H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
I find it ironic that the OP only posted once 
- Status
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
No I’m wrong and the Gospel writers themselves are wrong but the biblical scholars who study the gospel writers are correct
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Indirectly, they already have. Look at this from the Vatican’s own website …So how come the magisterium does not say we should all arm ourselves “at any expense” I wonder…
… the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS. This right can become a SERIOUS duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can **justify the possession of arms **…
Read what that says (and I’m para-phrasing here) … “Defense by arms exists and that right is a serious DUTY for those responsible for others” – INCLUDING family members. So, it doesn’t just refer to lawful authority as others have tried to twist around. And if we have a DUTY to defense by arms … a SERIOUS DUTY to defense by arms, what does that tell you?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Luke 11:21 (ESV) – “… When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe …”
Jesus praised armed defense of home & property. Aren’t we more important than our home and material things? If we can arm ourselves to defend the latter, doesn’t it stand to reason that we can do the same to defend the former?
Jesus praised armed defense of home & property. Aren’t we more important than our home and material things? If we can arm ourselves to defend the latter, doesn’t it stand to reason that we can do the same to defend the former?
N
Newbie2
Guest
You two really don’t read my posts, do you. I never argued against armed defense, only questioned Sir Knight’s interpretation of what Jesus meant by “enough” i.e. Did he really mean that two swords are sufficient for the lot of them in order to defend themselves i.e. that they didn’t need any more swords, two were “sufficient”?
So you’re arguing against me for something I’m not arguing for. Whatever. Knock yourselves out.
But to address Jesus’ meaning, as per SK, see if you can follow this line of reasoning:
Let’s see, there were 12 disciples, no? Let’s say for the sake of discussion, there were 11 at that time, Judas having defected. So, SK, Jesus is saying that two swords are “enough” to defend all 11 of them, particularly since he is sending them not in a group of 11, but in smaller groups all over the known world?
It would seem that if one accepts that Jesus is telling the disciples to arm themselves (which I’m not disputing), and that he’s sending them out to baptize all nations i.e. not all 12 will be traveling together, that he would know that only two groups of them would have a sword for protection.
Does that not strike you as curious, that Jesus would say that two swords are “enough” to protect all of them, knowing as he did that they would split up and some would be unprotected?
Or did I miss the passage on the multiplication of swords?
So you’re arguing against me for something I’m not arguing for.
Whatever. Knock yourselves out.But to address Jesus’ meaning, as per SK, see if you can follow this line of reasoning:
Let’s see, there were 12 disciples, no? Let’s say for the sake of discussion, there were 11 at that time, Judas having defected. So, SK, Jesus is saying that two swords are “enough” to defend all 11 of them, particularly since he is sending them not in a group of 11, but in smaller groups all over the known world?
It would seem that if one accepts that Jesus is telling the disciples to arm themselves (which I’m not disputing), and that he’s sending them out to baptize all nations i.e. not all 12 will be traveling together, that he would know that only two groups of them would have a sword for protection.
Does that not strike you as curious, that Jesus would say that two swords are “enough” to protect all of them, knowing as he did that they would split up and some would be unprotected?
Or did I miss the passage on the multiplication of swords?
N
Newbie2
Guest
Perhaps I wasn’t clear about that…it’s the NAB that’s available on the UCCB website. The same NAB that carries the revised New Testament Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat.
Sorry for that omission. Perhaps you’ll accept the footnote as accepted by Magesterial authority…
E
Ender
Guest
OK, whatever. Since the thread topic is gun control and whether or not the Church has a position on it, and since we are all agreed that (a) there is no doctrine supporting gun control and (b) there is doctrine supporting the right of lethal self defense … it is enough.
Ender
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Makes me wonder what the OPs intentions were.I find it ironic that the OP only posted once
N
Newbie2
Guest
Yep, but I’d add “lethal but proportunate defense”, so as not to confuse anyone just jumping into this thread. We all know you just cannot purposefully kill someone; the killing must either be unintentional or the only way to stop an aggressor.
There is, methinks, certainly some magesterial suggestion that the proliferation of handguns is problematic (in the hands of the bad guys and those in who’s hands a handgun is a hazard both to themself and anyone around them…I know a couple people like this. One was a straight 4.0 gpa in veterinary school…goes to show that common sense doesn’t necessarily equal intelligence! Yikes.)
