Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Double Standard?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I don't really see how Luke 22:37 changes the fact that Jesus told his disciples to arm himself. He was "numbered with transgressors" from the very moment he challenged the authority of the pharisees and not because his disciples had swords.

    On to your second point, Jesus accommodated tax collector but also told them to collect taxes honestly (this suggests that collecting taxes is not a sin in and of itself). It's also quite a stretch to suggest that Jesus recognized the need of the state to use armed forced to police its citizens and territories but did not also recognize the need for citizens to defend themselves from personal violence, especially when he explicitly told his disciples to acquire swords.

    And, no, defending this position does not require an extra-biblical understanding. As I said, Paul listed military exploits among his examples of great faith.

    Let me ask you this: you're walking down the street, and someone is getting beaten within an inch of their life. Does your understanding of scripture compel you to stand idly by and allow the beating to continue, or are you morally obligated to place yourself in harm's way by coming the man's aid, even if doing so requires violence on your part?
    So, in your scenario, why would Jesus say "It is enough" when the disciples said that they had two swords in the group? If His intent was to have the disciples prepared to defend themselves, 1) why were only two swords considered sufficient and 2) why did He rebuke Peter for engaging in self defense?
    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      PS, Sam you never answered my last post to you. Still waiting
      And you'll continue to wait until you learn either to ask more interesting and engaging questions or at least learn a bit of decorum. Being rude and boring is not a winning combination for GTD.
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • #48
        The Colorado folks aren't the only ones...

        Source: http://www.clickorlando.com/news/central-florida-baker-death-threats-anti-gay-cake-request/32184060



        LONGWOOD, Fla. -
        A Central Florida baker said she is getting death threats after refusing to make a cake with a message against gay marriage. The man who placed the order recorded it and then posted it online.

        Since then, Cut the Cake off U.S. Highway 17-92 in Longwood has been fielding calls from angry people across the country. The man who made the request is Joshua Feuerstein, a former pastor and social media personality.

        "I need a sheet cake and I need it to say, 'We do not support gay marriage' [silence]," said Feuerstein in the video posted to his Facebook page earlier this week [full video below].

        "He wanted us to put a hateful message on a cake and I said, 'We're not going to do that,'" Sharon Haller, owner of Cut the Cake, told Local 6.

        © Copyright Original Source

        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Sam View Post
          And you'll continue to wait until you learn either to ask more interesting and engaging questions or at least learn a bit of decorum. Being rude and boring is not a winning combination for GTD.
          All I asked you was to support your claim that the constitution says you can't force others to publish someone else's speech.

          I guess you can't so you are avoiding admitting you are wrong and trying to toss the "blame" back on me by saying I am boring and rude.

          That answers my question right there. Thanks.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Sam View Post
            And you'll continue to wait until you learn either to ask more interesting and engaging questions or at least learn a bit of decorum. Being rude and boring is not a winning combination for GTD.
            Besides, he's obviously putting you on the back burner till he finishes the reply to me and Mountain Man.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
              Besides, he's obviously putting you on the back burner till he finishes the reply to me and Mountain Man.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                And you'll continue to wait until you learn either to ask more interesting and engaging questions or at least learn a bit of decorum. Being rude and boring is not a winning combination for GTD.
                Translation: I can't admit i'm wrong so I"d better ignore the question to hide that fact.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by RumTumTugger View Post
                  Translation: I can't admit i'm wrong so I"d better ignore the question to hide that fact.
                  A simple Google search would reveal to Sparko or anyone else the relevant SCOTUS cases and precedent. I'm under no obligation to humor someone's question when the preceding paragraphs show such an obvious lack of good faith, to say nothing of good taste.

                  People who think they can malign others and then demand answers to their questions are on the wrong track and ought not to be enabled.
                  "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Sam View Post
                    A simple Google search would reveal to Sparko or anyone else the relevant SCOTUS cases and precedent. I'm under no obligation to humor someone's question when the preceding paragraphs show such an obvious lack of good faith, to say nothing of good taste.

