Our houses are protected by the good Lord and a gun...

[Classik]

Christ used a whip and Peter cut off an ear...

Sorry, just saying ;)

.

:D. He used it on objects not on People.

I know you know

 

[Drew]

Drew,
Respectfully, guns are not the problem... People are.

The argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" has all the hallmarks of effective propaganda. It contains an obvious truth - guns in and of themselves can not kill anyone since someone has to pull the trigger. But, like all propaganda, it really does not hold up to careful scrutiny and analysis. And since most people are unwilling to think things through, this kind of slogan is indeed very effective.

The error is thinking that relevant properties of a multi-component "system" - in this case the "system" of "gun+person" -must be separately attributable to one (or more) of the components. But this is obviously not correct in the general case – sometimes a relevant property really only comes into existence when the entire multi-component system is operating as a collective.

Consider two chemicals: A and B. Independently, they are harmless. But when brought together, they produce a violent explosion. The relevant property here is the property of "being dangerous", and it is a property of the system - neither A nor B is dangerous, but the combination of them is.

A good way to look at this is in terms of the concepts of intent, means, and “power to kill”. In order for someone to be killed, intent and means must be effectively brought together, delivering sufficient “power to kill”. You cannot kill with only intent and a means does nothing unless used by an agent with intent. Now clearly a gun is “all means and no intent”. So a gun without a person to pull the trigger is as benign as a flower vase. The gun is the easy part of the equation.

<O:p</O:pNow consider the person with intent to kill. Without a gun, that person is not entirely denied means to kill; he can still kill with his bare hands. Let’s say that, without any “tool”, that a person has a “power to kill” of “X” units. The key point is this: if that person has a gun, his power to kill is clearly much higher, say “Y” (Y>X), even though X is not zero.

In the “no-gun in his pocket” situation, the “power to kill” of our man with intent is X.

In the “gun in his pocket” situation, the”power to kill” of our man with intent is greater (Y).

There is only final element to the argument: the substitution effect. No doubt, the “gun / weapon freedom” advocate will assert that the gun (or the knife) is not the problem precisely because the man with intent will always find some other tool, such as a baseball bat, or a tire iron, to carry out their malicious intent. Well, that is, of course, an assumption.

 

[Classik]

A gun is a powerful symbol of some of the very things Jesus strove to overturn – the exertion of power of one person over another and the destruction of life that is precious to its Creator.

<O:p</O:pWhen we embrace guns, we are effectively saying “no†to the imperative to seek the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com

</st1:PlaceType>kingdom of <st1:PlaceName w:st="on">God</st1:PlaceName></ST1:pl. We are saying that we reserve the right to solve a problem by taking the bloodshed route. Less dramatically perhaps, we are saying that it is OK to buy into the world’s power structures through embracing the very symbol of the use of power to achieve one’s ends. Saying “yes†to guns in the society is effectively a way of saying that Jesus is not yet Lord and that we need hunker down and use the tools of “this evil age†to wait for his return.

The gun is kind of like the cross - they are both powerful symbols of the power to deal death. Ironically, and yet wonderfully, Jesus turned things around and uses the cross to defeat death. When we buy into a culture of having guns, we are, whether we realize it or not, denying the accomplishment of the cross.

When Jesus entered history, He challenged <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> to abandon its ways of “being <st1:country-region w:st="on"><ST1:pIsrael</ST1:p</st1:country-region>â€. Jews were taking one of three wrong paths – the path of withdrawal from the world, the path of compromise with the world, and the path of militant zealotry. By embracing guns as an acceptable element of our world, we are making the same error as the militant zealots – using the power system of the threat of the “sword†to achieve ends.

I fully understand that is an entirely separate question as to whether we can indeed keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But in that case, the best long term kingdom honouring answer is not to arm ourselves, but to figure out ways to get guns out of the hands of everybody.<O:p</O:p

:nod
Good post! Brilliant post! Delicious post! A darling post!
*
*
With the power vested upon me, I award you one of the Medals found in FCB

 

[Drew]

Yes he did Drew, and had you read the rest of that post, I clearly stated that it could not be used as an argument for or against weapons. Clearly, it was a refute to his assertion that neither Jesus nor his disciples used weapons, which clearly is not the case.

I am surprised drew, you are usually a much more careful reader than that.

You're right. I read only the first two lines and drew the wrong conclusion.

