In The Image Of God.

[Sternhauser]

While the latter images are all horribly blasphemous, I have a sneaking suspicion the first image could actually have been taken directly from some Protestant (or literal "seven-days" Catholic) coloring book.

~Sternhauser

[Maximilianus]

Those images above, not funny.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Maximilianus

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='nunsense' date='09 October 2009 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1255138120' post='1982101']
So then what happened to "turn the other cheek" and "forgive your enemies"?[/quote]

I'm sorry for the delay in responding. I happened to see your post by chance.

What happened to "turn the other cheek?" That obligation ends the second that refusing to escalate a situation in which the worst damage is a slight blow to one's ego turns into a threat against one's life.

From the catechism: "[b]2265 [/b]Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm."

The "common good," of course, is not a distinct entity in itself, but is rather the sumtotal of the good of each individual in society. One's act of defense is made with the intention that the unjust aggressor is rendered incapable of harming any other individual. A "commonality" cannot be a physical victim of a physical act performed against one person, and defense of the physical is the only licit use of physical violence.

[quote name='nunsense']Our Lord didn't fight back - He forgave even those who were crucifying Him.
[/quote]

Our Lord didn't fight back. He didn't get married, either. Is it therefore immoral to get married? Of course not. Jesus could have fought back. He even mentioned the possibility, in Matthew 26:53. "Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?" That's 24,000 angels. Jesus wasn't talking about having them do a pass in review. Christ did not call for those angels because it was his calling to die. It is not necessarily the calling of every individual to die. If you are called to die, then certainly, go willingly and cheerfully.

I do not personally believe it is my God-given calling to have my cranial integrity comprimised by an incoherent, meth-enhanced, screwdriver-wielding street person who decides to kill me even after I've given him the $10 he screamed for.

I'd certainly forgive him for his transgression against me, but I would neutralize the threat he posed, first.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 11, 2009 by Sternhauser

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='11 October 2009 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1255239626' post='1982937']
I'm sorry for the delay in responding. I happened to see your post by chance.

What happened to "turn the other cheek?" That obligation ends the second that refusing to escalate a situation in which the worst damage is a slight blow to one's ego turns into a threat against one's life.

From the catechism: "[b]2265 [/b]Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm."

The "common good," of course, is not a distinct entity in itself, but is rather the sumtotal of the good of each individual in society. One's act of defense is made with the intention that the unjust aggressor is unable to harm any other individuals. A "commonality" cannot be a physical victim of a physical act performed against one person, and defense of the physical is the only licit use of physical violence.



Our Lord didn't fight back. He didn't get married, either. Is it therefore immoral to get married? Of course not. Jesus could have fought back. He even mentioned the possibility, in Matthew 26:53. "Thinkest thou that I cannot ask my Father, and he will give me presently more than twelve legions of angels?" That's 24,000 angels. Jesus wasn't talking about having them do a pass in review. However, Jesus did not call for those angels because it was his calling to die. It is not necessarily the calling of every individual to die. If you are called to die, then certainly, go willingly and cheerfully.

I do not personally believe it is my God-given calling to have my cranial integrity comprimised by an incoherent, meth-enhanced, screwdriver-wielding street person who decides to kill me even after I've given him the $10 he screamed for.

I'd certainly forgive him for his transgression against me, but I would neutralize the threat he posed, first.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I don't buy it completely. You bring in a totally unrelated argument about the Lord not getting married. He also said that there were those who chose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom of God, so chosing celibacy as a way of life is something that He approves of, without condemning the alternative choice of marriage.

You also state that He could have brought down the angels to defend Himself, but the fact is that He didn't - you say because He was destined to die, but the reason He chose to die was to show us how to live - loving our enemies. Just a different take on this I guess.

The catechism you quoted says "[b]2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is [u]responsible for the lives of others[/u]. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm."

Then you talked about being confronted by a meth head with no mention of others being in danger at that time, just yourself. So, is there a non-lethal way of protecting yourself from this person who is not himself at the present time? Wouldn't it be better to save his soul than to kill his body? Of course Jesus would have sent the demons out of him, but since there aren't too many of us who can do this today, maybe we could find other ways to subdue the demons?

I am not saying to offer oneself as a victim to die, but to remember that Jesus was trying to teach us how to live. He could have subdued allt he Romans as well, and liberated Israel - but the fact that He didn't do this is pretty significant. Don't fear those who can kill the body.....

Just my two cents.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='nunsense' date='11 October 2009 - 01:56 AM' timestamp='1255240615' post='1982944']
I don't buy it completely. You bring in a totally unrelated argument about the Lord not getting married. He also said that there were those who chose to be eunuchs for the Kingdom of God, so chosing celibacy as a way of life is something that He approves of, without condemning the alternative choice of marriage.[/quote]

It's entirely as related as saying, "Jesus didn't defend himself. Therefore, you shouldn't." Or are you even saying "you shouldn't?"


