Matthew 22:21 - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Hindsite
#15001916
Toward the end, Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Today, Jesus would probably tell us to buy a gun. Bless the NRA.
Praise the Lord.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15002928
Hindsite wrote:Toward the end, Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Today, Jesus would probably tell us to buy a gun. Bless the NRA.
Praise the Lord.

Thank God for the NRA. I own 322 guns and am very concerned that some moron idiot liberal scum will take them away from me :lol: .
User avatar
By Suntzu
#15002929
jimjam wrote:Thank God for the NRA. I own 322 guns and am very concerned that some moron idiot liberal scum will take them away from me :lol: .


Wow! You have more guns than I had before the tragic boating accident. 8)
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15002930
Toward the end,


Strange way for a Christian to put things, what with the Resurrection and all, isn't it?


Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36).


Later on in the Passion narrative, Christ condemns St. Peter's unauthorized use of his sword to cut off the ear of Malchus the servant of the High Priest. In other words, weapons are to be used or not used by the command of a higher authority, and only by obedience to that command.

Such unauthorized use shows lack of trust and faith in God.


Today, Jesus would probably tell us to buy a gun.


Another strange way of talking of Jesus Christ for a Christian, as if He were dead still.

And ''probably''? Are you going to make a moral and ethical decision based on a ''probably''?

Again, non-literal interpretations when it suits you, instead of the Scriptural contexts.

Guns are dishonorable cowardly weapons, killing people from long distances in most cases. Only gutless moderns have the gall to celebrate such technological wickedness. God does not have good words for such things.

Edit-And about the ''right to bear arms''? Sure. But note what the Second Amendment says;

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


''Well-Regulated Militia''... That is, under Authority, under the command of others, who are charged with the freedom and security of the State.
By Torus34
#15002932
Hindsite wrote:Toward the end, Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Today, Jesus would probably tell us to buy a gun. Bless the NRA.
Praise the Lord.


Ah! A Bible scholar. You are also familiar, I should think, with Matthew 26:52.

Regards.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15002933
Torus34 wrote:Ah! A Bible scholar. You are also familiar, I should think, with Matthew 26:52.

Regards.


Well said, Torus34. For we have this;

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.


So in context, He does not approve of use of weaponry without command, and states that it is indeed spiritually perilous to do so.
#15002952
annatar1914 wrote:''Well-Regulated Militia''... That is, under Authority, under the command of others, who are charged with the freedom and security of the State.


Actually that was the teleological benefit of the second amendment, but the right to bear arms is said to be a right granted from God, not the state. Hence, its existence as a right exists independent of the state and thus independent of state authorization. That a well-regulated militia would benefit from the enumerating of such a divine-given right is merely acknowledged in the second amendment.

Scripture supports this point as well, the appropriate use of violence in Scripture for capital punishment, war, and self-defense were established in the Holy Law of God prior to the establishment of any state (as we would understand the term).
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15002957
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Actually that was the teleological benefit of the second amendment, but the right to bear arms is said to be a right granted from God, not the state. Hence, its existence as a right exists independent of the state and thus independent of state authorization. That a well-regulated militia would benefit from the enumerating of such a divine-given right is merely acknowledged in the second amendment.

Scripture supports this point as well, the appropriate use of violence in Scripture for capital punishment, war, and self-defense were established in the Holy Law of God prior to the establishment of any state (as we would understand the term).


@Victoribus Spolia

I would not deny a single bit of that-although in the past I might have when I was a virtual clone of Joseph de Maistre-but I wanted to emphasize hierarchy and it's existence being separate from that of the State.

In fact, I'm working on the thesis that the Modern State actually slowly grinds away at the basis for natural hierarchy and really inverts it, in truth.
#15002958
annatar1914 wrote:In fact, I'm working on the thesis that the Modern State actually slowly grinds away at the basis for natural hierarchy and really inverts it, in truth.


Well then, we are agreed.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15002959
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well then, we are agreed.


Took a while, but in essence, yes, coming at it from a more personalistic and civilizational/cultural cycle perspective.

Most political or socio-economic areas of disagreement I might have with you (I am more Monarchial) are rendered somewhat moot because I believe that the coming collapse will result in such an era you describe, whether one disagrees with it or not.

I'm something of a barbaric reactionary at heart anyway, so to the Devil with them I say 8)
By Hindsite
#15003006
annatar1914 wrote:Strange way for a Christian to put things, what with the Resurrection and all, isn't it?

No. I was referring to the end of His ministry, because Jesus had earlier sent His disciple out to evangelize without a purse or sword.

annatar1914 wrote:Later on in the Passion narrative, Christ condemns St. Peter's unauthorized use of his sword to cut off the ear of Malchus the servant of the High Priest. In other words, weapons are to be used or not used by the command of a higher authority, and only by obedience to that command.

Such unauthorized use shows lack of trust and faith in God.

