He who lives by the sword must buy a sword.

[BobR42]

Remember that God turned His back on Saul when Saul refused to put kill his enemy with the sword saying that He regretted ever making Saul a king – clearly showing that the way of peace is not always pleasing to God and sometimes a sword or a gun is the correct response.

It is only too painfully obvious to most of us (in addition to Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Biblical scholars) that there are passages in the Jewish AND Christian Scriptures that don’t reflect the nature of God (as exemplified by Jesus). Biblical passages can be used to justify striking one’s children with a rod or smashing the skulls of infants of the “other tribe” against the rocks. I would submit the possibility that if your way of faith involves killing others, it reflects one’s ego at work rather than the Spirit. Please pray about that (as I do, about many things).

What did Christ teach? That we are to sell our cloak and buy a sword if we did not have one. A sword has only one purpose – to be used as a weapon.Jesus would not have commanded His followers to purchase something if it was not to be used.

Ditto - see above statement, in other words. The Gospel of Luke was not written by Jesus, directly reflecting his thinking. It was written by a well-intentioned person who, unlike Jesus, was NOT enlightened. Strictly speaking, the “Gospels” are not truly the “Gospel,” because they are colored by human error - ego-based thinking, rather than Spirit-inspired thinking, in places. The hard part is separating the “wheat from the chaff” in the Gospels, which is what Biblical scholars have struggled with for some centuries.

Let us both pray about these things. For many centuries, people have found quotes in the Scriptures to justify the most outrageous, un-Christlike behavior (showing the influence of all-too-human authors). Did Francis of Assisi wear a sword when he tried to intervene between the “Muslim” Saracen warriors and the “Christian” knights and soldiers of northern Europe during the Crusades? Did Jesus pick up a sword to smite the Roman soldiers or Pontius Pilate? No, we believe he said in a prayer (for our benefit, I believe), “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” I.e., anyone whose heart is full of violence is not to be hated or attacked. He/she is not “evil” but instead is “out of his/her spiritual head” - and as a fellow child of God, loved completely, even when confronted with the harmfulness of their/our thinking and behavior by us. And of course, when we catch ourselves acting stupidly/savagely/hatefully, we are not to hate our own selves for being mistaken, but instead are to ask Spirit for help in acting/speaking/thinking sanely. See Mt 5:43-48. And in terms of perceiving “evil” in another child of God (or in ourselves), see Mt 6:22-23. Hatred and violence, I believe, are never justified. Violence against oneself shows up as physical illness or suicide; violence against another shows up verbally and/or physically. All such acts against “the children of God” are in fact acts against the Father. And I am sure the Father is not "offended " by the insanity of his children. The Parable of the Prodigal Son makes it clear the Father only wishes us ALL (no exceptions) to “come home.” I.e., awaken and be healed.

 

[Sir_Knight]

It is only too painfully obvious to most of us (in addition to Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Biblical scholars) that there are passages in the Jewish AND Christian Scriptures that don’t reflect the nature of God (as exemplified by Jesus). Biblical passages can be used to justify striking one’s children with a rod or smashing the skulls of infants of the “other tribe” against the rocks. I would submit the possibility that if your way of faith involves killing others, it reflects one’s ego at work rather than the Spirit. Please pray about that (as I do, about many things).

Your opinions conflict with official church teaching which tells us that we have a DUTY (the Church goes so far as to call it a GRAVE duty) to protect ourselves and others from violence EVEN IF we have to kill our attacker.

Ditto - see above statement, in other words. The Gospel of Luke was not written by Jesus, directly reflecting his thinking. It was written by a well-intentioned person who, unlike Jesus, was NOT enlightened. Strictly speaking, the “Gospels” are not truly the “Gospel,” because they are colored by human error - ego-based thinking, rather than Spirit-inspired thinking, in places. The hard part is separating the “wheat from the chaff” in the Gospels, which is what Biblical scholars have struggled with for some centuries.

Jesus didn’t write ANY of the bible directly. If you are going to take that approach, then EVERY teaching of Christ could be not what He meant – INCLUDING your incorrect position.

Let us both pray about these things. For many centuries, people have found quotes in the Scriptures to justify the most outrageous, un-Christlike behavior (showing the influence of all-too-human authors). Did Francis of Assisi wear a sword when he tried to intervene between the “Muslim” Saracen warriors and the “Christian” knights and soldiers of northern Europe during the Crusades? Did Jesus pick up a sword to smite the Roman soldiers or Pontius Pilate? No, we believe he said in a prayer (for our benefit, I believe), “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” I.e., anyone whose heart is full of violence is not to be hated or attacked. He/she is not “evil” but instead is “out of his/her spiritual head” - and as a fellow child of God, loved completely, even when confronted with the harmfulness of their/our thinking and behavior by us. And of course, when we catch ourselves acting stupidly/savagely/hatefully, we are not to hate our own selves for being mistaken, but instead are to ask Spirit for help in acting/speaking/thinking sanely. See Mt 5:43-48. And in terms of perceiving “evil” in another child of God (or in ourselves), see Mt 6:22-23. Hatred and violence, I believe, are never justified. Violence against oneself shows up as physical illness or suicide; violence against another shows up verbally and/or physically. All such acts against “the children of God” are in fact acts against the Father. And I am sure the Father is not "offended " by the insanity of his children. The Parable of the Prodigal Son makes it clear the Father only wishes us ALL (no exceptions) to “come home.” I.e., awaken and be healed.

