Revolvers for Everyone!

[sidbrown]

We all should already know the dangers of sola scriptura here, but aside from that, apparently according to your train of thought, our Lord must have forgotten to make sure they recorded his words about “let your enemies rape and kill your wives and daughters, do not stop them and do not demand they stop”… for starters…

I have given you the direct quotes of Our Divine Lord in both the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke:
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
And in the Gospel of Luke:
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV
This is the word of the Lord.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let’s take the teachings of our Lord and put them in proper perspective, shall we? Because He was constantly watched by the Romans, Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading.

You need to keep in mind a couple of things - one, 2,000 years ago the customs and laws were very different. Two, the middle east was a conquered land, harshly occupied by armed Roman soldiers.

In Roman times, conduct between citizens and conquered peoples was often strictly formalized and controlled in many small ways. As such, a Roman citizen or soldier could chastise a slave or non-citizen, and the slave could not retaliate - that would be mutiny, and punishable by death.

A slave or servant was chastised with a slap on the face with the open hand. This was an insulting blow, delivered to an inferior person or an animal. A non-citizen could be beaten by a citizen as much as desired with the open hand, and had no recourse. Defending themselves would mean death. A blow with the back of the hand or a closed fist, however, was a fighting blow - one delivered between equals, and one to which anyone, even a slave could respond.

Try it with someone. Have a friend pretend to slap you and you immediately step forward offering the other cheek. Look at what will happen based on the positions that both of you are in. Your friend will have three choices: (1) He can take a step back and slap you again with the open hand but that will cause him to lose face because a non-Roman made him back up. (2) He can strike you with the back of the hand but that will be viewed as a challenge to fight because he hit you with his knuckles freeing you to retaliate without fear of being condemned to death for mutiny. (3) Or, he can walk away making his point with only one slap instead of slapping you repeatedly as often happened.

Jesus taught his followers a practical way to avoid being slapped around by the Romans as was frequently the case if you study the history from that area.

Before anyone disagrees with this, I present the following for your consideration. Scripture tells us that Jesus was ALWAYS in PERFECT agreement with His heavenly Father in ALL things. If the Father instructed people to give measure for measure (as in your “eye for an eye” example) and Jesus instructed differently, then He would NOT have been in perfect agreement with His Father, would He?

“Measure for measure” and “turning the other cheek” are two different teachings and are in disagreement with each other UNLESS there is something overlooked in that teaching. What is overlooked is what I presented above.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The same with going an extra mile … Again Jesus was not slow to tackle issues of his time. This incident refers directly to the Roman occupation of Palestine at the time. The Romans when in an occupied country, although renowned for their barbarity, also had a ‘method in their madness’. In order to facilitate the quick movement of troops through occupied territory, a Roman soldier was forbidden to ask a local to carry his pack for more than one mile. The view was that this would not antagonise the locals too much. If caught going beyond a mile (milion = 1,000 paces/app. 1,611 yards), a soldier could be reprimanded, receive a beating and even suffer a reduction in rank and pay. So when a soldier asks a local to carry his pack, he is the one very much in control, in power and the other is powerless. However the situation is reversed if the one who carries the pack insists on carrying it further. The soldier will quickly fear getting into trouble with his superiors if he is caught ‘forcing’ somebody to go two miles. So the “powerless” once more has become powerful.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The same with going an extra mile … Again Jesus was not slow to tackle issues of his time. This incident refers directly to the Roman occupation of Palestine at the time. The Romans when in an occupied country, although renowned for their barbarity, also had a ‘method in their madness’. In order to facilitate the quick movement of troops through occupied territory, a Roman soldier was forbidden to ask a local to carry his pack for more than one mile. The view was that this would not antagonise the locals too much. If caught going beyond a mile (milion = 1,000 paces/app. 1,611 yards), a soldier could be reprimanded, receive a beating and even suffer a reduction in rank and pay. So when a soldier asks a local to carry his pack, he is the one very much in control, in power and the other is powerless. However the situation is reversed if the one who carries the pack insists on carrying it further. The soldier will quickly fear getting into trouble with his superiors if he is caught ‘forcing’ somebody to go two miles. So the “powerless” once more has become powerful.

Well stated!!

 

[neophyte]

This is a premise that I heard and I thought worthy of debate. I tend to lean against it because it sounds absurd.

The premise is that we would have a much safer country and a much more polite society if everyone was required to wear a loaded sidearm at all times.

One side seems to think people are capable of rational behavior and this would help us control ourselves. It would eliminate a number of crimes, particularly those in which a weapon is used as a means of exerting power over others.

The other side seems to think there would be a perpetual bloodbath.

