Did Jesus mean literal swords in Luke 22:35–38?

35 And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” 36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

–Luke 22:35–38, ESV

In the discussion of The future of gun control, Red Pill Latecomer suggested that Jesus was not referring to literal swords in the passage referenced above:

In fact, He said the time will come to sell your cloak and buy a sword.

Jesus did not necessarily mean it in a literal sense. The evidence is that the apostles responded “”See, Lord, here are two swords.” Jesus replied, “That is enough.”

Two swords are not enough for a battle. My Catholic study bible suggests that Jesus’ reply was in the manner of a weary sigh, brushing aside their focus on literal swords.

The most convincing and concise explanation for the verses that I’ve read comes from Pastor Doug Wilson in The Apostle Peter and Open Carry:

I believe that what Jesus is doing here is transparently clear, and it is equally clear that the disciples mistook His point entirely, and He has to tell them to drop it.

Jesus reminds them of the previous times they had been sent out on preaching missions, and how He had sent them out without any reserves, without any ordinary supplies. An example of Him doing this is found in Luke 9:1-6. Jesus is here reversing that pattern, teaching His disciples that this was a temporary measure while He was with them, and that now they must not forget to take their basic supplies. He mentions purse, knapsack, sandals, and swords. He says that the sword is important enough that they should sell their cloak if they need to. Better chilly than dead. This part of it is about their missions in the future (He is not talking about taking wallets, packs, sandals, etc. when they leave in a few minutes for Gethsemane). He is instructing them that they must learn to provide for themselves, unlike what He had told them to do on earlier missions. Things were different now. Among those ordinary provisions were swords for self-defense.

Christ was speaking about being prepared for that bad stretch of road north of Antioch, but the disciples interpreted Him as giving an immediate call to arms, a call to arm themselves against the powers coming against them that very night. This was not what He was talking about at all. Remember that they are going from this room, where they had produced the two swords, straight to the Garden of Gethsemane, where Peter was to use one of those two swords to chop off the ear of Malchus (John 18:10). Jesus, just a matter of hours after this, put the ear back on, and He did not say “Peter, non-violence is the way.” He rebuked Peter for yet again being the Satan that was trying to keep Him from finishing His appointed mission.

Note that this explanation is not a case of cooking up a kooky backstory.  Pastor Wilson is tying in relevant Scripture, not creating a narrative that changes the clear meaning of the text.

Also note that Wilson’s defenders argue that the reason Wilson so regularly substitutes chivalry (the parody of Christianity) for Christianity is because he is not a clear thinker or writer.  Whatever Wilson’s reason is for reliably substituting chivalry for Christianity when the topic is husbands and wives, it cannot be due to a deficiency of intellect or written communication skills.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Guns, Knives, Pastor Doug Wilson. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Did Jesus mean literal swords in Luke 22:35–38?

  1. Caspar Reyes says:

    I had to LOL at the surprise ending to this post.

  2. Minesweeper says:

    Why yes he did, its in the greek as well.

  3. Jacob says:

    Pastor Wilson’s is a strong argument. There’s probably more that can be added to it.

    I posted my thoughts on this question in the previous thread after RPL’s comment, but it’s more appropriate here.

    The reason Jesus’ gave for his Lk 22:37 instructions to equip themselves with swords was this:

    “for what is written must be fulfilled in me: ‘and he will be counted among the outlaws‘”. (Lk 22:37)

    Jesus knew he had to be arrested and killed, like the lowest of the low – an outlaw – for his mission to be fulfilled. His mission was to inaugurate the Kingdom of God in himself.

    There is strong scholarly argument that the swords were so that Jesus and his disciples would be treated as outlaws and be arrested by authorities. Jesus would have understood that a small band of men without swords would not have been enough to ensure an arrest and apprehension. Since Jesus’ mission was to be arrested and apprehended, it makes sense that he would want his diciples to do as much as possible to ensure that nothing would prevent that from happening.

    There’s also strong argument that the swords were for Jesus’ protection as he made his way to the cross, as he did not want to be killed before his time. While both are probably true, Lk 22:37 more strongly supports the former.

    Interestingly, Jesus’ rebuke to his disciples in Lk 22:38 “enough!” was in keeping with his disciples’ tendency to see him as a conquering nationalist hero. His mission was to take the sins of all the world on himself so that all may have access to the kingdom of God. His disciples wanted to treat him like Trump.

    Enough indeed.

  4. Minesweeper says:

    @jacobm please, the God of creation surrendered himself to death. You think he couldn’t have called legions of angels to slaughter everyone who opposed him oh his behalf ?

  5. Dalrock says:

    @Jacob

    Jesus knew he had to be arrested and killed, like the lowest of the low – an outlaw – for his mission to be fulfilled. His mission was to inaugurate the Kingdom of God in himself.

    There is strong scholarly argument that the swords were so that Jesus and his disciples would be treated as outlaws and be arrested by authorities. Jesus would have understood that a small band of men without swords would not have been enough to ensure an arrest and apprehension. Since Jesus’ mission was to be arrested and apprehended, it makes sense that he would want his diciples to do as much as possible to ensure that nothing would prevent that from happening.

    Wilson references this argument in the same post:

    The reference to Is 53:12 is admittedly cryptic, but Mark 15:28Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) applies it to the fact that Jesus was crucified between two thieves, two brigands — two men of the kind that traveling missionaries would have to deal with. Preston’s view, that they needed a couple of swords in their midst to make it plausible to the Romans that they were dealing with revolutionaries seems to me to miss entirely — no reference to the swords or to Peter’s assault on Malchus was made during any of the trials Christ went through.

    Moreover, Wilson’s explanation fits the larger passage much better. Would sandals, backpacks, and moneybags help ensure that Christ was seen as a threat, and therefore crucified?

  6. Minesweeper says:

    “Jesus, just a matter of hours after this, put the ear back on, and He did not say “Peter, non-violence is the way.” ”

    This is a total lie Does it say anywhere time passed ? Or was the ear put back on ?

    Jesus touched his ear and it was healed. We have no idea if a new one grew or the original was reconnected.

  7. Warthog says:

    So, @Dalrock, the one time you agree with Wilson, you turn it into proof that he is too smart to be stupid, therefore he must be diabolical on the point where you disagree with him vis a vis chivalry.

    I would look at it differently.

    I’ve noticed that people tend to be born with presuppositions like a dog on a chain. The dogs chases the car until suddenly his chain jerks him to a stop. Wilson was raised with thr chivalry presupposition. He has moved a long way in your direction, but like Tim Bayly, his presuppositional chain prevents him from going as far as logic would require.

    And beyond this general observation I have personal knowledge that Wilson has a couple of other similar presuppositions that keep him from going as far as should.

    Rather than hating him for it, I wonder what my presuppositional chain is.