[quote]You also state that He could have brought down the angels to defend Himself, but the fact is that He didn't - you say because He was destined to die, but the reason He chose to die was to show us how to live - loving our enemies. Just a different take on this I guess.[/quote]

And he died the same way: loving his enemies. We are all called to love our enemies. But it is not a sin to defend oneself.

[quote]
The catechism you quoted says "[b]2265 [/b]Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is [b][u]responsible for the lives of others[/u]. [/b]The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm." [b]

[/b]Then you talked about being confronted by a meth head with no mention of others being in danger at that time, just yourself. [/quote][b]
[/b]
There are two ways of reading that sentence. You can read it, "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty, but only if you are responsible for others," or you can read it, "Legitimate defense can be a right, but if you are responsible for the lives of others, it can even be a grave duty." I think the latter is what the intent of the sentence was. [b]
[/b]
In any case, for our current purposes, the point is rendered moot by the paragraph preceding the aforementioned:

"2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... [b] [b]Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man,[/b] since one is [b]bound[/b] to take more care of one's own life than of another's.[65]"

I agree that it optimal to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect oneself, and that one should avoid killing someone in self-defense if at all possible.

[quote]So, is there a non-lethal way of protecting yourself from this person who is not himself at the present time? Wouldn't it be better to save his soul than to kill his body? Of course Jesus would have sent the demons out of him, but since there aren't too many of us who can do this today, maybe we could find other ways to subdue the demons?[/quote]

I've seen what pepper spray does to a meth-head. I've seen what an incomplete Taser circuit does to anyone. In both cases, the answer is "nothing." A shot to the cranio-ocular cavity causes an instant cessation of any threat. Center of mass is up there, too. It is unfortunate, but people who are on meth have seemingly super-human abilities, and do not usually succumb to anything but extreme blood loss or a total incapacitation of the brain. So unless you believe it is your calling to be on the receiving end of a phillip's head, I suggest the center-of-mass shot. Because he will outrun you and overpower you.

[quote]I am not saying to offer oneself as a victim to die, but to remember that Jesus was trying to teach us how to live. He could have subdued allt he Romans as well, and liberated Israel - but the fact that He didn't do this is pretty significant. Don't fear those who can kill the body.....[/quote]

Jesus feared his death on the cross. There's nothing wrong with fear. Jesus was saying that your ultimate concern should be for your soul, which is of infinite value. That is not to say that your earthly has no value, and that it must never be defended.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 11, 2009 by Sternhauser

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='11 October 2009 - 05:23 PM' timestamp='1255242217' post='1982961']
It's entirely as related as saying, "Jesus didn't defend himself. Therefore, you shouldn't." Or are you even saying "you shouldn't?"




And he died the same way: loving his enemies. We are all called to love our enemies. But it is not a sin to defend oneself.

[b]
[/b]
There are two ways of reading that sentence. You can read it, "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty, but only if you are responsible for others," or you can read it, "Legitimate defense can be a right, but if you are responsible for the lives of others, it can even be a grave duty." I think the latter is what the intent of the sentence was. [b]
[/b]
In any case, for our current purposes, the point is rendered moot by the paragraph preceding the aforementioned:

"2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.... [b] [b]Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man,[/b] since one is [b]bound[/b] to take more care of one's own life than of another's.[65]"

I agree that it optimal to use the minimum amount of force necessary to protect oneself, and that one should avoid killing someone in self-defense if at all possible.



I've seen what pepper spray does to a meth-head. I've seen what an incomplete Taser circuit does to anyone. In both cases, the answer is "nothing." A shot to the cranio-ocular cavity causes an instant cessation of any threat. Center of mass is up there, too. It is unfortunate, but people who are on meth have seemingly super-human abilities, and do not usually succumb to anything but extreme blood loss or a total incapacitation of the brain. So unless you believe it is your calling to be on the receiving end of a phillip's head, I suggest the center-of-mass shot. Because he will outrun you and overpower you.



Jesus feared his death on the cross. There's nothing wrong with fear. Jesus was saying that your ultimate concern should be for your soul, which is of infinite value. That is not to say that your earthly has no value, and that it must never be defended.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I guess the gospels can always be interpreted in whatever way it suits a person to support their opinion. That is why Protestantism has so many different interpretations.

You believe that a shot to the head is a valid response and is justified as self-defense. I believe that Jesus was trying to teach us to think a little differently than always defending the body. I am not saying that the body has no earthly value and should never be defended - those are your words, not mine. But the good of the soul is infinitely more important, and I would just be careful in how you justify your own aggression through so-called self-defense. "Turn the other cheek" to me is a literal statement, if at all possible. When it is not possible to do this, then we need to consider what other possible alternatives there are. For example, are these meth-heads surrounding you where you live and is it impossible to avoid them or to move elsewhere? I have never met a meth-head with a screwdriver in my life, so? Is there a way that the meth-heads who surround you could be helped, especially when they are not holding a screwdriver? I am just wondering if the first and best response should be to think violently? But I doubt we are going to find a common meeting of the minds here.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 October 2009 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1255224927' post='1982716']
Please. The first one I will discuss in the moment, but it's clear that the rest are forgeries from sometime in the 1800s, or maybe related to early gnostic writing. Not at all reputable.
The first one however, does not disprove my point. Jesus obviously rode raptors because He knew Himself to be far superior to them. It was an act of dominance against Satan's minions.
[/quote]
hehe true enough i suppose


[quote name='Sternhauser' date='10 October 2009 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1255238647' post='1982929']
While the latter images are all horribly blasphemous, I have a sneaking suspicion the first image could actually have been taken directly from some Protestant (or literal "seven-days" Catholic) coloring book.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

blasphemous? i doubt it, its more of a joke than anything. and yeah that first one is actually from a "legitimate" christian colouring book, not fake.


