Gun Control

[MaxTH]

Birds of a feather flock together

God Bless

P.S. you might wanna actually read the arguments. He makes a compelling case (definitely involuntarily but still…) to REDUCE GUNS AMONG ALL PEOPLE INCLUDING AUTHORITY… HOOAH

That is true, in as much as it is also true that in my posts I have made the compelling case that the earth is actually made of Folgers Crystals, and the 23rd president of the United States was Willie Nelson.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

That is true, in as much as it is also true that in my posts I have made the compelling case that the earth is actually made of Folgers Crystals, and the 23rd president of the United States was Willie Nelson.

FAIL

(HINT: perhaps better examples could have been used)

 

[MaxTH]

FAIL

(HINT: perhaps better examples could have been used)

Sorry? Better examples of what exactly?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Maybe another thread is needed.

Apparently, instead of controlling guns, we need to control the BATF which is supplying guns to the drug cartels.

 

[Ender]

(Bolded) If you believe that then it would be easy for a pro-choice individual to fully support abortion in our society…

This is incorrect for the simple reason that the Church has no position on gun control but has explicitly and consistently condemned abortion. I get to make up my own mind on prudential matters and am bound by Church teaching only on moral ones. The question as to whether or not limiting private gun ownership is beneficial or harmful to society is not a moral concern. It is a question of fact to be determined by social scientists, not theologians. The answer lies in poring over criminal justice statistics, not the writings of the Early Fathers.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Its not personal interpretation??? Please let me know, since when did “We are all made brothers and sisters in Christ through the blood he poured out in Calvary” become personal opinion?

Let me be as clear as I can be: either there is a declarative statement by the Church on gun control or their isn’t. I am unimpressed that you can tease out such a meaning from the penumbras of other statements. Surely you can tell the difference in specificity between “We are brothers and sisters in Christ” and "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion" (2271). Show me a comparable statement on gun control, but you might consider the possibility that, if you can’t find where the Church condemns something … maybe she doesn’t condemn it.

Ender

 

[tommcguire]

Gun Control-no gun control still there will be terrible violence in our communities. What will it take to prevent shootings that injure or kill children? Statistics about gun possession do not prove communities are safer with more guns. There are plenty of guns in Inkster Michigan.

INKSTER, Mich. – Inkster police told Local 4 a 4-year-old girl was shot early Friday morning. It happened on Carlisle Street in Inkster just after midnight. The child was in a car seat in the back of a van driven by her mother and her male passenger when someone opened fire and shot the van. The girl’s head was grazed by a bullet. She is being treated at Children’s Hospital and is in stable condition.
The male passenger in the van ran from the scene, and the van has been impounded by Inkster police. Police are looking for the gunman.

I submit arguments one way or another will not convince the other to change positions on gun control. Each of us, as faithful Catholics, will support the legal remedies that we deem appropriate about gun control. Can we respect each other in our differences?

I am moved by the reported testimony of Master Sgt. Trish Bunting:

*"Bunting, a member of the Military Council of Catholic Women, said, “I thought my faith was good when I deployed,” but until she got to Iraq she hadn’t seen the “true colors of my faith.” Meeting Iraqis face to face, Bunting discovered her deep respect for them. “I saw their entire existence as putting God first in everything. They believe that all of their possessions are because God willed it.

“Then I look at how most Americans are. I am speaking about myself here as well. I see how whatever we have is never enough. We want the newer car, the bigger house; we want money, nicer vacations. We want, we want, we want. We seem to expect God to adjust to us, instead of us adjusting to God.”*

During this experience, Bunting had a revelation. “I suddenly saw what is really important in life. Love, family and being happy with just that.” On one particular patrol outside the protected zone, a wave of fear overcame her, bringing thoughts of “What if tomorrow is my last day?” She found herself thinking of those who would be most affected by her death. Thoughts of never seeing her husband again or her children fulfilling their dreams, and the anguish her parents would feel taunted her over and over. After the desperation, new thoughts came flooding in, bringing a new and different kind of faith. “If it is your will, Lord, I am here to serve you.” She accepted the possibility of her death. “I was OK with dying, maybe because I knew I would die in the service of my country. That’s what I had signed up to do. I wondered, ‘Wow! Did that really come out of my thoughts?’ I had changed. I don’t know what happened or why, but I knew my faith was suddenly stronger.”

Trish Bunting experienced the kind of conversion Jesus calls us to. I am called to conversion; my desires are too much like the American wants Trish describes.

A community of faithful people willing to do God’s will can bring about the peace we pray for. This morning my prayer is “Let us listen for the voice of the Lord and enter into his peace.”]

 

[Sir_Knight]

Dear Sir Knight, this must be the most absurd reply I’ve ever seen.

You put out two claims.

1. Jesus supported carrying weapons and their use
2. Jesus always explained things to disciples in private

I provided counter examples to both from Scripture.

For you to provide me counter examples to my counter examples is … pointless. Thats Logic 101. Did you read my post to you explaining how logic works and what the nature of counter examples are? I take it NO.

