And Jesus rebuked him for it.
Jesus rebuked Peter for hacking off the soldier’s ear, but not for carrying a sword.
Jesus had no objection to packing heat. He merely objected to Peter’s use of force in that particular situation.
We are, mostly.
Some Christians are not white. Some Christians are not Protestant. Some Christians are not even American. (A majority in all three cases, as a matter of fact.)
While I am a Democrat personally, I understand why some Christians would support Bushco. The reason being that some elements on the left have been savagely attacking Christianity for the last few decades.
I agree, I never maintained biblical support for disarming people. However, there is ample support for Jesus’s pacifism, and for his commandment to not resist an evil person. You can pack heat, but you may not use it. Make of that what you will.
Ah. Not gun control. Bullet control.
Well, impulse control, anyway.
Ok, I thought you were saying that one could only support forcible redistribution of wealth by ignoring lots of Jesus’ teaching, and I was wondering which teaching you meant.
But that may be part of the problem. The distinction between what is moral for governments and what is moral for individuals is not unique to Christianity. Most would agree that the state can do things (imprisonment, taxation) that would be wrong if done by an individual. So it makes sense to vote for people who want the government to do things that would be wrong if I did them myself. I can vote for raising taxes, but I can’t take other people’s money at gunpoint, even if I hand it over to the poor.
Perhaps that answers the question of the title. We may have a different understanding of what the role of government officials are, and don’t apply to them the teachings that Jesus intended (we think) to apply to individuals.
Plus we are not supposed to judge others, so we should not be calling people “the devil” or any of that. Certainly not a rule that is obeyed nearly as often as it should, but there you are.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think Jesus cared much if people paid their taxes. His statement was a response to people (Pharisees?) who were trying to trick him into implicating himself with either the secular or religious authorities of the day. Say “you should pay taxes”, and you’re a Rome-lover; say “you shouldn’t pay taxes”, and you’re subject to punishment by the Romans. It’s a lose-lose situation for him.
He turned the question on its side, in effect telling them that their focus on the political situation between the Jews and the Romans was aiming too low. The coin God cares about doesn’t have anyone’s face stamped on it. The most significant part of his statement is not “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, but what follows.
Can I back any of this up? Nope. I’m not a Biblical scholar. It’s entirely possible that I’m wrong.