Obviously, Peter knew that the sword was to be used for self defense. Peter did not understand that Jesus intended to sacrifice Himself and did not want to be defended. On the night Jesus was betrayed, He asked His followers to bring swords. They had two, which Jesus claimed was enough (Luke 22:37-39). As Jesus was being arrested, Peter sliced off the ear of one of the servants of the high priest (John 18:10). Jesus healed the man instantly (Luke 22:51) and commanded Peter to put away his weapon (John 18:11). Peter’s ownership of a sword was not condemned, only his particular use of it. Lack of trust and faith in God had nothing to do with it.

annatar1914 wrote:Another strange way of talking of Jesus Christ for a Christian, as if He were dead still.

I don't get why you would think I was referring to Christ being dead. I was referring to the time frame of now verses the first century. Instead of a sword, a gun is the weapon of choice for self-defense today.

annatar1914 wrote:And ''probably''? Are you going to make a moral and ethical decision based on a ''probably''?

I was making a logical and practical decision based on today verses then.

annatar1914 wrote:Again, non-literal interpretations when it suits you, instead of the Scriptural contexts.

We Christians often use teachings from scripture from the past context to show how they may apply to our time. There is nothing unusual about that.

annatar1914 wrote:Guns are dishonorable cowardly weapons, killing people from long distances in most cases. Only gutless moderns have the gall to celebrate such technological wickedness. God does not have good words for such things.

The Old Testament contains many examples of godly men who owned and used weapons, usually in the context of warfare. David killed a giant from a distance with a stone and a sling shot. Today we would use a gun with bullets. I really think you don't know what you are talking about.

jimjam wrote:Thank God for the NRA. I own 322 guns and am very concerned that some moron idiot liberal scum will take them away from me :lol: .

I would be glad to take a couple to help you keep them away from those moron idiot liberals.

Torus34 wrote:Ah! A Bible scholar. You are also familiar, I should think, with Matthew 26:52.

Regards.

MATTHEW 26:52 IS JESUS ADVOCATING PACIFISM? NO

See the following:
https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-so ... _26.52.php

Praise the Lord.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15003015
No. I was referring to the end of His ministry, because Jesus had earlier sent His disciple out to evangelize without a purse or sword.


You weren't clearly referring to anything, but no matter.

Obviously, Peter knew that the sword was to be used for self defense.


Incorrect, he was trying to defend Christ, Who had ordered him to have a sword but obviously did not command him to use it. A man under command waits for orders.

Peter did not understand that Jesus intended to sacrifice Himself and did not want to be defended.


Right, so it was NOT self defense; it was an attempted defense of Christ, without waiting for Him to give the order to use the sword. You are clearly not wanting to allow that bearing arms is a responsibility that is intended to be given under a command structure; ''a well-ordered militia''.


On the night Jesus was betrayed, He asked His followers to bring swords. They had two, which Jesus claimed was enough (Luke 22:37-39). As Jesus was being arrested, Peter sliced off the ear of one of the servants of the high priest (John 18:10). Jesus healed the man instantly (Luke 22:51) and commanded Peter to put away his weapon (John 18:11). Peter’s ownership of a sword was not condemned, only his particular use of it. Lack of trust and faith in God had nothing to do with it.


:eh:

If his ''particular use of it (the sword)'' was condemned by Christ, it is clearly lack of trust and faith in God, for Christ is God. His Disciple did not wait for the command of the Son of God, the King of Israel... That's lack of trust and faith, which St. Peter amply demonstrated moments later by denying he even knew Jesus of Nazareth!

Again, weaponry is to be regulated, and therefore obviously under a ranked chain of command, training, etc...


I don't get why you would think I was referring to Christ being dead. I was referring to the time frame of now verses the first century.


You wrote as a non-Christian would, speaking of Christ. I found it curious and a little weird, but no big deal.


Instead of a sword, a gun is the weapon of choice for self-defense today.


That's not the point, about the 'weapon of choice', but the right reasoning behind using a weapon in the first place.

I was making a logical and practical decision based on today verses then.


No, you were reading into the text your own ideas conditioned by being an American conservative evangelical born in the 20th century, by time and place and cultural upbringing.

We Christians often use teachings from scripture from the past context to show how they may apply to our time. There is nothing unusual about that.


Yes, we do. But what is unusual are the often extravagant and grotesque results coming from private interpretation of Scripture by people who are very far removed from the times and places described in Scripture, and those who also deny the interpretations of Scripture made by known disciples of the Apostles in the decades after 33 AD.


The Old Testament contains many examples of godly men who owned and used weapons, usually in the context of warfare. David killed a giant from a distance with a stone and a sling shot. Today we would use a gun with bullets. I really think you don't know what you are talking about.


I know exactly what i'm talking about. Slings like St. David the Prophet-King used, and Bows and Arrows, Javelins and Spears, etc... Are all ranged weapons, yes, but entirely powered (even if that power is mechanically multiplied) by human muscle and effort, and thus still limited in range.

Modern weaponry is vastly greater in power, range, and velocity via chemical reactions, enabling men to be killed or greatly maimed from tremendous distances and destructive explosive power compared to the weapons of old. There is no honor or heroism in that kind of warfare, no heroes or cowards, only survivors and the dead. It's just butchery from a greater distance in most cases that enables men to psychologically distance themselves from the acts of killing. In fact modern weapons have become so destructively dishonorable, that they contain the destructive potential to destroy the human race or at least send us back to more primitive times...