I apologize and will ensure that I read the whole post next time.

 

[stovebolts]

:D. He used it on objects not on People.

I know you know

John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

What is clear, is that he drove them out with a whip... They were not sweet talked, or loved out of there. No, they were driven out by a man with a whip and I noticed it was a pretty effective means... Why? Because they were afraid of getting hit with a whip I'd be willing to bet.

And I think this lends itself to the conversation. Can we not have zeal for our own houses and our own family?

 

[Pard]

Since no one wishes to address my scripture in defense of self-defense I'll just assume that they have no rebuttal and thus admitting that their case is severely flawed to the point that it contains clear contradiction by scripture.

 

[stovebolts]

You're right. I read only the first two lines and drew the wrong conclusion.

I apologize and will ensure that I read the whole post next time.

I forgive ya Brother Like I said, it wasn't like you.

I'm sure you'll have a nice reply to the rest of what I've written. Please know that I'm just trying to "keep it real", and hope you know me well enough to understand my tone is not demeaning. :waving

 

[stovebolts]

:nod
Good post! Brilliant post! Delicious post! A darling post!
*
*
With the power vested upon me, I award you one of the Medals found in FCB

My goodness, why don't you two get a room? :toofunny

 

[Drew]

Jesus used the whip because his zeal consumed him... The only way to get them out of the temple, was to drive them out... It's what they understood, just like those who had to be driven out of Egypt...

I disagree with what I think your interpretation of this event is.

Its a long argument to make, but I will simply assert (for the present) that Jesus action in the temple was a carefully contrived symbolic act of judgement against the nation of Israel of his time. And it was also a symbolic way to say that the age of the Law of Moses was coming to an end (the temple was central to the Law of Moses).

I am not sure this is all that relevant anyway to the issue of guns, since it appears that you are not suggesting that this action serves as legitimation for the use of weaponry in self-defence.

 

[Drew]

My goodness, why don't you two get a room? :toofunny

 

[reba]

Christ used a whip and Peter cut off an ear...

Sorry, just saying ;)

But anyway, to try and use those two incidents to justify having a gun to protect yourself would be to completely miss the intent of what the scriptures where the whip and sword are mentioned... It's like me telling you that you can't use musical instruments in your worship because nowhere do you see Jesus or his disciples using them.. The best we have would be after the dinner when they went out and sung a song...

I think it best to always look at the main intent behind a passage, and then build from there.

Some body always wants to bring common sense into a Biblical discussion :eeeekkk

 

[Classik]

John 2:15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

What is clear, is that he drove them out with a whip... They were not sweet talked, or loved out of there. No, they were driven out by a man with a whip and I noticed it was a pretty effective means... Why? Because they were afraid of getting hit with a whip I'd be willing to bet.

And I think this lends itself to the conversation. Can we not have zeal for our own houses and our own family?

I still repeat myself that He did not use it on humans.
Even if He did - he could 'only' (no one else) do - for He is God - and God is always right. But He never did.

Can you try the same?

 

[stovebolts]

I disagree with what I think your interpretation of this event is.

Its a long argument to make, but I will simply assert (for the present) that Jesus action in the temple was a carefully contrived symbolic act of judgement against the nation of Israel of his time. And it was also a symbolic way to say that the age of the Law of Moses was coming to an end (the temple was central to the Law of Moses).

I am not sure this is all that relevant anyway to the issue of guns, since it appears that you are not suggesting that this action serves as legitimation for the use of weaponry in self-defence.

Drew,

Glad you can laugh at my sense of humor lol! Gad, you just never know anymore :o

Anyway, I understand that you see a vast majority of the NT with that particular theological lens aforded by NT Wright, whom I also enjoy, so I won't discount that perspective. However, there is also something there at face value that we can clearly see as well.

Simply put, that message was, "Get out!" and if you wanted to build upon that, you could also say, "This is coming to an end".

 

[stovebolts]

I still repeat myself that He did not use it on humans.
Even if He did - he could 'only' (no one else) do - for He is God - and God is always right. But He never did.

Can you try the same?

According to the text, you can't say that he didn't, and I can't say that he did. To go beyond that is to miss the major jist of the event and create an issue where there is no issue. What we can say, is that he drove them out with a whip, and that's pretty significant.

