Passivism/ Martyrdom vs. duty to defend oneself

  • Thread starter Thread starter Newbie2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Happy to help out. 😃

A little different direction, perhaps:

I hypothesize that there are 4 types of people.
  1. Those who are completely naive about their surroundings, and complete passivists. They might say, “God will protect me, I need do nothing further”
  2. Those who are aware that there are dangers and hazards, they do some things to keep out of harms way, but limit the extent what they’ll do to protect themselves. They might say, “I’ll stay away from bad places if I can, but I’d never carry a gun. I’ll call the police if there is a problem”
  3. Those who are aware of their environment and situation, and that take the steps they feel are appropriate, CCW, martial arts training, etc. They might say, “I trust God, but he expects me to do more than just trust in him”.
  4. Those who build bunkers, stockpile weapons and ammunition, join a Militia. They might say, "I live in fear, God will do nothing to protect me, he’s left the preservation of my life completely up to me.
 
pnewton said:
Well, then by the same token I can ignore your priest because my priest understands English a little better and can actually understand the Catechism. If the CCC says a “right”, that is what is meant. We can not simple use duty instead. When it says something can be a duty, then that is what is meant, not that it is a duty. If you are him or anyone can show where the Church teaches this idea, I’ll buy it. Until then, I would recommend he take his own advice, assuming that was what was said.

As the authoritative teaching for Church norms, one simply can not add to it, change the words or make authoritative syllogism founded on faulty logic.
Click to expand...
I promised myself to stay out of this thread but I can’t let attacks against my pastor go unanswered.

Maybe your priest can read English better but if he is in agreement with what you are saying, then he obviously can’t put two and two together and needs to be spoon-fed everything – which is NOT what the Church expects of it’s ADULT members.

I refer you to Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians chapter 14 verse 20 which states: “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be infants, but in your thinking be mature.” Children need to be spoon-fed. Adults are expected to think things out rationally and use logic to put things together.

  1. *]Failure to perform duties have consequences to them.

    *]Failure to perform GRAVE duties have grave consequences to them.

    *]Going to Mass on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation is one of those GRAVE duties.

    *]If it is GRAVE sin of omission to perform our duty of going to Mass on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation, then it is a grave sin of omission if we fail to perform other GRAVE duties.

    *]The CCC states that we have a grave duties to protect others. Thus, failure to perform that grave duty is a grave sin of omission.

    *]The CCC also states that we are duty bound to take greater care of ourselves than of others.

    *]If we have a grave duty to protect others and we have an even greater duty to take care of ourselves, then it stands to reason that we also have a grave duty to defense of self and failure to perform that duty is also a grave sin of omission.

    And if you have a problem with this being “proof-texting”, then I guess that you also have a problem with Our Lord’s replies to those that questioned Him because there are numerous examples in scripture (Matthew 13:14-15; Mark 12:35-36; Luke 4:16-21; Luke 6:1-5; Luke 24:27 and John 7:37-38) of Jesus “proof-texting” when He was challenged.

    That’s it. I’m done with this thread. melensdad, thank you for the assist. I’m glad to see that I am not the only one who recognized Newbie2’s disingenuous comments.

    And to Newbie2 regarding “Kevlar vests” … did Jesus command His followers to buy a shield or to buy a sword?
 
Sir_Knight said:
And to Newbie2 regarding “Kevlar vests” … did Jesus command His followers to buy a shield or to buy a sword?
Click to expand...
Neither.

I refer you to the Jerome Biblical commentary, p. 716:

(v)36 from now on: A new time within the era of fulfillment is dawning. Hostility will be the church’s bedfellow. Jesus has told them so. sword: The reference to this destructive weapon must be taken in the total context of Luke-Acts and the immediate context of vv. 38, 47-53. Since Luke narrates in his Gospel that Jesus not only preached love of enemie (6:26-36) but also lived that teaching (9:51-55;23:34), and since he narrates in Acts that Paul and other missionaries never use swords, he cannot mean by “sword” here a lethal weapon. Since in v. 38 Luke depicts Jesus’ disgust with the disciples literal understanding of his owrds in v. 36 and since he repremands the use of a sword in 22:47-53 and even heals the wounded person, Luke cannot mean here a destructive weapon. Rather “sword” is a symbol for cirsis. A paraphrase of the latter part of v.36 is: Sell your mantle and buy trouble.