Still think I don't know what i'm talking about?
By Hindsite
#15003036
annatar1914 wrote:Still think I don't know what i'm talking about?

Yes, when it come to interpreting that scripture.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15003242
Hindsite wrote:Yes, when it come to interpreting that scripture.


I think maybe you should be a little more humble about these kinds of Scriptural questions; I believe that being a ''near genius'' has gone to your head a bit.

You're a bit insecure on PoFo, so you don't admit to being wrong, even when you clearly are.
By Hindsite
#15003263
annatar1914 wrote:I think maybe you should be a little more humble about these kinds of Scriptural questions; I believe that being a ''near genius'' has gone to your head a bit.

You're a bit insecure on PoFo, so you don't admit to being wrong, even when you clearly are.

I am not clearly wrong. I don't have to be a "near Genius" to know that, because it should be common sense. You just refuse to use your common sense to see the truth.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15003265
Hindsite wrote:I am not clearly wrong. I don't have to be a "near Genius" to know that, because it should be common sense. You just refuse to use your common sense to see the truth.

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein.
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15003275
Hindsite wrote:I am not clearly wrong. I don't have to be a "near Genius" to know that, because it should be common sense. You just refuse to use your common sense to see the truth.


I'm sorry, I have tried to reach out to you, but you are too infernally proud and set in your ways. May God have mercy on you. Some people are just too stupid to talk to. I don't say that lightly; ''Ignorance'' is a lack of knowledge and/or wisdom, while ''stupidity'' is a willful desire to not know the truth.

I am the chief of sinners, I thought I could reach you in my pride in my own understanding, without God sowing and reaping where and when He wills.
By Hindsite
#15003282
annatar1914 wrote:I'm sorry, I have tried to reach out to you, but you are too infernally proud and set in your ways. May God have mercy on you. Some people are just too stupid to talk to. I don't say that lightly; ''Ignorance'' is a lack of knowledge and/or wisdom, while ''stupidity'' is a willful desire to not know the truth.

I am the chief of sinners, I thought I could reach you in my pride in my own understanding, without God sowing and reaping where and when He wills.

You are obviously wrong and I hope you will one day see that.

Potemkin wrote:"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein said some interesting things throughout his lifetime.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15003396
:?: …………….. hey Hindsite, dig this, Here's Obese Donald the born again bible thumper consorting with Mr. Bone Saw who, I hear, wants to destroy Christians. :lol:

Image

Image
By Hindsite
#15003491
jimjam wrote::?: …………….. hey Hindsite, dig this, Here's Obese Donald the born again bible thumper consorting with Mr. Bone Saw who, I hear, wants to destroy Christians. :lol:

Image

It is called presidential diplomacy.

IS THERE PRECEDENT FOR TRUMP'S APPROACH TO PRESIDENTIAL DIPLOMACY?
TIZOC CHAVEZJAN 24, 2019

Despite the headlines, Trump's personal meetings with foreign leaders is quite common; it's the way he goes about them that breaks with tradition.

Not until Franklin D. Roosevelt did personal diplomacy become increasingly common in the presidency. Technological advancements in communication and travel, America's rise to global preeminence, the growth of presidential power, and increasing domestic incentives made the practice appear attractive and often necessary to White House occupants.

Professional diplomats are generally better informed than political leaders on international issues. But history provides us with many examples of the value of leader-to-leader diplomacy. Roosevelt's connection with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill played a central role in the Allied victory during World War II. The bond between Jimmy Carter and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was crucial to Egyptian-Israeli peace. And Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev's relationship was key to the end of the Cold War.

Presidents themselves have recognized the importance of leader-to-leader diplomacy. George W. Bush wrote in his memoir: "I placed a high priority on personal diplomacy. Getting to know a fellow world leader's personality, character, and concerns made it easier to find common ground and deal with contentious issues."

One of the most striking things about Trump's personal diplomacy is his praise of dictators. While past American presidents also sought to form personal bonds with unsavory leaders, none so publicly embraced and praised brutal authoritarians such as Kim, Putin, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman as Trump has done.

Trump also differs from past presidents by appearing indifferent to the risks of personal diplomacy. "You have nothing to lose and you have a lot to gain," he said.

Personal diplomacy is a tool presidents use to advance American interests. While disagreement is a natural part of international politics, he often views it as a personal affront. Before he fell in "love" with Kim, he called the North Korean dictator a "madman" and mocked his height and weight.

Trump has even attacked allied leaders. When Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated his country wouldn't be pushed around, the president felt betrayed and lashed out, calling Trudeau "very dishonest and weak."

Leader-to-leader diplomacy is inherently personal. But presidents are best served when they don't take it too personally.
https://psmag.com/news/the-history-of-p ... -diplomacy

No reparations. One note though. We are not ta[…]

I think it should remain an independent nation. I[…]

I think this is one of the best examples yet of ho[…]

But why would a capitalist society value gold ove[…]