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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    It's unlikely (very unlikely to those of us steeped in Mennonite traditions) that Christ would encourage firearm sales for self defense.
    You sure about that?

    Luke 22:36, "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'"

    Furthermore, you never see Jesus telling a soldier to abandon his profession, and when Paul is commending great people of faith in Hebrews 11, he lists a number of military exploits.

    There's also the argument to be made that it is evil to stand by while evil is being done and that we are morally obligated to do everything in our power to come to the aid of others, including taking up arms if necessary. As the saying goes, "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
    Last edited by Mountain Man; 04-06-2015, 08:07 PM.
    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


    • #32
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      You sure about that?

      Luke 22:36, "He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'"

      Furthermore, you never see Jesus telling a soldier to abandon his profession, and when Paul is commending great people of faith in Hebrews 11, he lists a number of military exploits.

      There's also the argument to be made that it is evil to stand by while evil is being done and that we are morally obligated to do everything in our power to come to the aid of others, including taking up arms if necessary. As the saying goes, "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."
      Yes. I would say it's almost patently obvious that Christ's teachings, taken in total, at least very strongly discourage lethal violence even in the case of self-defense. Luke 22:36, for instance, has to be read in the context of the immediate next verse:

      "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."


      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).

      That Christ did not tell soldiers to abandon their profession may mean that He condoned their violence but it's at least equally likely that He either 1) accommodated them as He accommodated tax collectors or 2) condoned the general power of the State to police its citizens and occupied territories.

      The argument that one must fight evil with lethal force is valid (and espoused by the Christian realist Reinhold Neibuhr
      in the last century) but it necessitates an extra-biblical understanding of Christian doctrine that immediately chips away at the literalist foundation necessary to defend such behavior as not selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Probably not the way y'all want to go.
      "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


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sam View Post
        Yes. I would say it's almost patently obvious that Christ's teachings, taken in total, at least very strongly discourage lethal violence even in the case of self-defense. Luke 22:36, for instance, has to be read in the context of the immediate next verse:

        "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."


        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).

        That Christ did not tell soldiers to abandon their profession may mean that He condoned their violence but it's at least equally likely that He either 1) accommodated them as He accommodated tax collectors or 2) condoned the general power of the State to police its citizens and occupied territories.

        The argument that one must fight evil with lethal force is valid (and espoused by the Christian realist Reinhold Neibuhr
        in the last century) but it necessitates an extra-biblical understanding of Christian doctrine that immediately chips away at the literalist foundation necessary to defend such behavior as not selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Probably not the way y'all want to go.
        Just to be clear, are you saying that people do not have the right to defend themselves?
        I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
          Just to be clear, are you saying that people do not have the right to defend themselves?
          I'm saying that Jesus would likely not have encouraged lethal violence in self-defense. As He said:

          Source: Matthew 10:28



          Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

          © Copyright Original Source



          Or, to quote a poster a professor had hanging in his office back when I was in college:

          I'm pretty sure when Christ said "Love your enemies," He meant don't kill them.
          "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


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sam View Post
            I'm saying that Jesus would likely not have encouraged lethal violence in self-defense. As He said:

            Source: Matthew 10:28



            Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

            © Copyright Original Source



            Or, to quote a poster a professor had hanging in his office back when I was in college:

            I'm pretty sure when Christ said "Love your enemies," He meant don't kill them.
            I'm curious if you condemn self-defense in general.
            I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
              I'm curious if you condemn self-defense in general.
              Lethal self defense?

              On general philosophical principle? No.

              As licensed for Christians? Yes. I can't read the Gospels in a way that ends up condoning such behavior, as radical as that may be.

              (I am much more sympathetic to Christian realism today than in the past, however.)
              "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


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                Lethal self defense?

                On general philosophical principle? No.

                As licensed for Christians? Yes. I can't read the Gospels in a way that ends up condoning such behavior, as radical as that may be.

                (I am much more sympathetic to Christian realism today than in the past, however.)
                I didn't mean just lethal self defense, although I do find it odd that you apparently only use the Gospels to reach this conclusion.
                I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                  I didn't mean just lethal self defense, although I do find it odd that you apparently only use the Gospels to reach this conclusion.
                  Non-lethal self defense is acceptable under the pacifist standard, though martyrdom that doesn't involve being killed is also valued under certain circumstances.