  8. vfm7916 says:

    Wilson does not cuck on the weapons issue because it’s not needful. He’s achieving the same goal far more effectively with complementarianism. There’s far more resistance to gun control than there is resistance to feminism in Churchianity, and you can’t leverage guilt for owning a gun like you can leverage guilt for female unhappiness.

    This is also effective for women, in that emphasizing their power over men blinds them to the reality that physical conflict with men by women is a total loss for a woman in any country other than the United States or Canada (or other Duluth adopting nations).

    Complementarianism. It’s super effective!

  9. Jacob says:

    Would sandals, backpacks, and moneybags help ensure that Christ was seen as a threat, and therefore crucified?

    Fair point. I would argue that Jesus’ attendance to the group’s practical travelling needs showed his practical love for them, as well as to make sure of their arrival at their destination. Can there be both a practical and teaching purpose to the prescribed travel kit?

    @Minesweeper

    I’m sure the Heavenly Host could make sinners disappear in an instant too. As with most things Jesus did in his ministry, there was a teaching purpose (repentance) as well as divine function (healing, casting out demons, salvation etc), in order that people could know what God wanted from them as well as see what He was doing. Fair point?

  10. white says:

    @warthog

    An intellectually honest pastor will not deliberately obfuscate his points and misrepresent his opponents whenever a certain topic is discussed. Quite clearly he is capable of proper discourse.

  11. thedeti says:

    Warthog:

    That’s not what I get from Dalrock’s summary.

    My immediate takeaway is how utterly interesting and fascinating it is that one can get sound theology/doctrine from Wilson and others, unless the topic is women, sexual conduct, gender identity, or homosexuality. When one of those four topics is discussed, Wilson and others like him contort, distort and gyrate until they find something palatable to everyone.

  12. thedeti says:

    And, guys, we all know why you can’t get sound doctrine on those four topics.

    Because what scripture, tradition, reason, the long arc of human experience, Church fathers, Catholic/Orthodox writings that set out the official position of the church, etc., all say about these topics does not at all fit into a post modern, post-Christian society. It’s “mean” and “mean-spirited” and “not nice” and “sexist” and “homophobic”.

    We are depriving women of equality, homosexuals of full communion with the church, and everyone of “fulfilling” and “meaningful” sex lives.

    We are telling nonvirgin women that they’ve made it much harder to pair bond, and that’s “not nice” and “mean” and “hurtful” and “sexist”.

    We are telling divorced people, especially divorced women, that ending their marriages with legal divorce does not comport with Scripture, that they’re still married to their first spouses as long as that spouse lives, that they’re not free to remarry, that any remarriage is bigamy and that any sex they have with others is adultery. And that’s mean and hurtful and unfair because we are consigning divorced people to no sex and no remarriage for the rest of their lives or their ex-spouse’s lives, if we observe Scripture and pre-sex-rev church teachings.

    So, all those church teachings had to go. And if you don’t get rid of those teachings we don’t like, we are going to leave. We will take our tithe money and our volunteer time with us. Or we’ll form our own churches and just make up doctrines we like (Protestants). Or, we will stay, but we will simply ignore the teachings we don’t like and just do what we want anyway. We’ll go ahead and have premarital sex, use artificial birth control, get abortions if we really need them, and divorce and remarry. The priests will look the other way. They always do. (American Catholics).

  13. Novaseeker says:

    So, all those church teachings had to go. And if you don’t get rid of those teachings we don’t like, we are going to leave. We will take our tithe money and our volunteer time with us. Or we’ll form our own churches and just make up doctrines we like (Protestants). Or, we will stay, but we will simply ignore the teachings we don’t like and just do what we want anyway. We’ll go ahead and have premarital sex, use artificial birth control, get abortions if we really need them, and divorce and remarry. The priests will look the other way. They always do. (American Catholics).

    Yep. In the Catholic case it’s pretty much a case of “don’t ask/don’t tell”, because the parishes are so large now that the priests really don’t know most of the parishioners or other attendees at Mass. On any typical Sunday you will have gays, cohabiting fornicators, remarried outside the church Catholics, and non-Catholics (I’m sure even some non-baptized people) receiving the Eucharist — there is no “enforcement of the rules” because due to the volume of people there can’t be — the priest doesn’t know everyone in his parish, not even close. So it’s an honor system. And people tend to abuse the heck out of honor systems, as anyone who has experienced them knows full well.

    The Orthodox Church is different in that it is small and the priest knows everyone, as a rule, so the way this particular little apostasy plays itself out is different. People who are interested in being tolerant of these things tend to find their way into parishes with priests who are “known”, back channel wise, as being tolerant of these things, and everything is done very quietly and without fanfare, such that a visitor would never be the wiser, and no teachings change, no outward advocacy is going on (no pride flags or organizing groups for pride parades and so on), but the apostasy is taking place quietly, and with the connivance of “supportive” parishioners who have self-selected for that parish based on what they knew about the priest’s approach.

  14. Anon says:

    Rarely do we see a more perfect news story for Dalrock :

    Candace Bushnell, creator of ‘Sex and the City’, now 60, regrets putting career ahead of having children.

    This is a stunning admission, since her career is a Top-0.01% success (she is wealthy and famous, and legitimately self-made, unlike most female businesswomen). Plus, this will get her completely attacked by ‘feminists’ who might have been her allies in the past, making it costly to even express such an opinion.

    I wonder if she will lose sponsors and other business prospects because of this.

  15. Anon says:

    I should add that the typical female Writer(tm) that lives in NYC is striving for the 1 in a million success that Candace Bushnell achieved. When even the most successful of this subculture regrets it, what happens to those who never manage to earn over $50K/yr, and never get noticed?

    Candace Bushnell’s net worth is only $40M due to extremely high discretionary expenditures. Slightly more frugality might have enabled a net worth of $80M, even alongside a lifestyle most of us would consider fantastic. The typical Writer(tm) has no chance.

  16. The Question says:

    If they interpreted that verse the way they did the verses regarding biblical headship, they would do so as follows:

    Jesus: Sell your cloak and buy a sword.
    Churchian: Guys, clearly Jesus meant you shouldn’t have weapons in your house, and if you disagree with my interpretation you just want to be violent.

  17. Lost Patrol says:

    Deti

    My immediate takeaway is how utterly interesting and fascinating it is that one can get sound theology/doctrine from Wilson and others, unless the topic is women, sexual conduct, gender identity, or homosexuality.

    This is where I have arrived as well. Not too long ago it was anything impinging women’s liberation that had to be worked around or ignored and would be. Now the list is expanding as you say.

    In an earlier thread Novaseeker captured the idea as I have seen it manifested.

    “I think there are a good number of people in the pews on any given Sunday who are one life crisis away from walking away from the church to be honest — they have already walked away on so many other issues while technically remaining there, that it’s really one crisis that could push them away completely.”

