Without fail every-time some one talks on Gun control they bring up the idea that Christ was not a pacifist. How is this possible? Simple they drag out Luke 22:36 where Jesus said to the disciples “if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one” as if Christ was saying to them now is the time for violence (as they entered Jerusalem). This in reality was NOT the case. But Christ did know violence could happen. The passage they are referring to is the one and only one in which Jesus had any use for swords. He was preparing for his entry into Jerusalem for his final act of sacrifice. The important thing here was timing he had to accomplish his sacrifice as told in prophesy. In the verses just before he reminds the disciples of what he said before in Luke 10: 4 “ Do not take a purse or bag or sandals; and do not greet anyone on the road. “ They would have known what he was referring to because the very next verse states 5 “When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ 6 If someone who promotes peace is there, your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you.” Which as you can see was one of the clearest statements of a pacifist position. Sounds like a contradiction doesn’t it but think about the context. The purpose of the swords was to delay the inevitable sacrifice not that they ever be used as offensive weapons. When Peter used one of them offensively Christ rebuked him and healed the soldier that peter had cut off the ear from. Christ intended that the disciples defend themselves from death but not that they cause harm to others (like the soldier in question) a Gun does not have the same defensive capacity bullets do not stop bullets. Some one shoots at you your gun will not stop the bullet, a correctly placed sword will stop another sword. so the argument is weak on two sides first using Luke 22:36 is quoting out of context and second it is comparing apples and oranges. The only offensive weapon Christ advocated was mercy Romans 12:20 ““if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Recently some one posted the following awesome image on Facebook. While I tend to think that Wonder Woman’s costume is highly impractical for crime fighting, for breast feeding it makes perfect sense. That said I often wonder how it stays up while she’s fighting?
The image can be read in many ways all of them good in my books.
1. Women can be mothers and superheros and there is no conflict
2. You don’t have to lose your sense of fun just because you’re a mother
3. Breast feeding is so normal even Wonder Woman does it
4. It is perfectly acceptable to Breast feed in public if you so choose even if you’re Wonder Woman.
All that aside it is an awesome image.
However some Dork posted a comment that read as follows;
XXX wrote – “Breast feeding if a lot like taking a poo….sure its natural, and very nessesary….but I don’t care to see it. Just my opinion.” ((spelling errors included) Name removed as to avoid embarrassing or slandering him)
I was going to respond but thought rather than getting into a battle of wits with someone that was obviously half armed, I would blog this.
Personally I think his comment that breast feeding is “a lot like taking a poo” is as vulgar as his implied opinion that the public need not see it. While I think that there is some sense to throwing a cover over your child while you breast feed to prevent the droolers of the world from ogling you It is your choice as the act is both natural and how you breast feed is your choice to make not mine or anyone elses.
Secondly, This guy is in an industry (owns a piercing and Tattoo parlour) that arguably disfigures the body but like breast feeding is a personal choice. Would he like it if people said that tattoos were unnecessary and unattractive thus as I care not to see them, and no one should have the right to have one?
So Just my opinion but I think his opinion SUCKS.
I have always wanted to use that phrase and now is the most appropriate time. Don Cherry AKA the sports worlds biggest Horse’s behind, has finally said something I agree with
“I don’t believe women should be in the male dressing room,” said Cherry on his weekly Coach’s Corner segment on Hockey Night in Canada. “You want men in the dressing room with women?” asked Cherry.
Just a quick note. Someone found my Blog by Googling “volunteer work waste of time”.
Who ever you are just so you know, the article that drew you here was on the importance of volunteering for the right reason. ( http://billarends.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/10-bad-reasons-to-become-a-volunteer-or-why-selfishness-has-no-place-in-volunteering/)
If you think volunteering is a waste of your time you need to look closely at your values because frankly…. THEY SUCK !
Frustrating Truly Frustrating. Why some people think that anyone over 50 must all be the same, think the same, act the same, and vote the same….. This may be true if you live in a northern Ontario town with a population of under 10,000 or in a Florida Trailer park but not everywhere.
We all create a bubble of reality around ourselves we see the world as we think it is and when we find that there are exceptions to that perception of reality we say “nah couldn’t be”
We think that because all our friends seem to think the same way everyone of our age group thinks that way to.
What am I referring to? There is some truth that the older we get the more we move from a Liberal Ideology to a Conservative one. Why? Very likely because we lose the hopeful and positive idea that man can change. It could also be we become less amenable to change, and a fair bit more grumpy about it all. So with that in mind, I would like to remind the grumpy older crowd that not everyone over 50 is a Freaking Conservative !!! I am getting sick of old buggers on political forums telling me that if I had lived through the Trudeau era I would know how bad the Liberals are.
Well you fellow OLD FARTS I did live through many years of the Trudeau era and still think that Those years politically were superior to the dictatorship of Harper. NOT everyone that lived through the Trudeau era hates Trudeau just the grumpy Conservative types which does not include me and most of my friends. (BTW Some of my Friends come from the West so you can drop that Generalization as well)
Phew Now I Feel Better
Recently a NYC cop was convicted of plotting to kidnap and eat women. Most of the evidence was from a perversion website that allows men to write such evil fantasies. The claim was it was just thought and no intent to act. So the case has driven the perverse out of the woodwork to claim that this is against human rights.
The question is should we allow people to publish erotic and violent fantasies?
In defense of fantasy the owner of the site he published his evil plot on said “ reality is one thing and fantasy is completely a different thing.” I disagree if a person fantasizes about something then that person would enjoy doing that action other wise they would not fantasize about it. While modern society accepts erotic fantasies it should not accept violent fantasies. This feeds the problem and for example while not every person that fantasizes about rape will become a rapist every rapist has fantasized about rape before doing it. Websites like this should be shut down as dangerous if not criminal.
From a faith perspective in Matthew 5:28 Jesus said “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
Am I saying all sexual fantasies are bad No. But feeding the bad ones is really not wise. Thought may not be the crime but the desire to commit the crime is beginning of evil and that is the point where we need to act before the crime is committed not after. Why did I call this article “Drawing the line across where we dare not tread,” simple, once you begin to defend evil because it has done no immediate harm you open the door or cross the line into condoning it. I would be very careful not to cross that line for two reasons 1. Because it will degrade society and 2. Because it says something about you if you can accept people thinking such things.
I had thought about calling this “hic sunt dracones” but the monsters considered here are more dangerous than dragons.