Gun Control

[Sir_Knight]

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

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.

The Old Testament teaches measure for measure. Jesus claimed to be always in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father. Kindly use your superior theologically knowledge and explain to us how Jesus could be in perfect agreement with His heavenly Father but contradict the measure for measure teaching of the Old Testament.

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

I guess reading comprehension is also not your strong point. So, I’ll re-explain it for you …

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.

As I said before, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different and the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers. Because He was constantly watched by the Romans, Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading – which you obviously have done.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

Turning the other check prevented you from being slapped over and over again as was often the case. If I slap you and you back away, I can step forward and slap you again and again and again. But if you stand there and immediately offer me the other check, the position that we are in prevent me from slapping you again unless I do one of two things: (1) Either backhand you – which would be a blow with the knuckles and it would free me to hit you back; or (2) take a step back to hit you again with the open hand but then a non-Roman would have caused me to back up … a sign of disgrace. Thus, by following this teaching, a person would be hit only once (the initial slap) instead of being hit repeatedly if they did not follow this teaching. As I just said above, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different and the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers. Because He was constantly watched by the Romans, Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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

You keep saying that I am obviously wrong but thus far you are unable to explain away the four objections that I have to your position. If I am so wrong, you should have been easily been able to answer those questions. The fact that you have been unable to address them is further proof that it is YOU are the one in the wrong.

…

1. 
   *]Explaining what the reference to swords is suppose to mean if it doesn’t mean physical swords. If we don’t have “it”, we are suppose to sell our cloak and buy what?
   
   *]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?

 

[ddarko]

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.

I am afraid you are just justifying your own self here. We are given a brain by God for a reason. We are to use it. The church not making a pronouncement is NOT the same as condoning it. In fact, part of the Church like the USCCB for an example has condemned private gun ownership.

Private gun ownership is not a universal matter. People die unable to eat, not unable to own a gun. No where in the Vatican documents does it state that Guns are a basic human right either.

So no, by speaking out that private gun ownership is WRONG is to point out the inevitable conclusion of church positions. The inability for someone to put 2 and 2 together and self justifying ones own position is a problem with the individual and not the church.

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.

Once again, your are boiling Church teaching down to simplicity. Might I remind you that this was the main source of heresy. This kins of simplicity is what sometimes makes it unable for people to understand the difference between NFP and use of contraceptives because they argue both are contraceptive.

So first thing, lets not water down church teaching.

Second, the problem with owning a gun is in the intention. It is based on, as many here have highlighted, a possible need for using it.

Third, lets go a step further just for fun and look at the possible permutations it might be used in.

1. The attacker owns a gun: Well, if the attacker wanted you dead, he would have shot you anyway before you thought of even pulling out the gun.
2. The attacker does not own a gun: You would have used unlawful amount of force against the attacker.

So it appears that even when we break it down like the above, Guns simply cannot accomplish a LAWFUL defense in cases of personal offense.

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

Of course it is moral to kill in self defense. But the amount of force must be moderate. You want to interpret teachings in a way its suitable for you.

So its really not counter intuitive. If you put the person first and treat the aggressor as a person as well, then you realize this almost naturally. The problem with you as I’ve seen in a past debate on Capital Punishment is that you fail to recognize the person-hood of the aggressor or criminal. This is indeed a flaw in your basics.

Also, please take the time to look at what confirmation bias is. I feel its a necessity for everyone to be aware of it in order to continue an impartial debate on this matter.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

I am afraid you are just justifying your own self here. We are given a brain by God for a reason. We are to use it. The church not making a pronouncement is NOT the same as condoning it. In fact, part of the Church like the USCCB for an example has condemned private gun ownership.

Private gun ownership is not a universal matter. People die unable to eat, not unable to own a gun. No where in the Vatican documents does it state that Guns are a basic human right either.

So no, by speaking out that private gun ownership is WRONG is to point out the inevitable conclusion of church positions. The inability for someone to put 2 and 2 together and self justifying ones own position is a problem with the individual and not the church.

Once again, your are boiling Church teaching down to simplicity. Might I remind you that this was the main source of heresy. This kins of simplicity is what sometimes makes it unable for people to understand the difference between NFP and use of contraceptives because they argue both are contraceptive.

So first thing, lets not water down church teaching.

Second, the problem with owning a gun is in the intention. It is based on, as many here have highlighted, a possible need for using it.

