M
momor
Guest
I know you must be anxious to rebut. #368
- Status
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
And did you read what the Vatican’s own website has to say …Here is something some might find interesting:
This is the article on War. Scroll to the section “Right to War”
newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm
I would specifically like to draw attention to the following:-
Note that this is in perfect harmony with how our early church fathers and apostles acted with respect to the Roman Empire’s persecution. Since they were not authorities, they did not wage war against God given authority of the Roman Empire.
God Bless
… 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 you 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?
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Thank you SK. I know you have posted this before but some people just ignore it. Roman times and Modern times no matter we have a duty to protect and defend.
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
that’s not true where did you come up with that? Anyone can enter the Kingdom of Heaven,being homosexual is entirely different then being a practicing homosexual.
here’s a link that will help you realize what a Glorious Cross it is to be homosexual please watch: youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
First off, Jesus was ALWAYS in PERFECT agreement with His heavenly Father in ALL things. If the Father instructed people to give measure for measure and Jesus instructed differently, then He would NOT have been in perfect agreement with His Father, would He?
Measure for measure and turning the other cheek are two different teachings and are in disagreement with each other UNLESS there is something overlooked in that teaching. Because He was constantly watched by the Romans, Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading.
You need to keep in mind a couple of things - one, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different. Two, the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers.
In Roman times, conduct between citizens and conquered peoples was often strictly formalized and controlled in many small ways. As such, a Roman citizen or soldier could chastise a slave or non-citizen, and the slave could not retaliate - that would be mutiny, and punishable by death.
A slave or servant was chastised with a slap on the face with the open hand. This was an insulting blow, delivered to an inferior person or an animal. A non-citizen could be beaten by a citizen as much as desired with the open hand, and had no recourse. Defending themselves would mean death. A blow with the back of the hand or a closed fist, however, was a fighting blow - one delivered between equals, and one to which anyone, even a slave could respond.
Try it with someone. Have a friend pretend to slap you and you immediately step forward offering the other cheek. Look at what will happen based on the positions that both of you are in. Your friend will have three choices: (1) He can take a step back and slap you again with the open hand but that will cause him to lose face because a non-Roman made him back up. (2) He can strike you with the back of the hand but that will be viewed as a challenge to fight because he hit you with his knuckles freeing you to retaliate without fear of being condemned to death for mutiny. (3) Or, he can walk away making his point with only one slap instead of slapping you repeatedly as often happened.
The same can be said when Jesus advised people, when asked to walk a mile, then to respond by walking a second mile. Roman soldiers could legally require any non-citizen to carry their packs (weighing 60 pounds) for one mile. But there was a very severe penalty for compulsion beyond one mile. A non-citizen who carried a pack a second mile could cause the soldier to be demoted, fined, flogged or even discharged.
Jesus taught his followers a practical way to avoid being slapped around, or abused, by the Romans, as was frequently the case if you study the history from that area.
D
ddarko
Guest
You two both realize that what was done here was provide a counter example for a counter example right?
In any case, just to address Sir Knights document, it meant SPECIFICALLY for AUTHORITY. If he bothered to read the link I provided in its entirety he would know this but a severe case of Confirmation Bias has left him incapable.
But I hope you are not the same Kathleen
(If you are very new to this thread and have no idea what Confirmation Bias is, please read the following at least in order to understand the problem:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
God Bless
T
tommcguire
Guest
The topic of too many posts in this thread are offensive and far from being statements of Jesus Christ’s disciples. Please reflect before posting.
I understand that guns are tools which can be used as weapons meant to kill. Since the taking of life is a possibility with the use of this tool; such use becomes a moral issue. The Church has not said everything there is to say about guns. We as Catholics are to use our prudential judgment about how and when to restrict or control guns.
Yes, there are many studies that show drop in crime because everyone is free to carry a gun. As I have said before in this thread, in my community there are plenty of guns. I do not have studies to prove my point; but from experience, more guns in the community would not make anyone feel safer.
Gun violence runs deep in the culture and history of the United States, often glorified. Heroes who kill are given praise without showing the human suffering and pain of the death resulting from the killing. Is such glorification of killing the will of God?
I do not believe, in our life time, there will be any decrease in the ownership of guns. Many will buy weapons and place there trust in them as a means of defense. Despite the statistics sited, I do not believe we will see any decrease in gun violence because people own guns.
I do believe the more we are faithful to the will of God, the more we can contribute to the peace that God wills for every human being on earth.
My prayer tonight is Psalm 142
“I cry to you, O Lord;
I say, ‘You are my refuge,
my potion in the land of the
living.
Listen to my cry
for I am in desperate need;
rescue me from those who pursue me.
for they are too strong for me.
Set me free from my prison,
that I may praise your name.
Then the righteous will gather about
me
because of your goodness to me.’”
I understand that guns are tools which can be used as weapons meant to kill. Since the taking of life is a possibility with the use of this tool; such use becomes a moral issue. The Church has not said everything there is to say about guns. We as Catholics are to use our prudential judgment about how and when to restrict or control guns.
Yes, there are many studies that show drop in crime because everyone is free to carry a gun. As I have said before in this thread, in my community there are plenty of guns. I do not have studies to prove my point; but from experience, more guns in the community would not make anyone feel safer.
Gun violence runs deep in the culture and history of the United States, often glorified. Heroes who kill are given praise without showing the human suffering and pain of the death resulting from the killing. Is such glorification of killing the will of God?
