Gun Control

[MaxTH]

Yes precisely! in the current Church I have met zero effeminate priests

Pray tell where does this effeminate/homosexual priest free oasis exist?
And you say in the current Church, what other Church have you met?

Also, how do you extrapolate limited personal experience into a universal pronouncement?

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Pray tell where does this effeminate/homosexual priest free oasis exist?
And you say in the current Church, what other Church have you met?

Also, how do you extrapolate limited personal experience into a universal pronouncement?

I’m sure that line could apply to you as well (bolded). Current Church: meaning after the sex scandal. Where: in the Good ol’ USA of course…precisely in the New England region to be exact.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread pruned of 43 off topic posts.
Return to the OP and remain there.

 

[momor]

Because He commanded His followers to buy a sword – which is mainly used as a WEAPON – just as a gun.

Now you are obviously just trolling. Your interpretion of that passage has been refuted numerous times including once using your own source that you THOUGHT supported your view. You never rebut, you only repost over and over the same things that have been refuted. Go ahead and believe whatever you want but stop misusing Jesus’ teachings for your own purposes.

 

[Ender]

Now you are obviously just trolling. Your interpretion of that passage has been refuted numerous times including once using your own source that you THOUGHT supported your view. You never rebut, you only repost over and over the same things that have been refuted. Go ahead and believe whatever you want but stop misusing Jesus’ teachings for your own purposes.

I’m having trouble keeping up with all the posts … but I missed the ones where it was shown that the passage where Jesus says “buy a sword” doesn’t mean um, “buy a sword.” The literal meaning of “buy a sword” was clearly what Cyril of Alexandria thought Christ meant:

But any one who had not the means of equipping himself for travel, and who from extreme poverty must continue in the land, let even such one, He says, sell his cloak, and buy a sword: for henceforth the question with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve their lives.

I understand that this point has been disputed but there is no way to claim it has been refuted. Or do you dispute Cyril’s understanding?

Ender

 

[ddarko]

I’m having trouble keeping up with all the posts … but I missed the ones where it was shown that the passage where Jesus says “buy a sword” doesn’t mean um, “buy a sword.” The literal meaning of “buy a sword” was clearly what Cyril of Alexandria thought Christ meant:

But any one who had not the means of equipping himself for travel, and who from extreme poverty must continue in the land, let even such one, He says, sell his cloak, and buy a sword: for henceforth the question with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve their lives.

I understand that this point has been disputed but there is no way to claim it has been refuted. Or do you dispute Cyril’s understanding?

Ender

I am afraid that is incorrect. Could you also cite the writing and whether it is accepted as the interpretation in Catholic Tradition?

Secondly, this might also help

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2563449&postcount=3

It’s very simple to refute your view as well. There is no indication in Acts of the Apostles of a single Apostle heeding this ‘literal’ form of advice as they went to preach.

So I am afraid you are going to have to try better than that.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

Last time I checked this thread is about guns? am I correct Ender or am i missing something?

If you make a generic argument then it should be generically applicable. You made a generic claim which I was trying to show was not generically applicable.

Guns have one purpose and it is to kill…pretty obvious why thy they were created…they were meant to immobilize/kill a person/animal as quick as possible. I’m pretty sure ddarko answered this topic multiple times…“one who has a gun is assuming the worst in their brother/sister in Christ”.

Are you suggesting now that hunting is immoral? Regarding the appropriateness of making assumptions, your interpretation would make it a sin to take reasonable precaution against the actions of evil men. Caution is an aspect of prudence and it is no more inappropriate to take precautions against physical assault than to lock the doors of your house and car. Or do you not consider that someone who locks his valuables away does so because he assumes the “worst in their brother/sister in Christ”? If you lock your doors then you’ve made the same assumption about your “brother/sister in Christ” that you condemn others for making. Do you lock your doors?

As Catholics we are meant to imitate Christ…what gives you the impression that Christ would’ve been a gun owner in today’s times?

I don’t assume that Christ would own a gun but neither would I expect him to serve in the military and it is quite clear that he did not condemn such service. Likewise I see no reason whatever to assume, despite the fact that he would not own one, that he would condemn others for owning firearms. The Church certainly doesn’t so why would I assume Christ would?

Ender

 

[Ender]

I am afraid that is incorrect.

