jumpwing

Side note: Cutting off the ear is achieved when the target dodges sideways to avoid the swordstroke aimed at cutting off his HEAD. Peter wasn't screwing around, he meant business.

I like how, once again, Jesus is portrayed in the media as one who taught non-violence at all times and at any cost. As if the Bible fundamentally prohibits a Christian from defending himself with force. (It does not.)

And of course, the story closes out with the "Why doesn't God protect you?" question. At least the pastor had the right idea with his response. Any god who matches the Christian, Jewish, or even Muslim description isn't going to have human values and priorities, nor will its behavior be answerable to human reasoning.

__________________
"The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

PastorPack

Shocking, pastors with guns!

__________________
God is love (1 John 4:8)

ppkheat

Sad state of affairs, but I'm glad they (ministers) are carrying.

__________________
Whatever hits the fan will not be distributed evenly.

gottabkiddin

Good for them, give um hell! Ahh,

__________________
When seconds count, a Cop is only minutes away.

Never hit anyone in anger unless you're sure you can get away with it. "Russell Ziskey"
Glock 36, Kahr CW9, Glock 23, Taurus 24 7 Pro DS, Ruger LCP, S&W 642...ect

chrise2004

It's great that a leader of a church is willing to step up and protect the ones he watches over. It's sad that people would rob a church and then try to swing at a priest but that's the world we live in. Kudos to this priest and other priest/pastors for stepping up.

__________________
Glock 27,Hi-Point .380, S&W 3913

NRA Member/Supporter

"Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." - President Ronald Reagan

Random

You get the same thing with Buddhism - it's not just limited to Christianity.

I think that "non-violence" has been mis-used, however. Jesus and Buddha did not teach PACIFISM, but I think they DID teach "non-violence" - that is, they did not teach that you should not use violence for any reason whatsoever, rather, they taught that violence was to be avoided as much as possible. There is a HUGE difference between those positions.

CJ810

I liked that info about the ear wound being the result of missing on the mortal strike. That's really interesting.

I agree that we have the right, spiritually, to defend ourselves, but what do you make of Jesus's statement in this same situation quoted in Matthew 26:52:
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

lance22

I think all He was saying was that it was His mission to give his life so no sense fighting. He didn't come to start a revolution against Rome or to form an army, His concern was spiritual in nature and his Kingdom spiritual in nature. And yeah, those who would have taken the sword against Rome certainly would have died by the sword, as do those (generally speaking) who go pro with fighting. And, the sword has it's place, of course - rightful use by someone not looking to use it but who can to protect life.

__________________
Get MN specific carry information at http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/

chiefjason

I agree with Lance's take. It speaks to me of the intent of the person with the sword. I don't consider carrying for defense "living by the gun." Being a crook and using it to take advantage of others though, I would consider "living by the gun."

And to the Mega church thing. We are getting close to that size. My church did a second mile giving push 2 weeks ago. When I heard how much was given my immediate thoughts were this.

1. Wow, that's a lot of money.
2. I am glad I now carry to church.
3. It's not if, but when, someone decides that it's too much money to not try and get it.

jumpwing

Jesus was reminding Peter of Jewish laws against aggressive bloodshed. Bear in mind that the men who showed up in the garden of Gethsemane that night were not a random mob bent on attacking Jesus, they were high ranking Roman and Jewish officials who were there to place Him under arrest. Regardless of their intentions, they were following prescribed protocols and a lethal defense was not justified.

Also remember that Jesus was there for the purpose of being arrested, tried, and crucified. Starting a brawl at that point would have been counterproductive and resulted in useless bloodshed.

And yes, "living" by the sword refers to one who makes his living through violence (this does NOT refer to legitimate soldiers, by the way).

The laws he referred to can be found in:

Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed..."
This refers to murderers, not those whose defense ends up being lethal.

Exodus 21:12
"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death."
Continued reading adds context to this. This is one of the laws God gave Moses to put before the Jews regarding intentional killing (murder). The next verse addresses accidental killing.

The distinction is made between intentionally killing someone and an attacker ending up dead because you defended yourself. This lines up nicely with what all of us consider responsible behavior: keep your words and conduct polite; avoid trouble; if confronted make a sincere attempt to defuse the situation, leave if possible, give all parties involved every reasonable chance to walk away peacefully.

There are times when things happen so fast that you've been robbed of the opportunity to defuse or avoid or escape. Any omniscient god will be aware of this contingency; any merciful god will look closer at what was in your heart than at what you did with your hands.

__________________
"The flock sleep peaceably in their pasture at night because Sheepdogs stand ready to do violence on their behalf."