    The idea of walking away on individual issues while technically remaining there is what is keeping many churches afloat. The priests and the pastors know this, and the congregants do as well. They often know one another’s personal stories to some extent and can see plainly where people draw their lines. And the lines move as families experience different life changes amongst the members. One is now OK with son or daughter cohabiting though they were opposed before it happened. Another is OK with lesbian daughter and her wife though they were against it before it happened in their own family. Daughter gets piercings, purple hair, and tats; and tradcon Dad is good with it now but he wasn’t until it was an inescapable fact. Etc.

    Everything is malleable now.

    Where things become for me quite complex is that these very same people can be seen regularly doing extensive good works in the name of the kingdom of God. Unstinting good works that are costing them time, money, and effort; often with no tangible reward or maybe even a thank you. Yet they persevere in this (piercing-hair-tat daughter is one of these people).

    They will not challenge the things you mentioned or take a stand on any of it, unless it is to become ever more accepting of the cultural realities on the ground. But they also do not cease to do the things that mark a true Christian spirit. They will not hold the line and yet they do not quit holding the line.

    I’m no longer sure what I’m seeing.

  18. There but for the grace of God.

    We ought to all be giving thanks.

  19. wodansthane says:

    Then, as now, times were interesting and dangerous. Sell your cloak to own firearms, make plans with other Christian men, face-to-face, nothing written. We’ll soon be outlaws again.

  20. Red Pill Christianity says:

    Yes, Jesus meant two literal, physical swords, made of metal, sharp, used to cut. They would not be full-size swords longer than Roman gladius sword (since they were banned for civilian ownership within the Roman colonies/provinces to prevent insurrection), but they were physical, metal swords, with sharp blades. That is why Jesus continues and saying to the Apostles that before, I sent you barehanded, but from now on, you need to be prepared with supplies in Luke 22:35, 36.

    Yes, two swords may not enough for a full-blown batter in the ancient world, but it was enough for close combat self-defense when traveling for instance. They are weapons, period. They are meant to kill, use to hunt, and protect. Just as a car can is meant to be used to transport, have fun in, and travel, it can also be used to run people over. Just because Jesus told his disciples to be armed with weapons, it did not mean for them to go murdering people, obviously.

    We need to stop trying to create magic, wild interpretations of The Bible to fit our own views. I have also heard the verse about the “two swords” to really be “swords of the spirit” or that two of the Apostles were “prayer swords”!!!! *roll eyes* This Bible re-interpreting of the swords sound like something a kooky Dem Presidential candidate Marianne Williamson says. LOL 😀

    The Bible should be taken at face-value, and not be subject to wild interpretations. That is what the Satanic Left, often through the Courts and activist judges, does to our Constitution, our heritage, and our individual rights. They erode everything that is good and re-interpret actual words with actual clear meaning/value for wild, absurd things.
    A perfect example is how the activist Left found abortion “rights” on an anti-slavery Amendment (the 14th Amendment is the most abused of all Amendments by Leftist judicial activists under the “equal protection clause”). They create rights they want out of thin air and end rights out of think air with wild judicial re-interpretation of actual meaning.

    Let’s not let the Left and its fake prophets to continue to re-interpret and distort The Holy Bible as well, as they do with our laws and Constitution.

    Yes, they are ACTUAL swords (weapons) made of metal, using to cut and stab. get over it.

  21. Jake says:

    Jacob-

    Your reading also completely ignores common sense and a denial of the power of God. Not to mention a complete misunderstanding of Jesus’ crime.

    He said he was God, called the Pharisees white washed tombs, and hung out with scum. God would never do that, he would praise the Pharisees’ religiousity, drive out the Romans, and wouldn’t be caught dead with workmen and whores.

    The notion of carrying a sword making you an outlaw is laughably modern. Note Pontius didn’t charge him with carrying a sword unlicensed. It’s not mentioned again after gethsaneme. One of the judges assassinated a king because he was left handed and they only searched the right side. It is only in this modern era do we consent to be felt up by strangers to ensure our “safety”. That is a small picture of how completely effed the modern perspective is.

    His frustration with Peter comes from Jesus telling him over and over what must be and Peter sinfully opposing it. He loved the man. Surely there is an example in your own life of someone you love opposing what is good and necessary for me other reason than personal comfort.

    On a more general note, study Bibles are trash. That’s some interpretation by some seminarian who may or may not be a sodomite, but I can guarantee he knows at least one in the priesthood. Highly suspect. The garbage modern translation says “enough of this sword talk!” The douay Rheims translates it as it is sufficient. I feel like perhaps something was lost between the two.

    Carrying a weapon in the interest of protecting yourself is as natural as breathing. I believe Peter, might be Paul, says failure to care for your family means you are probably not a Christian.

    It’s late, I’m rambling. I don’t think there is a single Bible passage that doesn’t have multiple layers of meaning. On its bare face “ok guys I’m not going to be around anymore so you have to be prepared for the eventualities of life again, coin, food, a means of protecting yourself,” is the barest, literal meaning of what he said. Any interpretation of that passage that is “Christ wasn’t talking about swords mmmkay?” Is gross heresy spouted by Satan’s soldier.

    In addition, the Bible is not understood intellectually. Only the elect can read it. Giant tomes of exegesis are written on Romans. It’s a favored study by theologians. Close to worthless, I wouldn’t hesitate to call most theology intellectual masturbation. You will only ever see what the holy Spirit shows you

  22. Oscar says:

    @ thedeti

    My immediate takeaway is how utterly interesting and fascinating it is that one can get sound theology/doctrine from Wilson and others, unless the topic is women, sexual conduct, gender identity, or homosexuality. When one of those four topics is discussed, Wilson and others like him contort, distort and gyrate until they find something palatable to everyone.

    And, guys, we all know why you can’t get sound doctrine on those four topics.

    Because what scripture, tradition, reason, the long arc of human experience, Church fathers, Catholic/Orthodox writings that set out the official position of the church, etc., all say about these topics does not at all fit into a post modern, post-Christian society. It’s “mean” and “mean-spirited” and “not nice” and “sexist” and “homophobic”.

    That’s not the case with Pastor Doug. He’s perfectly willing to offend feminists, the sexually immoral, the gender confused, and the sodomites. He does it regularly. I’d say he takes pride and joy in being accused of being “mean”, “mean-spirited”, “not nice”, “sexist”, “homophobic”, and worse. It happens all the time.

    He’s actually very good on all those subjects. Then he gets to marriage, and even though he states that wives should obey their husbands, he still drops the ball.

    I think it’s a blind spot. We all have them, and by definition, we can’t see our own blind spot. That’s why we need Christian brothers to point them out to us. The trouble is that Pastor Doug refuses to accept correction when others (pretty much only Dalrock) point out his blind spot to him.