Let’s stop right there because we are going around in circles. Are you telling me that Mark 4:33-34 is wrong?

*With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them (the crowds that followed Him), as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, **he explained EVERYTHING. – ***Mark 4:33-34 (NIV)

Because if the INFALLIBLE Word of God contains even one error in it, then it CAN contain other errors in it and since we don’t know how many or what thoese other errors might be, it casts a doubt on every single passage.

So, which is it? Your choices are very simple: A. Jesus explained everything to His Apostles and since there is no further explaination offered in the passage that we are discussing, Jesus was referring to actual swords; or B. Jesus did not explain everything to His Apostles – which would support your position that Jesus was not referring to actual swords but it would also put into question every passage of the bible.

Simple question. Is Mark 4:33-34 correct or isn’t it? Did Jesus explain everything to His Apostles or didn’t He? It the same answer. Which one is it?

Once we nail this down, we can address your other incorrect conclusions …

The thing is, if you don’t use proper logic its very hard to argue with you. You can always hold on to your position like its faith just as religious fundamentalist do in some parts of the world. So all I can ask is, humbly approach this problem. Forget that you are a gun salesman. Start fresh. Analyze the arguments. See if in all honesty you can hold your position.

I am afraid its almost an obvious truth that Gun possession by Civilians and Christianity don’t go together.

God Bless

 

[MaxTH]

Gun Control-no gun control still there will be terrible violence in our communities. What will it take to prevent shootings that injure or kill children? Statistics about gun possession do not prove communities are safer with more guns. There are plenty of guns in Inkster Michigan.

There are also studies that show that when guns were taken away from law abiding citizens (UK and Australia) crime, including rape, burglary, and home invasion, went up.

It is also a fact that even as recently as the 50s, many high schools offered marksmanship as either a course or an extra-curricular activity. Kids openly would bring their guns to school.

In Switzerland and Israel you see kids with assault rifles everywhere and they do not have the gun crime we have in the U.S. So it’s not the guns.

http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3455/1366591629076082.jpg http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4773/p1000507i.jpg

 

[MaxTH]

Originally Posted by ddarko
The thing is, if you don’t use proper logic its very hard to argue with you.

What is the difference between logic and “proper logic”?

You can always hold on to your position like its faith just as religious fundamentalist do in some parts of the world.

You mean, exactly like you’re doing.

So all I can ask is, humbly approach this problem. Forget that you are a gun salesman. Start fresh. Analyze the arguments. See if in all honesty you can hold your position.

I am afraid its almost an obvious truth that Gun possession by Civilians and Christianity don’t go together.

I can see how it would be possible to make that statement in earnest if one did not know or understand the meaning of the terms “obvious”, “truth”, or even Christianity for that matter.

If I may, what exactly is your educational background, that is, what philosophy, logic, or theology, have you studied and where?
Cheers.

 

[MaxTH]

HOOAH!

Welcome to CAF

Thanks for the welcome!
Cheers.

 

[momor]

*With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them (the crowds that followed Him), as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, **he explained EVERYTHING. – ***Mark 4:33-34 (NIV)

This is another overly literal interpretation. Jesus explained things more fully to His disciples than He did to the crowds He preached to but it is clear from the Gospels that they did not have an absolute understanding. The apostles did not know the crucifixtion and resurrection were coming or understand them immediately after the fact even though that was Jesus’ ultimate purpose on earth. The apostles did not have full understanding until Pentecost.

 

[ddarko]

Let me be as clear as I can be: either there is a declarative statement by the Church on gun control or their isn’t. I am unimpressed that you can tease out such a meaning from the penumbras of other statements. Surely you can tell the difference in specificity between “We are brothers and sisters in Christ” and "Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion" (2271). Show me a comparable statement on gun control, but you might consider the possibility that, if you can’t find where the Church condemns something … maybe she doesn’t condemn it.

Ender

When people start off with “I like this, this must be right”, then even the obvious can get blurred. Did Jesus ever condemn Abortions? Did Jesus ever condemn contraception outright in Scripture? Did Church fathers EVER condemn Contraception as it is used TODAY? NO!

You know what Jesus did say, he said this

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Mathew 26:52

So my dear friend, I think there is a serious case of confirmation bias with you, Sir Knight and Stan. Thats a psychological issue and I am afraid I can spend a year with you on this forum thread and nothing will come out of it.

One should approach issues from church teaching. You don’t first decide on the issue and then try to back it up using the church. Thats useless because confirmation bias kicks in no matter how intelligent you maybe.

This is why while you advocate use of guns, NO APOSTLES EVER used a SWORD against the Roman Empire’s persecution of Christians. I guess they all failed in their moral duty ha?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Let’s stop right there because we are going around in circles. Are you telling me that Mark 4:33-34 is wrong?

*With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them (the crowds that followed Him), as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, **he explained EVERYTHING. – ***Mark 4:33-34 (NIV)

Because if the INFALLIBLE Word of God contains even one error in it, then it CAN contain other errors in it and since we don’t know how many or what thoese other errors might be, it casts a doubt on every single passage.