(v) 37 Again Luke underlines in this discourse that what Jesus is about is according to God’s plan. He is the new Servant of Yahweh (Isa 53:12). If Jesus is treated this way, so too will be his disciples.

(v) 38 that’s enough! The reader should not miss the Lucan irony.

The commentary brings up a good point, which I wanted to address before. If Jesus had really meant to carry a sword, then his greatest apostle, Paul, failed to obey him. Either that, or the Lord himself failed to give him that instruction upon his conversion on the road to Demascus. Either failure is unlikely, don’t you think?

I think it wise, when reading, interpreting and pondering Scripture, to avoid the trap that many Protestants fall into…picking and choosing scriptural verses to suit their own agenda (eisagesis) and failing to consider the context of that part of scripture within the context of the entire canon.

And I reject the either/or premise of Sir Knight’s question. If we are under penalty of sin mandated to do everything we (reasonably) can to protect our lives, it begs the question as to why we are not mandated, in the logic of some, to wear protective armour as well as carry a weapon, does it not?
 
Newbie2 said:
Neither.

I refer you to the Jerome Biblical commentary, p. 716:

(v)36 from now on: A new time within the era of fulfillment is dawning. Hostility will be the church’s bedfellow. Jesus has told them so. sword: The reference to this destructive weapon must be taken in the total context of Luke-Acts and the immediate context of vv. 38, 47-53. Since Luke narrates in his Gospel that Jesus not only preached love of enemie (6:26-36) but also lived that teaching (9:51-55;23:34), and since he narrates in Acts that Paul and other missionaries never use swords, he cannot mean by “sword” here a lethal weapon. Since in v. 38 Luke depicts Jesus’ disgust with the disciples literal understanding of his owrds in v. 36 and since he repremands the use of a sword in 22:47-53 and even heals the wounded person, Luke cannot mean here a destructive weapon. Rather “sword” is a symbol for cirsis. A paraphrase of the latter part of v.36 is: Sell your mantle and buy trouble.

(v) 37 Again Luke underlines in this discourse that what Jesus is about is according to God’s plan. He is the new Servant of Yahweh (Isa 53:12). If Jesus is treated this way, so too will be his disciples.

(v) 38 that’s enough! The reader should not miss the Lucan irony.

The commentary brings up a good point, which I wanted to address before. If Jesus had really meant to carry a sword, then his greatest apostle, Paul, failed to obey him. Either that, or the Lord himself failed to give him that instruction upon his conversion on the road to Demascus. Either failure is unlikely, don’t you think?

I think it wise, when reading, interpreting and pondering Scripture, to avoid the trap that many Protestants fall into…picking and choosing scriptural verses to suit their own agenda (eisagesis) and failing to consider the context of that part of scripture within the context of the entire canon.

And I reject the either/or premise of Sir Knight’s question. If we are under penalty of sin mandated to do everything we (reasonably) can to protect our lives, it begs the question as to why we are not mandated, in the logic of some, to wear protective armour as well as carry a weapon, does it not?
Click to expand...
I don’t know why I keep letting you draw me back to this debate. Maybe it’s because I have an issue with false comments regarding our faith go unchallenged.

We need to look at this logically. Scripture tells us in Mark 4:34 that while Jesus spoke in parables to the crowds, He explained EVERYTHING privately to His Apostles and that explanation is ALWAYS found in scripture whenever it was recorded that the Apostles misunderstood something. If, the Apostles misunderstood and Jesus was not referring to real swords, why did He not explain that to them? This would be the only place in the four gospels where Jesus did not explain something that the Apostles misunderstood. Maybe because no explanation was needed because the Apostles understood correctly and Jesus was referring to actual swords.

