Ted Cruz And Alyssa Milano Trade Barbs On The Bible And Gun Rights
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 2 months ago
“Can someone cite which passage of the Bible God states it is a god-given right to own a gun?” Milano asked in a tweet, accusing the Texas politician of being “unbelievable and clearly owned by the gun lobby.”
[ … ]
Cruz responded, telling the anti-gun activist, it was an “excellent” question, “worth considering [without] the snark of Twitter,” before citing a few examples from the Bible.
Then Milano said this.
Milano responded early Monday morning, saying she’d “love to come in and meet” Cruz when she is in Washington, D.C. next week.
“We can live-stream the meeting so the American people can hear your bullsh*t 1st hand,” she said, adding she’d like to talk about 1 Peter 4:8, which says: “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.” [Editorial comment: So apparently covering a multitude of sins means allowing criminals to rape, kidnap and kill your family].
I don’t know who this person is. But I want to be part of the live stream, pretty please? I can exegete 1 Peter 4:8 for you instead of engaging in Scripture twisting like you did.
As for proof that Jesus approved of weapons, there are many passages I could cite, but we’ll start with Luke 22:36. As I’ve discussed elsewhere, this was an important order to His disciples.
… for some evidence, see Digest 48.6.1: collecting weapons ‘beyond those customary for hunting or for a journey by land or sea’ is forbidden; 48.6.3.1 forbids a man ‘of full age’ appearing in public with a weapon (telum) (references and translation are from Mommsen 1985). See also Mommsen 1899: 564 n. 2; 657-58 n. 1; and Linderski 2007: 102-103 (though he cites only Mommsen). Other laws from the same context of the Digest sometimes cited in this regard are not as worthwhile for my purposes because they seem to be forbidding the possession of weapons with criminal intent. But for the outright forbidding of being armed while in public in Rome, see Cicero’s letter to his brother relating an incident in Rome in which a man, who is apparently falsely accused of plotting an assassination, is nonetheless arrested merely for having confessed to having been armed with a dagger while in the city: To Atticus, Letter 44 (II.24). See also Cicero, Philippics 5.6 (§17). Finally we may cite a letter that Synesius of Cyrene wrote to his brother, probably sometime around the year 400 ce. The brother had apparently questioned the legality of Synesius having his household produce weapons to defend themselves against marauding bands. Synesius points out that there are no Roman legions anywhere near for protection, but he seems reluctantly to admit that he is engaged in an illegal act (Letter 107; for English trans., see Fitzgerald 1926).
When Jesus told his disciples to go and purchase swords, debating over how many they got, or whether they used them and for what purpose, completely misses the point. The point is that by telling them to do so, the Lord of the universe was ordering them to purchase and bear arms in violation of the law. “This is a fact, and no amount of spiritualizing, Scripture twisting or hermeneutical machinations can get around it.”
Not only did Jesus approve of weaponry, he demanded His people purchase, keep and bear it. I look forward to the invitation to live stream with you, Milano.
On September 3, 2019 at 10:14 pm, Fred said:
“Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” […] “And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.”
What “It” happens to be may not be what we are commonly are told. I’m not an expert but I don’t think that anywhere else does Jesus call multiple things “it” (is enough.) Everywhere He uses they, those, and especially ‘these’ or some other similar.
My sense is that He is not referring to the number of weapons that “is” enough, but He is chastising His men that “it is enough” … that I [Jesus] told you to get weapons to arm yourselves, do as I command and stop wondering what to do or what I said, or how many to get. It is His single command that is enough and this phrase has nothing to do with the number of weapons. Remember, we can’t see faces or body language. Context takes getting to know the speakers through the text.
Also there is logic. How could 11 men use 2 swords when they are about to be broken up and sent their own way? It makes no sense that only 2 of the men need be armed. And which 2? There is no further structure offered to understand why 11 men, not including Jesus need 2 swords. It’s like saying in a room with 11 guys that 2 AR’s leaning against a wall, a few mags, and a can of ammo “It” is enough. Now let’s split up and go separate directions? Um, what?
Also remember that Jesus seems to constantly be having to explain to the disciples what He means and why and still half the time they don’t get it although the not getting it even upon further explanation is usually related to His fulfillment of an OT indicator of His coming but none the less they don’t get much of what He has meant at the first.
I tend to think a close examination of the text reveals that “it is enough.” is about His command and not the number of weapons.
And later He tells, presumably, his disciples, not to live by the sword with the quisling Sanhedrin and a company of what constituted civil police standing right there AFTER Peter having cut off a servants ear. So if they are not to live by the sword, then for what purpose, having already been COMMANDED to get them, would they need swords? Well, go-ol-ly Gommer, um, how about righteous defense at arms, justified defense with a weapon, I’ll take the plain purposes of men of peace, at peace, intending good and full well to stay at peace, by any means; for 1000 Alex? I know, that’s just plain crazy talk. Pfft. And during this encounter why did nobody care that Peter had a sword? I mean nobody, nadda, no arrest, no roman Centurion Po Po, no whining religionist pharisees, nobody snitching him out, nothing. Um, maybe EVERYBODY including God Almighty standing right next to him, knows that Peter’s illegal concealed weapon is justified in the eyes of a thrice Holy God by His natural and revealed Law? Shocking, I know. I’m simply so emotional right now, it’s all so very upsetting knowing that God is Just, and the very terrifying part is, *sniff* that they were all men, and some of them were a man’s man, and not some milquetoast soy latte sipping effeminate sodomite perverts. Somebody hold me!
On September 4, 2019 at 11:23 am, MTHead said:
Commanding that it’s better to be cold and broke. But armed. Than to be defenseless!
On September 4, 2019 at 1:09 pm, Donk said:
@Fred
“Peter’s illegal concealed weapon is justified in the eyes of a thrice Holy God by His natural and revealed Law?”
Been noodling this of late regarding CCWs. If God grants me the right, neh duty – only fear of man would preclude me from “New York Carry” Frankly, due the badged Orcs (to quote Buppert) tendancy to go full rerard, I am not sure I want to be in their database.
On September 4, 2019 at 1:11 pm, Donk said:
Thumb typing, drat
due to
full retard
On September 4, 2019 at 9:11 pm, Michael said:
This is the same vile creature who last week bragged, more or less, about her two abortions and how satisfied she is that the induced deaths of her eldest children did not disrupt her career.