You present an invalid comparison. The primary reason why Jesus came into this world was to offer up His life for our sins. If He resisted and fought back, He would have defeated that divine plan. Instead, we are to look at how Jesus reacted when people were using the temple in a disrespectful manner. He resorted to violence and threw them out. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and should be defended in like manner. Actually, “living” temples deserve even MORE protection than a temple of stone.

 

[GraceSofia]

It is only too painfully obvious to most of us (in addition to Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Biblical scholars) that there are passages in the Jewish AND Christian Scriptures that don’t reflect the nature of God (as exemplified by Jesus). Biblical passages can be used to justify striking one’s children with a rod or smashing the skulls of infants of the “other tribe” against the rocks .

Well, yes, it is notoriously easy for one to take a verse out of context and make it mean whatever one wants. However, Catholics believe that God is the author of Sacred Scripture; he used and inspired humans to write what He wanted. How to understand and interpret Scripture is the difficulty. There are four senses of Scripture: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. This is interesting from the
Catechism:

112 1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”. Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.The phrase “heart of Christ” can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.

113 2. Read the Scripture within “the living Tradition of the whole Church”. According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church’s heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God’s Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church").

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By “analogy of faith” we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

There is more there at the link, including these topics: ARTICLE 3: SACRED SCRIPTURE

      I. Christ - The unique Word of Sacred Scripture
     II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture
    III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture
     IV. The Canon of Scripture
      V. Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church
         IN BRIEF

 

[BobR42]

Your opinions conflict with official church teaching which tells us that we have a DUTY (the Church goes so far as to call it a GRAVE duty) to protect ourselves and others from violence EVEN IF we have to kill our attacker.

These are indeed difficult matters which we each must struggle with. There is such a church principle as “primacy of conscience.” I cannot claim that my conscience is more accurate or inspired than yours (and vice-versa). I do note that the Church was pacifistic until the Church, in line with the desires of Constantine, became associated with the Roman Empire - and then, suddenly, it was all right to fight and kill in wars. This conflict of conscience led to the development of the “Just War” Theory. However, in an age of so many weapons of mass destruction (the U.S.A. developing and deploying more than the rest of the world combined), war has become ever more unconscionable, I believe.

Jesus didn’t write ANY of the bible directly. If you are going to take that approach, then EVERY teaching of Christ could be not what He meant – INCLUDING your incorrect position.

I agree completely - we do not have an exact record of what Jesus taught. I do take exception with your last two words. You are not qualified to declare with any authority or Divine insight that my position on war is incorrect. You can only say what you have chosen to believe.

You present an invalid comparison. The primary reason why Jesus came into this world was to offer up His life for our sins.

That belief, “offer up his life for our sins,” only can be seen in the context of the prevailing Jewish belief of that day that a sacrifice was necessary (unlike the other world faiths outside of the Jewish child, Christianity) because we, the Children of God by virtue of Creation, were so “bad.” But that may not be at all what Jesus actually thought and taught. Read “Original Blessing.” Or read the opening verses of the Gospel of Thomas. The need for a “sacrifice” because ego-centric men thought the Father was “offended” by humanity may be only the projection of all too human men. The Parable of the Prodigal Son reveals that the Father doesn’t demand sacrifice but only wishes his errant child (all of us) to awaken and to return home (enter a state of utter love of God and ALL His Children, such as Jesus exhibited). And Jesus died without resistance IMHO only to demonstrate utter love in the face of violence, thus fulfilling his mission of being a supreme example to us. Sacrifice MAY have had absolutely nothing to do with it all.

If He resisted and fought back, He would have defeated that divine plan.

See above. The Divine Plan cannot be defeated, by definition; it is not the nature of Creation for God’s will to be opposed (except in illusion; and we all must deal with illusions, as Jesus did). See Lk 4:13 - “… the devil (our ego-centric illusions) left him for the time being…,” meaning his struggle against ego-centric illusions continued at times, just as the mystics report of themselves.

Instead, we are to look at how Jesus reacted when people were using the temple in a disrespectful manner. He resorted to violence and threw them out. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and should be defended in like manner. Actually, “living” temples deserve even MORE protection than a temple of stone.

Jesus used shocking language to confront the money changers - he did not attack them bodily but, we think, he only overturned their tables. He didn’t hate them, only wished to have them change their behavior. Only one gospel (I forget which) alleged that he used a “whip of cords,” which makes that version less credible IMHO. In contrast to how he confronted those in power who abused their position, he used gentle language and healing to reach the poor and desperate and sick. He rejected no one, even when using shocking language, IMHO. Read Mt 5:43-48 to see how, like him, our love “must have no bounds.” Like him, we were not put into the world to judge people, only to heal/awaken one another.

If you think the Church’s teaching (which you often quote) and behavior is always “Christ-like,” then I leave it to you to explain the utter violence of the various Inquisitions in Italy and (especially) Spain over the centuries (only as one pair of examples). I am not condemning the Inquisitors; I condemn no one. “Judge not.” I am just saying that the Church, being an all too human institution, often gropes around in the dark like any other institution, even as it rightly seeks to express the message of Divine Love.

 

[BobR42]

Well, yes, it is notoriously easy for one to take a verse out of context and make it mean whatever one wants. However, Catholics believe that God is the author of Sacred Scripture; he used and inspired humans to write what He wanted. How to understand and interpret Scripture is the difficulty.

I would broaden what you say (and I think you show much understanding in your reply here). I would say that the Father is the source (through the operation of Spirit) not only of the good things in scripture but in the good things of all writing and all human behavior. And if we operated fully in line with our true being (Spirit, eternal in nature and made in the image of the Divine), then we’d do amazing good and healing things, as Jesus predicted that we will in time, as we awaken. But for now, we are still in spiritual “diapers,” and so need persist in seeking the guidance of Spirit.

As you correctly state (IMHO), “How to understand and interpret Scripture is the difficulty.” Yes, and this is why I believe that Paul, a very great and yet tormented and complex and flawed human being, wrote (approximately), referring to the virtues of faith, hope and love, “Of these, love is the greatest.” A loving heart, in other words, is more important than arguing over the “correct” interpretation of scripture.

There are four senses of Scripture: literal, allegorical, moral and anagogical. This is interesting from the
Catechism:

There is more there at the link, including these topics: ARTICLE 3: SACRED SCRIPTURE

      I. Christ - The unique Word of Sacred Scripture
     II. Inspiration and Truth of Sacred Scripture
    III. The Holy Spirit, Interpreter of Scripture
     IV. The Canon of Scripture
      V. Sacred Scripture in the Life of the Church
         IN BRIEF

I think, taken together, the above teachings of the Church point out that purely using the all too common Western literal approach (as fundamentalists, both Catholic and Protestants, often do) is not adequate in understanding scripture. And the rise of Biblical scholarship in the Church (absolutely verboten for many centuries) reveals to me that the Church is willing to face the reality that all too fallible men, not enlightened like Jesus, did the writing and therefore made errors in presenting the amazing teachings of Jesus. To me (unlike some other readers here), Jesus was a remarkable human being who had an awakening far beyond my understanding. I think he revealed to us who we truly are - children of the living Father - even if he arrived at that place long, long before any of the rest of us have. And he urged us to “follow me” on his path of awakening so that we too can grow in love and experience the inexpressible joy of life as the Father intended for all of His children. Because he fulfilled his part fully, he became associated (in his resurrection) with the Spirit in guiding us all home.

It is interesting to me that in history, the Buddhists seem to have generally (not always) done a far better job in avoiding hatred and violence over religious differences than the western Christian world has done. I think it is a sign of the progression of the Church that the Second Vatican Council declared that (approximately - I am going from memory) salvation (healing/awakening) is found outside of the Christian faith, even if the Council (of course!, given who they were) thought the Church still offers the “best” path). I think that we and the Buddhist community can both profit by learning from one another in seeking the path of utter love. I know of a prominent Catholic author who recently wrote a book, “Without Buddha, I Could not be a Christian.” His meaning (as I understand it at this point) was that the Buddhist teaching about right thinking, right speech, right behavior, right livelihood, etc. (i.e., right living), offered a better perspective and understanding of the true teachings of Jesus than the traditional western obsession with “right belief” and dogma. At the least, I think his book is worth examining, even if one could arrive at a different conclusion.

Peace TO and THROUGH all here. I.e., Pax Vobiscum.

 

[GraceSofia]

And the rise of Biblical scholarship in the Church (absolutely verboten for many centuries) False reveals to me that the Church is willing to face the reality that all too fallible men, not enlightened like Jesus, did the writing and therefore made errors in presenting the amazing teachings of Jesus. That my be your opinion, but it is NOT the belief of the Catholic Church To me (unlike some other readers here), Jesus was a remarkable human being who had an awakening far beyond my understanding. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but since you have written it on a Catholic forum, I’m bound to point out that it is a heretical view. Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person.

483 "The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word. " The Catechism of the Catholic Church

478 Jesus knew and loved us each and all during his life, his agony and his Passion, and gave himself up for each one of us: "The Son of God. . . loved me and gave himself for me."He has loved us all with a human heart. For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our sins and for our salvation, “is quite rightly considered the chief sign and symbol of that. . . love with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all human beings” without exception.–The Catechism of the Catholic Church

I am sorry to get so off topic, but this IS a Catholic forum.

 

[BobR42]

483 "The Incarnation is therefore the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one person of the Word. " The Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Catechism itself has continued to evolve, as you know (which is fine!). Think of the changes in my lifetime - from the Baltimore Catechism in the USA from which I learned my faith (sometimes a traumatic experience, due to both internal and external reasons!) to the Dutch Catechism of the 70’s or so to the modern Catechism. Just think how much different the latter might (MIGHT, not WOULD) be if we had another progressive Pope like John XXIII (one of my heroes). By the way, did you know that as a much younger priest, he himself came under suspicion from the hierarchy for unorthodox views (which details I have forgotten)?

IMHO, mankind continues to AWAKEN from its long slumber of fear, pain, tribal thinking, extreme individualism, anger and violence, ignorance, etc., both as a RESULT of the Catholic Church (and other world faiths and the founders of all credible faiths) and IN SPITE OF the often crippling institutional mindsets of the religious institutions including the Roman Catholic Church - and the Roman Curia. IMHO, that is a common human failing in all human institutions: religious, political, economic, military, educational, etc. Eventually Grace trumps human weakness IMHO, but the fruit may not flower in our awareness for many generations.

-snip-

For this reason, the Sacred Heart of Jesus, pierced by our sins and for our salvation, "is quite rightly considered the chief sign and symbol of that. . . love

I am not sure that he was pierced by “our sins,” but as you have said rightly, that is only my opinion. He was indeed pierced by Roman soldiers (ordinary people like us) under the direction of Pontius Pilate (a not too well-regarded Roman administrator) to appease the wishes of some in the Sanhedrin (not wicked men, but men who were frightened by this new, UNORTHODOX teaching - sound familiar?). His own life demonstrated to me (however slowly that it penetrated) that violence in response to violence is a dreadful mistake (the topic of this thread, as you know).

with which the divine Redeemer continually loves the eternal Father and all human beings" without exception.–The Catechism of the Catholic Church

I am sorry to get so off topic, but this IS a Catholic forum.

Speaking as a long time Catholic, I understand both your perspective and your good demeanor, which is welcome.

I personally believe that there have been and continue to be people of good heart (and some not so healthy) within the Church hierarchy AND among those who have been castigated by the hierarchy. Among the latter I count as being of good heart have been Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ (who died ca 1960), and Hans Kung, both of whom came under heat from the Vatican (via the Curia) due to their unorthodox teachings - and yet whom, I think, found and expressed insights that were quite holistic and went beyond the institutional thinking of the day.

Thank you again for your open-minded and peaceful responses, even if we see some things differently.

 

[Ranp]

Self defense and defense of family = responsibility in love

It is worth noting that the martial arts of Medieval and Renaissance Europe were referred to as the Science of Defense rather than the Science of Offense. All real martial arts have moral and ethical components that guild its use and in the case of European martial arts during the Medieval and Renaissance period those moral and ethical components were of course defined by the Catholic faith.

Ran

 

[Robert_in_SD]

So how do you explain the fact that christians for the first three hundred years where put to death injustly for their faith? Not enough swords?

Jeff

Not enough military power to present a real defense. It was the state that was persecuting the christians, and there was very little an individual (or even the Church) could do about it defensively. The only real options were to deny the faith or die a martyr by refusing to deny the faith. Many martyrs were made, and it may happen again. I’ve heard that one of the current U.S. bishops once opined (and I don’t have a source for this) that he would die in bed, his successor would die in jail, and his successor’s successor would die a martyr. Yes, I do think it’s possible.

“living by the sword” is living a life of violence and war.
Buying a sword (or a gun) may become necessary to protect family and loved ones.

Peace,
Robert

 

[BobR42]

– big snip –

“living by the sword” is living a life of violence and war.
Buying a sword (or a gun) may become necessary to protect family and loved ones.

Peace,
Robert

What is wrong with our culture in the USA where so many find justification for an armed populace? My friends in Europe do generally not favor having arms in the home. They certainly don’t favor capital punishment (which is very popular in some religious groups in the USA, particularly in the “Bible Belt”). Some years ago in the State of Washington, a study found that having more arms in homes led to more deaths in the populace - and most of the deaths were of family members and not “intruders.” I’d give a link here if I could but that study was in the pre-Internet days.

IMHO true peace can NOT come through weapons of mass destruction (which we in the USA make and export far more than any other country on Earth), nor from an armed populace, but from inculcating peace in our hearts - and manifesting that peace in thought, word and deed.

I certainly cannot claim to have a “higher” perspective on this, but I can learn from the example of Jesus submitting to the Romans, from the writings of Tolstoy and Gandhi and others, and from history.

 

[Sir_Knight]

These are indeed difficult matters which we each must struggle with. There is such a church principle as “primacy of conscience.” I cannot claim that my conscience is more accurate or inspired than yours (and vice-versa).

This principle does NOT mean that anyone’s conscience can override OFFICIAL Church teaching.

I do note that the Church was pacifistic until the Church, in line with the desires of Constantine, became associated with the Roman Empire - and then, suddenly, it was all right to fight and kill in wars. This conflict of conscience led to the development of the “Just War” Theory. However, in an age of so many weapons of mass destruction (the U.S.A. developing and deploying more than the rest of the world combined), war has become ever more unconscionable, I believe.

This was already addressed so there is no point in me going over it a second time.

I agree completely - we do not have an exact record of what Jesus taught. I do take exception with your last two words. You are not qualified to declare with any authority or Divine insight that my position on war is incorrect. You can only say what you have chosen to believe.

I am expressing my opinion, just as you have expressed yours.

That belief, “offer up his life for our sins,” only can be seen in the context of the prevailing Jewish belief of that day that a sacrifice was necessary (unlike the other world faiths outside of the Jewish child, Christianity) because we, the Children of God by virtue of Creation, were so “bad.” But that may not be at all what Jesus actually thought and taught. Read “Original Blessing.” Or read the opening verses of the Gospel of Thomas. The need for a “sacrifice” because ego-centric men thought the Father was “offended” by humanity may be only the projection of all too human men. The Parable of the Prodigal Son reveals that the Father doesn’t demand sacrifice but only wishes his errant child (all of us) to awaken and to return home (enter a state of utter love of God and ALL His Children, such as Jesus exhibited). And Jesus died without resistance IMHO only to demonstrate utter love in the face of violence, thus fulfilling his mission of being a supreme example to us. Sacrifice MAY have had absolutely nothing to do with it all.

Gospel of Thomas? Sorry, I am not going to draw any conclusions from scripture which the Church fathers ruled were not divinely inspired.

See above. The Divine Plan cannot be defeated, by definition; it is not the nature of Creation for God’s will to be opposed (except in illusion; and we all must deal with illusions, as Jesus did). See Lk 4:13 - “… the devil (our ego-centric illusions) left him for the time being…,” meaning his struggle against ego-centric illusions continued at times, just as the mystics report of themselves.

See my comment above.

Jesus used shocking language to confront the money changers - he did not attack them bodily but, we think, he only overturned their tables. He didn’t hate them, only wished to have them change their behavior. Only one gospel (I forget which) alleged that he used a “whip of cords,” which makes that version less credible IMHO.

ALL sacred scripture is divinely inspired and we are to live by every word of it.

In contrast to how he confronted those in power who abused their position, he used gentle language and healing to reach the poor and desperate and sick. He rejected no one, even when using shocking language, IMHO. Read Mt 5:43-48 to see how, like him, our love “must have no bounds.” Like him, we were not put into the world to judge people, only to heal/awaken one another.

If you think the Church’s teaching (which you often quote) and behavior is always “Christ-like,” then I leave it to you to explain the utter violence of the various Inquisitions in Italy and (especially) Spain over the centuries (only as one pair of examples). I am not condemning the Inquisitors; I condemn no one. “Judge not.” I am just saying that the Church, being an all too human institution, often gropes around in the dark like any other institution, even as it rightly seeks to express the message of Divine Love.

Myabe if you took the time to research it, you would see that the Inquisition was NOT approved by the OFFICIAL Church but conducted by the Spanish Crown. It was condemned by the Pope and many priests and bishops were killed attempting to oppose it. You can find supporting references for those claims right here on this very board by using the search feature.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What is wrong with our culture in the USA where so many find justification for an armed populace?

Maybe it is because they are fulfilling their DUTY of protecting themselves and their loved ones.

My friends in Europe do generally not favor having arms in the home.

I guess that would make them guilty of the sin of omission.

They certainly don’t favor capital punishment (which is very popular in some religious groups in the USA, particularly in the “Bible Belt”). Some years ago in the State of Washington, a study found that having more arms in homes led to more deaths in the populace - and most of the deaths were of family members and not “intruders.” I’d give a link here if I could but that study was in the pre-Internet days.

The author of the research admitted that his study did “not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm.” He also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders “purposely avoided a home known to be armed.” This is a classic case of a “study” conducted to achieve a desired result. In his critique of this “study”, Gary Kleck notes that the estimation of gun ownership rates was “inaccurate”, and that the total population came from a non-random selection of only two cities.

Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator. This means you are much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than hurt a family member. SOURCE: Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Gary Kleck, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991.

IMHO true peace can NOT come through weapons of mass destruction (which we in the USA make and export far more than any other country on Earth), nor from an armed populace, but from inculcating peace in our hearts - and manifesting that peace in thought, word and deed.

Look, human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force or fear of force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

As I said above, the gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 120-pound policewoman on equal footing with a 300-pound criminal, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger. Without a gun to level the playing field, force and the fear of force does enter the equation and there is nothing separating us from uncivilized animals where the young and the strong dominate the weak and the old. Is that the kind of society that you want to live in where somebody younger / bigger / stronger can FORCE you to do their bidding?

I certainly cannot claim to have a “higher” perspective on this, but I can learn from the example of Jesus submitting to the Romans,

What can you learn from Jesus commanding His followers to go out and purchase a sword even if they had their cloak to do so? A sword has no other purpose than to be used as a weapon. Would Jesus, who despised waste, His followers to purchase a weapon if it was not intended to be used? Highly unlikely!

from the writings of Tolstoy and Gandhi and others,

• MAHATMA GANDHI - “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

and from history.

• V.I. LENIN - “One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”
• JOSEPH STALIN - “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
• ADOLF HITLER - “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

 

[BobR42]

Maybe it is because they are fulfilling their DUTY of protecting themselves and their loved ones.

Jesus didn’t protect himself. To say that he had to die violently to satisfy payment for sin is, I think, missing the point. Read what the Orthodox Church has to say about this. The western idea of atonement for sin seems to stem from Anselm of Canterbury. The Orthodox perspective is that the Word would have become flesh even without the “sin of Adam.” And they focus on the example of Jesus primarily showing humanity who we really are and shall someday attain. I.e., it is a far less negative view of man than the western Church (Roman Catholic and some Protestant alike) has had. You may believe what you wish, of course - I personally opt for the positive view. I have no disdain for the human race - I am one of them/us.

In all events, the question of using violence to protect oneself personally has little to do with how nations act when they go to war.

-snip-

SOURCE: Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Gary Kleck, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991.

The book gets good reviews, I see (seriously): “His findings indicate that guns do contribute to violence, but in complex ways that are not acknowledged by either activists or academics.”

Look, human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force or fear of force.

I would submit that your words very possibly represent a viewpoint of pessimism about human beings, not “realism.” It may be a part of your cultural heritage. I believe that, beneath all the “****” that we must relinquish, is a Child of God (at the soul level). And this must in time - many generations - emerge because it is the will of the Father. As we think Jesus said, “How can you claim to love God, Whom you cannot see, when you do not love your neighbor, whom you can see?” I.e., the Divine presence is all around you, in humanity. Look and see! See Mt 6:22-23.

-snip-

Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

I agree with the first half of your sentence, not the latter. I trashed my Buntline Special. But you of course, with what I see as a fear/force perspective, believe in owning firearms in the home. I cannot denigrate you for that, I just see life and people differently. I am not naive. I was in the Vietnam war. But seeing that insane violence in 1967-68 has slowly left me with a sense that humankind must change, starting with me (the only person I can really take responsibility for changing).