Jesus was preparing the Apostles to spread the Gospel message after He is gone. Would it make sense for Jesus to see that the Apostles misunderstood something and not explain it to them since if they misunderstood, they’ll be preaching the wrong message? Not something that one would expect from the “great teacher”.

This Gospel account was written many years later after the Holy Spirit opened the minds of the Aposltles to the Gospel. Does it make sense that they would explain all of Jesus’s other teaching but not this one? Highly unlikely. The only possible reason why a true explanation isn’t offered is because the Apostles already understood the true meaning.

Do you expect us to believe that Jerome, who read the scriptures hundreds of years after they were written, had a better understanding of our Lord’s teaching than the Apostles who were taught by our Lord personally and had their minds opened by the Holy Spirit and even wrote those Gospels? Highly unlikely!

And if Jesus did not mean a physical sword, why did He mix it in with other physical items (sandals, momey pouch, etc.) in that passage? That’s rather confusing ESPECIALLY if He didn’t bother to explain it. Again, something that a “great teacher” would not do.

And, again, if Jesus did not mean a physical sword, then what does this passage mean? “… Sell your coat and buy a sword …” – what does that mean if it isn’t referring to physical items? Sell our coat and buy what?

Nope. Jesus was referring to physical weapons. Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken because it raises too many issues which can not be explained away. NONE of these issues come up if one takes the position that Jesus was talking about actual swords.

As far as Paul not having a sword, there are two possible explanations:
  1. *]He did have a sword but it was not recorded. Remember, the purpose of scripture was to bring the message of Christ to the world and not a detail account of how that was done.

    *]The Jews were an occupied people at the time and it was atually illegal for them to own weapons. It is interesting to note that when the Apostles showed the two swords to Jesus, He did not rebuke them for having illegal weapons.

    *** Continued in NEXT Post Due to Space Limitations ***

    … Oops, somebody snuck in ahead of me 😉
 
Newbie, once again you are falling into the trap of comparing Martydrom to Self-Defense. Those are TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS that must be considered apart from each other.

In the commentary you quoted you clearly took it from the portion of the Bible during Jesus’s last hours on earth as a human and that was clearly the point at which he faced becoming a martyr for the faith. But I stress, he was becoming a martyr FOR THE FAITH.

That has little relevance to the issue of self-defense from criminals who have no religious intent. To be mugged/killed during the commission of a crime for material goods does not make you a martyr for our religion.

You seem to misapply martyrdom. Pope JPII warned us against falling prey to moral relativism. It strikes me that you are elevating criminal murder to the same level as religious martyrdom. I mentioned exactly this problem in my first post in this thread. Please review.
 
… Oops, somebody snuck in ahead of me 😉
*** Continued from PREVIOUS Post Due to Space Limitations ***

And as far as the vest is concerned, you are spinning your wheels getting lost in minutiae. You ARE lost in minutiae. Explain why Jesus told them to buy a sword and not a shield or why not a sword and a shield?

Please explain for me in simple terms …
  1. *]All of the other items (walking stick, sandals, etc.) represent REAL items. If the sword does not represent a real item, then what are we suppose to sell our coats to buy? Jesus is commanding them to sell their coats and buy it if they don’t have it. What are they suppose to buy? Your quotes do not address that.

    *]Why does scripture tells us that Jesus explained EVERYTHING to His Apostles and we always see that explanation EXCEPT in this one case? Just look at the Gospel passage from Lent.
    Code: 
      The Jews misunderstood when Jesus said that He would rebuild the temple in 3 days. But what Jesus actually meant was the temple of His body. THAT is clearly pointed out in that passage.

  Why would this sword passage be the only exception in all of the Gospels? That just doesn't make sense.
    *]The fact that no further explanation is given is the most common arguement given to the protestants that the Eucharist is the REAL Body of Christ – Jesus always explained everything to His Apostles afterwards and that explanation is found in that passage. The fact that Jesus didn’t further explain that He was talking symbolicly, is proof that He the Eucharist is His REAL body and not a SYMBOL of His Body.
    Code: 
      If you take the position that Jesus did not explain the "sword thing", then you just lost one of your main arguments regarding the Eucharist because the "sword thing" would show that there were exceptions.