Third, lets go a step further just for fun and look at the possible permutations it might be used in.

1. The attacker owns a gun: Well, if the attacker wanted you dead, he would have shot you anyway before you thought of even pulling out the gun.
2. The attacker does not own a gun: You would have used unlawful amount of force against the attacker.

So it appears that even when we break it down like the above, Guns simply cannot accomplish a LAWFUL defense in cases of personal offense.

Of course it is moral to kill in self defense. But the amount of force must be moderate. You want to interpret teachings in a way its suitable for you.

So its really not counter intuitive. If you put the person first and treat the aggressor as a person as well, then you realize this almost naturally. The problem with you as I’ve seen in a past debate on Capital Punishment is that you fail to recognize the person-hood of the aggressor or criminal. This is indeed a flaw in your basics.

Also, please take the time to look at what confirmation bias is. I feel its a necessity for everyone to be aware of it in order to continue an impartial debate on this matter.

God Bless

You keep ignoring this passage from the Vatican itself …
… 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 **…

… which nullifies everything that you just said.

 

[MaxTH]

So first thing, lets not water down church teaching.

Second, the problem with owning a gun is in the intention. It is based on, as many here have highlighted, a possible need for using it.

Third, lets go a step further just for fun and look at the possible permutations it might be used in.

1. The attacker owns a gun: Well, if the attacker wanted you dead, he would have shot you anyway before you thought of even pulling out the gun.

Do you have even the slightest idea how many murder victims are not killed outright?

 

[ddarko]

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.

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.

Aah the irony. Some of these half-wits who contribute to wiki seem to have a better grasp than what was said by you about turning the other cheek.

But anyway, if you had bothered to go down to the references section in that article, you would have found enough information for your need.

But here is some stuff to educate yourself from an University lecture.

psychology.uwaterloo.ca/~sspencer/psych353/lecture4/lecture4.ppt

Anyway, after your brilliant theological exegesis of ‘turning the other cheek’, I don’t think you and I should be engaging in discussion. I meant its not the first time you’ve proved that (providing counter example to counter examples, false dilemmas etc). So please excuse me if I don’t reply to your posts in future.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

You keep ignoring this passage from the Vatican itself …
… 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 **…

… which nullifies everything that you just said.

WRONG. You keep forgetting that its logically MEANINGLESS to provide counter examples to counter examples.

ALSO, you keep forgetting that right to bear arms in the above passage is FOR AUTHORITY. So what I said DOES NOT outright contradict ANYTHING. You can’t even seem to understand what the Vatican says because you are suffering from Confirmation Bias.

Please, if you don’t know how to argue, and cannot do so objectively, its better to not do so.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Aah the irony. Some of these half-wits who contribute to wiki seem to have a better grasp than what was said by you about turning the other cheek.

But I seriously doubt that they have a better grasp on Vatican teaching than the Vatican itself and that is from where I was quoting from.

But anyway, if you had bothered to go down to the references section in that article, you would have found enough information for your need.

But here is some stuff to educate yourself from an University lecture.

psychology.uwaterloo.ca/~sspencer/psych353/lecture4/lecture4.ppt

Anyway, after your brilliant theological exegesis of ‘turning the other cheek’, I don’t think you and I should be engaging in discussion. I meant its not the first time you’ve proved that (providing counter example to counter examples, false dilemmas etc). So please excuse me if I don’t reply to your posts in future.

God Bless

In other words, you are UNABLE to address the challenges that I have made to your position but you lack the courage to admit that you are wrong.

 

[ddarko]

Do you have even the slightest idea how many murder victims are not killed outright?

Do you have the slightest idea how that example shows that owning a gun is NOT the solution? It shows that the right solution is to make sure that the other guy who has a gun does not have it in the first place. No matter how good a marksman you maybe, if he fires first and hits, you are GONE!

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

But I seriously doubt that they have a better grasp on Vatican teaching than the Vatican itself and that is from where I was quoting from.

In other words, you are UNABLE to address the challenges that I have made to your position but you lack the courage to admit that you are wrong.

Yes, thats exactly it. I can’t match your intellect by any means.

Why don’t you take a stroll down to the Theology section of this forum. Post your fabulous exegesis of ‘turn the other cheek’ and see the replies? If you want, I can do it for you? Just give me the permission and I happily will Are you up for the challenge?