                  The Christian pacifist framework doesn't use only the Gospels to reach its conclusion, though the Gospels should be considered sufficient for anyone trying to frame the same-sex marriage issue around purely biblical strictures.
                  "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


                  • #39
                    I apologize for derailing, but I (speaking as a staunch Christian realist) wonder how much of a systematic view of pacifism we can conclude from the NT, because all of the NT was written from the perspective of a politically powerless people (unlike much of the OT).

                    Maybe this can all be discussed in another thread.
                    "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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      I apologize for derailing, but I (speaking as a staunch Christian realist) wonder how much of a systematic view of pacifism we can conclude from the NT, because all of the NT was written from the perspective of a politically powerless people (unlike much of the OT).

                      Maybe this can all be discussed in another thread.
                      Definitely an interesting conversation to have (though I haven't picked up my Yoder or Neibuhr books in many years).
                      "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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        Yes. I would say it's almost patently obvious that Christ's teachings, taken in total, at least very strongly discourage lethal violence even in the case of self-defense. Luke 22:36, for instance, has to be read in the context of the immediate next verse:

                        "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."


                        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).

                        That Christ did not tell soldiers to abandon their profession may mean that He condoned their violence but it's at least equally likely that He either 1) accommodated them as He accommodated tax collectors or 2) condoned the general power of the State to police its citizens and occupied territories.

                        The argument that one must fight evil with lethal force is valid (and espoused by the Christian realist Reinhold Neibuhr
                        in the last century) but it necessitates an extra-biblical understanding of Christian doctrine that immediately chips away at the literalist foundation necessary to defend such behavior as not selling a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Probably not the way y'all want to go.
                        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?
                        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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sam View Post
                          Came across a picture on FB today that was shaky logic but on the right track. It compared baking a cake for a same-sex couple with selling a gun to a murderer. Obviously, very few people would sell someone a gun knowing that it could be used for murder and those who did wouldn't cut a sympathetic figure. But it does end up being pretty devastating if slightly tweaked.
                          I saw that meme on Dee Dee's facbook page and there were some pretty good comments on it.

                          liberalidiot.jpg

                          1. If you did sell a gun to someone knowing that it was going to be used to murder someone, you most definitely WOULD be considered an accomplice. So utter fail right there.

                          2. Liberals have been using the "reasoning" that selling guns to citizens leads to more murders and that means we should eliminate guns and gun sales. So liberals already believe that selling a gun that is used in a murder makes the seller an accomplice.


                          PS, Sam you never answered my last post to you. Still waiting
                          Last edited by Sparko; 04-07-2015, 07:59 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            It begs the question: How many Christians would knowingly sell a gun to a murderer?

                            On a related note, I honestly can't tell if that image is trying to present a sincere argument or if it's a satirical takedown of liberalism. It's often impossible to tell the difference. I even visited the website and I still can't tell! It's like somebody said, "Let's make up the dumbest, most vapid soundbites we can think of and then post them to a website called 'Being Liberal'."
                            Last edited by Mountain Man; 04-07-2015, 09:18 AM.
                            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


                            • #44
                              That might be a valid comparison if someone walked into a shop and just ordered a wedding cake without mentioning any details, but yeah that's a pretty bad argument
                              "Some people feel guilty about their anxieties and regard them as a defect of faith but they are afflictions, not sins. Like all afflictions, they are, if we can so take them, our share in the passion of Christ." - That Guy Everyone Quotes

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                It begs the question: How many Christians would knowingly sell a gun to a murderer?

                                On a related note, I honestly can't tell if that image is trying to present a sincere argument or if it's a satirical takedown of liberalism. It's often impossible to tell the difference. I even visited the website and I still can't tell!
                                It is definitely meant to be serious. It comes from a liberal facebook page and a bunch of liberals are going "yeah!!" and not even realizing the meme not only bombs their own arguments against gun control, but actually doesn't even make sense, since someone selling or even giving a gun to someone when they know they will use it to murder someone would make them a participant in the murder.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                50 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                234 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                190 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                314 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X