  You can't have it both ways.
    *]Jesus was preparing His apostles to carry on His message to the rest of the world. Why would He not clarify what He really meant? They showed Him two swords. If that was incorrect, then it would have been clear to Jesus that they did not understand. To ensure that His correct message was passed on to the rest of the world would you expect the “Great Teacher” to explain it to them?

    *]These passages were written many years later after the Holy Spirit had opened the minds of the Apostles to the message of the gospel. When writing down this account, why didn’t they clarify this point ESPECIALLY when they clarified every other point that Jesus had made.
    … I await your reply to these specific questions.
 
Sir_Knight said:
I don’t know why I keep letting you draw me back to this debate. Maybe it’s because I have an issue with false comments regarding our faith go unchallenged.

I don’t know either. :confused:😉

Do you expect us to believe that Jerome, who read the scriptures hundreds of years after they were written, had a better understanding of our Lord’s teaching than the Apostles who were taught by our Lord personally and had their minds opened by the Holy Spirit and even wrote those Gospels? Highly unlikely!

Um…Jerome didn’t write this commentary. It was written and reviewed by modern scriptural experts.

As far as Paul not having a sword, there are two possible explanations:
  1. *]He did have a sword but it was not recorded. Remember, the purpose of scripture was to bring the message of Christ to the world and not a detail account of how that was done.

    *]The Jews were an occupied people at the time and it was atually illegal for them to own weapons. It is interesting to note that when the Apostles showed the two swords to Jesus, He did not rebuke them for having illegal weapons.

    Paul was a Roman citizen, unlike most other Jews. I’m not sure if Roman Citizens’ rights allowed them to carry a sword legally or not. Do you?

    You’d think he’d have addressed that command of the Lord in his letters somewhere, wouldn’t you?
Click to expand...
  1. melensdad said:
    Newbie, once again you are falling into the trap of comparing Martydrom to Self-Defense.

    I disagree.

    Those are TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS that must be considered apart from each other.

    I agree.

    You seem to misapply martyrdom. Pope JPII warned us against falling prey to moral relativism. It strikes me that you are elevating criminal murder to the same level as religious martyrdom. I mentioned exactly this problem in my first post in this thread. Please review.

    No, I’m not misapplying it, but perhaps it needs to be discussed separately from passivism. There you may have a good point.
    Click to expand...
 
Sir_Knight said:
And as far as the vest is concerned, you are spinning your wheels getting lost in minutiae. You ARE lost in minutiae. Explain why Jesus told them to buy a sword and not a shield or why not a sword and a shield?

Please explain for me in simple terms …
  1. *]All of the other items (walking stick, sandals, etc.) represent REAL items. If the sword does not represent a real item, then what are we suppose to sell our coats to buy? Jesus is commanding them to sell their coats and buy it if they don’t have it. What are they suppose to buy? Your quotes do not address that.

    *]Why does scripture tells us that Jesus explained EVERYTHING to His Apostles and we always see that explanation EXCEPT in this one case? Just look at the Gospel passage from Lent.
    Code: 
      The Jews misunderstood when Jesus said that He would rebuild the temple in 3 days. But what Jesus actually meant was the temple of His body. THAT is clearly pointed out in that passage.

  Why would this sword passage be the only exception in all of the Gospels? That just doesn't make sense.
    *]The fact that no further explanation is given is the most common arguement given to the protestants that the Eucharist is the REAL Body of Christ – Jesus always explained everything to His Apostles afterwards and that explanation is found in that passage. The fact that Jesus didn’t further explain that He was talking symbolicly, is proof that He the Eucharist is His REAL body and not a SYMBOL of His Body.
    Code: 
      If you take the position that Jesus did not explain the "sword thing", then you just lost one of your main arguments regarding the Eucharist because the "sword thing" would show that there were exceptions.

