I understand what you’re saying but students have been kicked out of dorms for lesser offences than he reportedly committed (especially the fire). Not that I think being expelled from the dorm would have been the kindest thing that could have happened to him, but surely the threat of that happening might have propelled him to seek treatment.
The one problem with this arguement is that while Jesus spoke in parable to the crowds, scripture tells us that He explained everything in detail when speaking to the twleve and that explaination was recorded in scripture… If the “sword” was not to be taken literally, then the great teacher would have corrected the Apostles when they brought the two swords to Him and explained what He meant. Since no explaination is recorded, their understanding of it being literal swords was correct.
If the bishops disagree with the CCC, which represents the official teaching of the Church, then they are wrong and the CCC tells us that we have a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others from death and serious injury. If limits are place on how we are to do that, then the duty can not be considered “grave” but the CCC tells us that it IS “grave”. Therefore, no limits can be place upon that duty and that extends to the use of firearms for that purpose.
I hope you do take your wife to a range and let her learn about firearms and shooting. My husband and I go about once a week and use various guns to test our skill. It is perfectly safe. As a matter of fact, this club has a very active kids program and the kids participate in shooting matches all over the country. The top shooter in the division is a member of the club and it is a female.
I wonder if someone that mentally ill would ever realize that he needed help.
But those doofus Apostles, who were chosen by Jesus, lived with Jesus, traveled with Him, ate with Him, spoke the same language He spoke, they couldn’t understand what Jesus meant.
That’s what I was thinking it is. The British Crime Survey is a survey that the government sends out to people asking them about how crime has affected them. It’s kind of like a census. That’s different from actual reported crimes to the police.
If you are comparing the British Crime Survey to actual FBI statistics, they are apples and brussel sprouts. One is a compilation of answers to a census-like question and one is real reported crime statistice.
In fact, we have done them. Google names like Lott and Keck.
We’ve sent a survey out to everyone in the nation and asked them about violence? Where can I see the results.
It’s an interesting point, and well worth musing over. It may be worth saying though that Jesus did use analogies, and then explain them when it confused his apostles. He may well not have had time to explain that one fully; it wasn’t exactly a usual night, after all. The NAB footnote on the USCCB website does say explicitly
(emphasis mine)
Vern, I’m quite sure you know the Gospels better than I do. You know as well as I the number of times Jesus berates his apostles for not following what he is talking about. It’s a lot.
Actually, you’re the one saying ‘this means this, and nothing else’. I’m saying there is doubt, and indeed there is much doubt. Biblical commentaries show there is a lot of confusion over what these words are intended to mean, and various interpretations can be put on it. In context of the whole of the rest of the Gospels, where there is doubt I choose the interpretation that I think fits the best, but I freely admit that this is my (reasonably informed) opinion and other interpretations are possible.
So what you are saying that the British people have experienced MORE crime than has been reported to police
Don’t forget that the scriptures were written many years after these events took place. At which point Jesus had opened their minds to His teachings and the Holy Spirit had also decended upon them. Thus, at the time that the scriptures were being written, they had to be in full understanding of Christ’s teachings.
Israeli teachers and any adults working in their schools are trained and armed.
And you know that He** didn’t** berate them this time. Nor did He explain to them that He had some other meaning in mind – which He always did whenever they misunderstood Him.
Kind of like saying, “Black means black, and not white?”
No, there isn’t. There are those who want Jesus to say something other than what He said, and are quite to pretend He meant “white” when He said “black” – but that doesn’t amount to “doubt.”
Riiiight.
So He could have meant what they understood Him to mean? An understanding He didn’t object to, or give an alternate explanation for? The same understanding that they had after Pentecost?