It's manipulative because, in order to make the argument, not only are the well-known exhortations of Jesus overlooked - love your enemies and turn the cheek, etc. - but so are some Old Testament dictums such as these.
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)
The transparent cherry-picking of appropriate quotes is not what makes this justification so pathetic, it's the attempt to put questions about gun ownership on a higher plane, an untouchable plane, a divine plane.
It's foolish because any reasonable person, I'd suspect even many Christian gun owners, see this for what it is, a blatant and pathetic manipulation.
Bob S. said this in his post which I linked to above.
First, GOD is unchanging and unchanged. What he approves of in the Old Testament is still valid. Jesus did not replace the old covenant but came to fulfill it. I know of only one case of Jesus contradicting what was established by GOD in the Old Testament – that was clean and unclean foods.
How does that work exactly? Are some Christian people really in favor of burning to death young girls who lose their virginity before marriage? Are those same people in favor of murdering gays? Of course not, only the most deranged would favor such things. Does it mean, then that according to Bob, only certain parts of the Old Testament are still valid if they support his gun policy?
What's your opinion? What do you think about justifying things like gun ownership using the Bible? It reminds me of the millionaire televangelist who justifies his wealth using excerpts from the Bible. Isn't he a pathetic manipulator?
Please leave a comment.