Northwind said:
I don't see anything about guns in the passage you quoted. I fail to see your point. It seems to me you are the one twisting scripture to suit your agenda.
Well, guns weren't present at the time of Paul's writing so one wouldn't expect to see guns in the text. That said, it would be a dead giveaway that the text wasn't genuine.
But that is beside the point.
The Ephesians text so quoted compares the "word of God" or scripture with "the Sword of the Spirit" which is where the weapon analogy comes into play. I suspect that whomever is responsible for the image came to the conclusion that swords really aren't that threatening, as far as weapons go and decided to up the danger factor by replacing the Sword of the Spirit with the Gun of the Spirit.
This is likely nothing new among Christians who gush about spiritual warfare. They probably hear someone talk about the canon of scripture and hear Cannon of scripture instead.
The image communicates to the intended audience power over others and in particular power over the principalities and powers of this dark world.
That it is not universally recognized by other Christians simply highlights the assumption proverb.
Interestingly Paul thought that Sword imagery was good enough and more contemporary Christians think it communicates a feebleness.
I think Paul understood the weapon, hence the analogy, better than those who want to upgrade the weapon tech. Different swords have different edges and as such are used differently. Folk with no experience of swords will pick up an epee and start slashing about them not realizing that the epee is not designed for that particular fighting style. It is most probable that Paul has in mind the Roman gladius which has a relatively short blade and while it was edged and could cut it was designed for thrusting. Which makes sense when you take into account typical Roman martial tactics which were more closed ranks. Accuracy then, was what the Romans drilled for. And by the time they drew the gladius and could use it the enemy would be up close and personal.
Guns are generally not close quarter weapons.
I can see the appeal of them for those who don't want to get to close to their foes for fear of getting to close to whatever weapons they bring to the fight.
Have to admit that I missed the meme. I believe it represents a colossal communication failure all around. I do not believe that it represented any hostility towards any other participant in the thread so much as it failed (obviously) to communicate actual intent.
All things considered being able to defend yourself with a gladius takes much more commitment than a gun requires. Guns give you the ability to kill at a great distance and depending upon the gun it gives you the opportunity to kill many from a great distance. I suspect Paul would find guns a lazy weapon.
