I didn\'t wanna bring it up, BUT...

[vincegamer]

Well, yes, the question is \"what would jesus do\" specifically regarding guns for self-defense.

We can all agree Jesus wouldn\'t have killed for any of the reasons you state, but there appears to be doubt whether Jesus would have killed in self-defense or defense of others.

 

[DaN]

My GOD this is still running

 

[GreenOne]

I can remember, in catho classes way back, a passage about a roman guard trying to push Jusus down a cliff, and passing trough him thus falling to his death... If that\'s the way Jesus defended himself, he wouldn\'t need a gun.

The thing with gun as self defense, I don\'t have any stats, but how often do you think a civilian used a firearm to defend himself against other firearms... more often than there were lost bullets, or impulsive murders ? I doubt that strongly.

@Dan: Yes indeed, you created a MONSTER lol

 

[Mr.S.Marbo]

Originally posted by GreenOne
The thing with gun as self defense, I don\'t have any stats, but how often do you think a civilian used a firearm to defend himself against other firearms... more often than there were lost bullets, or impulsive murders ? I doubt that strongly.

Can I add more fuel on the fire and get this thread onto many more pages? Lol

\"...using a handgun to kill in self-defense is a rare event. Looking at both men and women, over the past 20 years [1978-1998], on average only two percent of the homicides committed with handguns in the United States were deemed justifiable or self-defense homicides by civilians. To put it in perspective, more people are struck by lightning each year than use handguns to kill in self-defense.\"

\"In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun.\"

A US Bureau of Justice Statistics\' National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) found that it was rare for firearms to be used for self defence.

\"The April 1994 Justice Department study Guns and Crime revealed that according to the NCVS only about one percent (62,200) of all victims of violence claimed to have used a firearm of any type ...... to defend themselves. Another 20,300 reported using a firearm to defend their property during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft. (It should be noted however, that all self-defense uses were defined by the survey respondent, and would therefore include all perceived threats as well as legitimate threats.) Also, in these instances it is not known whether the gun was used successfully to stop the crime.\"

http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm

 

[finn17]

The nice thing about these discusions is that I soon forget:

a) what the original point was
b) what point p1ssed me off the most
c) What cutting comeback I was about to make...:innocent:

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by funnymouth
so, why all the talk of the old testament? if were talking christianity, lets talk jesus. i think he was quite clear in his belief that killing people, for revenge, justice, or whatever, was wrong.

Good Question, Jesus said \"If you love my father you will obey his commandments. \" He also said that he did not come to destroy the law. God said \"I change not\". The Old Testament is still applicable to Christians.

 

[supervike]

Originally posted by finn17
The nice thing about these discusions is that I soon forget:

a) what the original point was
b) what point p1ssed me off the most
c) What cutting comeback I was about to make...:innocent:

What I like most about these discussions, is usually the thread turns to boobies, and somebody posts a great picture, filled with them.

 

[darthfoley]

And the occasional giant cock! lol

 

[Infidel Castro]

Originally posted by philologus

Originally posted by funnymouth
so, why all the talk of the old testament? if were talking christianity, lets talk jesus. i think he was quite clear in his belief that killing people, for revenge, justice, or whatever, was wrong.

Good Question, Jesus said \"If you love my father you will obey his commandments. \" He also said that he did not come to destroy the law. God said \"I change not\". The Old Testament is still applicable to Christians.

So when my sister has her period should I put her to the outside of my folk\'s \'camp\' to prevent uncleanliness? And if in ther New Testament lots of animals/meats were made clean in the vision the chap had, would the OT still be applicable? Likely not, as they are contradicting each other at that point. You need to clarify what you mean there.

 

[Modderrhu]

Just an aside, I question that if women should always wear their hair long, always cover their heads and never speak in church, then how applicable is even the New Testament to christians today?

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by reverend

Originally posted by philologus

Originally posted by funnymouth
so, why all the talk of the old testament? if were talking christianity, lets talk jesus. i think he was quite clear in his belief that killing people, for revenge, justice, or whatever, was wrong.

Good Question, Jesus said \"If you love my father you will obey his commandments. \" He also said that he did not come to destroy the law. God said \"I change not\". The Old Testament is still applicable to Christians.