And methinks we need to carefully define what is meant by “gun control”.
“Gun control” could be taken to mean that everyone should not have a right to a gun (convicted felons, mentally ill, etc. included). It could be taken to mean that not everyone would be allowed to openly carry a firearm. It could be taken to mean that one usually has to wait several days before purchasing a handgun i.e. a waiting period. It could be taken to mean that citizenry cannot purchase certain capacity magazines, use certain types of bullets (dum-dums) or posess automatic weapons of certain types.
I do think that the suggestion that we all have a duty to arm ourselves, even in situations where we are clearly not in any danger in our day-to day lives is unwarranted. Certainly those in bad neighborhoods, etc, need to be mindful of their own well being.
But in our modern day society, where we have good police protection in communities like my own and in many others, there is no magesterial or biblical support to the notion that we who live and work in such safe areas are mandated to bear arms.
I think we can agree on that.
N
Newbie2
Guest
I would argue that our society is safer in some regards; it depends on where you live. In my community, there is an excellent police presence and extremely rare violent crime. I get in may car, drive to an even safer, more affluent city where I maintain my business and drive home again.
Could I be the target of some bad guys someday? Sure. But I’ll bet that I’m a lot safer than those traveling about in Christ’s day.
So I don’t think that the argument that modern society is more dangerous applies in a **broad **sense.
M
momor
Guest
Try reading this in context and not so literally to suit your purposes. Jesus speaks this when He is casting out a demon. He is not speaking literally about a person’s physical home. Remember that holding on to physical (worldly) possessions was never a focus of Jesus’ teachings - quite the opposite.
You seem to have a strong fundamentalist understanding of the Bible.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Jesus is making a point and using a well-armed man as an example. If it was sinful for someone to be well-armed, Jesus wouldn’t have used it for his illustration.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
I guess you over looked that passageYou two really don’t read my posts, do you. I never argued against armed defense, only questioned Sir Knight’s interpretation of what Jesus meant by “enough” i.e. Did he really mean that two swords are sufficient for the lot of them in order to defend themselves i.e. that they didn’t need any more swords, two were “sufficient”?
So you’re arguing against me for something I’m not arguing for.
But to address Jesus’ meaning, as per SK, see if you can follow this line of reasoning:
Let’s see, there were 12 disciples, no? Let’s say for the sake of discussion, there were 11 at that time, Judas having defected. So, SK, Jesus is saying that two swords are “enough” to defend all 11 of them, particularly since he is sending them not in a group of 11, but in smaller groups all over the known world?
It would seem that if one accepts that Jesus is telling the disciples to arm themselves (which I’m not disputing), and that he’s sending them out to baptize all nations i.e. not all 12 will be traveling together, that he would know that only two groups of them would have a sword for protection.
Does that not strike you as curious, that Jesus would say that two swords are “enough” to protect all of them, knowing as he did that they would split up and some would be unprotected?
Or did I miss the passage on the multiplication of swords?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
First off, I never said that our faith tells us that we are required to be armed. I said that we have a duty to defend ourselves with the BEST means POSSIBLE. That is going to differ from person to person for numerous reasons.
M
momor
Guest
But you are taking an illustration and making it the point of Jesus’ teaching in this passage, thereby missing the point He is making. This is very dangerous exegesis and one that CAF members strongly caution some of our Protestant and Evangelical brothers against doing. Scripture is not for personal interpretation. It is disturbing how easily you dismiss the commentary of Biblical scholars in favor of your own.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
It’s disturbing how the Biblical scholars of today, dismiss the commentary of past biblical scholars …
And in foretelling these things, the Lord was speaking of what was about to happen to the country of the Jews. But the divine disciples did not understand the deep meaning of what was said, but supposed rather that He meant that swords were necessary, because of the attack about to be made upon Him by the disciple who betrayed Him, and by those who were assembled to seize Him. For this reason they say, “Lord, behold, here are two swords.” And what is the Saviour’s reply? “It is enough.” Observe how, so to say, He even ridicules their speech, well knowing that the disciples not having understood the force of what was said, thought that swords were required, because of the attack about to be made upon Himself. Fixing His look therefore upon those things which happened to the Jews because of their wicked conduct towards Him, the Saviour, as I said, ridicules their speech, and says, “It is enough:” yes, forsooth, two swords are enough to bear the brunt of the war about to come upon them, to meet which many thousand swords were of no avail.