                    People who think they can malign others and then demand answers to their questions are on the wrong track and ought not to be enabled.


                    I guess you can't prove your assertions after all. It's the old "yes I made a bald assertion but I can't be bothered to show you any proof, google it yourself" dodge

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Joshua Feuerstein is that pastor in Arizona who makes the really embarrassing YouTube videos. As in, 9/11 conspiracy theory type videos.
                      "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


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        So, in your scenario, why would Jesus say "It is enough" when the disciples said that they had two swords in the group? If His intent was to have the disciples prepared to defend themselves, 1) why were only two swords considered sufficient and 2) why did He rebuke Peter for engaging in self defense?
                        In light of your recent posts to Sparko, I suppose I could just say, "Commentaries are only a Google search away, so figure it out for yourself," and you would be fine with that, right?

                        But since such a response would, in fact, be condescending, rude, and an attempt to shift the burden of proof, maybe I should man up and answer your questions.

                        Some commentaries I've read suggest that Jesus' response was sarcastic. Here he had just told his disciples the importance of acquiring a sword for personal defense, even to the point of forgoing protection from the elements ("sell your cloak"), and his disciples say, "Um, we've got a couple here already." So Jesus, realizing that his disciples missed the point -- again -- rolls his eyes and says, "That's enough."

                        Other commentaries say that Jesus' "That's enough" was him indicating that the conversation was over, as in "That's enough talking. Go and do what I've instructed."

                        So why did Jesus rebuke Peter for striking out at the men who had come to arrest Jesus? I suppose, for one, it was dumb of Peter to try and take on Roman soldiers, and by restoring calm to the situation and healing the stricken man, Jesus saved Peter's life and the rest of the disciples, men who would have a very important mission in the coming years. Also notice that Jesus told Peter to put his sword away and not to cast it aside or abandon it, which is hard to reconcile with your belief that Jesus did not believe in carrying weapons for personal defense (for that matter, why did the disciples even have a pair of swords in the first place?). Furthermore, it was Jesus' entire purpose to sacrifice himself for the sins of the world, and so Jesus didn't want Peter trying to fight to rescue him.

                        Now how about you answer some of my questions: If we are not supposed to defend ourselves with weapons then why did Paul commend someone like Samson who went on several vicious rampages through Philistine territory and who redeemed himself by bringing down a palace on top of his enemies? Or King David who was a man after God's own heart and died with a sword in his hand?

                        And my second question: Should you or should you not do everything in your power to protect someone from violence? Suppose your family is the victim of a home invasion. Should you let the invaders have their way with your family, or should you take up arms to defend yourself?
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          In light of your recent posts to Sparko, I suppose I could just say, "Commentaries are only a Google search away, so figure it out for yourself," and you would be fine with that, right?
                          I ward against giving folks that option by refraining from belligerent and rude snark.

                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          But since such a response would, in fact, be condescending, rude, and an attempt to shift the burden of proof, maybe I should man up and answer your questions.

                          Some commentaries I've read suggest that Jesus' response was sarcastic. Here he had just told his disciples the importance of acquiring a sword for personal defense, even to the point of forgoing protection from the elements ("sell your cloak"), and his disciples say, "Um, we've got a couple here already." So Jesus, realizing that his disciples missed the point -- again -- rolls his eyes and says, "That's enough."

                          Other commentaries say that Jesus' "That's enough" was him indicating that the conversation was over, as in "That's enough talking. Go and do what I've instructed."

                          So why did Jesus rebuke Peter for striking out at the men who had come to arrest Jesus? I suppose, for one, it was dumb of Peter to try and take on Roman soldiers, and by restoring calm to the situation and healing the stricken man, Jesus saved Peter's life and the rest of the disciples, men who would have a very important mission in the coming years. Also notice that Jesus told Peter to put his sword away and not to cast it aside or abandon it, which is hard to reconcile with your belief that Jesus did not believe in carrying weapons for personal defense (for that matter, why did the disciples even have a pair of swords in the first place?). Furthermore, it was Jesus' entire purpose to sacrifice himself for the sins of the world, and so Jesus didn't want Peter trying to fight to rescue him.
                          None of that is parsimonious; Jesus tells his disciples to go acquire weapons so that He "may be numbered among the rebels" to fulfill a prophesy. The fulfillment of this prophesy is so important that Jesus tells them to go and sell what they have to get the weapons. But already having two swords, Jesus says "it is enough" and proceeds to the Garden of Gethsemane, where He is betrayed and arrested as a political insurgent.

