"Poor Jesus. Everyone takes what he says out of context. What happened to turn the other cheek and all the other many cautions to love your enemies, be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove, and on and on and on. Really!" was Marash Girl's reply email.
Her relatives countered, "Since you do not read the bible, as your 'bible', I would not expect any other thought process from you than the one fed to you as politically correct. If there was anything Jesus the Messiah was not, it was being politically correct."
Marash Girl's daughter Lorig brought the whole question to a close with the following:
"Actually, in Matthew 26: 52-54, before saying "the scriptures must be fullfilled", Jesus says, "Those who live by the sword die by the sword."
"It's also worth noting that the one passage the author of the article was able to find in which Jesus says "bring a sword" appears in the Last Supper story in only one of the Gospels (Luke), whereas the admonishment to Put Peter's sword back appears in three of the four (Mark says it was a by-stander who drew a sword and does not name Peter specifically). One can pick and choose or one can try to understand the complete message.
"We all know the joke about the person looking for guidance who opens the bible and points to a verse and reads "and Judas hung himself" then opens and points to another which reads "go yea and do yea likewise" and concludes that's what he must do. The Bible and Jesus's messages must be read in context. The context is a Jesus who preached peace, forgiveness, building community, risking our lives (not killing others) for the Kingdom of God, and turning the other cheek. It is a message we all need to pray for guidance to fully understand."
There is a difference between arming oneself for murder and arming oneself for self defense.
ReplyDeletethink there may be a difference in the attitude of the person making that choice, Jordan. In fact, in the rest of the quote taken out of context for the article, Jesus says that two swords for the whole group should be enough. But these were swords and we are talking about semi-automatic weapons. Can we agree that semi-automatic weapons need to be controlled? How about grenades? Nuclear weapons? Should we all be allowed to drive tanks in the street?
ReplyDeleteRight now guns are less regulated than any other consumer product in the US. So one can argue that anyone can arm themselves for "self defense". And yet with tens of thousands of guns in the possession of the American public, between 10,000 - 12,000 people are killed a year by guns.
Can we agree that even while people can have guns for self defense and for hunting that we can better regulate these guns and that we can limit the lethality of guns?
Uncle James, to the point in your other e-mail - I don't think the government (police, military, etc) should have the weaponry they have, either. More weapons = more killing. It's what weapons do. The only people benefiting seem to be the weapons manufacturers.