So when my sister has her period should I put her to the outside of my folk\'s \'camp\' to prevent uncleanliness? And if in ther New Testament lots of animals/meats were made clean in the vision the chap had, would the OT still be applicable? Likely not, as they are contradicting each other at that point. You need to clarify what you mean there.

The Old Testament is applicable mostly because Christ himself quoted it in almost everything he said. Direct and indirect quotes of the Old Testament number nearly 4100 occurrences. The confusion some folks have is in not distinguishing what parts of Mosaic law were directed at:
1. People in general
2. The Israelites as a distinct people
3. Law which is clearly embedded in the historical narrative

This stems from a problem I have stated in many previous threads. Many people read a passage or two and accept or reject the entire book on the basis of whether or not they agree with those particular citations. Everyone who picks up a Bible is suddenly a scholar. (Before everyone loses their mind with that previous statement, let me quantify: Everyone should read the Bible if they desire to understand it, if they don\'t want to understand it or have already dismissed it, then it should come as no surprise when Christians ignore their exegesis) Back to my point, most Christian denominations approach the scripture with the intent of wholistic interpretation. The law as presetned in the OT is embedded within the narrative: so, a careful reading reveals that many of the ordinances regarding hygiene stem from either 1. good common-sense practices which still apply today or 2. prohibitions that came from the fact that the Tabernacle was contained within the \"camp\" that Rev mentions. Due to the proximity of this \"portable temple\" certain hygenic ordinances were enacted to prevent defiling sacred ground. Many of the ordinances of the OT were aimed at differentiating the Israelites as a people set-apart (the wearing of tassels on the corners of garments etc.) As non-Jews it is pointless to adopt these practices. As for food ordinances, I know many Christians who adhere to them (myself included, not for spiritual extra-credit, but because they are healthy guidelines even in light of modern dietary information). Many of the statutes of the OT can only be understood in light of the narrative text that explicates them. Christ\'s statement that those that loved His Father would obey His commandments is indicative that He would have ALL come to salvation, but that our spiritual journey doesn\'t end with salvation, it begins there. As the apostle Paul said we should work out our salvation, in an effort to live closer to God we should strive to be holy, those motivated by a closer relationship and study of the text will desire to be more obedient to God in everything that they do.

In short, the laws governing sacrifice are the only ones that I would consider \"abolished\" because Christ became the ultimate sacrifice ending the necessity of the priesthood.

 

[vincegamer]

and yet...

Jesus specifically tossed out the requirement of washing your hands before eating.

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by vincegamer
Jesus specifically tossed out the requirement of washing your hands before eating.

Once again, seeing trees and ignoring the forest. Jesus did not say \"from now on eat without washing your hands\". His comments were a response to the Pharisees who came to question Him. Throughout the gospels, the Pharisees tried to \"catch\" Jesus in slip-ups, they tried to use the Law to invalidate His teachings.

Firstly, the hygenic ordinance to wash hands before eating was (in hindsight) a pretty sound piece of law given by God to His people. We know that this is still pretty good advice to live by (our Moms told us so).

Secondly, Jesus was busy teaching \"a multitude\" as was often the case during His ministry. When food was provided to the multitude the only comment the Pharisees could find to make that day was that the disciples didn\'t wash their hands. Jesus is busy dispensing wisdom and the Pharisees sought to correct him on handwashing. Hence Jesus\' comments on the \"blind guiding the blind\" in the same chapter (Matthew 15). His statement was:

Mat 15:18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man ‘unclean.’

Mat 15:19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.

Mat 15:20 These are what make a man ‘unclean’; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him ‘unclean.’ ”

Jesus\' statement shows that the washing of the hands does not render the person \"clean\" (in this case Jesus is clearly alluding to a person\'s state of spirituality). He did not abolish hand washing (see text above). He merely said that the act didn\'t render a PERSON clean or unclean. This was meant to demonstrate how foolish it was for the Pharisees to ignore the wisdom he was teaching, but focus on the minutiae of the law.

 

[vincegamer]

Originally posted by philologus Secondly, Jesus was busy teaching \"a multitude\" as was often the case during His ministry. When food was provided to the multitude the only comment the Pharisees could find to make that day was that the disciples didn\'t wash their hands. Jesus is busy dispensing wisdom and the Pharisees sought to correct him on handwashing. Hence Jesus\' comments on the \"blind guiding the blind\" in the same chapter (Matthew 15).