[quote name='Maximilianus' date='10 October 2009 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1255239509' post='1982936']
Those images above, not funny.
[/quote]

cool.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='11 October 2009 - 04:19 AM' timestamp='1255249189' post='1982995']
blasphemous? i doubt it, its more of a joke than anything. and yeah that first one is actually from a "legitimate" christian colouring book, not fake.

[/quote]

[b]"2148 [/b][i]Blasphemy [/i]is directly opposed to the second commandment. It consists in uttering against God- inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God;[b] in failing in respect toward him in one's speech;[/b]in misusing God's name. . . . The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ's Church, the saints, and sacred things."

I think "or in art," could be easily applied to the definition of "blasphemy." Such as the images of Mary or Jesus smeared with elephant dung. Turning an image of Christ on his way to be Crucified or an image of Sacred Heart of Jesus into a being with the head of a dinosaur seems to fail in terms of respect toward the Almighty.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 11, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='nunsense' date='11 October 2009 - 02:45 AM' timestamp='1255243502' post='1982973']
I guess the gospels can always be interpreted in whatever way it suits a person to support their opinion. That is why Protestantism has so many different interpretations.

You believe that a shot to the head is a valid response and is justified as self-defense. I believe that Jesus was trying to teach us to think a little differently than always defending the body. I am not saying that the body has no earthly value and should never be defended - those are your words, not mine. But the good of the soul is infinitely more important,[/quote]

Have I ever denied any of what you just said? Have I said anything contrary to what you said? I am not forcing the aggressor to attack me. Nor am obliged, as it says, to not defend myself. I am not obliged to die in whatever state [i]my[/i] soul is in to accommodate the possibility that the rampaging loon in front of me may one day convert. Given his chemically-enhanced state of mind, it is very likely that he is not even culpable for slaughtering me, beyond having taken the drug in the first place. The point is, if all other means of avoidance and resistance have failed, a head shot [i]is[/i] a valid response and is justified as self-defense. You seem to be saying it is not. Is that the case?

[quote]and I would just be careful in how you justify your own aggression through so-called self-defense.[/quote]

I would be careful about judging the will and intentions of other people. But I like you, because you hate violence, which is a rare quality in this day and age. So don't turn aggressive on me, because I'm not the right target for such statements.

[quote]"Turn the other cheek" to me is a literal statement, if at all possible. When it is not possible to do this, then we need to consider what other possible alternatives there are. For example, are these meth-heads surrounding you where you live and is it impossible to avoid them or to move elsewhere? I have never met a meth-head with a screwdriver in my life, so? Is there a way that the meth-heads who surround you could be helped, especially when they are not holding a screwdriver? I am just wondering if the first and best response should be to think violently? But I doubt we are going to find a common meeting of the minds here.
[/quote]

I do not disagree with any of this. You seem to have pegged me as someone who likes violence. As someone with a case of bloodlust. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who likes violence less than I. I spend much of my time speaking against real lovers of violence. I do love to see things go 'splode, but the [potential] temple of the Holy Spirit is absolutely not one of them.

The most important weapon one has is the mind. Prevention, as you say, is of paramount. The first principle of self-defense is "Don't unnecessarily put yourself in dangerous situations." That tenet comes even before the second: "maintain an awareness of your surroundings." If you can avoid violence, that is optimal. If you can use speech to get yourself out of having to use violence, that is excellent. The less physical you have to be, the better.

Laying down one's life in the hope that the other person one day converts is an example of heroism. It is not required. In fact, as the catechism stated, it can be a [i]duty[/i] to defend yourself. Efficacy is a key component of defending oneself. If one's means are ineffective, one is not defending oneself.

And no, I did not give you the negative vote.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 11, 2009 by Sternhauser

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='11 October 2009 - 04:19 AM' timestamp='1255249189' post='1982995']

blasphemous? i doubt it, its more of a joke than anything. and yeah that first one is actually from a "legitimate" christian colouring book, not fake.

[/quote]

Um, no, it's not. It's a work of art by a guy named Derek Chatwood. It's satire.

[Sternhauser]

"Prevention, as you say, is of paramount."= "Prevention, as you say, is paramount."

~Sternhauser

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='11 October 2009 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1255285359' post='1983147']
Um, no, it's not. It's a work of art by a guy named Derek Chatwood. It's satire.
[/quote]

oh oops. i had seen it a year or two back and remembered the backstory of it as being legit, my bad.