Is that the kind of society that you want to live in where somebody younger / bigger / stronger can FORCE you to do their bidding?

Did Jesus encourage the Jews to join the zealots who used brute force to attack the occupying Romans, who were as an army, bigger and stronger? No, he knew that only changes of our hearts would overcome the world’s tendency to violence. Again, we must learn to remember the life example of Jesus, not theories developed centuries later by clerics to justify massive societal force by the Roman Empire.

What can you learn from Jesus commanding His followers to go out and purchase a sword even if they had their cloak to do so? A sword has no other purpose than to be used as a weapon. Would Jesus, who despised waste, His followers to purchase a weapon if it was not intended to be used? Highly unlikely!

We have discussed that passage from Luke before. I don’t accept it as representing the words of Jesus, only Luke’s perception from stories handed down 50 years later.

• MAHATMA GANDHI - “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

• V.I. LENIN - “One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms.”

• JOSEPH STALIN - “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”

• ADOLF HITLER - “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”

Interesting quotes. I know that Gandhi’s thoughts deepened and matured as he aged, so I cannot comment. The quotes of the latter represent those men who lived “in the dark,” not “the light of the soul.” Therefore their points of view must be discarded. Someday, they too shall be redeemed and become sane.

You seem to be well read. I congratulate you for that. I would also suggest a good read for you: The Perennial Philosophy, by Aldous Huxley. It is not really philosophy, but an edited compendium of the writings of the mystics of the world faiths, by topic - the nature of the Divine, the nature of humanity, redemption, etc. It was rather dramatic to see the similarities in the experiences and viewpoints of the mystics, even considering their different cultural and religious affiliations.

Pax Tecum.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Jesus didn’t protect himself. To say that he had to die violently to satisfy payment for sin is, I think, missing the point.

That is entirely the point … [bibledrb]Isaiah 53:7[/bibledrb]

Read what the Orthodox Church has to say about this. The western idea of atonement for sin seems to stem from Anselm of Canterbury. The Orthodox perspective is that the Word would have become flesh even without the “sin of Adam.” And they focus on the example of Jesus primarily showing humanity who we really are and shall someday attain. I.e., it is a far less negative view of man than the western Church (Roman Catholic and some Protestant alike) has had. You may believe what you wish, of course - I personally opt for the positive view. I have no disdain for the human race - I am one of them/us.

I believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I am one of them. If you wish to believe otherwise, than that is your business.

In all events, the question of using violence to protect oneself personally has little to do with how nations act when they go to war.

-snip-

Meaning what?

The book gets good reviews, I see (seriously): “His findings indicate that guns do contribute to violence, but in complex ways that are not acknowledged by either activists or academics.”

As was already pointed out, the study was seriously flawed. According to government’s official findings, every community, state, country, etc.; where gun laws were made less restrictive, violent crime has fallen and every community, state, country, etc.; where gun laws were made more restrictive, violent crime has risen. I challenge you to show me exceptions to this from official sources.

I would submit that your words very possibly represent a viewpoint of pessimism about human beings, not “realism.” It may be a part of your cultural heritage. I believe that, beneath all the “****” that we must relinquish, is a Child of God (at the soul level). And this must in time - many generations - emerge because it is the will of the Father. As we think Jesus said, “How can you claim to love God, Whom you cannot see, when you do not love your neighbor, whom you can see?” I.e., the Divine presence is all around you, in humanity. Look and see! See Mt 6:22-23.

-snip-

I don’t see the world through rose-colored glasses as you apparently do. I see the world for what it is. Again, I ask you, why would Jesus command His followers to purchase a sword – which has only ONE purpose … to be used as a weapon; if He did not intend for it to be used in that fashion? Remember, this is Jesus that we are talking about who taught about helping the poor at every turn. To buy something that was not intended to be used would have been a huge waste – which, Jesus, also spoke out against.

I agree with the first half of your sentence, not the latter. I trashed my Buntline Special. But you of course, with what I see as a fear/force perspective, believe in owning firearms in the home. I cannot denigrate you for that, I just see life and people differently. I am not naive. I was in the Vietnam war. But seeing that insane violence in 1967-68 has slowly left me with a sense that humankind must change, starting with me (the only person I can really take responsibility for changing).

Yes, people must change but until they do, we have a DUTY to protect ourselves. The Church tells us that it is a GRAVE duty. And what happens if we fail in our duty? We commit a sin of omission!

Did Jesus encourage the Jews to join the zealots who used brute force to attack the occupying Romans, who were as an army, bigger and stronger? No, he knew that only changes of our hearts would overcome the world’s tendency to violence. Again, we must learn to remember the life example of Jesus, not theories developed centuries later by clerics to justify massive societal force by the Roman Empire.

Did Jesus ever tell any of the soldiers that He encountered that what they were doing was wrong? No, in fact, He praised some of them for their faith and told them not bring false charges against any; and to be content with the wages that are paid to them. In fact, the first gentile convert was a Roman soldier.

We have discussed that passage from Luke before. I don’t accept it as representing the words of Jesus, only Luke’s perception from stories handed down 50 years later.

Here’s the thing – you either accept ALL of the bible as being the infallible Word of God or you open up ALL of it to doubt. If you reject the passage from Luke, then it frees me up to reject any passage which you have to offer which supports your position.

