there are some facts dealing with things like thepolice and government.. but they may require their own thread.. it can get pretty detailed...
*******
A lot of people don't know that the US is not a country but is defined as a CORPORATION within it's own documentation... there for..

The duty of the POLICE is not to protect you... but to protect the CORPORATION and to arrrest code breakers
(Sapp v. Tallahasee 348 So. 2nd. 343, Reiff v. City of Phila 477 F.Supp. 1262, Lynch v. NC Dept. of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247)

Also... as a kicker..

The most powerful court in America is not the US Supremem Court it is the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
(42 Pa. C.S.A. 502)

__________________
metta,
Fr. B.

I'm not certain. Here's the quote with some surrounding verses:



So exactly what is he attempting to say here? Obviously it must deal with what he predicts will happen to him, but I don't think it's clear why he tells them to buy a sword if he later tells them not to live by the sword. Maybe he's using it as an analogy to be prepared, but I'm not going to bet the house on it.



Here I think it's quite obvious he is using sword as a metaphor dealing with the fact that belief in him will cause divisions between people, including even in their families.

But notice here in this and your previous post what you are not doing, namely dealing with the verses whereas Jesus says not to life by the sword, to be as harmless as doves, and to turn the other cheek. When Jesus said those things, what is your interpretation of the above? On top of that, if Jesus is to be viewed as the Messiah, what is he to advocate and do according to the Messianic predictions? Doesn't the Tanakh ("O.T.") state that the Messiah is to turn swords into plowshares and the lion to live peacefully with the lamb?

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Even though it is a governmental and societal issue, it also has religious implications. After all, what we do as individuals may well be largely dictated by the moral teachings within our religious traditions. However, since the U.S. is both multi-cultural and multi-religious, I certainly wouldn't expect our government to just reflect the religious morality of one group.

As a Jew, our moral guide is halacha (Jewish Law), which tells us that we may well need to use deadly force to defend the innocent, and I definitely buy into that, albeit reluctantly. To me, the use of deadly force has to be used only at the last resort.

However, when I look at the N.T., the verses I mentioned seemingly goes in a somewhat different direction. But let me propose a possiblilty of what Jesus may well have been saying based on the reaction of his followers and the reaction of the 2nd century church.

We see with Jesus' followers that they accepted not only Jesus' fate, but also their own without responding back with deadly force. With the 2nd century church, we also read from the patriarchs that they did not allow their congregants to join in any military endeavor, and it is not until the end of that century whereas we finally see them allowing some to get involved in policing short of war. However, in my reading of the patriarchs, I see no prohibition against the use of self-defense on a personal or family level. It is possible, however, that there may have been some pronouncements on such that I am simply not aware of.

Another possiblity is that one may view Jesus' statements on peace to be an ideal but not necessarily a binding teaching per se, at least in the short term.

Anyhow, I have more questions than answers.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

I think he is saying both. He is contradicting himself.

__________________
"I fully comprehended the power of the human mind at the exact moment I came to the realization that I'm totally insane and have no idea what I'm talking about."

I live in a rural area of Pennsylvania - Amish country actually. We have no police force. The State Police have repeatedly told us we are too far away for them to respond. We have been instructed (unofficially, of course) to apprehend criminals ourselves and either hold them until someone can eventually come pick them up or take them up north to the City. I do not see how we could do this if we are weaponless.


I agree wholeheartedly. As to the lack of a duty to protect, the JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership) have released a book (<i>Call 911 and Die</i>) showing that every State in the US has court decisions stating that the police have no duty whatsoever to protect anyone, and that it is the ultimate duty of the citizen to fend for him or herself.

That conflicts with part of the basis for our own Constitution whereas it states in the Preamble that it is the government's role to "provide for the general welfare". On top of that, the Bill of Rights has provisions as to what each citizen's rights are vis-a-vis arrests by the government.

In Israel, where I have been twice, there are both soldiers (IDF) and police working hand in hand together and with citizens. Some civilians are allowed to carry arms, depending on their situation and location, but most are not. Nowhere in halacha (Jewish Law) is there any provision that excludes having a police force. Matter of fact, the opposite is true, whereas Torah demands that society protect the welfare of its citizens.

So, the Jewish group you mention above is seemingly way away from the paradigm of the teachings of normative Judaism.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein

Not unless we have a garantee that guns will not get into the hands of criminals. I think there might oughta be more education on learning to use guns and about teaching safety to family members about guns, maybe. But taking guns away from everyone isn't the answer, cause all too often criminals know where to find guns illegally.

I once had a boyfriend who kept guns for his brother-in-law, who bought the guns from people, and took them into pawn--but he didn't own no pawn shop, he worked at a wrecker place and his boss was hardly ever there, so he bought illegal guns, maybe stolen guns! Anyway, my boyfriend pulled one of those rifles on me once and shot it beside my face while we were arguing. He also shot into the home of some ex-friends of his, the bullets flew right over their babies heads. They never knew it was him and he was there listening to them tell of the horible experience...

So no, I don't agree that guns should be controled from regular law abiding citizens, who can even themselves, if they choose to stop being law abiding get guns illegally if they truely wanted to. It doesn't take anyone with the greatest of brains to get guns, or weapons illegally. My boyfriend, whos long since not been my boyfriend any longer but is my oldest daughters dad, was very much mentally retarded, mainly he was mentally retarded because of the way he would do anykinda drug he could find, and he would shoot anything into his arms, even crushed up pills he had no idea were safe to do so. He had mental illness in his family anyway, besides all of the drug use.

__________________
When a man sleeps in his bed, his soul leaves him to soar above, each soul according to its own way.......
The Zohar

Here are 40 reasons for gun control.

__________________
"Esse est percipii."

Without proper training they can easily kill someone. However, drinking, knives, swimming, cars and cooking ranges can kill too, but nobody advocates removing them from the civilian population. Guns are used for self protection, hunting, competing in tournaments, shooting targets and for collecting by individuals and museums. They usually cost between $100-$100,000 a piece. Many respectable people own them. Those who participate in the shooting sports usually spend thousands of dollars a month at the ranges. Without hunters we would have to pay someone to control wildlife populations. Fees from hunting licenses and tax on hunting items fund 90% of the wildlife mgmt dept.

As far as gun control is concerned. I have not met many people who oppose it. I think the question is how much? should the civilian population be disarmed? most gun owners would agree, controls are needed to prevent sales to ex felons, mentally unstable and children etc. The NRA encourages people to take classes to learn how to use a firearm safely. The disagreements arise when people either advocate zero controls or silly legislations that is tantamount to effectively banning firearms. Excluding use in self defense, I doubt legally owned firearms cause more deaths than some of the other activities listed above. So, I dont think the population should be disarmed. Sensible controls, yes.

Thats what I think, anyway.

__________________
UU:
I am a Unitarian Universalist.

J2a1*:
I belong to the J2a1* tribe (haplogroup subclade). The descendants of this tribe form the largest group in the general Jewish population, Samaritan population of Israel and the Bene Israel of India. They are also found among Kurds and other northern populations of the Fertile Crescent, as well as among the coastal populations in Europe along the mediterranean.

Bob, well said and I do agree with you. To me, either extreme is best avoided.

__________________
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."-- Einstein