What do you think? Why?

-Tina “Presently Unarmed” G

Provided that “everyone” does not include convicted violent felons or the insane, I certainly agree with the premise. The data overwhelmingly supports it.

 

[chriso]

I have given you the direct quotes of Our Divine Lord in both the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of Luke:
You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
And in the Gospel of Luke:
But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV
This is the word of the Lord.

This is remarkably like trying to carry on a discussion with a protesant. “Oh no, we MUST ALL EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD”… I wonder how you feel about the Holy Eucharist?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well stated!!

Thank you.

This is remarkably like trying to carry on a discussion with a protesant. “Oh no, we MUST ALL EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD”… I wonder how you feel about the Holy Eucharist?

There is nothing wrong with quoting scripture but one must take into consideration the culture to whom it was originally presented and what their beliefs were at the time that this teaching was given. For instance, the part about someone wanting to sue someone for their tunic and giving them your cloak as well.

Remember who Jesus was talking to MOST of the time – to the poor, the marginalised of society. The poor of Palestine in Jesus’ time usually had two articles of clothing, an inner shirt and an outer coat. The situation that Jesus was referring to was that of a Jewish court of law where a richer man reclaims a debt owed by a poor man. It was a common enough occurrence at the time where landless sharecroppers were often driven to destitution by unfair land distribution and Roman taxes.

So when the rich man demands the poor man’s shirt by right of law, and when the poor man gives him not only his shirt but also his coat - what suddenly would the onlooker see - one man made naked by another. In Jewish law, nakedness was sinful - but the sin was considered not upon he or she who was naked but on the beholder. So suddenly, again, the table have been turned on the oppressor and you can quickly imagine the situation in the courtroom would have quickly deteriorated into farce, with the naked man walking outside and a crowd gathering around him and taking his side.

When read from the perspective of those to whom this teaching was originally presented to, it takes on a completely different meaning.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I don;t see where Our Lord commanded us to carry weapons with us to defend ourselves. In fact, He advised us to do just the opposite.

I refer you to Luke 22:36-38 where Our Lord commanded His followers to purchase a sword even if they had to sell their cloak to do it. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equivalent of what a gun is today. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

Let us also not forget that God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23 … clearly showing that being a pacifist was NOT pleasing to God.

 

[sidbrown]

This is remarkably like trying to carry on a discussion with a protesant. “Oh no, we MUST ALL EAT HIS FLESH AND DRINK HIS BLOOD”… I wonder how you feel about the Holy Eucharist?

I beleive that this would take us off the topic of this thread which concerns revolvers for everyone, so I don;t see a need to answer it here.

 

[sidbrown]

I refer you to Luke 22:36-38 where Our Lord commanded His followers to purchase a sword even if they had to sell their cloak to do it. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equivalent of what a gun is today. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

Let us also not forget that God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23 … clearly showing that being a pacifist was NOT pleasing to God.

"The Gospel writers record that Jesus called his followers to a way of life in which violence and division are overcome by sacrificial love. We must not return evil for evil, Jesus taught, but must return good for evil; we must not hate those who wrong us but must love our enemies and give freely to those who hate us. These themes in Jesus’ ministry were deeply rooted in the Hebrew prophetic tradition, and Jesus’ ministry an his sacrificial death were a continuation and a fulfillment of that tradition. Followers of Jesus, Christian pacifists say, must follow both his example and his teachings: they must show love for all in their actions and seek healing and reconciliation in every situation.

The early Christian community understood Jesus’ commands to prohibit the bearing of arms. Christians refused to join the military, even though the Roman army of the period was as much a police force as a conquering army. Those who converted to Christianity while in military service were instructed to refrain from killing, to pray for forgiveness for past acts of violence, and to seek release from their military obligations. A striking example of the pervasiveness of pacifism in the early church is the fact that Tertullian and Origen—church fathers who stood at opposite poles regarding the relation of faith to philosophical reasoning—each wrote a tract supporting Christians’ refusal to join the military."
religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=115

 

[tjm190]

That part about planes depressurizing and people being sucked out? It’s just in the movies. As for someone else getting shot by mistake. I think you would have to look at the greater good. Couple that the measuring stick we all use, intent. Then I’m sure you agree it’s a rational choice to fire upon a terrorist in an airplane. If I were hit by mistake, and survived. I would forgive the shooter. No question.

ATB

I didn’t say people being sucked out, I said depressurizing- a serious problem since we don’t do so well in terms of breathing at high altitudes. The risk of collateral damage is far to large on the plane- even a brief fire fight could see multiple casualties.

 

[tjm190]

This is not true. A group of armed men could hijack a classroom.