M
momor
Guest
Jesus was exasperated with their lack of understanding - they were taking Him literally just the way you are. His ridicule (had He been anyone but the all loving Jesus) would have been like a sarcastic comment along the lines of:
Sure, okey dokey then, it’s enough. (and under his breath He says to Himself - Like two are enough when any idiot can see a thousand would not be enough.)
T
tommcguire
Guest
Newbie, I liked your last clarification. The thread had gone off in some pretty strange directions, even to wide sweeping statements of mistrust of the USCCB.
This morning I read from St. Augustine, who speaking of the Lord said: “You, who are Truth, reside everywhere to answer all who ask counsel of you, and in one act reply to all though all seek counsel upon different matters. And you answer clearly, but all do not hear clearly. All ask what they wish, but do not always hear the answer that they wish. That man is your best servant who is not so much concerned to hear from you what he wills as to will what he hears from you.”
I am sure you find it as hard as I do to will what I hear from the Lord. Everyday 34 people are murdered in the United States. We are doing something, as a people, to bring about this amount of violence in our communities. Gun control is an important means used to restrict lethal weapons that are tools used by human beings to kill other human beings. Sometimes people are killed using a gun by one defending self, by accident, by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, by one committing a crime, by someone who is mentally ill, in an act of despair (suicide) and by one in an act of passion. Let us not just run to the arguments repeated over and over again. Let us answer the question as servants: What is the Lord calling us to will about reducing violence that involves human beings killing other human beings with guns?
This morning I read from St. Augustine, who speaking of the Lord said: “You, who are Truth, reside everywhere to answer all who ask counsel of you, and in one act reply to all though all seek counsel upon different matters. And you answer clearly, but all do not hear clearly. All ask what they wish, but do not always hear the answer that they wish. That man is your best servant who is not so much concerned to hear from you what he wills as to will what he hears from you.”
I am sure you find it as hard as I do to will what I hear from the Lord. Everyday 34 people are murdered in the United States. We are doing something, as a people, to bring about this amount of violence in our communities. Gun control is an important means used to restrict lethal weapons that are tools used by human beings to kill other human beings. Sometimes people are killed using a gun by one defending self, by accident, by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, by one committing a crime, by someone who is mentally ill, in an act of despair (suicide) and by one in an act of passion. Let us not just run to the arguments repeated over and over again. Let us answer the question as servants: What is the Lord calling us to will about reducing violence that involves human beings killing other human beings with guns?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
There are at least three problems with your opinion:
*]Scripture tells us that Jesus ALWAYS explained things to His Apostles when they misunderstood. He didn’t do so here. Either he didn’t need to explain it because they understood correctly and Jesus was referring to actual swords or the INFALLIBLE Word of God is WRONG and Jesus did not explain everything to them when they misunderstood. Which is it?
*]Jesus was giving His message to the Apostles to carry to the four corners of the world. Seeing that they misunderstood, why would He not clarify what He meant? Wouldn’t that ensure that they would spread the message incorrectly to others? Is that something that you would expect from the Great Teacher?
*]This Gospel account was written after the minds of the Apostles were opened by the Holy Spirit. Seeing that they misunderstood Christ’s meaning, why wouldn’t they clarify it when writing the Gospel as they did in other places where they misunderstood something?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
I got a newsflash for ya. The murder rate is higher in places where there are more restrictions on guns because those who wish to use the gun for evil purposes are not going to obey gun laws and if they can’t get their hands on guns, they will commit their violence by other means. By allowing people the freedom to be able to defend themselves, the violent crime rate actually drops:
- According to the October 17, 1994 edition of the Independence Institute Issue Paper, after passing their concealed carry law, Florida’s homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below, and remains below the national average (as of the last reporting period, 2005).
- Additionally, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Texas, murder rates fell 50% faster than the national average in the year after their concealed carry law passed. Rape rates fell 93% faster in the first year after enactment, and 500% faster in the second and assaults fell and additional 250% faster in the second year.
- More to the point, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports of 2004, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws and states that disallow concealed carry have violent crime rates 11% higher than national averages.
- Status