What is incorrect? Are you saying this is not what Cyril said? That I’ve misinterpreted his comment? What makes “that” incorrect and what “that” are you referring to?

Could you also cite the writing and whether it is accepted as the interpretation in Catholic Tradition?

Sure. I provided the link before when I first cited this comment. Note that it is a sermon specifically on Luke 22:35-38 which are the exact passages we are discussing. I have seen nothing to indicate that the translation should be an issue.

tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_luke_13_sermons_135_145.htm

Secondly, this might also help

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2563449&postcount=3

It’s very simple to refute your view as well.

Well sure, if you can dismiss the opinions of an Early Father you would have no problem dismissing me as well, and while you may consider Cyril’s interpretation of this passage incorrect, correctly interpreting this passage is irrelevant to correctly understanding the Church’s position on the private ownership of weapons.

There is no indication in Acts of the Apostles of a single Apostle heeding this ‘literal’ form of advice as they went to preach.

You keep raising this point as if it was relevant but I have pointed out that the fact that the apostles didn’t (might not have) carried swords was irrelevant. The Church opposed the use of force by the clergy … but has always acknowledged the validity of force (recourse to the sword) by the state and individuals. Even proving the correctness of your understanding of the meaning of this passage wouldn’t mean anything in understanding the Church’s position on the topic. She has never opposed the private ownership of weapons, be they guns or swords.

Ender

 

[momor]

I am afraid that is incorrect. Could you also cite the writing and whether it is accepted as the interpretation in Catholic Tradition?

Secondly, this might also help

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2563449&postcount=3

It’s very simple to refute your view as well. There is no indication in Acts of the Apostles of a single Apostle heeding this ‘literal’ form of advice as they went to preach.

So I am afraid you are going to have to try better than that.

God Bless

From your same source, had you read a little farther, it says:

“What therefore, He says, concerns Me, has an end,” as far, that is, as relates to My suffering death in the flesh. And then shall those things which were foretold by the holy prophets in old time, happen to those who slew Him.

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 |682 many thousand swords were of no avail. For a mighty resistance was made by the pride of the Jews against the forces of Augustus Caesar: but they availed nothing; for they were besieged with overpowering might, and suffered all misery.

Jesus was ridiculing the apostles for taking his words literally about swords and not understanding the deeper meaning.

 

[ddarko]

You keep raising this point as if it was relevant but I have pointed out that the fact that the apostles didn’t (might not have) carried swords was irrelevant. The Church opposed the use of force by the clergy … but has always acknowledged the validity of force (recourse to the sword) by the state and individuals. Even proving the correctness of your understanding of the meaning of this passage wouldn’t mean anything in understanding the Church’s position on the topic. She has never opposed the private ownership of weapons, be they guns or swords.

Ender

WRONG. You see, this shows where you heart is. Your heart is with defending use of force. MY duty here is with opposing your interpretation of that Luke 22:36.

Now if Luke 22:36 is INDEED advice as you say it, then Apostles should have heeded to that advice in Acts. Luke 22:36 makes NO distinction between Lay and Clergy.

As for St. Cyril, your argument of taking his interpretation leaves you in a bigger problems.

St. Cyril writes the following right after what you quoted

But any one who had not the means of equipping himself for travel, and who from extreme poverty must continue in the land, let even such one, He says, sell his cloak, and buy a sword: for henceforth the question with all those who continue in the land will not be whether they possess anything or not, but whether they can exist and preserve their lives. For war shall befal them with such unendurable impetuosity, that nothing shall be able to stand against it.

St. Cyril therefore is speaking of War. Do you know SPECIFICALLY against who he is speaking of…? JEWS.

Or if not, what was the cause of so sudden a change? What need had the holy apostles of purse and bag? What answer must we give to this? That the saying in appearance had reference to them, but in reality applied to the person of every Jew:

If you read the next paragraph, he continues to give REASONS for the WAR against JEWS

…For He endured indeed for our sakes His saving passion, and thus far the daring wickedness of the Jews proceeded…

…, they shall behold crowned with godlike glory, and in just retribution of their wickedness towards Him, shall fall into the pit of destruction…

…And in foretelling these things, the Lord was speaking of what was about to happen to the country of the Jews. …

That blatant anti-semitism aside, unless you were a Jew living during that time, that PASSAGE does NOT apply to you. According to St. Cyril, Jesus was referring to this war that was going to bring suffering to the Jews as retribution for the suffering they caused. Not an outright commandment to bear swords.