That is the most blatant use of taking something out of context I have ever seen. Please learn how to hold a conversation before posting again.

if you were to say “You can’t shoot yourself in the temple and live” and I were to take the “You can’t shoot yourself” part and say “That’s not true, it is very possible to shoot yourself” you’d be in the right to call me a moron.

 

[Sir_Knight]

"The Gospel writers record that Jesus called his followers to a way of life in which violence and division are overcome by sacrificial love. We must not return evil for evil, Jesus taught, but must return good for evil; we must not hate those who wrong us but must love our enemies and give freely to those who hate us. These themes in Jesus’ ministry were deeply rooted in the Hebrew prophetic tradition, and Jesus’ ministry an his sacrificial death were a continuation and a fulfillment of that tradition. Followers of Jesus, Christian pacifists say, must follow both his example and his teachings: they must show love for all in their actions and seek healing and reconciliation in every situation.

The early Christian community understood Jesus’ commands to prohibit the bearing of arms. Christians refused to join the military, even though the Roman army of the period was as much a police force as a conquering army. Those who converted to Christianity while in military service were instructed to refrain from killing, to pray for forgiveness for past acts of violence, and to seek release from their military obligations. A striking example of the pervasiveness of pacifism in the early church is the fact that Tertullian and Origen—church fathers who stood at opposite poles regarding the relation of faith to philosophical reasoning—each wrote a tract supporting Christians’ refusal to join the military."
religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=115

Your opinions and the link that you have offered are in contradiction with OFFICIAL Catholic Church teaching which tells us that we not only have a right, but a DUTY (the CCC goes so far as to say that it is a GRAVE duty) to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm even if we are forced to kill our attacker – we commit no sin because we are duty bound to take greater care of our own lives than that of those who intend to do us harm.

Additionally, Jesus was hardly a pacifist when he made a whip out of chords and bodily through people out of the temple. If it was alright to resort to violence to defend the temple, how can it be wrong to defend our bodies which are temples of the Holy Spirit?

If Jesus wanted His followers to be pacifists, why did His instruct them to purchase a sword even if they had to sell their cloak to do so? A sword has only one purpose – to be used as a weapon. Jesus, a strong supported of the poor, instructed His follower and use the money from the selling of the cloak NOT to tend to the poor but to buy a weapon. If Jesus did not intend the sword to be used, then that would have been a huge waste of money.

Additionally, you failed to address **1 Sam 15:10-23 **where God turned His back on King Saul for being pacifist. May I also remind you that scripture tells us that God does not change from generation to generation. What was displeasing to God once, will always be displeasing to God and that passage shows that failure to take up the sword (resort to violence) to protect oneself, one’s family, one’s community, one’s country, etc.; was displeasing to God.

 

[royal_archer]

I consider this comment to be irrelevant and immaterial to the topic at hand.

But I don’t consider womens rights to be irrelevant or immaterial.

 

[chriso]

I beleive that this would take us off the topic of this thread which concerns revolvers for everyone, so I don;t see a need to answer it here.

Well… I believe its a very similar example, yet one in which you probably dont have the hang up on “precisely what the letters and words spell out”. Because you choose to apply the “literal” translation in the one case, and not the other leads me to believe you will arbitrarily choose like a will o whisp on any given topic.

 

[chriso]

Your opinions and the link that you have offered are in contradiction with OFFICIAL Catholic Church teaching which tells us that we not only have a right, but a DUTY (the CCC goes so far as to say that it is a GRAVE duty) to protect ourselves and our loved ones from harm even if we are forced to kill our attacker – we commit no sin because we are duty bound to take greater care of our own lives than that of those who intend to do us harm.

Additionally, Jesus was hardly a pacifist when he made a whip out of chords and bodily through people out of the temple. If it was alright to resort to violence to defend the temple, how can it be wrong to defend our bodies which are temples of the Holy Spirit?

If Jesus wanted His followers to be pacifists, why did His instruct them to purchase a sword even if they had to sell their cloak to do so? A sword has only one purpose – to be used as a weapon. Jesus, a strong supported of the poor, instructed His follower and use the money from the selling of the cloak NOT to tend to the poor but to buy a weapon. If Jesus did not intend the sword to be used, then that would have been a huge waste of money.

Additionally, you failed to address **1 Sam 15:10-23 **where God turned His back on King Saul for being pacifist. May I also remind you that scripture tells us that God does not change from generation to generation. What was displeasing to God once, will always be displeasing to God and that passage shows that failure to take up the sword (resort to violence) to protect oneself, one’s family, one’s community, one’s country, etc.; was displeasing to God.

