Dan Winiarski

Now I'm the one who is asking, "How could you arrive at your idea from reading the Book of Esther?"

You say the principles found in Esther "make a good argument for countries to arm themselves," but not for the ordinary, every day citizens to also keep and bear arms.  So...is that what happened in the story?  Did the army of Persia protect the Jews?  King Xerxes certainly could have ordered his soldiers to protect the Jews.  But he didn't.

Getting back to the fundamental question I posed: Does Scripture contain the principle found in our 2nd Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

You may not personally agree with that principle.  That is a matter of your own personal conscience.  But you don't get to ignore the fact that the principle exists within Scripture, nor can your own personal preference bind the consciences of your brothers and sisters in Christ.

Thanks for the feedback, Bill.

I contend that determining whether or not we deserve something is a fairly objective proposition, and should always be done following Biblical standards, as you rightly suggest.

Let's look at your example of the psalmist crying out for justice for the poor.  I contend that he was crying out for...well..justice for the poor.  Exactly what he said.  He wanted the poor to be treated fairly (as they deserve) by those in power.  Not taken advantage of (which would be something the poor do not deserve).  Not denied proper legal justice (also something they do not deserve).  That their private property rights would be respected (something they deserve).  But not that the poor get to steal other people's private property simply because they are poor (because that would be something they do not deserve).  That's how this definition of "Justice" works.

The Bible also encourages CHARITY for the poor.  But that does not mean that charity and justice are the same thing...they are not.  They are 2 separate values.

The problem is that "Justice" has become a subjective, nebulous, catch-all word that basically means "whatever I personally think is good."  That, most certainly, is not the Scriptural idea of justice.

Luke 18:1-8 is an example of justice without love.

When we conflate, confuse, and ignore the actual meaning of things, we are exalting ourselves to a position of authority that no human should occupy.  We end up with a concept of "justice" that is essentially "justice is whatever I personally favor."

By "objective" I don't mean commonly-held. And I certainly don't base it on human standards. I totally agree with you that our standards are found in Scripture and God's law.

By "objective" I mean clear & definitive. 

We can objectively know what we deserve by examining God's law and assessing cause & resulting effect. Choices & resulting consequences. Actions & resulting outcomes.

The modern definition of "justice" ignores these things, making "justice" completely subjective. 

Kris, it's good to hear from you again.

Things can kiss without conflating. In this case, you are actually conflating the words "kiss" and "conflate."

8 - )

Obviously there are other values and virtues that make justice better. Peace would be one them. Also grace, mercy, charity, and love. But you are tossing all of those virtues into a big pot and calling it "justice" stew. Every time you add one more virtue to "justice," you diminish both justice and the thing you have conflated with it.

Ice cream and root beer go great together. But root beer is not ice cream. They are 2 distinct things.

Eric, thanks for your well-reasoned input.

I admit my fingers paused for long time after describing "wisdom" as "common sense."  I was going for brevity and ease of understanding, and probably lost accuracy in the process.

I like your suggestion of "the essence of the knowledge and character of God."