  23. Jacob says:

    Your reading also completely ignores common sense and a denial of the power of God. Not to mention a complete misunderstanding of his crime.

    No it doesn’t. It means only that there could be more persuasive explanations for Jesus’ instructions in Lk 22:35 about the swords.

    Your argument about modern vs ancient approaches to carrying weaponry is a bit confusing. Carrying a sword in ancient times is more or less the same as carrying a gun in America. Both are in response to perceived public dangers, and both give the impression the carrier will use them. Authorities are going to be wary of armed civilians in any era. Only two swords were found amongst twelve or more disciples, which is no more than 16.6% of the group. I’m
    sure if you gather together a group of twelve committed Alt-Right christians and conspire to march on a terminally corrupt American Capitol, I’ll bet more than two will be carrying. More than a quarter of the citizens around the Capitol own guns.

    The term “common sense” is gibberish when talking about Jesus’ journey to the cross. His ministry and mission defied “common sense” in nearly every way. His journey to the cross was possible only by the power of God. There’s no way it CAN be ignored.

    We can still speculate on the meaning of Lk 22:35. Were real swords necessary in this instance? What if Peter didn’t have a real steel blade to cut off the guards ear in Gethsemane – would Jesus still have made it to the cross? Does anything important change? Jesus did command his disciples to carry swords, they did have two with them, Peter did use one to cut off a guards ear, Jesus did make it to the cross, and mankind still has its Savior.

  24. Cane Caldo says:

    @Oscar

    I think it’s a blind spot.

    Ok, but then what do you mean by “blind spot”? I could accept the blind spot argument if the person making it were to concede that the apple of Wilson’s eye is Momma.

    The trouble is that Pastor Doug refuses to accept correction when others (pretty much only Dalrock) point out his blind spot to him.

    Agreed. In relation to Wilson’s peers he’s a gay-hating rightwinger. His peers are no help to him.

    That being said: Dalrock’s peers are even worse than Wilson’s, as are all of ours. We are all without excuse, as St. Paul wrote.

  25. Cane Caldo says:

    @Jacob

    You’re being obstinate. Crucifixion alone is more than enough to fulfill the prophecy that Christ was numbered among the transgressors. Yet on top of that Jesus was crucified between two thieves. And not only those two points, but Barrabas–a genuine criminal–was freed instead of Jesus at the request of the Jews.The prophecy is fulfilled. The interpretation that it is necessary for swords to be in the possession of Jesus’ disciples for prophetic reasons is foolish. Nor was Peter arrested after attacking Jesus’ persecutors. He and another disciple were allowed into the high priest’s palace to watch Jesus’ trial. On top of that: Romans didn’t arrest Jesus. Caiaphus did. Roman laws on swords have nothing to do with Jesus being numbered among transgressors.

    Jesus did not tell His disciples to break the law.

  26. Oscar says:

    @ Cane Caldo

    Ok, but then what do you mean by “blind spot”?

    What I mean by a “blind spot” is an error in our thinking that we can’t (don’t? won’t?) see. We all have them. We usually absorb them, without thinking, from the surrounding culture. That’s how we all ended up believing feminist myths that we had to work to dispel.

    Both you and Dalrock have pointed out to me some of my blind spots, and for that I thank you.

    I could accept the blind spot argument if the person making it were to concede that the apple of Wilson’s eye is Momma.

    It very well may be.

    In relation to Wilson’s peers he’s a gay-hating rightwinger. His peers are no help to him.

    Correct. And neither are his enemies. Being constantly slandered for the faith by all the “right” (wrong?) people tends to make a person think “hey, I’m on the right track. Why’s this Dalrock guy hassling me?”

    That being said: Dalrock’s peers are even worse than Wilson’s, as are all of ours. We are all without excuse, as St. Paul wrote.

    Agreed. We have the Word. We’ve all failed to live up to it. Cultural reasons for that are not an excuse.

  27. Jacob says:

    @Cane Caldo

    Obstinate…yes, maybe a little…but mostly in defence in the open boxing ring. The argument I initially put forward was scholarly interpretation of Luke 22:35, based on a plain reading of the verse. I didn’t bother casting the net as widely as you and others have (and don’t really see the need to.)

    Little seems to depend on the precise meaning of the verse, other than its modern American application – e.g. whether or not it is right for disciples of Christ to use guns to defend American ‘Christendom’. Gins are controlled pretty much everywhere else in the West so the gun debate is of little consequence elsewhere.

    The swords instruction doesn’t appear in the other gospels, so a plain simple reading (also according to Luke’s writing style) – that swords are necessary for the journey as Jesus continues his mission – is fine.

  28. Novaseeker says:

    They will not challenge the things you mentioned or take a stand on any of it, unless it is to become ever more accepting of the cultural realities on the ground. But they also do not cease to do the things that mark a true Christian spirit. They will not hold the line and yet they do not quit holding the line.

    I’m no longer sure what I’m seeing.

    @Lost —

    Well this is a challenge in the contemporary context in general, I think.

    it’s easy to observe, if you are around urban charitable work as, say, a volunteer, that there are many, many people doing Christian works of virtue on a regular basis who are not Christians. Some are Jews, some are atheists, some are just agnostic/uncommitted/”nones”. While there is a good deal of evil in the world and evil acts by people who have the potential for both good and evil, Christians, even religious ones, even those who are “orthodox” in terms of their personal morality, do not have anything close to a monopoly on charitable deeds of virtue — and in fact in many urban locales, while Christians remain well represented in such activities, there are rather obviously large groups of non-Christians present.

    This can be used (and in point of fact, often is used) as an argument against the remaining moral strictures of Christianity. The argument goes that since you don’t need to be a Christian, or a morally “orthodox” Christian, in order to do charitable good in the world, and to avoid deliberately hurting others and so on, you really don’t need to be a Christian, period — you can be a basically “good person” without being a Christian. That’s true as far as it goes, in terms of the external virtues of how one treats others and certainly in terms of acts of charity, because we do see many non-Christians or morally lax Christians engaging in acts of charity on a significant and regular basis. But yet from the Christian point of view, this can never suffice in amounting to being a “good person”. Christianity is more demanding than this, as we know. It not only makes demands of us in terms of our treatment of others and charity, it also makes demands of us in terms of our handling of our own bodies, our own desires and appetites, our sexuality and the like. All of this is required to be a “good person” as a Christian, not just the most publicly visible charitable acts — acts which are, of course, good in and of themselves but which do not, in and of themselves, indicate that one is a “good person” within the Christian understanding of the term.