So, which is it? Your choices are very simple: A. Jesus explained everything to His Apostles and since there is no further explaination offered in the passage that we are discussing, Jesus was referring to actual swords; or B. Jesus did not explain everything to His Apostles – which would support your position that Jesus was not referring to actual swords but it would also put into question every passage of the bible.

Simple question. Is Mark 4:33-34 correct or isn’t it? Did Jesus explain everything to His Apostles or didn’t He? It the same answer. Which one is it?

Once we nail this down, we can address your other incorrect conclusions …

Sir Knight, your use of logic is baffling.

You can’t stop there. Read on so that at least you might get a lesson in logic.

The point of that argument is FOR YOU TO INTERPRET Jesus’s words the WAY YOU DO is ILLOGICAL. You are simply providing counter examples to counter examples.

So there is NO ERROR in SCRIPTURE. Just ERRONEOUS interpretation by some people to further their own agendas.

Now since you’ve made it extremely clear that you do not understand proper argumentation and logic behind it, I am afraid I am incapable of arguing with you. I can only convince you using Reason and I don’t know any other methodology. Someone else might be capable of using other methods and I hope you will meet such a person. But I think its clear that me and you should not engage in any debate because we have different standards at arriving at the truth.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

What is the difference between logic and “proper logic”?

You mean, exactly like you’re doing.

I can see how it would be possible to make that statement in earnest if one did not know or understand the meaning of the terms “obvious”, “truth”, or even Christianity for that matter.

If I may, what exactly is your educational background, that is, what philosophy, logic, or theology, have you studied and where?
Cheers.

There is only one use of logic. Proper use of logic. The other is to be ILLOGICAL. If you read Sir Knight’s post its clearly evident that he does not understand that providing a counter example to a counter example is meaningless. That is a problem. I can argue with him all year and he will not understand whats been said. Sad but true.

As for my background, it is in LOGIC. My research field is in Formal methods in Engineering. In case you do not know what that is, that is the field that deals with verifying that a system is logically correct.

As for where I got my degrees from, I do not wish to disclose it for privacy reasons.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

This is another overly literal interpretation. Jesus explained things more fully to His disciples than He did to the crowds He preached to but it is clear from the Gospels that they did not have an absolute understanding. The apostles did not know the crucifixtion and resurrection were coming or understand them immediately after the fact even though that was Jesus’ ultimate purpose on earth. The apostles did not have full understanding until Pentecost.

I’ve told this very thing many times. The thing is, Sir Knight is not looking to reconcile Scripture and come up with a consistent interpretation. He is only interested in one passage been interpreted the way he likes.

It’s a classic case of Confirmation Bias. This kind of phenomenon has affected large organizations to military decisions which were run by very intelligent people. Numerous cases are well documented in history. So I really don’t blame Sir Knight in that sense. I just wish he would, for once, put aside his love for guns, and then approach the problem.

God Bless

 

[MaxTH]

There is only one use of logic. Proper use of logic. The other is to be ILLOGICAL.

Does that not then make the use of the term “proper” rather redundant and unnecessary, much like saying “My logic is gooder than yours.”?

 

[ddarko]

Actually I think it might help everyone who is engaged in debates on this issue to read the following at least

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Does that not then make the use of the term “proper” rather redundant and unnecessary, much like saying “My logic is gooder than yours.”?

Of course. I just didn’t want to tell some one, ‘your logic is garbage’ or ‘you are illogical’ because that might sound a bit ruder. The only reason he would reply to me then is out of anger and that discussion won’t get anywhere. So that is my way of stating that we should be logical without saying ‘you are illogical, lets be logical’.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

Did Jesus ever condemn Abortions?

The Church has.

Did Jesus ever condemn contraception outright in Scripture?

The Church has.

Did Church fathers EVER condemn Contraception as it is used TODAY? NO!

The Church has.

This is why I didn’t ask for a Scripture reference but asked you to cite a Church document. If the Church condemns something she will say so. If she hasn’t condemned something there is no valid reason to think you can condemn it in her place. The Church has never condemned the private ownership of firearms so it is not correct to claim that the elimination of private ownership is a moral imperative; we may decide the issue for ourselves.

So my dear friend, I think there is a serious case of confirmation bias with you, Sir Knight and Stan.

My bias is toward the truth and the truth is that you have never cited a single Church document to support your position. Your argument is based entirely on your personal interpretation of Scripture.

One should approach issues from church teaching.

I agree … so what does the Church have to say about the private ownership of guns? … crickets

This is why while you advocate use of guns, NO APOSTLES EVER used a SWORD against the Roman Empire’s persecution of Christians. I guess they all failed in their moral duty ha?

The Church has a long history of opposing the use of force by the clergy … but she has restricted her opposition to using force to the clergy only; she has never opposed the use of force per se either in the military, in public office, or in self defense. As for advocating the use of guns, I haven’t really advocated that or anything else; I have been arguing that the Church has no position on the issue.

Ender