I do not believe, in our life time, there will be any decrease in the ownership of guns. Many will buy weapons and place there trust in them as a means of defense. Despite the statistics sited, I do not believe we will see any decrease in gun violence because people own guns.
I do believe the more we are faithful to the will of God, the more we can contribute to the peace that God wills for every human being on earth.
My prayer tonight is Psalm 142
“I cry to you, O Lord;
I say, ‘You are my refuge,
my potion in the land of the
living.
Listen to my cry
for I am in desperate need;
rescue me from those who pursue me.
for they are too strong for me.
Set me free from my prison,
that I may praise your name.
Then the righteous will gather about
me
because of your goodness to me.’”
D
ddarko
Guest
This has to be forwarded to a stand up comedian
The Son of God, came down from heaven to give practical advice on how to not get slapped around
I have to say, the quality of theological exegesis on this thread is worthy of some quality laughs.
God Bless
D
ddarko
Guest
I hope you don’t mind me forwarding this to some friends of mine? It is a really wonderful piece of comedy.
If I didn’t know you better, I would have thought it was a deliberate attempt at twisting things to for the purpose of comedy. It’s that bad theologically which makes it that much amazing in terms of humor through absurdity.
Oh just so you know, a Back handed slap was actually considered INSULTING and was reserved for someone who was inferior in status. NOT equal in status. Secondly, if you step forward after receiving your first back handed slap, then other person can just use the other hand to give you another juicy back handed slap (or if he is more generous maybe even an open palm slap with the same hand). The same goes for open handed slaps
So unless the slapper only has one hand, I really don’t see your point.
God Bless
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
You explained this better then I could right now.
D
ddarko
Guest
sigh* Did you bother to read what Confirmation Bias means by any chance?
God Bless
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Well thank you for the defination. I did not need it but thank you again.You two both realize that what was done here was provide a counter example for a counter example right?
In any case, just to address Sir Knights document, it meant SPECIFICALLY for AUTHORITY. If he bothered to read the link I provided in its entirety he would know this but a severe case of Confirmation Bias has left him incapable.
But I hope you are not the same Kathleen
(If you are very new to this thread and have no idea what Confirmation Bias is, please read the following at least in order to understand the problem:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
God Bless
I find myself in total agreement with SK in this matter. And no it is not Confirmation Bias it is haiving studied this subject for a few years.
D
ddarko
Guest
I am afraid objectively speaking, Sir Knight is obviously incorrect. Look at his theological explanation of turning the other cheek. If you indeed feel that its high quality theological exegesis, I wouldn’t be so sure of being free of confirmation bias.
Btw, Confirmation Bias is a condition or phenomenon present in human analysis.
God Bless
M
momor
Guest
So let me summarize and tell me if I have this right.
Turn the other cheek is a way to insult the person slapping you.
Giving more than your cloak or walking more than one mile was a way to cause harm to the soldier by getting him in trouble with the law thereby teaching him to leave you alone.
D
Darkbloom
Guest
Yep, fantastic.fantastic example??? That had to be one of the most judgmental posts I’ve read on CAF…I can’t believe I missed it
D
Darkbloom
Guest
Are you aware how ironic this post is?
E
Ender
Guest
Since Lizzie Borden used an axe, does that mean the use of axes is a moral issue? It is not nature of the instrument that matters, it is the intent of the person using it.Guns are instruments of killing; therefore it is a moral matter…anyone who disagrees on what guns do are well…
Ender
M
MaxTH
Guest
I’m still waiting for an explanation as to in what way my post was “judgmental”.fantastic example??? That had to be one of the most judgmental posts I’ve read on CAF
E
Ender
Guest
New questions do arise and, until the Church has commented on them, we must reach our own conclusions as best we can. The private ownership of guns, however, is not such a question; there is certainly nothing new here. More significantly, once the Church has spoken out on related topics, the fact that she has made no specific comment condemning something is a good reason to believe we are not justified in speaking for her.
The issue of self defense is as old as the Church and her teaching has been constant and unambiguous from the beginning. The individual has the right to protect himself and others using, where necessary, deadly force. This point is simply not debatable. Given this it seems irrational to assume that we would be allowed to use deadly force but somehow forbidden to possess the tools that most people would need to employ it.
Well, the Church has explicitly said that killing in self defense (when necessary) is moral so her silence on the morality of possessing a gun makes logical sense. If she believes that killing is OK but the possession of the means of killing is immoral, she really needs to make that clear because that position is counter intuitive.
Bias is irrelevant. Arguments are either right or wrong and the reasons for making them, biased or not, have no bearing on their validity.
Ender
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
What I’ve done was to provide a clarification of Church teaching from an official source – the Vatican itself.
Number 1: An article from a free internet encyclopedia where any half-wit can submit his opinion should not be held to the same standard as something from the Vatican itself.In any case, just to address Sir Knights document, it meant SPECIFICALLY for AUTHORITY. If he bothered to read the link I provided in its entirety he would know this but a severe case of Confirmation Bias has left him incapable.
But I hope you are not the same Kathleen
(If you are very new to this thread and have no idea what Confirmation Bias is, please read the following at least in order to understand the problem:-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
God Bless
Secondly, the article SPECIFICALLY mentions those who are responsible for the needs and safety of a family – that is referring to husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, etc.
- Status