By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

15 thoughts on “CSGV: Check Thy Bible.”
  1. Dear CSGV: there is a religious and spiritual leader that did respond to persecution in such a way and has two billion followers today. His name is Muhammad the prophet of Allah. Wait, isn’t that the religion of peace?

  2. Actually gotten into that argument w/ anti’s before. They insisted that ‘sword’ didn’t ‘really’ mean sword but ‘the word’. Also that the ‘whip’ wasn’t really a ‘whip’ and that noone was getting hurt.


  3. Original Greek, not Aramaic. But that’s a nit.

    Sometimes the sword is the word of God. And sometimes it’s just a sword. Context, context, context.

  4. Of course, Jesus was a knowledgeable student of the scriptures, even if you don’t accept his divinity, there is no denying the historical Jesus of Nazareth was a expert on the Jewish theology. No doubt, he’d have known, believed, and taught the following: “You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow’s blood. [Do not stand by] watching your fellow’s death, when you are able to save him; for example, if he is drowning in the river or if a wild beast or robbers come upon him.” — Torath Kohanim 19:41; Talmud, Sanhedrin 73a (in an expansion on Leviticus 19:16)

    No to mention in Sanhedrin 72a you’ll find the plainly stated rule, “If someone comes to kill you, kill him first.” Or as paraphrased by the learned rabbi, Mal Reynolds, ‘If someone tries to kill you, you try and kill them right back.’

    Judeo-Christianity has an ethical emphasis on non-aggression _not_ non-violence.

  5. Jesus would carry an Heirloom Colt 1911, with amboyna wood grips from Esmeralda. Only Judas would carry a GLOCK.

  6. “There is nothing inspiring […] about violence.”

    I could name a multi-billion dollar industry in California that says otherwise. If Jesus had responded to critics by killing them where they stood, Christianity would be MORE popular now, not less.

    1. Ehh, arguable, but I do sense a mistranslation therein. A sword is an inherently close-range weapon, hence a pistol. What pistol he would carry is debatable, as he was operating in the times of the Roman Legion, I would expect a gladius would be the preferred sword of the time, so a direct equivalent would be a Beretta 92 or M9A1. Not sure where the Glock 20 came from, that’s kinda left field for the subject IMHO.

      A rifle would be better suited for the long-range work, so I would say that would be a more appropriate modern equivalent for a sling or bow. This being a mideast and Near East thing, I’d probably say Kalashnikov goes the distance in this analogy.

  7. I have given this more thought. A lot of violence including many wars is righteous violence. For example, defeating Nazi Germany and the Axis was laudable. All of the Israeli-Arab wars, too. The Gulf wars to arrest aggression and so on.

    1. There’s an entire branch of Judeo-Christian theology devoted to “just war,” it’s been a hot topic since the Second Century C.E. and it still has modern theologians, ethicists, and military policy makers thinking on it and writing about it. Although probably the biggest names in the field are still St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine of Hippo.

      The Catechism of the Catholic Church has a pretty good breakdown of how the theory works. See the link below. Even if you aren’t a Catholic –or aren’t even religious at all – I think it makes for as sound a moral evaluation of when violence is and is not an appropriate action for a state to take.

      Now, I’m a staunch adherent of the Non-Agression Principle myself in daily life and I feel that the just war doctrine sort of works as a “macro level” version of the non-aggression principle.

      You may or may not agree, but I think it’s worth a read:

Comments are closed.