  You can't have it both ways.
    *]Jesus was preparing His apostles to carry on His message to the rest of the world. Why would He not clarify what He really meant? They showed Him two swords. If that was incorrect, then it would have been clear to Jesus that they did not understand. To ensure that His correct message was passed on to the rest of the world would you expect the “Great Teacher” to explain it to them?

    *]These passages were written many years later after the Holy Spirit had opened the minds of the Apostles to the message of the gospel. When writing down this account, why didn’t they clarify this point ESPECIALLY when they clarified every other point that Jesus had made.
    … I await your reply to these specific questions.
Click to expand...

  1. I’ll defer to those who biblical scholars who wrote the commentary. They know much more about the subject than I do, and (presumably) can read and understand the nuiances in the original greek. Do you read greek, BTW?
 
Um…Jerome didn’t write this commentary. It was written and reviewed by modern scriptural experts.
Click to expand...
I got a news flash for ya – the further you get away from the source, the more likely it is that the message will become distorted. The Apostles lived with Jesus for three years and were personally taught by Him and they understood our Lord to mean physical swords. Even after having their minds opened to the truth by the Holy Spirit, they were still under the impression that Jesus meant actual swords because they did not offer any explanation like was offered in other parts of scripture that was misunderstood by them originally.

Now, who is likely to have a better understanding of what Jesus actually meant? Or, those reading what they wrote centuries later? Sorry but my money is on the Apostles. And if you can explain away the five questions that I asked of you earlier, it may give me something to think about but until then, the ball is in your court.
 
Newbie2 said:
I’ll defer to those who biblical scholars who wrote the commentary. They know much more about the subject than I do, and (presumably) can read and understand the nuiances in the original greek. Do you read greek, BTW?
Click to expand...
Sorry, not good enough and you don’t have to read Greek to see that there are major flaws with your conclusion.

Why would Jesus give a list of physical items (walking stick, sandals, etc.) and include a sword but not really mean a sword? Why didn’t He clarify what He meant when He saw that they thought He was referring to an actual sword especially when He was entrusting them to spread His message to others?

If I want you to deliver an important message and I see that you completely misunderstood it, wouldn’t it be prudent of me to explain it to you? Don’t you think that the “great teacher” would have done like-wise?

Why is it that even after the truth was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles were still under the impression that Jesus meant actual swords? And if they believed differently at that point, why didn’t they write it down. They wrote down all of Christ’s other explanations, why not this one?

And if Christ didn’t mean an actual sword, then what does that passage mean? Sell your coat to buy what if you don’t have it?

If you can’t answer these questions, then there is one answer that makes all of these questions disappear and that is that Jesus was talking about actual swords. Do you agree? If not, I await your answers.
 
Since everyone here has posted what they believe to be proper apostolic teaching and proper Christianity as taught in Scripture, an appeal to the Apostles is senseless. No one questions that we ought to follow the teaching of the apostles and everyone thinks they are. The apostles did not write a catechism or a commentary.
 
Sir_Knight said:
Sorry, not good enough and you don’t have to read Greek to see that there are major flaws with your conclusion.

It ain’t **my **conclusion. I’m ageeing with biblical scholars.

Why would Jesus give a list of physical items (walking stick, sandals, etc.) and include a sword but not really mean a sword? Why didn’t He clarify what He meant when He saw that they thought He was referring to an actual sword especially when He was entrusting them to spread His message to others?

If I want you to deliver an important message and I see that you completely misunderstood it, wouldn’t it be prudent of me to explain it to you? Don’t you think that the “great teacher” would have done like-wise?

Why is it that even after the truth was revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles were still under the impression that Jesus meant actual swords? And if they believed differently at that point, why didn’t they write it down. They wrote down all of Christ’s other explanations, why not this one?

And if Christ didn’t mean an actual sword, then what does that passage mean? Sell your coat to buy what if you don’t have it?

Have you considered that he didn’t mean ***literally ***selling one’s cloak and literally buying a sword?

If you can’t answer these questions, then there is one answer that makes all of these questions disappear and that is that Jesus was talking about actual swords. Do you agree? If not, I await your answers.
Click to expand...
It’s pretty clear I disagree. Hey, how about you finding a specific reference in a biblical commentary from a respected biblical scholar that supports your position? I’d be more inclined to consider something like that.