Interesting quotes. I know that Gandhi’s thoughts deepened and matured as he aged, so I cannot comment. The quotes of the latter represent those men who lived “in the dark,” not “the light of the soul.” Therefore their points of view must be discarded. Someday, they too shall be redeemed and become sane.

Discarded? Those who FAIL to learn the lessons of history are DOOMED to repeat it’s FAILURES.

 

[BobR42]

That is entirely the point … [bibledrb]Isaiah 53:7[/bibledrb]

I believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches because I am one of them. If you wish to believe otherwise, than that is your business.

If you wish to blindly follow Church teaching instead of being BOTH loyal AND prayerful about what is true (while asking for Spirit’s guidance), AND if that helps you to grow in love of humanity [to me, the bottom line], please continue to do so. I would submit that history shows that it does pay to examine what the Church tells you. That is your personal moral responsibility, unlike the blind submission and loyalty which used to characterize both the Inquisitors (such as Tomas de Torquemada) and the WW II German Army. Fortunately, the Germans have now learned that isn’t either wise or responsible.

I don’t see the world through rose-colored glasses as you apparently do.

Please go back and read Mt 6:22-23, about how to see the world. You apparently cannot presently believe that, as the hymn goes, “this is My Father’s world.” Or “Be Thou My Vision,” a prayer to the Spirit for us to be able to see with God’s eyes.

I see the world for what it is.

I would submit that you may presently be seeing the world through the eyes of the ego (full of ad hominem judgments) instead of through the eyes of Love: “The Kingdom is (within/among) you.” One of the first of Jesus’ pronouncements.

Here’s the thing – you either accept ALL of the bible as being the infallible Word of God or you open up ALL of it to doubt.

You sound like a fundamentalist (not an evil creature, but instead just locked into black and white thinking). You don’t sound like a modern Roman Catholic Biblical scholar.

If you reject the passage from Luke, then it frees me up to reject any passage which you have to offer which supports your position.

But we must each and all accept or reject prayerfully, not just thoughtlessly or for selfish reasons.

Discarded? Those who FAIL to learn the lessons of history are DOOMED to repeat it’s FAILURES.

Agreed - it is time to relinquish the cycle of escalating violence as per the life and teaching of Jesus!

 

[Sir_Knight]

If you wish to blindly follow Church teaching instead of being BOTH loyal AND prayerful about what is true (while asking for Spirit’s guidance), AND if that helps you to grow in love of humanity [to me, the bottom line], please continue to do so. I would submit that history shows that it does pay to examine what the Church tells you. That is your personal moral responsibility, unlike the blind submission and loyalty which used to characterize both the Inquisitors (such as Tomas de Torquemada) and the WW II German Army. Fortunately, the Germans have now learned that isn’t either wise or responsible.

One can not CLAIM to be a Catholic if one does not embrace Catholic teaching following one’s conscious instead – that is a PROTESTANT view-point … the individual is guided to the truth instead of the Church – completely contrary to the promises of Christ that His Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit in all truths.

And your examples of the German Army during WWII and the Inquisitors having nothing do this with this discussion because neither of which was SUPPORTED by the Catholic Church.

Please go back and read Mt 6:22-23, about how to see the world. You apparently cannot presently believe that, as the hymn goes, “this is My Father’s world.” Or “Be Thou My Vision,” a prayer to the Spirit for us to be able to see with God’s eyes.

I would submit that you may presently be seeing the world through the eyes of the ego (full of ad hominem judgments) instead of through the eyes of Love: “The Kingdom is (within/among) you.” One of the first of Jesus’ pronouncements.

Please read Luke 4:5-6 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 which tells us that this world belongs to Satan.

You sound like a fundamentalist (not an evil creature, but instead just locked into black and white thinking). You don’t sound like a modern Roman Catholic Biblical scholar.

I never claimed to be a MODERN Roman Catholic Biblical SCHOLAR. I never CLAIMED to be any type of “scholar”.

But we must each and all accept or reject prayerfully, not just thoughtlessly or for selfish reasons.

We must accept or reject BASED on OFFICIAL Church teachings. The CCC tells us that we have a GRAVE DUTY to defense. The Vatican has OFFICIALLY come out in SUPPORT of gun ownership for defense purposes. All of that SUPPORTS Christ’s teaching about buying a sword.

Agreed - it is time to relinquish the cycle of escalating violence as per the life and teaching of Jesus!

And we do that by embracing the sword / gun because whenever legal gun ownership increases, violence goes down.

 

[BobR42]

Let me start, Sir Knight, by acknowledging that I have enjoyed this dialog. I do think we have gotten to the point where we must admit with mutual respect to being in separate camps of thought, which to me is fine. You seem well read.

One can not CLAIM to be a Catholic if one does not embrace Catholic teaching following one’s conscious instead – that is a PROTESTANT view-point … the individual is guided to the truth instead of the Church – completely contrary to the promises of Christ that His Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit in all truths.

Here is a link: purplepew.org/blog/carey/pope-on-primacy-of-conscience

with this excerpt:
*…Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) expressed the Church’s understanding of the primacy of conscience – an understanding which he eloquently expressed while serving as Chair of Dogmatic Theology at the University of Tübingen in 1968.

"Above the pope as an expression of the binding claim of church authority,” writes Ratzinger, “stands one’s own conscience, which has to be obeyed first of all, if need be against the demands of church authority." (*)

• From a commentary on Gaudium et Spes (“The Church in the Modern World”) in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vorgrimler, Herbert (Ed.), Burns and Oats, 1969, p. 134.*

And your examples of the German Army during WWII and the Inquisitors having nothing do this with this discussion because neither of which was SUPPORTED by the Catholic Church.

