Today's Friday theology takes the form of two questions.
1) Is the question "What would Jesus pack?" heretical? Show your work, and be sure to reference Matthew 5 (those pesky Beatitutdes!).
2) According to your answer to (1), discuss the merits of these Texas pastors' positions on firearms vice those of the Catholic Church in Texas.
MP
3 comments:
1) Colt Single Action Army aka the Peacemaker "for they shall be called the children of God" Not sure if that is heresy though.
2) Not much to discuss. Most people in civilized countries, yes even in the USA, have no need to carry a firearm in public let alone carry one openly.
Now the religious arguments are interesting in that the bible contains a great many contradictions about violence and not just in the old testament either. Objectively though, whatever else he said, Christ went willingly and peacefully to his death. His actions speak for themselves.
Very scary stuff.
The parallels between the American Christian right and the Taliban are quite frightening.
"Is the question "What would Jesus pack?" heretical?"
Not heretical, no; to be heretical it would have to be a departure from established canon. This question doesn't start its journey on the same planet, so can hardly be claimed a departure from such a spot.
I read carefully thorough Mathew 5 (for the first time in many years), and searched in vain for those well-known biblical phrases "get your retaliation in first", and "the only thing that stops a bad man with a slingshot is a good man with a slingshot". Of course your link probably leads to a site that has been censored by the guv'mint, so I should expect no less.
But, seriously, I am a European so you I guess I was always going to come over as a lily-livered, government-oppressed, ISS-loving liberal. I can live and die with that. For me, even the idea that it might be thought appropriate to take a gun anywhere near a church is anathema (not a carelessly chosen word).
Clearly I have a totally different word view from NRA radicals, constitutional-carriers and even quite moderate US gun owners. I have discussed this with US colleagues in the past, but it is a conversation that is doomed to failure because nowhere is there a meeting of minds. The same terms mean different things, or are so laden with sub-text that it amounts to the same thing. One man's means to reduce violent crime ("gun control") in another man's government oppression. Statistics are irrelevant. Cause end effect get confused. Ideals get hijacked and raised to mystical heights.
It does rather seem as if the mantra of unfettered gun ownership has become the rosary of a new religion. If you have faith in "we the people" no reason is necessary; if you have not faith no reason is enough.
But what would I know? I'm too old to be certain of anything.
Post a Comment