I also have to agree with pnewton; you are claiming something about the apostle’s understanding of Jesus words, but there is no such documentation. I could claim the opposite, but neither of us would have any support for our conclusions beyond our own opinions.
 
Newbie2 said:
Have you considered that he didn’t mean ***literally ***selling one’s cloak and literally buying a sword?
Click to expand...
I think I am need to start a new thread arguing that wearing a coat is a mortal sin.
 
Newbie2 said:
It’s pretty clear I disagree. Hey, how about you finding a specific reference in a biblical commentary from a respected biblical scholar that supports your position? I’d be more inclined to consider something like that.

I also have to agree with pnewton; you are claiming something about the apostle’s understanding of Jesus words, but there is no such documentation. I could claim the opposite, but neither of us would have any support for our conclusions beyond our own opinions.
Click to expand...
Newbie2 said:
Have you considered that he didn’t mean ***literally ***selling one’s cloak and literally buying a sword?
Click to expand...
Fine. Then what does that passage mean? Why isn’t it explained when all other figurative language used by Jesus is explained? All of the questions which I asked earlier still apply. And they bring up inconsistencies in both the way that Jesus taught and in the way that the Gospels were written. ALL of those inconsistencies disappear if we conclude that Jesus literally meant what He said regarding the sword and the coat.
 
Newbie2 said:
Happy to help out. 😃

A little different direction, perhaps:

I hypothesize that there are 4 types of people.
  1. Those who are completely naive about their surroundings, and complete passivists. They might say, “God will protect me, I need do nothing further”
    IMHO people that think this way tend to become victims of other people. God does not do evil yet he allows the evil doer his freewill just as he allows us our freewill.
  2. Those who are aware that there are dangers and hazards, they do some things to keep out of harms way, but limit the extent what they’ll do to protect themselves. They might say, “I’ll stay away from bad places if I can, but I’d never carry a gun. I’ll call the police if there is a problem”
    Where we live an emergency takes four hours and a non emergency can take days to get the police here.Help being available is not realistic.
  3. Those who are aware of their environment and situation, and that take the steps they feel are appropriate, CCW, martial arts training, etc. They might say, “I trust God, but he expects me to do more than just trust in him”.
    Most of the people I know fall into this catagory.
  4. Those who build bunkers, stockpile weapons and ammunition, join a Militia. They might say, "I live in fear, God will do nothing to protect me, he’s left the preservation of my life completely up to me.
    God provides us with the means to protect ourselves as needed. It is a partnership with God to protect ourselves and those we are responsible for. If by bunker builders you mean those that prepare for emergencies and keep the necessary supplies this I will disagree with you here.
Click to expand...
 
KathleenElsie, with #4 I was sort of referring to the “survivalist extremist” crowd :eek:, not those who merely like to be prepared for an emergency. I agree fully that most folks probably fall under #3.

Good post. 👍
Sir_Knight said:
Fine. Then what does that passage mean? Why isn’t it explained when all other figurative language used by Jesus is explained? All of the questions which I asked earlier still apply. And they bring up inconsistencies in both the way that Jesus taught and in the way that the Gospels were written. ALL of those inconsistencies disappear if we conclude that Jesus literally meant what He said regarding the sword and the coat.
Click to expand...
I agree with the interpretation that I posted earlier from the Jerome commentary. Yes, it’s inconsistant if you believe that Jesus commanded us to carry weapons and yet at the same time love our enemies, isn’t it. 😉
 
Newbie2 said:
I agree with the interpretation that I posted earlier from the Jerome commentary.
Click to expand...
Then you have a lot of unexplained inconsistencies on your hands,
Newbie2 said:
Yes, it’s inconsistant if you believe that Jesus commanded us to carry weapons and yet at the same time love our enemies, isn’t it. 😉
Click to expand...
But there is “a time to love and a time to hate.” – Ecclesiastes 3:8
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top