The principle remains - blind loyalty to ANY human institution, history shows, is a dreadful mistake.

Please read Luke 4:5-6 and 2 Corinthians 4:4 which tells us that this world belongs to Satan.

First, and most importantly, please pray and study the meaning of Mt 6:22-23. It is about through which “eyes” one views the world. That is a topic which I would suggest we continue (and in the future drop the other topics we have dialogued about).

Secondly, I don’t believe in a “creature” called Satan. The believe in a wicked creature which tempts us is, IMHO, the collective projection of our human ego driven minds. I.e., it leads to a perception that “evil” is “out there,” but never “in me” (i.e, in my mind full of illusions). That projection to me is avoiding our responsibility for our own need for a “new mind.” Our TRUE mind IMHO is Spirit-centered. “Let the mind that was in Christ be in you” was Paul’s way of expressing it.

I never claimed to be a MODERN Roman Catholic Biblical SCHOLAR. I never CLAIMED to be any type of “scholar”.

I might suggest the writings of the late Fr. Raymond Brown, SJ, to you. He was regarded as one of the finest Catholic Biblical scholars of the 20th century.

We must accept or reject BASED on OFFICIAL Church teachings. The CCC tells us that we have a GRAVE DUTY to defense. The Vatican has OFFICIALLY come out in SUPPORT of gun ownership for defense purposes. All of that SUPPORTS Christ’s teaching about buying a sword.

Nothing takes the place of personal conscience IMHO. When you accidentally shoot your neighborhood paper boy at 6 in the morning (such things have happened), I am afraid the law will not recognize the defense, “I am only following Catholic teachings; I am sorry for my mistake in applying it.”

And we do that by embracing the sword / gun because whenever legal gun ownership increases, violence goes down.

Logically, your argument holds water, I admit. But I cannot imagine that a man or woman with a love-filled Christ-like heart would want to make his home an armed camp, a la Ruby Ridge.

Have a great day, Sir Knight. All blessings to you!

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let me start, Sir Knight, by acknowledging that I have enjoyed this dialog. I do think we have gotten to the point where we must admit with mutual respect to being in separate camps of thought, which to me is fine. You seem well read.

Here is a link: purplepew.org/blog/carey/pope-on-primacy-of-conscience

with this excerpt:
*…Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) expressed the Church’s understanding of the primacy of conscience – an understanding which he eloquently expressed while serving as Chair of Dogmatic Theology at the University of Tübingen in 1968.

"Above the pope as an expression of the binding claim of church authority,” writes Ratzinger, “stands one’s own conscience, which has to be obeyed first of all, if need be against the demands of church authority." (*)

• From a commentary on Gaudium et Spes (“The Church in the Modern World”) in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vorgrimler, Herbert (Ed.), Burns and Oats, 1969, p. 134.*

While the opinions of a Pope certainly carry a lot of weight, those opinions can not contradict existing Church teachings. Specifically I refer you to paragraphs 1790–1792 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which tell us that the right of conscience does not allow one to summarily disagree with a church teaching and claim that they are acting in accordance with conscience.

I have an additional question to ask: How does one know that one’s conscience is not being informed by the Evil One? This CAN happen. Only the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is guaranteed the protection from error by the Holy Spirit. This is not true of the individual Christian. Witness the thousands of Christian denominations that cannot agree because the consciences of the individuals disagree not only with the Catholic Church’s interpretation of Scripture, but also with that of each other.

The principle remains - blind loyalty to ANY human institution, history shows, is a dreadful mistake.

The Church is not a human institution. I refer you to Matt. 10:20 & Luke 12:12 where Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals. Furthermore, in Matt. 28:20 Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

First, and most importantly, please pray and study the meaning of Mt 6:22-23. It is about through which “eyes” one views the world. That is a topic which I would suggest we continue (and in the future drop the other topics we have dialogued about).

Secondly, I don’t believe in a “creature” called Satan. The believe in a wicked creature which tempts us is, IMHO, the collective projection of our human ego driven minds. I.e., it leads to a perception that “evil” is “out there,” but never “in me” (i.e, in my mind full of illusions). That projection to me is avoiding our responsibility for our own need for a “new mind.” Our TRUE mind IMHO is Spirit-centered. “Let the mind that was in Christ be in you” was Paul’s way of expressing it.

Your opinions, again, conflict with OFFICIAL Church teaching. I refer you to CCC390-395.

I might suggest the writings of the late Fr. Raymond Brown, SJ, to you. He was regarded as one of the finest Catholic Biblical scholars of the 20th century.

Nothing takes the place of personal conscience IMHO.

Again, your opinions conflict with OFFICIAL Church teaching as I pointed out above.

When you accidentally shoot your neighborhood paper boy at 6 in the morning (such things have happened), I am afraid the law will not recognize the defense, “I am only following Catholic teachings; I am sorry for my mistake in applying it.”

Your statement doesn’t make any sense. Where does Catholic teaching tell anyone to shoot our neighborhood paper boy? Please cite the specific passage either from Canon Law or the CCC. Since you claimed that “such things have happened”, you should have no problem in providing the exact passage from OFFICIAL Church teaching which tells us to do this.

Have a great day, Sir Knight. All blessings to you!

And to you as well.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)