    From that perspective I think one can understand better how people who are not “good” from the perspective of Christian morality in various areas (sexual acitivity, body mutiliation, and so on) are nevertheless capable of objectively good acts, from the Christian perspective, despite falling short in other areas. It can be tempting to move from this observation to either the perspective that (1) therefore being a Christian is unimportant (the perspective taken by many who leave Christianity) or (2) therefore the other moral strictures proposed by “orthodox” Christianity are unimportant and can be jettisoned/downplayed (the perspective taken by Christians who are interested in reforming/apostatizing on these issues). But neither really follows — the moral prescriptions of “orthodox” Christianity are all-ecompassing and not an either/or. We should not expect that everyone who has difficulty following the morality in some areas, like sex, will have difficulty following it in others, like charity — and vice versa, of course. But to prioritize in value the moral worth of what one is doing in terms of charity over the moral worth of what one is doing in bed (or not doing) really just betrays a common contemporary misunderstanding that is unfortunately shared by all too many Christians, precisely because it is incessantly pushed on everyone, Christian or no, by the ambient culture.

  29. Hmm says:

    Wilson’s blind spot, I believe, stems from the fact that he has a compliant (excellent) wife, and has successfully raised faithful children. That can make a person think that this is the consistent result of being a faithful man, rather than a deep blessing of God.

    And let’s face it – it’s easy when things go pear-shaped in a marriage, to find sin in either party. After all, he must be unfaithful somehow, because his marriage failed. Oh, look – sin!

  30. Damn Crackers says:

    So much of Christianity “changed” in the first 100 years after the crucifixion, it’s not surprising that moderns completely misinterpret the meaning of apostles carrying swords.

    What we forget was that these guys were all or mostly Jews. They followed the Law, the Torah, and all that it had to say. Jesus was merely stating that the Law should be felt in one’s heart. He was toughest on the Pharisees because they were “virtue signaling” their righteousness with unnecessary commands and rules.

    But, we don’t look at Jesus’s words and the words of his apostles in the context of 1st Century Judaism, but in the light of what we believe today. So, it’s no wonder that many “Christians” read the sword passage in terms of a modern gun-control argument. Sigh.

  31. Opus says:

    Thinking perhaps that because the verses above are from the ESV and not recognising a word I re-read them in the KJV – somehow the NT sounds more authentic when it reads as if written by Shakespeare. I not only still did not recognise the passage but would have said that there had to be some textual imperfection as to me none of it made any sense.

    I have dreamed my way through many services (which may account for it) but would I be right in thinking that these verses from Luke are not used much? Otherwise, I rather liked them as I prefer my Jesus to be kick-ass – throwing the money-changers out of the temple; sending that Gadarene swine off the cliff; telling Satan to take a running-jump – and now telling the disciples to get strapped-up as if they are to be in a Korngold-scored Errol Flynn swash-buckler.

  32. Damn Crackers says:

    @Opus – I think of Jesus as a katana wielding ninja myself, but I’ll take your Errol Flynn swash-buckler too. Jesus was kind, but also a bad-ass when needed.

  33. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    FWIW, here is what my Navarre Bible says about the verse:

    Jesus announces his passion by applying to himself the Isaiah prophecy about the Servant of Yahweh (Is 53:12) — “he was numbered with the transgressors” — and by pointing out that all the other prophecies about the sufferings the Redeemer would undergo will find fulfilment in him.

    The testing-time is imminent and our Lord is speaking symbolically when he talks about making provision and buying weapons to put up a fight. The apostles take him literally, and this leads him to express a certain indulgent understanding: “It is enough.”

    “Just in the same way as we,” Theophylact says, “when we are speaking to someone and see that he does not understand, say: ‘Very well, leave it.’ ” (Enarratio in Evangelium Lucae, in loc.).

    The Navarre Bible is the Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, with commentary provided by the University of Navarre, in Spain: https://www.catholiccompany.com/navarre-bible-c466/

  34. tteclod says:

    “Did Jesus mean literal swords?”

    If he meant something else, he would have said.

    Gentleman, this isn’t difficult. If Christ meant that all men should be saved, then he meant for even very stupid men to understand what he was saying.

    Jesus doesn’t play bazillion-D chess. If he said to his disciples, “Sell your cloak and buy a sword,” he meant it. We might argue his motive, but when Jesus said, “sword,” he meant that sharp and pointy piece of steel used for killing people.

    I think we also try to extrapolate way too much from things the Gospels report Jesus saying at a particular place and time. Jesus never said, “Put down you weapons and never wage war or defend your family from criminals.” He also never said, “Get weapons and wage war and defend your family.” If I’m mistaken, please tell me.

    Please, let’s not overthink this.

  35. cshort says:

    @Jake

    I can agree with most of your points. The literal meaning of the text, particularly when taken in context of the time/culture/etc of its writing, is always at least part of, if not the whole of, the intended meaning of the text. That doesn’t mean there aren’t additional layers of meaning as we know Jesus did this intentionally in his parables. Also knowing Jewish tradition, this was a typical teaching technique of Rabbis. Those of us in modern Western culture will often have a harder time getting through the culturural differences to understand the texts.

    However, you’re going down a dangerous path in your last paragraph.

    In addition, the Bible is not understood intellectually. Only the elect can read it.

    I’m going to assume you’re Calvinist/Reformed, but this form of special knowledge has been considered heresy since the earliest days of the Church. It was one of the primary reasons the Gnostics where ejected from the Church.

    Also, the argument that reason cannot be used to understand things such as acts of the Spirit or scripture fails Paul’s admonition in 1 Thessalonnians 5:21 to “test everything”.

    As far as tomes of exegesis on Romans, considering Romans is probably the single best encapsulation of the Christian faith in one book, it’s not surprising that this would be the case. Calvin’s first commentary was written on Romans. Luther said of Romans that “it is impossible to read or to meditate on this letter too much or too well.” Going back further, Augustine’s conversion occurred because of Romans 13:13-14. And if you think Augustine doesn’t matter to Protestants, much of his writings were used by Luther and later Calvin as a defense of Sola Scriptura.

  36. Dylan Sexton says:

    Your bringing this topic up inspired me to seek out some recent clarification from my church on the issue: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017484#h=1:0-15:167

    tl;dr JWs are strongly disincentivized from owning firearms for the use on humans, to the point of being ineligible for service and ministerial privileges should they choose to do so. To my knowledge the blunt stance on this issue is new, because just a few years back I knew elders who carried shotguns and pistols for home protection. I’m sure they’ve given them up now.

    Not your church I’m sure, but the bible-based evidence seems pretty plain and clear to me. I will have to seriously consider giving up the new pistol my dad bought for me.

  37. Dylan Sexton says:

    Novaseeker says:
    July 31, 2019 at 6:11 pm
    >So it’s an honor system. And people tend to abuse the heck out of honor systems, as anyone who has experienced them knows full well.

    the opposite, in fact… if only a small % of people using the honor system are abusing it, then by and large people respect it, so “people” do not “tend” as you say. i hypothesize people tend to circumvent and rebel against control systems way more than honor systems, and even that very little. why do highly profitable markets exist for items that can easily be downloaded from the internet?

