators.
Forum Rules: Here
If you have a question about what's OK and what's not OK, please contact the moderators.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Is gun culture compatible with Christianity?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
what do you mean by American Gun Culture?"I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostNote that the question I'm asking is not whether gun control works or is good public policy. On a personal level, do Christians have business owning guns?
Scot McKnight hasn't thought so for awhile. His recent blog post is thought provoking: https://scotmcknight.substack.com/p/...tian-own-a-gun
Personally, I'm not at the point where I'm going to condemn Christians for owning guns. But I don't think that American gun culture is compatible with Christianity. The NRA with Ted Nugent on the board openly talking about shooting liberals, is not something I can see Jesus supporting. Period. Or "jokes" about killing intruders/people dating your daughter/etc."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
I dunno who Scot McKnight is but he can't even make his own arguments, plagiarizing instead a list that includes lies like "The Gospels depict Jesus himself as prohibiting acts of violence even in self-defense". So I'm fine not knowing who he is.
The statement, "The gun is a temptation to become a kind of powerful self, with the capacity to kill instantaneously. This is an arrogation of power that the New Testament’s witness does not support, even in self-defense" falls short of saying that "Jesus prohibited acts of violence even in self defence."1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
I see no evidence of plagiarism. There was a cited reference to a list that McKnight considers a reasonable argument, and he is presenting a brief review of a book.
The statement, "The gun is a temptation to become a kind of powerful self, with the capacity to kill instantaneously. This is an arrogation of power that the New Testament’s witness does not support, even in self-defense." falls short of saying that "Jesus prohibited acts of violence even in self defence."
To add to my previous post, it's actually interesting to note that Jesus reacted worse to Peter's non-violent attempt at stopping Jesus's execution than to the violent assault of the servant when they came to capture him.
It's even more interesting to see that Peter's Iaijutsu was so fast he could cut a man's ear off before anyone in his party (which included trained military men) could react, and Jesus presumably caught his ear and reattached it before anyone could cause further trouble. The incident indicates Jesus's gang had a high level of military proficiency. Certainly one that went beyond what one would expect from fishermen and preachers.Last edited by Darth Executor; 06-07-2022, 03:33 PM."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
Almost the entire list is someone else's material. You hand this in for an assignment, even in high school and it'd be blatant plagiarism.
I literally cut and pasted "Jesus prohibited acts of violence even in self defence" from his blog. Read point 5 on the list.
To add to my previous post, it's actually interesting to note that Jesus reacted worse to Peter's non-violent attempt at stopping Jesus's execution than to the violent assault of the servant when they came to capture him.
It's even more interesting to see that Peter's Iaijutsu was so fast he could cut a man's ear off before anyone in his party (which included trained military men) could react, and Jesus presumably caught his ear and reattached it before anyone could cause further trouble.
The incident indicates Jesus's gang had a high level of military proficiency. Certainly one that went beyond what one would expect from fishermen and preachers.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostNo conclusive evidence that Jesus reattached the ear is implied by the text, but the action is not precluded.
I'm not sure that iaijutsu would be a defensible conclusion on the basis of the text, nor is such a conclusion precluded. The two year old who shot and killed his father a few days back could not reasonably be considered a marksman nor to have had "a high level of military proficiency."
"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
Luke says Jesus touched his ear then healed him. If his ear was still on the ground there would be no ear to touch. Although I suppose it's possible Jesus was holding the ear while regrowing it on the man.
A gun takes considerably less skill to use effectively and can easily be discharged and kill a man by accident. The toddler doesn't need to propel the bullet.
Trained soldiers should be able to respond to an amateur drawing his sword and striking.
So I don't think the analogy is a functional one. I think the best explanation for why the apostles wanted to fight is that they were confined in their martial abilities, and Peter particularly displays great skill with a sword. It COULD have been a lucky strike but I think the setting as described is best fit by my explanation.
1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
1/ Merely touching the detached and fallen ear would not be enough, more would have to be done. 2/ The text does not differentiate whether the ear was fully or partially detached. 3/ The Koine Greek is not so explicit as to identify that the ear itself was touched.
2. the word says take away/remove. Even if koine does not have a word for partial detachment I'm sure it has a word for cut or wound that would be more appropriate.
3. Whether it completely detached or not is not relevant. My scenario might even work better if it's not completely detached.
Would a person trained in swordsmanship and actually in conflict aim to strike off a person's ear? Peter's target was not a soldier.
Assuming that they were close enough and actually paying attention to Peter, yes. Would their attention not have been focused on Jesus?
Again, would a trained swordsman actually aim for an ear?"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
3. Whether it completely detached or not is not relevant. My scenario might even work better if it's not completely detached.
As a warning/display of prowess? Sure.
No, they would have been focused on all of them. Especially since multiple disciples asked if they should attack before Peter acted on his own.
It's a good way to show off skill and intimidate without killing somebody.
1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Interesting to see how much of what we "read" is supplied by our own brains, as opposed to the text itself.Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostInteresting to see how much of what we "read" is supplied by our own brains, as opposed to the text itself.Last edited by tabibito; 06-07-2022, 06:56 PM.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by NorrinRadd View PostInteresting to see how much of what we "read" is supplied by our own brains, as opposed to the text itself."For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." Hosea 6:6
"Theology can be an intellectual entertainment." Metropolitan Anthony Bloom
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View Post
Your scenario works only if the ear is not completely detached. {{ Literally: Jesus touched the (something unspecified) of the ear and healed it.}}
There is no way to determine whether any of the disciples had military training. In Peter's case it is most unlikely.
So there was no specific focus on Peter. The soldiers would have been watching for aggression from a broad area and multiple potential sources. If a soldier had been close enough to act against Peter, it is a fair bet that he would have done so before Jesus had the chance to speak. Nor can it be determined from the text whether Peter was physically within the group that asked whether they should strike, or if he was, whether he was in plain view of the soldiers.
The text provides no description of the sword. The most likely weapon, a gladius or similar, was not particularly suited to slicing, which would mean that Peter was particularly inept. Of course, the sword might have been something like a scimitar, which would change that scenario.
"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
1. Again, Luke said he was healed.
2. the word says take away/remove. Even if koine does not have a word for partial detachment I'm sure it has a word for cut or wound that would be more appropriate.
3. Whether it completely detached or not is not relevant. My scenario might even work better if it's not completely detached.
As a warning/display of prowess? Sure.
No, they would have been focused on all of them. Especially since multiple disciples asked if they should attack before Peter acted on his own.
It's a good way to show off skill and intimidate without killing somebody.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment