DISQUS

Andrew,

I spent more years than I care to mention in Catholic school, with many hours devoted to theology. I encourage you to check your chapter:verse again, because you seem to have made a mistake somewhere along the way.

Above, you have written: “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his house, his possessions are safe.” (Matthew 11:21) (Note, the text later states that a stronger or better armed criminal could overpower a weaker or poorly armed victim, so get a magnum!)" Matthew 11:21 actually says ""Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." As you can see, there is no mention of arms, guards or defense in this verse. Only a warning to repent.

I think you were looking for Luke 11:21. Interestingly, the next verse in Luke is "But when a stronger man than he attacks and defeats him, the stronger man[s] strips off that man’s armor in which he trusted and then divides his plunder." Does the logic follow that the man should "get a Magnum," as you have suggested? No. That is, not if you take the time to read Luke 11:14-23 instead of two sentences out of a larger paragraph. When you put the quote back into context, the reader sees quite clearly that this commentary has nothing to do with legitimizing the defense of one's own home, and instead was a symbolic statement (Jesus used these frequently in the bible) made to a crowd who was accusing him of taking his powers from Satan.

Your quote from Luke 22 is right on, but I encourage you again to not take these quotes out of context. If you read Luke 22: 35-38 instead of just the one sentence, you get a much different idea of what Jesus might have been refering to. "Then Jesus asked his disciples, “When I sent you out without a wallet, traveling bag, or sandals, you didn't lack anything, did you?” They replied, “Nothing at all.” Then he said to them, “But now whoever has a wallet must take it along, and his traveling bag, too. And the one who has no sword must sell his coat and buy one. Because I tell you, what has been written about me must be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the criminals.’ Indeed, what is written about me must be fulfilled.” So they said, “Lord, look! Here are two swords.” He answered them, “Enough of that!”

The commonly accepted interpretation of this passage is that Jesus was trying to warn the disciples about the trouble that they were about to have; specifically, that he would be crucified and their faith would be tested. In the last sentences, when the disciples take what he has said literally, and excitedly produce two swords, well, our historical figure didn't seem so enthused. Later in the same chapter, when Jesus is being taken away, a sword is used to defend him, cutting off the ear of one of the arresting soldiers. Jesus basically tells his disciples to stop the violence, then he heals the man's ear. (Luke 22: 47-53)

You've also quoted Exodus seemingly to allude to what Jesus might have said, or at least to what Christianity might say. Exodus is in the Old Testament, and was written long before the time of Christ. Incidentally, the Old Testament is also a holy book to the Jewish religion. An important note here is that, from the standpoint of the Christian religions, there is a distinct difference between the Old Testament (OT) and the New Testament (NT). The OT involved a "God" of which we should be fearful, while the NT promotes God as a loving, cuddly father figure. (I'm not trying to be offensive, merely trying to be succinct.) The quote you've used is pretty typical of OT wisdom, which also would have us beating our wives and children, and eating a strictly Kosher diet. Jesus typically said things that were radically different from many of the OT pearls of wisdom, and for this reason, it is not a good idea to use a quote from Exodus to in any way make a guess at what Jesus would have said about any subject. In general, the Christian dogma is at odds with much of what is contained in the OT. The same argument holds true for the quote you've used from 1Samuel, also an OT book.

My concern about your use of these "quotes" is that , at best, they are misleading when taken out of context. At worst, they weaken an argument, and suggest a lack of understanding of a major religion on the part of the writer. I do not consider myself a practicing Catholic or even a practicing Christian; I question the existence of a god. The fact that the bible can be considered an historical document is arguable, but it can at the very least be considered a literary work. If you are truly interested in what this major religion has to say on the subject of self-defense, I encourage you to further educate yourself. Focus on things such as the difference between the OT and the NT, and on accepted interpretations of this major literary work. Refrain from taking piecesof it , large or small, out of context, as this is not a good analytical strategy for any researcher.

Finally, if you are not particularly interested in the religion's view of what is an important political issue, don't feel obligated to include it in the discussion. Per fortuna, the US supposedly strives to separate church and state, and it may be important for us to separate the two in our discourse as well.

Thanks for this pick-me-up Andrew. It has been a bummer lately, checking out the news on Rochester from abroad, only to see the same old sad and frustrating situations. It's nice to remember the things I really enjoy about the place where I was raised.