  38. vandicus says:

    @Dylan
    In the first place, your link does not actually make an argument(formally speaking). It makes declarative statements. In other words it merely asserts that self defense is Un-Christian without actually making the case for it. “We should respect life” does not translate immediately into “We should render it safe for murderers to accomplish their deeds”.

    It is also contradictory in its call to respect conscience. Respect for the conscience of another does not involve pushing a viewpoint on them.

  39. Barnie says:

    Wilson can write clearly when he wants to. He gets mealy mouthed when a clear argument would bring him into conflict someone higher up the progressive stack. It’s a defense mechanism. See the recent exchange where he claims that the left isn’t really attacking white people even though the left explicitly states again and again that they are. He doesn’t want to defend white people so he squirts his usual squid ink.

  40. Dylan Sexton says:

    vandicus says:
    August 1, 2019 at 10:26 am
    >your link does not actually make an argument

    it certainly does, did you not notice the scriptural evidence accompanying expansion alongside (the entire body of the article)? micah 4:3: They will beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning shears.+Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore.+

    don’t you agree that a christian should try to live in harmony with this prophecy for the future, or should he wait until God forces him and everyone else?

    >Respect for the conscience of another does not involve pushing a viewpoint on them

    therefore respect for the conscience of others is love. 1 cor 8:9 But take care dthat this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block eto the weak. 10 For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating3 in an idol’s temple, will he not be encouraged,4 if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak person is fdestroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brothers5 and gwounding their conscience when it is weak, hyou sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, iif food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

    the apostle paul was willing to forsake food entirely so as not to stumble those newer in the faith.

  41. John Q Public says:

    “Whatever Wilson’s reason is for reliably substituting chivalry for Christianity when the topic is husbands and wives, it cannot be due to a deficiency of intellect or written communication skills.”

    It’s simple cowardice.

  42. PickensSlim says:

    Everyone suffers from synchronicity, where their culture blinds them to the truth, and The Truth. In the West we’ve been subjected to feminism so long that it’s part of our reflexive thinking until you can train it out of you, and you won’t see it until the cognitive dissonance slaps you upside the head. We had a missionary from South Africa speaking on how this affects Christians in SA. They are so used to ancestor worship that they don’t really understand who Jesus is. They are especially vulnerable to the prosperity gospel because if you beseech your ancestors just right they will bless you. They will go to a shaman without thinking about it. If a shaman gets saved their demon will attack a family member until the family member agrees to be a replacement.

  43. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Nova

    Good works, deeds, and charitable actions by both the religious and not-religious can make for a very interesting block party the way you’ve laid it out. Sprinkle into the mix some religious-but-not-traditionally-so (the Beth Moore types, the Sam Allberry types, and their supporters) and send them all down to the soup kitchen together.

    Sooner or later those groups are going to find themselves in common cause (for whatever – the rain forest, the foster kids, the immigrants). It’s probably happening right now somewhere. People in churches that are going the route you mentioned, i.e. to be selective about individual issues while technically remaining in the fold, may well be influenced more by the non-traditional/non-religious groups than vice versa.

    From the Christian point of view you might get more converts flowing out than in because everyone will be doing good but in an all inclusive way. It will be after all, the path of least resistance.

    But to prioritize in value the moral worth of what one is doing in terms of charity over the moral worth of what one is doing in bed (or not doing) really just betrays a common contemporary misunderstanding that is unfortunately shared by all too many Christians, precisely because it is incessantly pushed on everyone, Christian or no, by the ambient culture.

  44. thedeti says:

    Nova:

    In the Catholic case it’s pretty much a case of “don’t ask/don’t tell”

    It has been true ever since I can remember that most American Catholics simply ignore catechism and official church doctrine on sexual morality. They understand what the church teaches; they just don’t adhere to it for the cultural and personal autonomy and liberty reasons we have all discussed. They know what the church teaches, and maybe they care a little bit, but for the most part they don’t care enough to follow it even in spirit. This was true of most Roman Catholic high schoolers and college students I went to school with: They had sex outside marriage, they used artificial birth control, some had abortions to dispose of “oops” pregnancies, and many remarried outside the church.

    Of course this is also a prime reason for the annulment craze discussed here and at Zippy’s once upon a time. People want to divorce spouses in unhappy marriages. But they also want to be able to have sex and remarry without the social approbation they’d receive from their Catholic family members. They can’t remarry in the church unless the prior marriage is a nullity ab initio. They could remarry outside the Church but really really don’t want to, because of said social approbation and the possibility however unlikely of being denied the Eucharist. The answer, then, is to get an annulment. The church then found itself under increasing pressure to bow to its members’ wishes and stretch and expand the circumstances under which annulments are granted, so as to keep its members happy and in the fold, and to remain culturally relevant.

  45. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Actress Jennifer Lopez has said that her Catholic faith is very important to her.

    I forget how many marriages and lovers she’s had.

    But here is an older news story about Lopez. I can’t find a date on the article: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-157734/J-Los-Catholic-wedding-plans-crushed-church-rules.html

    Miss Lopez has been told the annulment of her previous Catholic marriage could take up to two years.

    Until then, she cannot be married in the church again.

    The singer-actress had set her heart on marrying Oscar winner Affleck, 30, in Puerto Rico on Valentine’s Day. Now, unless she is prepared to wait, she may have to opt for a civil ceremony or different denomination.

    ‘Jennifer is crushed that her dream of a huge Catholic wedding may have gone up in smoke,’ a close friend said. ‘A month ago she was telling people that she’d be able to get the church to agree to a hurry-up annulment. Now every time she thinks about it, she gets weepy.’

    Miss Lopez married waiter Ojani Noa in a Catholic ceremony in 1995. They broke up the same year and divorced.

    She went on to marry one of her backing dancers, Cris Judd, in a civil ceremony in 2001. It lasted eight months and their divorce came through last weekend.

    Mr Noa, who was recently fired as manager of her Los Angeles restaurant Madre’s, said he planned to fight any annulment application.

    ‘She screwed me out of a decent divorce settlement, then fired me as manager of her restaurant for no reason. I owe her nothing.’ …

  46. vandicus says:

    @Dylan

    An argument has a certain structure.

    Simply citing say, Pslam 18:34, is not an argument. Your link doesn’t argue things. It does not even make explicit what their interpretation of those verses are. It is also not made clear why a book of prophecy that has clearly not occurred yet(unless you haven’t noticed war continues) would be related to the question of self defense.

