Shouldn't that be rather obvious? Everyone knows what happened to the man for not defending himself.
A veritable sheep in the crosshairs..
Posted on 10/26/2017 9:57:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.
This guy doesn’t have a clue of what he’s talking about.
Because they love their country, their God, their Freedom, their friends and most importantly their Families!
The author has the relationship completely backwards. It’s a stupid quip of writing (IMO). But I’ll fancy a response.
The relationship between Guns and God is stigmatized. Because those that are comfortable with both are more traditional in their character and belief and work ethic in general. That is to say, we are the left overs that time forgot in all the best ways. The same group are the volunteers in the community. They are the best neighbors. They are the ones most reliably to stand up for indiscretions against family, friends and neighbors. These are the quiet and humble, hard working, tax paying, freedom loving patriots that still exist in the country. We didn’t change in the last 60 or 70 years, the country did. We are still the ladies and gentlemen of the nation. We stay married and raise good kids.
So I say to the Author, he has picked to POLITICAL aspects of a certain group of people and decided that these define individuals and therefore must be linked. It is merely coincidental that guns and religion are part of the best or our citizenry culture. These are not folks you would expect to see with baggy pants, flat billed hats twerked to the side, with face tattoos. These are not the people you will see wearing vaginas on their heads, burning police cars and looting stores. These are not the people you will see at rallies against cops. And these are not the people you will ever see kneeling during our National Anthem.
In short, this author is confused by a false premise, stigmatized by the left. Go get UNCONFUSED!
What you said, AND he does NOT know his Scripture. No, I didn’t read his rebuttal of the Luke passage. If he came out anything but “sell you cloak and get the best military equivalent of today”; he’s wrong.
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garments, and buy one." - Luke 22:36But if you use google book search [michael brown "Luke 22:35"] you'll find his book did not demonstrate a literal interpetation of "sword" as "specious" but you'll find his demonstration to have completely failed.
"This verse [speaking of Luke 22:36] has no zeolot tendency...Jesus' words about equipping oneself with purse, knapsack, and sword have to to be taken in symbolic sense... This symbolic sense is derived from the reaction he gives to the literal interpretation of his words in v. 38."I'm as far from a biblical expert as a person can be, but I can read the verses and read Brown's arguments."And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough." - Luke 22:38
How is the literal use of "sword" (by both Jesus and his disciples) in v.38 proof that "sword" in v.36 was only used symbolically?
If in v.36 "sword" is symbolic, then why not also the "garments" and then what would it mean to sell symbolic garments to buy symbolic swords?
. To repeat: There is no scriptural (or logical) connection between them.
logical, not scriptural.
Shouldn't that be rather obvious? Everyone knows what happened to the man for not defending himself.
A veritable sheep in the crosshairs..
I am Jewish, and certainly no scholar of Christian theology.
However, much of Christianity’s doctrine obviously comes from its Jewish roots. Thanks, servo1969, for posting that piece from Dennis Prager - I’ve heard it before, and it utterly puts to rest the idea that killing is totally prohibited in the 10 Commandments, and thus by both Judaism and Christianity.
I would like to add to that - specifically, instances in Jewish history where arms were either used or available for use to defend the Jewish People (and of which the writers of the Christian bible were certainly aware), in chronological order:
1. Upon exiting from Egypt during the Exodus. See Exodus 13:18, in which it says: “...and the children of Israel were armed when they went up out of Egypt.” Of course, the Jewish People under Moses, and then Joshua, fought many battles (using those arms) with the heathens in the Sinai, and in and around the Holy Land. http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9874
2. The (non-Biblical) holiday of Purim http://www.chabad.org/holidays/purim/article_cdo/aid/645995/jewish/The-Basic-Purim-Story.htm, the origin of which is the attempt by the Persian Vizier Haman to exterminate the Jews (about 2,500 years ago). As detailed in the Book of Esther, Queen Esther (who was Jewish) was able to convince her husband, the Persian Emperor, to allow the Jews to defend themselves throughout the lands controlled by the Persians. Note that he could not rescind the genocide order that Haman had earlier convinced him to sign - that was a peculiarity of Persian Law - but a new order solved that by allowing the Jews to defend themselves. The (quite obviously armed) Jews killed about 75,000 Persians who wanted to exterminate them. http://www.chabad.org/holidays/purim/article_cdo/aid/1358/jewish/Purim.htm
3. Chanukah - the origins of this (also non-Biblical) holiday were in the Holy Land about 2,180 years ago, when the Syrian-Greek King Antiochus IV had thousands of Jews killed, and forbade the observance of key elements of Judaism. A former priest, Mattityahu, organized resistance to Antiochus, and his son Judah (the famous Judah Maccabee) defeated 3 attacking forces and then re-took Jerusalem and the Temple (the latter of which was reconsecrated with oil that was supposed to last 1 day, but which lasted 8 days - the Miracle of Chanukah). With arms, of course. http://www.chabad.org/holidays/chanukah/article_cdo/aid/102978/jewish/The-Story-of-Chanukah.htm
In any case, this Jew - who had distant relatives murdered in the Holocaust, and others brutally repressed by the Communists in Russia - will ALWAYS have arms and WILL use them to defend himself, his family and his community (meaning not just the local Jewish community, but my nation - THIS nation - which gave my family both refuge and opportunity). Anyone trying to take them will, uh, regret that choice.
I suggest you watch Mel Gibson’s excellent movie “Hacksaw Ridge.
“logical, not scriptural.”
Wrong.
1Ti 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
— Luke 22:36, NIV
They didn't have guns back then.
Jesus became associated with guns when atheists became associated with totalitarianism.
In America Evangelical Christianity and guns go together because that was the brand of Christianity that went into the dangerous area while the mainstream churches stayed home all comfy cozy with their three dollars worth of God.
When you go into a dangerous area, especially when you go with your family, you go armed.
It’s very simple. Our rights, including our right to keep and bear arms, are given to us by God. Read the Declaration of Independence and you’ll see how the Founding Fathers “connected” guns, and every other right to God and Christianity.
Most of the people who hate guns also hate Jesus. That is the only “link” I’ve noticed. But I know a LOT of evangelical Christians who don’t own a gun.
That said, in our small church, someone who decides to come in and shoot up the place is likely to be shot by 6 different people using multiple calibers.
;>)
Very appropriate.
Thanks for posting it.
Judges 3:1-2 Now these are the nations that the Lord left, to test Israel by them, that is, all in Israel who had not experienced all the wars in Canaan. It was only in order that the generations of the people of Israel might know war, to teach war to those who had not known it before.
Ours too, here in Upstate NY.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.