 

[Classik]

Since no one wishes to address my scripture in defense of self-defense I'll just assume that they have no rebuttal and thus admitting that their case is severely flawed to the point that it contains clear contradiction by scripture.

Please define self-defence. There are two things: voluntary and involuntary ~

 

[Classik]

I disagree with what I think your interpretation of this event is.

Its a long argument to make, but I will simply assert (for the present) that Jesus action in the temple was a carefully contrived symbolic act of judgement against the nation of Israel of his time. And it was also a symbolic way to say that the age of the Law of Moses was coming to an end (the temple was central to the Law of Moses).

I am not sure this is all that relevant anyway to the issue of guns, since it appears that you are not suggesting that this action serves as legitimation for the use of weaponry in self-defence.

yeah! that is exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for that correction and emphasis

 

[Pard]

Please define self-defence. There are two things: voluntary and involuntary ~

Self defense is the action by which a person protects himself from any bodily harm. There is no such thing as "involuntary" self-defense unless of course you mean a "reaction".

For example if you try to punch me you will get hit. I don't even really think about it. It's called karate since the age of 5.

Still waiting to get a response to my scripture. Still assuming no response is coming because no one has one. I am aware that Drew is being a child and will not address me but that is no excuse for not addressing my post as this is MY topic and if he wished to avoid me he ought to avoid MY topics.

 

[Drew]

Since the old "get a sword' passage has come up.....

Some see Jesus instruction to buy a sword (Luke 22) as part of a provisioning activity whereby Jesus is equipping his followers to survive in the world they will face after the cross. That would be a possible interpretation if one stopped reading after Jesus mentions the suggestion to buy a sword. But, if one takes seriously the explanation that follows - about how Jesus and his followers must be seen as transgressors, it becomes clear exactly why Jesus instructs them to buy a sword - Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him.

There is a certain common sense appeal to the “provisioning†argument. One problem is that such an interpretation makes no sense of the limit of two swords. If the issue were really that Jesus is outfitting his disciples with provisions, including swords, then clearly there is no sense in setting a limit of two - presumably each person should have a sword.

The other problem is that the provisioning explanation does not make sense of the connection to being numbered with transgressors (as per above). Jesus follows his instructions to buy a sword with the rather clear implication that the intent of buying the sword is not self-defence, but so that Jesus and his followers will be seen to be transgressors - armed trouble makers. In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor. And Jesus concludes that two swords are suffifcient to achieve this effect.

If Jesus is really simply "provisioning" his followers to be able to survive in the broader world, He gives a very strange follow on explanation - that the group of them are to be seen as transgressors. That makes no sense in such a context. Would you suggest provisions for people "so that they will be seen as transgressors?

The more likely explanation is that Jesus is telling them to get a sword for precisely the reason he immediately gives - that they will been as transgressors.<O:p</O:p

 

[reba]

Classik,

Would take any action if a person broke into your home? Or maybe you came up on a seine where a big guy was beating a kid.. You understand what i am getting to... To what degree would you defend the "defenseless"?

I will so far as to ask do you lock your doors?

I believe most of this topic is a matter of degrees.

I can understand telling a bad guy hey take all the valuables you want. I could not do nothing if they went for my family...

Then comes the point are you willing to pay someone else to protect you and yours (ie) cops?

 

[Classik]

Self defense is the action by which a person protects himself from any bodily harm. There is no such thing as "involuntary" self-defense unless of course you mean a "reaction".

For example if you try to punch me you will get hit. I don't even really think about it. It's called karate since the age of 5.

Still waiting to get a response to my scripture. Still assuming no response is coming because no one has one. I am aware that Drew is being a child and will not address me but that is no excuse for not addressing my post as this is MY topic and if he wished to avoid me he ought to avoid MY topics.

I could not have used the right term here. what happens along your self-defence?
-
-
Some one approaches Pard with a crowbar. He is determined to use it.
And Pard screams and runs. Pard stumble and falls with a heavy thud. The villain raises his weapon and is about to hit Pard.
Pard shouts :shocked and kicks his leg. His leg hits the villain's feet, and he fall and hits his temple on the floor. Villain dies.
Pard rises and screams.


Your action is out of self-defence! You never meant to kill him. It is manslaughter! I call it 'involuntary'
But if you had waited for the man's arrival and had killed him as he approached... It is a voluntary slaughter!

That is the question I was trying to ask,
or do you mean your intention has nothing to do with murder?