    In regards to the passage where Paul says he would not eat meat, is in regards to leading people into false practices. This is difficult to analogize, but something like displaying affection to a wife leading others to behave lewdly towards one who is not their wife for example. Simply put it means you ought refrain from behavior that encourages people to sin(or do things that are sinful). Bearing a firearm obviously does neither of these things.

    Regardless respect for conscience is another concept. That is the idea that your own moral scruples should not inhibt others. It sounds more plausible than trying to claim that carrying a firearm, particularly if concealed, could lead others to sin.

  47. TheTraveler says:

    There’s a difference between firmness and brutality. The only people Christ talked to harshly were Satanic enemies–Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, wicked bigwigs. Some here go beyond even that, with shocking venom for remarried divorcees, “fornicators,” and others seen fit to condemn.

    Christ didn’t condone bad conduct; His direction was always, “go and sin no more.” But there was never the type of savage invective one encounters from self righteous Christias. Not for the Samaritan woman. Not for tax collectors. Not for the adultress being stoned. Not even St. Paul, who was something of a fanatic, spoke that way. It strikes me as a kind of vindictive celebration of one’s own righteousness.

    Charity and firmness are not strangers. Those unable to accept this have no business caling themselves Christians, let alone purporting to speak on behalf of Christ, Himself.

  48. Sharrukin2 says:

    TheTraveler says:
    August 1, 2019 at 6:42 pm

    Christ didn’t condone bad conduct; His direction was always, “go and sin no more.” But there was never the type of savage invective one encounters from self righteous Christias. 

    Depends on your definition of savage I suppose. Christ wasn’t weak or retiring and had no problem with using violence when needed. Chasing folks around with a whip is one example.

    Luke 19:27

    “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.'”

    Psalm 58:10
    The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

    Doubtless there are those who will say these are dreams, or parables, or misty spiritual thing that can be waved away from any serious consideration.

  49. Nick M says:

    More demands and contempt from the modern day woman.

    https://herway.net/love/isnt-high-maintenance-youre-just-low-effort/

  50. trnsltlife says:

    I always thought if I were ever to found a semi- cult branch of Christianity it would be The Church of Jesus Christ of the Two-Swords. All male members would be required to always carry two swords on their person and be able to dual wield. Kind of like the Sikhs with their ceremonial daggers. Anybody want to join?

  51. BillyS says:

    Minesweeper,

    “Jesus, just a matter of hours after this, put the ear back on, and He did not say “Peter, non-violence is the way.” ”

    This is a total lie Does it say anywhere time passed ? Or was the ear put back on ?

    Jesus touched his ear and it was healed. We have no idea if a new one grew or the original was reconnected.

    You are correct. We have no direct knowledge of exactly how He healed the ear, we only know he did so.

    Also keep in mind that Peter would have probably been killed alongside Jesus if this had not been healed, meaning this was not a “nonviolence stance” but a practical one. How someone could claim that just past the command the get some swords and that two were enough for the time shows how little reading comprehension many have.

    Note that Jesus corrected the disciples elsewhere when they took His admonition against their “leaven of the Pharisees” to be about the stuff to make bread. The fact that He did not do that here shows He did mean swords, not something else, but 2 being enough indicates He was not telling them to start a massive stockpile.

  52. BillyS says:

    Deti,

    Why did Jesus tell the Samaritan women at the well that she had 6 husbands if only the first one was the only “true” husband? The Scripture is too vague on the exact responsibility after remarriage. Even Jesus said that adultery resulted from divorce and that divorce was thus wrong. He did comment on the ongoing state nor did He demand the breakup of the following marriage.

    The only one we directly see is Herod and John the Baptist, but that was a more specific case of taking your brother’s wife (when he was still alive) not divorce and remarriage. And John was not Jesus, even though he was the greatest Prophet. (Elijah was great as well though incomplete in his knowledge.)

  53. BillyS says:

    Jacob,

    Carrying a gun is not viewed as a public risk in most of Texas.

  54. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Why did Jesus tell the Samaritan women at the well that she had 6 husbands if only the first one was the only “true” husband?

    From the passage, it’s clear to me that Jesus did not approve of the woman having six husbands. He recognized that the woman had married six times, as per the current society’s rules. It doesn’t mean that Jesus approved of those rules.

  55. Gunner Q says:

    Jesus meant literal swords, if His response to “here’s two swords” was “Okay”. More than that, we aren’t to become the slaves of men if we can help it. 1 Cor. 7:23 Since being unable to resist your enslavement is a direct consequence, if not definition of being disarmed, there’s a permanent interpretation of the sword passage to be had. Christ isn’t here to protect us anymore; we must protect ourselves. Until He returns.

    Jacob @ July 31, 2019 at 4:09 pm:
    “There is strong scholarly argument that the swords were so that Jesus and his disciples would be treated as outlaws and be arrested by authorities. Jesus would have understood that a small band of men without swords would not have been enough to ensure an arrest and apprehension.”

    This is provably wrong. The Romans didn’t consider Jesus a criminal at all. Only the Jewish leaders did and for reasons having nothing to do with violence. The Jews involved Pilate because the latter banned them from executing people.

    Pilate agreed to execute Christ in order to prevent a riot, not because Christ was breaking a law against possessing weapons. If the latter had been the case then Christ would not have been innocent.

  56. Minesweeper says:

    @BillyS says:Minesweeper,”Jesus touched his ear and it was healed. We have no idea if a new one grew or the original was reconnected.

    You are correct. We have no direct knowledge of exactly how He healed the ear, we only know he did so.

    Also keep in mind that Peter would have probably been killed alongside Jesus if this had not been healed”

    You think so ?

    The main issue leading up to this is that Peter didn’t have the slightest clue as to what was going to happen, even after being told. He had spend 3 years with the son of God, walked on water, seen many miracles and great works.

    He had no concept of it all being laid down, of God giving himself up as a lamb for slaughter.

  57. @The Traveller

    I think I understand and sympathize. I would say of course harsh invective can be used, but I find something repellent about using it all the time as a default. “Tough guy” Christianity as a reaction against the over feminized church can and does turn into something heartless and brutal. I mean I understand it, it’s like swelling over an injury trying to get it healed on one level.

    Jesus knew when to be tough and when to be tender. To think Christianity or masculinity itself unreal unless it’s brutal, painful, and difficult, is a crippled view of Christianity and masculinity that would be foreign to not just the Bible, but our own ancestors. Not everybody deserves the brutal attack. Telling a guy whose wife has abandoned him who later wants to remarry, “No you can’t get married again and have to be celibate either forever or until she comes back. Fuck you if you can’t keep up.” is not the same thing as trying to help him be strong enough to carry a terrible burden, and explaining why he must. Now if someone insists on justifying some clear sin, you may not to get rougher, if not for his sake, but for the sake of anyone who might be snared, that may be.