ANYWAY, IF you ENDER, had TAKEN the actual TIME to READ the last paragraph of the document, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN the CORRECT Interpretation.

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 |682 many thousand swords were of no avail. For a mighty resistance was made by the pride of the Jews against the forces of Augustus Caesar: but they availed nothing; for they were besieged with overpowering might, and suffered all misery. For as the prophet Isaiah says, **“That which the holy God purposes, who shall bring to nought? and His hand, when lifted up, who shall turn aside?” Let us beware therefore of provoking God to anger: **for it is a fearful thing to fall into His hands. But to those who believe in Christ He is merciful; even to those who praise Him; who call Him their Redeemer and Deliverer; who minister to Him with spiritual service, and by all virtuous conduct: for if so we act and speak, Christ will make us His own; by Whom and with Whom to God the Father be praise and dominion, with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever, Amen.

No offense, but that was a shameful picking and choosing of a Church Father to make a point in your favor.

God Bless

 

[tommcguire]

Today at Mass we heard this in the reading from the Book of Tobit:

• Thus under King Esarhaddon I [Tobit] returned to my home, and my wife Anna and my son Tobiah were restored to me. Then on our festival of Pentecost, the feast of Weeks, a fine dinner was prepared for me, and I reclined to eat.

The table was set for me, and when many different dishes were placed before me, I said to my son Tobiah: "My son, go out and try to find a poor man from among our kinsmen exiled here in Nineveh. If he is a sincere worshiper of God, bring him back with you, so that he can share this meal with me. Indeed, son, I shall wait for you to come back."

Tobiah went out to look for some poor kinsman of ours. When he returned he exclaimed, "Father!" I said to him, "What is it, son?" He answered, "Father, one of our people has been murdered! His body lies in the market place where he was just strangled!"

I sprang to my feet, leaving the dinner untouched; and I carried the dead man from the street and put him in one of the rooms, so that I might bury him after sunset.

 Returning to my own quarters, I washed myself and ate my food in sorrow.

I was reminded of the oracle pronounced by the prophet Amos against Bethel: "Your festivals shall be turned into mourning, And all your songs into lamentation."

And I wept. Then at sunset I went out, dug a grave, and buried him.

The neighbors mocked me, saying to one another: "Will this man never learn! Once before he was hunted down for execution because of this very thing; yet now that he has escaped, here he is again burying the dead!"*

Tobit, a most compassionate man, buried a man who had been murdered. This act was to be punished by execution. Tobit escaped death. At the banquet of celebration, he again goes out to bury the dead and is mocked.

I wondered if he was mocked because he did not resort to lethal means to defend himself?

I think the story challenges those of us on this thread to look at what is important. Guns will not go away; they are too important to the culture of the United States. Restrictions and control of guns will not achieve much in terms of peace among people. So what if, even those who own guns for self defense, would engage in acts of compassion to such an extent that our faith communities would become places sinners would come to for salvation in Jesus Christ?

 

[bbarrick8383]

I wondered if he was mocked because he did not resort to lethal means to defend himself?

I think the story challenges those of us on this thread to look at what is important. Guns will not go away; they are too important to the culture of the United States. Restrictions and control of guns will not achieve much in terms of peace among people. So what if, even those who own guns for self defense, would engage in acts of compassion to such an extent that our faith communities would become places sinners would come to for salvation in Jesus Christ?

Maybe I’m not comprehending the story correctly, could you please tell me at what point he could have used lethal means to defend himself?

 

[Tigg]

So what if, even those who own guns for self defense, would engage in acts of compassion to such an extent that our faith communities would become places sinners would come to for salvation in Jesus Christ?

Here it is again. Rash judgment against gun owners as if you could know their heart. Just how do *you *know they do **not **show compassion?

 

[Ender]

WRONG. You see, this shows where you heart is. Your heart is with defending use of force. MY duty here is with opposing your interpretation of that Luke 22:36.

You need better focus - the comment you are calling wrong had nothing whatever to do with that passage in Luke. I was pointing out the irrelevance of the question about whether the disciples carried swords - although, interestingly enough, we know that they did since they had two with them in the garden when the soldiers came for Jesus. If you have a “duty” here, it is to address my actual comments and not to speculate about where my heart is.