Actually, I was referring to Mark 7, which does not mention a multitude, but that is really irrelevant.

What bothers me most about Mark 7 is actually that Jesus responds to the criticism with an ad hominem tu quoque.
They say \"hey, you\'re not following the law because you didn\'t wash your hands\" and Jesus says \"well you aren\'t following the law because you don\'t kill disobedient children.\"

He goes on to say that hand washing is merely a tradition and doesn\'t need to be so strictly followed.

(of course Jesus didn\'t have the benefit of germ theory....)

Oh, and I take humbridge at you saying I wash my hands because my mother told me it was good. I do so because I understand the science and the risks involved.

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by vincegamer

Originally posted by philologus Secondly, Jesus was busy teaching \"a multitude\" as was often the case during His ministry. When food was provided to the multitude the only comment the Pharisees could find to make that day was that the disciples didn\'t wash their hands. Jesus is busy dispensing wisdom and the Pharisees sought to correct him on handwashing. Hence Jesus\' comments on the \"blind guiding the blind\" in the same chapter (Matthew 15).

Actually, I was referring to Mark 7, which does not mention a multitude, but that is really irrelevant.

What bothers me most about Mark 7 is actually that Jesus responds to the criticism with an ad hominem tu quoque.
They say \"hey, you\'re not following the law because you didn\'t wash your hands\" and Jesus says \"well you aren\'t following the law because you don\'t kill disobedient children.\"

He goes on to say that hand washing is merely a tradition and doesn\'t need to be so strictly followed.

(of course Jesus didn\'t have the benefit of germ theory....)

Oh, and I take humbridge at you saying I wash my hands because my mother told me it was good. I do so because I understand the science and the risks involved.

Chapter 7 of Mark is the parallel telling of the event quoted in Matthew 15. (mark 7 does mention the crowds, Jesus went inside to take a break from them and in vs. 14 he calls the crowd closer). In both cases Jesus\' rebuke of the Pharisees had a lot to do with the traditions they attached to the law. The commandment was to wash the hands before eating, the text states that the Pharisees had added traditions and ceremonies of pot and kettle washing etc. The main point was that they attached greater significance to the minutiae of the law rather than the intent. He was not angry because they didn\'t kill disobedient children. The text of Mark 7 makes it clear who Jesus was angry with:


Mark 7:10 For instance, Moses gave you this law from God: `Honor your father and mother,\' and `Anyone who speaks evil of father or mother must be put to death.\'[fn4]
Mark 7:11 But you say it is all right for people to say to their parents, `Sorry, I can\'t help you. For I have vowed to give to God what I could have given to you.\'[fn5]


Moses spoke about disobedient children, here the Pharisees have neglected to care for their parents under the excuse that the money was part of their offering to God and they had none left to support their parents. Here the Pharisees neglected the spirit of the Law while executing its letter.

BTW I\'m pretty sure your Mom knew the science behind the hand washing, as did the Son of God.

 

[vincegamer]

Nothing there about \"taking a break\" but again, that\'s immaterial detail.

I agree that Jesus was trying to teach that spiritual good was a matter of the mind and heart, and not a blind adherence to tradition and law.
I disagree about whether or not this is consistent with old testament teaching.
Of course I am coming from the perspective that Jesus was not omniscient. If you just read the words and don\'t superimpose a knowledge of infectious diseases (and I suspect my mom didn\'t know any science beyond eating dirt can make you sick) then you are left with a world where illness was seen as either evil spirits invading the body or god\'s wrath.
So, in that world, heigene is practiced because it keeps god happy or keeps out the evil spirits.
The likely appearance of bacteria or viri in certain foods doesn\'t change, yet Jesus tells them it\'s okay to eat without washing their hands because eating with dirty hands won\'t make god angry or permit evil spirits into your body.
Thus if they get sick, it had nothing to do with not washing their hands, but was something immoral in their minds.

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by vincegamer
Nothing there about \"taking a break\" but again, that\'s immaterial detail.