    If you’re going to be tough you had better be able to explain exactly why, and you had better be actually correct, not just eyeballing it, but justifiable practical certainty. Fortitude ranks lower than Prudence in the four cardinal virtues for good reason. I can think I can justify it biblically (Ecclesiastes 10:10 for example).

  58. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Nick M, that single woman, 46, is described as “a mum” of one child. So she’s a Single Mother. No mention of what happened to the father.

    Article also says that she’s begun seeking men in their 30s and 20s, because she can’t find anyone suitable in her age range. “They’re all married,” she says.

    I guess that means she can’t find any suitable men in their 40s, so she’s seeking men 20 years younger. No mention of why she’s not seeking 20 years older (i.e., men in their 60s).

    She wants “something real” with a man. I guess that means a “serious relationship,” with tingles and commitment, maybe even marriage.

    So, a 46-year-old Single Mother imagines that she’s serious marriage material for men in their 20s.

    She is also described as a professional Wellness Coach. Whatever that means. Sounds like a typical woman’s job, where you do a lot of talking, but produce nothing of tangible value.

    She’s also written a book about online dating. Despite the fact that she’s had no success at online dating. Again, typical, that a woman who fails at something then writes a book about it, as though she were an expert.

  59. Red Pill Christianity says:

    OffTopic: I was saddened and shocked by the Dayton and El Paso tragedies over the weekend, as was just about everyone else.

    But then the leftist media began: “all white males, especially Christian are too blame. White privilege is at fault, etc etc.

    The same leftists that say we need to look at “cause and effect” are the same ignoring cause and effect, when it fits their pre-determined narrative (i.e. ban all guns), of course.

    Dayton, OH: The epicenter of the opiod crisis that has been raging since about 2012. Poster-child for suicide crisis in the Midwest. Millions of jobs have left the region for China and Mexico under dumb “trade agreements” since the 1970s. Mass immigration from middleEast to the State have exacerbated the terrible schools, crippled infrastructure, and caused the departure of whatever remained of the mostly-wiped out middle class. Trust me, I have flown into Dayton many times, it is a mini-Detroit in the heart of the Midwest.

    El Paso, TX: 91% Mexican population. 91%! Impossible to get a job unless you have Spanish fluency, being good at conversing in Spanish is not enough, you will not be hired unless you are truly fluent in the language including street slangs, colloquial terms, and etc. City’s social has been flooded with “migrants” from Central America all over the world since the Border crisis has escalated to catastrophic proportions in last 2 years. City resources have been wiped out to care for illegal border crosses as of late. Want to feel like you live in a foreign country, come to El Paso for a few days; unless you speak Spanish, you will literally feel excluded from every aspect of life there. You will feel like certain parts of California.

    Ok…. Now, every single major Democrat candidate for President wants to take away your health insurance, force you into the VA system (a horror-show), open up the Border to the entire world and then force you (under threat if prison or asset seizure) to pay for health care AND endless welfare benefits for any illegal that crosses the border.

    Just 2 weeks ago, Kristrn Gillibrand just told a suffering woman in the dying community of Youngstown, Ohio that this poor, suffering middle-aged woman has “white privilege”, even though this woman’s community, (all colors), are really hurting under decades of job losses, poverty, opiates, and boarded up buildings. Kristen should have slapped the woman in the face, that would have been a kinder gesture.

    Make matters worse, the left has been berating and indoctrinating young boys from Day 1 that they are dangerous, they make women be afraid, that they need to be controlled and re-engineered to deny their every natural male instinct. They are told being male is a terrible thing. These boys are told they oppress others (despite being little kids), that their skin color is wrong/evil, that they are the reason for all the problems of the world. Any resisters get force-fed a court-mandated dose of Ritalin, ensure their compliance even if guaranteeing these boys’ suffering for the rest of their natural lives.

    As these boys get older, they face discrimination against them for jobs, college admission, for promotions at work. They face being fired under false “harassment” accusations, fired to open up job prospects for “minorities” (even though they may already live in a place like El Paso or California where they ARE the minority of all minorities), and so forth. If these men get married, their wife can, at any time and at their sole discretion, cheat on them, put a video of the cuckolding on YT, slander and libel these men to their friends, church, co-workers just for kicks. They can (and often do) falsely accuse the man of a crime “just for kicks” and to get them forcibly removed from their home. Then they file for divorce, take MINIMUM half the man’s current assets and most of the man’s future earnings for decades, walk away with their kids, deny the man legal visitation rights, and then raise his kids in a manner that violates their divorce decree and agreements about child rearing. All that with no consequences!

    I could go on and on about young men being denied even basic legal due process during false criminal accusation arrests, denied rights (rights granted even to the most horrific criminals in our society) to fairness in college campus allegations made against these men by women, being forced to pay child support when Paternity Fraud has occurred, isolation, nihilism, etc. But what is the point?

    Then people wonder why these “young men” are ticked off and getting violent!?!?! Really?

    I AM NOT JUSTIFYING the horrific criminal and animalistic actions, I am simply stating the obvious.

    Ps. Anyone noticed the left has totally ignored and ended all coverage of events like Virginia Tech, the Orlando nightclub once they learned the terrorist was Asian or Muslim respectively? Anyone noticed how they suddenly ended all coverage of the Highlands Ranch school attack when they learned the two teen terrorists were transgender? *roll eyes* It is ALL political.

  60. Minesweeper says:

    @RPC, your missing the elephant in the room, ALL the mass shooters were on some form of mental health drugs, ALL these drugs have serious side effects inc suicide.

    Strangely enough, total silence on the issue.

  61. Red Pill Christianity says:

    Oh yeah, no doubt about it. It starts early in school, man. Ritalin is being force-fed to young boys starting at alarming ages and for no reason at all these days. Boy complains he is bored, he is suddenly ruled a threat to the entire nation and Western existence. I have heard that some schools are pilling young boys with Ritalin as young as 6!!! Guaranteed depression, suicide, and test imbalance issues for life.

    You cannot even bring Tylenol to school and yet schools can get simple authorization to pill your young boys with Ritalin and then hand 10 year old kids condoms and birth control and even take them for abortions without parental consent. Only in America!!!

    Nikolas CRUZ the “white” Parkland terrorist was depressed and medicated. So were most of these clowns. You may have a point there, MineSweeper.

    The large scale war on boys is beginning to show some of its predictable results in our society.

    In the UK, the YOB phenomenon (gangs of angry, abused male youth) and the decades of male disenfranchisement and repression are at least acknowledged and some in UK are beginning to seek out solutions. In America, both sides are largely in total denial there is even a problem. You raise the issue, and of course, you are instantly labeled a racist, misogynistic xenophobic monster on the spot.

    I have noticed the accusations are now combined. Calling someone a racist is not enough anymore. Now the left seem to always call their opponents racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic at same time, to cover all their bases.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.