God Bless

 

[MaxTH]

Do you have the slightest idea how that example shows that owning a gun is NOT the solution? It shows that the right solution is to make sure that the other guy who has a gun does not have it in the first place. No matter how good a marksman you maybe, if he fires first and hits, you are GONE!

That may or may not be an interesting aside, but it does not answer my question.

1. Do you know?
2. If you do not, how could you possibly in good faith make the claim you did in your previous post?

 

[Sir_Knight]

WRONG.

The Vatican is wrong about it’s own teaching? You’ve totally lost it, haven’t you?

You keep forgetting that its logically MEANINGLESS to provide counter examples to counter examples.

I am providing you with proof from an official source that your understanding of this matter is incorrect.

ALSO, you keep forgetting that right to bear arms in the above passage is FOR AUTHORITY.

Reading & understanding is obviously not your strong point, is it. The passage clearly states that this duty exists for those responsible for the needs of a family – that extends to fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, etc.; and NOT just those in authority.

So what I said DOES NOT outright contradict ANYTHING.

Wrong.

You can’t even seem to understand what the Vatican says because you are suffering from Confirmation Bias.

It appears that YOU are the one suffering from “Confirmation Bias”. The Vatican’s position on this matter couldn’t have been stated more clearly and you speak the exact opposite.

Please, if you don’t know how to argue, and cannot do so objectively, its better to not do so.

God Bless

Right back at ya.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yes, thats exactly it. I can’t match your intellect by any means.

Why don’t you take a stroll down to the Theology section of this forum. Post your fabulous exegesis of ‘turn the other cheek’ and see the replies? If you want, I can do it for you? Just give me the permission and I happily will Are you up for the challenge?

God Bless

**First **YOU address the four challenges that I presented to you DAYS ago.

 

[ddarko]

**First **YOU address the four challenges that I presented to you DAYS ago.

No, lets be fair. Apparently I am too dumb right? Lets put your theological exegesis on ‘turning the other cheek’ on the Theology forum in a new thread. See what other people with expertise has to say.

Are you ok with that? I mean, even the Vatican cannot contradict Scripture right. So lets start there. Say the word and I will open the new thread.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Reading & understanding is obviously not your strong point, is it. The passage clearly states that this duty exists for those responsible for the needs of a family – that extends to fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, etc.; and NOT just those in authority.

It says “for the common good of the family or of the civil community”. What you do for your family is not for the Common Good of all families. That is determined by AUTHORITY known as the STATE.

But hey, why believe a dumb person like me, we can put this up on the Theology forum too, just say the word.

God Bless

 

[MaxTH]

Do you have the slightest idea how that example shows that owning a gun is NOT the solution? It shows that the right solution is to make sure that the other guy who has a gun does not have it in the first place. No matter how good a marksman you maybe, if he fires first and hits, you are GONE!

God Bless

Perhaps you missed this so once again…

That may or may not be an interesting aside, but it does not answer my question.

1. Do you know (how many murder victims are not killed outright)?
2. If you do not, how could you possibly in good faith make the claim you did in your previous post?

 

[Sir_Knight]

No, lets be fair. Apparently I am too dumb right? Lets put your theological exegesis on ‘turning the other cheek’ on the Theology forum in a new thread. See what other people with expertise has to say.

Are you ok with that? I mean, even the Vatican cannot contradict Scripture right. So lets start there. Say the word and I will open the new thread.

God Bless

You’re back peddling. I don’t have all of the time in the world to get involved in multiple threads. If my four challenges to you are true, then we don’t have to go any further because that proves you wrong right then and there. Why bring up multiple counter arguments? Isn’t that what you have been saying all along?

 

[Sir_Knight]

It says “for the common good of the family or of the civil community”. What you do for your family is not for the Common Good of all families. That is determined by AUTHORITY known as the STATE.

But hey, why believe a dumb person like me, we can put this up on the Theology forum too, just say the word.

God Bless

It says that common good of the FAMILY – *not *the common good of familIES. The father, the mother, the husband, etc.; are responsible for the common good of the family.

 

[ddarko]

It says that common good of the FAMILY – not the common good of familIES. The father, the mother, the husband, etc.; are responsible for the common good of the family.

Family is an institution. So the meaning is the same. A Husband is NOT responsible for common good of Family as an institution. In other words, this passage does not apply to EVERYONE.

I repeat, do you want to open this up on the Theology Forum or not? Are you afraid?

God Bless