Now if Luke 22:36 is INDEED advice as you say it, then Apostles should have heeded to that advice in Acts. Luke 22:36 makes NO distinction between Lay and Clergy.

True … but since pretty much everyone recognizes that they misunderstood what Jesus was saying your comment isn’t terribly meaningful.

As for St. Cyril, your argument of taking his interpretation leaves you in a bigger problems.

Make your point clearly: is it your position that Cyril misunderstood that passage in Luke?

According to St. Cyril, Jesus was referring to this war that was going to bring suffering to the Jews as retribution for the suffering they caused. Not an outright commandment to bear swords.

According to Cyril, Jesus was warning the Jews to flee the coming devastation or at least to arm themselves to try to defend their lives. It is not immediately clear why he would recommend that the ancient Jews purchase arms to defend themselves yet ban such ownership to modern Americans.

ANYWAY, IF you ENDER, had TAKEN the actual TIME to READ the last paragraph of the document, YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN the CORRECT Interpretation.

I thought quoting that paragraph once would have been sufficient (see #276). How often do you think I should have repeated the citation?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Since the topic of this thread is (supposed to be) gun control and not what constitutes the correct exegesis of Luke, let me cite this comment from a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, regarding carrying concealed weapons (CCW’s are concealed weapons permits):

*To date, there are sixteen refereed publication, which demonstrate that CCWs decrease violent crime. There are ten refereed publication that say they make no difference in violent crime rates. There are zero refereed publications demonstrating that CCWs increase violent crime. (Mike Adams - *UNCW)

townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/03/08/liberal_ideology_will_not_make_your_campus_safer

Ender

 

[ddarko]

You need better focus - the comment you are calling wrong had nothing whatever to do with that passage in Luke. I was pointing out the irrelevance of the question about whether the disciples carried swords - although, interestingly enough, we know that they did since they had two with them in the garden when the soldiers came for Jesus. If you have a “duty” here, it is to address my actual comments and not to speculate about where my heart is.
True … but since pretty much everyone recognizes that they misunderstood what Jesus was saying your comment isn’t terribly meaningful.
Make your point clearly: is it your position that Cyril misunderstood that passage in Luke?
According to Cyril, Jesus was warning the Jews to flee the coming devastation or at least to arm themselves to try to defend their lives. It is not immediately clear why he would recommend that the ancient Jews purchase arms to defend themselves yet ban such ownership to modern Americans.
I thought quoting that paragraph once would have been sufficient (see #276). How often do you think I should have repeated the citation?

Ender

My point is that you deliberately represented a church father to cater to your needs WITHOUT even reading the full document. This is not a matter of repeating the citation. This is a matter of actually READING something honestly. Not do a Ctrl+F to find a phrase/sentence that supports your position. The latter is academic dishonesty.

You just twisted a Church father, whose writings were Anti- Semitic to begin with in that document (that should put the whole sermon in to doubt) and was addressed at Jews. He even explains the meaninglessness of taking it as a CALL for the Apostles to bear arms. But hey, YOU JUST LOVE it because for a second, you thought you could pass it off as support for your position for a Church father.

There should be a ban system on these forums for academic dishonesty. But hey its CAF’s means of being tolerant I guess. Ban people for insults because its not very Catholic but twisting words to further ones own pathetic agendas is not worthy of a ban.

In any case, I hope people who read this thread see the deceit for what it is. I am not communicating further because I don’t know how to communicate when people are not being academically honest.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Since the topic of this thread is (supposed to be) gun control and not what constitutes the correct exegesis of Luke, let me cite this comment from a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, regarding carrying concealed weapons (CCW’s are concealed weapons permits):

*To date, there are sixteen refereed publication, which demonstrate that CCWs decrease violent crime. There are ten refereed publication that say they make no difference in violent crime rates. There are zero refereed publications demonstrating that CCWs increase violent crime. (Mike Adams - *UNCW)

townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/2011/03/08/liberal_ideology_will_not_make_your_campus_safer

Ender

Correlation does not LOGICALLY IMPLY Causation. End of STORY. I take it you probably missed that part of the text which you studied how to interpret statistical data and experiments just like with other documents.

Did you consider the cases where CCW exists but there is NO change in crime?