How very enilghtening, thanks!

 

[royal_archer]

"The Gospel writers record that Jesus called his followers to a way of life in which violence and division are overcome by sacrificial love. We must not return evil for evil, Jesus taught, but must return good for evil; we must not hate those who wrong us but must love our enemies and give freely to those who hate us. These themes in Jesus’ ministry were deeply rooted in the Hebrew prophetic tradition, and Jesus’ ministry an his sacrificial death were a continuation and a fulfillment of that tradition. Followers of Jesus, Christian pacifists say, must follow both his example and his teachings: they must show love for all in their actions and seek healing and reconciliation in every situation.

The early Christian community understood Jesus’ commands to prohibit the bearing of arms. Christians refused to join the military, even though the Roman army of the period was as much a police force as a conquering army. Those who converted to Christianity while in military service were instructed to refrain from killing, to pray for forgiveness for past acts of violence, and to seek release from their military obligations. A striking example of the pervasiveness of pacifism in the early church is the fact that Tertullian and Origen—church fathers who stood at opposite poles regarding the relation of faith to philosophical reasoning—each wrote a tract supporting Christians’ refusal to join the military."
religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=115

So now you are against the military and police because they are armed? if that is so I would at least commend your consistency. So let’s test that consistency:

If someone took your family hostage and was torchering them would you not want the police involved because the police are armed?

 

[Lycorth]

"The Gospel writers record that Jesus called his followers to a way of life in which violence and division are overcome by sacrificial love. We must not return evil for evil, Jesus taught, but must return good for evil; we must not hate those who wrong us but must love our enemies and give freely to those who hate us. These themes in Jesus’ ministry were deeply rooted in the Hebrew prophetic tradition, and Jesus’ ministry an his sacrificial death were a continuation and a fulfillment of that tradition. Followers of Jesus, Christian pacifists say, must follow both his example and his teachings: they must show love for all in their actions and seek healing and reconciliation in every situation.

The early Christian community understood Jesus’ commands to prohibit the bearing of arms. Christians refused to join the military, even though the Roman army of the period was as much a police force as a conquering army. Those who converted to Christianity while in military service were instructed to refrain from killing, to pray for forgiveness for past acts of violence, and to seek release from their military obligations. A striking example of the pervasiveness of pacifism in the early church is the fact that Tertullian and Origen—church fathers who stood at opposite poles regarding the relation of faith to philosophical reasoning—each wrote a tract supporting Christians’ refusal to join the military."
religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=115

Christians didn’t join the Roman military because the Empire was still an anti-Christian power. It had nothing to do with pacifism.

Sir Knight pointed out truths. Also, the entire history of the Medieval era is one of the rise of the military orders, which were supported by God through the Church. If arms were evil, this would not have happened. Arms and combat are amoral, not immoral.

Also, it is worth noting that Christ never told any Roman soldier He met to give up his military career. If pacifism were a teaching of Christ, He would have done so. He guided His apostles down a pacifistic path knowing that the moment it seemed like this new Christian cult had any armed intentions, Rome would have wiped them out, not merely persecuted them if and when they caught them. It was a tactical decision that allowed the Faith to be kept alive until Constantine.

Pacifism has never been exclusively taught by Christ nor His Church.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

That is the most blatant use of taking something out of context I have ever seen. Please learn how to hold a conversation before posting again.

if you were to say “You can’t shoot yourself in the temple and live” and I were to take the “You can’t shoot yourself” part and say “That’s not true, it is very possible to shoot yourself” you’d be in the right to call me a moron.

Thank you for responding to Sid.

There is a woman who was interviewed [and I will try to find the article]. She had been at Luby’s cafeteria when someone with a gun began firing. She did have a gun and a clear shot … BUT she had made a big mistake: she had left her pistol in her car!!!

By the time she was able to get out to the car, the damage was done. Both her parents had been shot dead. She has regretted deeply ever since that she had not been carrying her pistol with her.

There was a time when people were able to carry their firearms with them but as the liberals have cut back on the rights of the people, the incidences of these people opening fire knowing that they would not be stopped.

In fact, some of my friends used to take guns to school; they had GUN CLUBS in school In NEW YORK CITY!

 

[Sir_Knight]

I remember those days. Not in NYC but I went to a Catholic High School and students regularly walked the hallways with rifles because they were on the shooting team. Nobody had a problem with it and nobody ever got shot. In the words of President Theodore Roosevelt …

http://fud-files.netfirms.com/image/private/misc/AFPQ2.GIF “The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage firearms practice among schoolchildren, and indeed among all, by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace. The first step … in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach our citizens to shoot!”