I agree that Jesus was trying to teach that spiritual good was a matter of the mind and heart, and not a blind adherence to tradition and law.
I disagree about whether or not this is consistent with old testament teaching.
Of course I am coming from the perspective that Jesus was not omniscient. If you just read the words and don\'t superimpose a knowledge of infectious diseases (and I suspect my mom didn\'t know any science beyond eating dirt can make you sick) then you are left with a world where illness was seen as either evil spirits invading the body or god\'s wrath.
So, in that world, heigene is practiced because it keeps god happy or keeps out the evil spirits.
The likely appearance of bacteria or viri in certain foods doesn\'t change, yet Jesus tells them it\'s okay to eat without washing their hands because eating with dirty hands won\'t make god angry or permit evil spirits into your body.
Thus if they get sick, it had nothing to do with not washing their hands, but was something immoral in their minds.

Here\'s the bit about \"taking a break\" I paraphrased, but getting away from the crowds sounds like taking a break to me.


Mar 7:17 Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowds, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the statement he had made.

As for the other comment: It is very apparent that we are approaching interpretation from two very different viewpoints. It is likewise apparent that I probably won\'t change your beliefs (although I don\'t mind trying), and you won\'t change mine. I was a very staunch atheist for many years and loved to argue with Christians. I said things that, in hindsight, make me cringe. I believe that Jesus was God and is God. I also read the Word constantly in effort to better apply its principles to my life and hopefully to help others. I want you to know that I do enjoy debating about it and welcome the discourse you offer.

 

[vincegamer]

I figure if you didn\'t enjoy it you\'d leave.

Anyway, if Jesus was on a break, why did that discussion with the Pharasees happen before he took that break?

Mark 6 ends with a general comment about crowds forming wherever they went. It doesn\'t say they walked away from a crowd at the end.
Mark 7 then starts with the disciples having lunch and the Pharasees criticising them. Jesus sees this opportunity for a lesson and then goes out and gathers the crowd.

Anyway, this little detail stuff is not very meaningful unless you are a literalist. If you are, how do you reconcile the many inconsistencies?

 

[philologus]

Originally posted by vincegamer
I figure if you didn\'t enjoy it you\'d leave.

Anyway, if Jesus was on a break, why did that discussion with the Pharasees happen before he took that break?

Mark 6 ends with a general comment about crowds forming wherever they went. It doesn\'t say they walked away from a crowd at the end.
Mark 7 then starts with the disciples having lunch and the Pharasees criticising them. Jesus sees this opportunity for a lesson and then goes out and gathers the crowd.

Anyway, this little detail stuff is not very meaningful unless you are a literalist. If you are, how do you reconcile the many inconsistencies?

I am a literalist. After reading through the entire text many times (I start at the beginning and go to the end and then repeat, using Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic dictionaries and languag tools) I still don\'t see any inconsistencies. The gospel accounts, written by four eye-witnesses, are amazingly similar the only differences are in minor words as recorded by each in their own recollection. The striking agreement validates that the events (which are the same in all accounts) occurred. The meaning of the words and the events are congruent.

 

[vincegamer]

First off, just as a minor detail, \"written by\" is not supported by any physical evidence. The dates assigned to the origins of the gospels are all after the reasonable lifetimes of the authors. However, the same can be said of Homer. He certainly is credited with creating the story even if he himself didn\'t write it down. So, we can easily credit mmlj with their books even though in all likelihood they were verbal and later written down by followers.

Okay, that aside, I\'ll just toss out a few biblical contradictions. There are so many I obviously can\'t list them all.
(oh, and of course which books do you consider literal, since different sects of christianity use different books, not to mention the historical changes).

Which came first, the human or the beast?
Genesis 1:25-27
Genesis 2:18-19

Who was Abijam\'s mother?
1 Kings 15:1-2
2 Chronicles 13:1-2

Shoes or no shoes?
Matthew 10:10
Mark 6:8-9

Thaddeus or Judas?
Matthew 10:2-4
Mark 3:16-19
Luke 6:14-16
Acts 1:13

And how do you square inconsistencies with the archeological and historical evidence?
-Jesus was born during Herod\'s reign, but the census took place about 10 years after the death of Herod.
-Archaeological evidence shows that Bethlehem did not exist at the time of Jesus\' birth.

That\'s enough of a start.