                          Your statement that Jesus "told his disciples the importance of acquiring a sword for personal defense" is an extra-biblical assumption you've introduced into the text. Not only did Jesus rebuke Peter's attempt at self defense but from the time of the Gospels through the writings of the ante-Nicean Church Fathers, we find no support for lethal violence, even in self-defense. If Jesus intended His disciples to use weapons to kill in self-defense, we have absolutely no evidence that His intent was respected, even during extensive persecutions. In fact, we have distinct evidence to the contrary, as Christians like Peter, Paul and Polycarp were martyred without violent resistance.

                          Swords were not only used to fight other humans but also used to ward off wild animals.

                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          Now how about you answer some of my questions: If we are not supposed to defend ourselves with weapons then why did Paul commend someone like Samson who went on several vicious rampages through Philistine territory and who redeemed himself by bringing down a palace on top of his enemies? Or King David who was a man after God's own heart and died with a sword in his hand?

                          And my second question: Should you or should you not do everything in your power to protect someone from violence? Suppose your family is the victim of a home invasion. Should you let the invaders have their way with your family, or should you take up arms to defend yourself?
                          Early Christians faced that exact scenario and chose to die as martyrs (and allow their family members to die as martyrs) rather than take up arms. We still hear stories today about such Christian martyrs. According to the most textual reading of the Gospels, we should indeed refrain from lethal violence in self-defense. If you believe that your existence on Earth is to win souls for Heaven then you should not be afraid of death. You should, however, be afraid that your action in killing another person closes off his chance for repentance. What would the Church have lost were Saul to have been killed in self-defense before his Damascus road experience? Weighing the balance, I argue that the most faithful reading of the Gospels prohibits the use of lethal violence, even in self-defense. That this is a counter-intuitive and difficult command is part-and-parcel with the radicalism of Jesus.

                          To your first question, one should preference the explicit commands of Jesus over the inferred allowances one takes form Paul's commendations in any serious exegesis.
                          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            "For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."


                            [FONT=Trebuchet, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][COLOR=#001320]Even people skeptical of Christian pacifism have to acknowledge that such a reading lends itself to Jesus creating the appearance of an armed rebellion to facilitate his being "numbered with transgressors" (rebels).
                            I think a far more obvious meaning for "NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS" is that of being considered to be a criminal. That is, that Jesus was condemned as a criminal and executed with criminals. Jesus was presumably quoting Isaiah 53:12 "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
                            It's talking about his being put to death as if a transgressor, on behalf of all the transgressors in the world. He who knew no sin became sin for us.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I lean toward Sam's thinking purely for the case of self-defense (the early Christians and what they believed do deserve a vote); I would consider the calculus different if it involved the defense of others. I think it would be way too legalistic to, say, condemn the shooting of an active shooter in an elementary school.
                              "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


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                                I think a far more obvious meaning for "NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS" is that of being considered to be a criminal. That is, that Jesus was condemned as a criminal and executed with criminals. Jesus was presumably quoting Isaiah 53:12 "Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."
                                It's talking about his being put to death as if a transgressor, on behalf of all the transgressors in the world. He who knew no sin became sin for us.
                                The crime, in this case, being insurgency. That's supposedly what got the attention of Rome - the prospect of another Maccabeen revolution coming around.
                                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:03 PM
                                3 responses
                                33 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 12:34 PM
                                18 responses
                                124 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 10:21 AM
                                2 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Ronson, 09-17-2021, 08:16 PM
                                10 responses
                                80 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 09-17-2021, 05:33 PM
                                14 responses
                                93 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X