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
See more
See less

Is gun culture compatible with Christianity?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • NorrinRadd
    replied
    There is as much difference among the Gospels in that "sword" account as there is, e.g., in the earlier instructions about whether or not they should take staffs.

    I really don't think Scripture is remotely definitive on the issue of whether or not Christians are permitted to use weapons or other forms of violence in self-defense.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post

    The important detail is that the apostles were armed as a matter of habit, which makes the idea that Jesus was a pacifist untenable. I agree that Peter's skill as a warrior is not that important but hey, it was a fun discussion.
    Pretty much a thought exercise.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post

    The important detail is that the apostles were armed as a matter of habit, which makes the idea that Jesus was a pacifist untenable. I agree that Peter's skill as a warrior is not that important but hey, it was a fun discussion.
    I agree with that. People went around armed and Jesus' followers were no different. And Jesus helped the Centurion without telling him to leave the Army first. And in the Old Testament, God actually had the Hebrews create armies and go out and conquer lands.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post

    You guys are hilarious, arguing about something with little or no detailed information. It could have been on purpose or it could have been an accidental wild swing. There is no way to know. And it isn't important. The important take-away is that Peter tried to defend Jesus when the guards came but Jesus didn't want him to and stopped the fighting and went away with the guards.
    The important detail is that the apostles were armed as a matter of habit, which makes the idea that Jesus was a pacifist untenable. I agree that Peter's skill as a warrior is not that important but hey, it was a fun discussion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sparko
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post

    Cutting a head (or more likely, slitting the throat), requires a horizontal slash. And the shoulder is an odd target for a vertical sword slash (esp the shorter ones they were likely using). If he was flailing about cutting the ear is possible but cutting the ear off is highly improbable.
    You guys are hilarious, arguing about something with little or no detailed information. It could have been on purpose or it could have been an accidental wild swing. There is no way to know. And it isn't important. The important take-away is that Peter tried to defend Jesus when the guards came but Jesus didn't want him to and stopped the fighting and went away with the guards.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    You are suggesting that was his intended goal rather than cleaving a head or shoulder.
    Cutting a head (or more likely, slitting the throat), requires a horizontal slash. And the shoulder is an odd target for a vertical sword slash (esp the shorter ones they were likely using). If he was flailing about cutting the ear is possible but cutting the ear off is highly improbable.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    Originally posted by Thoughtful Monk View Post

    Personally, I'm suspicious of any position that relies on a single verse. Even more so if that verse has to come from a specific translation.
    The other verse that comes to mind is where Isaiah talks about turning swords to plowshares but it just seems way too much of a stretch to draw firm theological conclusions there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thoughtful Monk
    replied
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    I'm reluctant to read that much into Jesus telling his followers to buy swords as contextually, it seems likely this was just to prompt his arrest as the time was correct. The most we could conclude is that possessing weapons is not inherently wrong, which isn't really the point here.
    Personally, I'm suspicious of any position that relies on a single verse. Even more so if that verse has to come from a specific translation.

    Leave a comment:


  • KingsGambit
    replied
    I'm reluctant to read that much into Jesus telling his followers to buy swords as contextually, it seems likely this was just to prompt his arrest as the time was correct. The most we could conclude is that possessing weapons is not inherently wrong, which isn't really the point here.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    That's my point. There is no indication what Peter's intention was. It is all speculation.
    I was agreeing with you.

    It is always a good thing to be suspicious of precepts that use imaginary back stories for support.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post

    The text says that Peter cut, or cut off, an ear. There are many who will create different back stories to support one precept or another, but I prefer to confine evaluations to what is available from the text.
    That's my point. There is no indication what Peter's intention was. It is all speculation.

    Leave a comment:


  • tabibito
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    You are suggesting that was his intended goal rather than cleaving a head or shoulder.
    The text says that Peter cut, or cut off, an ear. There are many who will create different back stories to support one precept or another, but I prefer to confine evaluations to what is available from the text.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post

    Think about the mechanics of cutting an ear off. You have very little margin of error between the ear and hitting the man in the head, and you need to stop the blade before you slice the shoulder (or, if on the upswing, avoid it altogether). It's a show of skill.
    You are suggesting that was his intended goal rather than cleaving a head or shoulder.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Executor
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    It's also an indication of someone swinging wildly with a weapon he wasn't all that familiar with.
    Think about the mechanics of cutting an ear off. You have very little margin of error between the ear and hitting the man in the head, and you need to stop the blade before you slice the shoulder (or, if on the upswing, avoid it altogether). It's a show of skill.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue06
    replied
    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.
    It's also an indication of someone swinging wildly with a weapon he wasn't all that familiar with.

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X