Anyway, unless you can show a CAUSAL link between the two, that evidence is USELESS.

Let A = Guns and B = violence

It could mean either

1. A may be the cause of B.
2. B may be the cause of A.
3. some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
4. there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
5. the “relationship” is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.

So it appears that many discussing this issue lack knowledge of Theology, and even basic logic.

To top if all off, have a deep problem of Confirmation bias.

God Bless

 

[tommcguire]

I ask your forgiveness. My question about compassion and those who advocate use of guns for defense was an unjustifiable judgment. Before asking this question of others , I must first ask myself. I so often come up short in compassion that would lead others to Jesus Christ.

As I reflect on how I have approached this and other topics on the Forum, the desire to win has too often been my goal. That is not the way to peace. If I am the winner, someone else is the loser. Ultimately, if I am the loser too often, without the grace of God, I will look for ways to strike out, even violently. This despite my intention to be a man of non-violence.

I would hope the aim in this forum on gun control is not to win, but to find ways of reconciling differences. Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine #492 * “Peace is then reconciliation with one’s brothers and sisters, for in the prayer that Jesus taught us, the “Our Father,” the forgiveness that we ask of God is linked to the forgiveness that we grant to our brothers and sisters: “Forgive us our debtors as we also have forgiven our debtors”.*

 

[bbarrick8383]

I ask your forgiveness. My question about compassion and those who advocate use of guns for defense was an unjustifiable judgment. Before asking this question of others , I must first ask myself. I so often come up short in compassion that would lead others to Jesus Christ.

As I reflect on how I have approached this and other topics on the Forum, the desire to win has too often been my goal. That is not the way to peace. If I am the winner, someone else is the loser. Ultimately, if I am the loser too often, without the grace of God, I will look for ways to strike out, even violently. This despite my intention to be a man of non-violence.

I would hope the aim in this forum on gun control is not to win, but to find ways of reconciling differences. Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine #492 * “Peace is then reconciliation with one’s brothers and sisters, for in the prayer that Jesus taught us, the “Our Father,” the forgiveness that we ask of God is linked to the forgiveness that we grant to our brothers and sisters: “Forgive us our debtors as we also have forgiven our debtors”.*

Good response.

I too get caught up in the debate sometimes.

We all know that crimes using guns are a major problem, especially in the cities like Detroit.

Some people feel safer knowing that a law abiding citizen carrying a gun, with the proper permits, around. Some people, for whatever reason are a bit freaked out just by the thought of it.

Around here, guns are still used to feed families. Even with all the deer hunting our deer populations stay pretty high. So high that I see at least a dozen deer hit by cars every year. We may have to put down an old cow, an injured dog. Or shoot varmints to protect our crops.

Places like Detroit and Chicago, I don’t know what the answer is. But it’s not going to be found by restricting me. I don’t know of anyone whose had guns stolen from them around here, most of us just want to be left well enough alone to our quiet and peaceful lives.

 

[Ender]

My point is that you deliberately represented a church father to cater to your needs WITHOUT even reading the full document. This is not a matter of repeating the citation. This is a matter of actually READING something honestly. Not do a Ctrl+F to find a phrase/sentence that supports your position. The latter is academic dishonesty.

Since I posted the paragraph you referred to it is difficult to fathom how you can claim that I didn’t read the entire document. Is it really that much of a stretch to believe that in order to have posted it I first had to read it?

You just twisted a Church father, whose writings were Anti- Semitic to begin with in that document (that should put the whole sermon in to doubt) and was addressed at Jews.

Again, it isn’t immediately clear how quoting someone (with the same paragraph you used) constitutes twisting his comments. I think your jab about twisting someone’s position has resulted in a self inflicted wound.

He even explains the meaninglessness of taking it as a CALL for the Apostles to bear arms.

Your confusion stems from mixing my comments with those of other posters since I never asserted that this passage was a call for the apostles to arm themselves. You really do need to read more carefully.

There should be a ban system on these forums for academic dishonesty. But hey its CAF’s means of being tolerant I guess. Ban people for insults because its not very Catholic but twisting words to further ones own pathetic agendas is not worthy of a ban.

I am not too concerned about being banned because you have difficulty following an argument. You would be better advised to police your own intemperate remarks.

In any case, I hope people who read this thread see the deceit for what it is.

See, now this kind of thing can get you into trouble.

Ender