(Jerusalem) In a discovery sure to reshape how we view Jesus, NRA archeologists have discovered what they believe to have been a concealed firearm used by Jesus. The primitive gun was made is out of clay and appears to have fired very hard pieces of bread for bullets.
NRA scholars had long suspected that the “rod” of Moses was actually a handgun, but until now no one had actually found a firearm used by a biblical figure. Hugo Grunt, who headed the dig, made the following statement:
“Liberals have long pictured Jesus as a pacifist sissy. We now know the truth. When Jesus said, “turn the other cheek,” he must have meant to fire your rifle with the other arm, which would entail a turning of the cheek. And when he said when he said, “resist not evil” he must have meant “let your gun do that for you.”
The revelation is sure to redefine Christianity as radically as when Republican biblical scholars, defending Reagan’s cuts to school funding, revealed an ancient document showing that that what Jesus actually said was not, “Suffer the little children to come onto me,” but “let the little children suffer, period.”
In a particularly moving moment Professor Grunt wiped a tear from his eye and said, “We are realizing that Jesus was actually just like us at the NRA. It is very likely that the cross itself was not a sign of redemptive suffering, but was actually represented the crosshairs of Jesus’ rifle. From now on, such traditional phrases as “resting in the arms of God” will have a whole new meaning.”
Have you ever argued that the Framers of the Second Amendment could not imagine modern firearms? And so their concept of the right to bear arms is not applicable today? If so, then how can you argue that what Jesus said 2,000 years ago is relevant? You can, of course, and be a hypocrite. Or you can give up the argument about technology. Which will it be?
Great question, Blake. I would say in both cases that the principles hold, but the application of those principles must change with changing situations. A right to defend ourselves with a musket may translate to some weapons, but not necessarily others. The principle behind Jesus taking Peter’s sword may also apply very differently to different situations. For example, I do not consider Christ’s call to nonviolent to mean a life of unthinking pacifism.
As far as hypocricy, that is an impossible trait for we humans to avoid altogether, which is why it is helpful to have respectual challenges like the the one you made. I consider such calls to integrity gifts to humankind. So, thanks.
Here’s a sincere question for you, originally posed to me by a friend who is an Orthodox rabbi.
Is it possible that when Jesus spoke of turning the other cheek, the meaning was, as my rabbi friend supposed it would be, “I’ll let that one slide, but plant one right here and see what happens?” In other words, the idea was not to be totally non-violent but not to respond with knee-jerk violence?
Why is it the 2nd amendment rarely gets quoted with the beginning: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, …” Wait, I think I know the answer.
I think you’re right that the militias were originally assumed to be protecting the state not attacking it.