• Elton Houck
  • View Portfolio
  •  
  • Image 1176 of 2213
  • Added 10 Oct 2009
  • 554 Views
  • 8 Comments
  • 1 Favorite
  •  
  • Share This Image On...
Previous 1176 of 2213 Next
if only you could get the bullet back into the gun

(c) 2005 Elton Houck. "IF ONLY YOU COULD GET THE BULLET BACK INTO THE GUN...THEN YOU MIGHT STILL BE ALIVE AND NOT ON YOUR WAY TO HELL'S HOT FLAMES" This one is personal..not a humerous one..I have had some friends I miss terribly and wish I could have intervened and saved them..but they are gone, and I am so sorry.God have mercy on them please..and God have mercy on me...

8 Comments

Anonymous Guest

Sigridur Bachmann 11 Oct 2009

Admirable work ! Brilliant digital drawing Elton !

Alberto D'Assumpcao 11 Oct 2009

Wonderful piece, Elton!

Chas Sinklier 11 Oct 2009

As with taking back words Elton - so true - great pix ~:0)

Nira Dabush 11 Oct 2009

Brilliant work, dear Elton...Wishing you all the best.

Calvin McFarlane 11 Oct 2009

and the gun back into the holster...sorry 'bout your losses ("there but for the grace of God, etc., etc., etc.") its a thin line.

jamie winter 11 Oct 2009

I am sorry for you pain, wonderful tribute and it helps to paint out the misery we have in life. exellent image!

Anonymous Guest 11 Oct 2009

Did Christ Teach Pacifism? Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite Matthew 5:38-39 for their proof. In this verse Christ said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." The Sermon on the Mount from which this passage is taken deals with righteous personal conduct. In our passage, Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the civil government -- that is, taking vengeance -- was also proper for an individual. Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Several times in the rest of the Sermon on the Mount Christ used this same "you have heard it said" figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the times. Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "it is written" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written"). To further underscore the point that Christ was correcting the religious leaders on their teaching that "an eye for an eye" applies to private revenge, consider that in the same Sermon, Christ strongly condemned false teaching: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven..." (Matthew 5:19). Clearly, then, Christ was not teaching something different about self defense than is taught elsewhere in the Bible. Otherwise, He would be contradicting Himself for He would now be teaching men to break one of the commandments. The reference to "an eye for an eye" was taken from Exodus 21:24-25 which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime. Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. The religious leaders of Christ's day had twisted a passage that applied to the government and misused it as a principle of personal revenge. The Bible distinguishes clearly between the duties of the civil magistrate (the government) and the duties of an individual. Namely, God has delegated to the civil magistrate the administration of justice. Individuals have the responsibility of protecting their lives from attackers. Christ was referring to this distinction in the Matthew 5 passage. Let us now examine in some detail what the Scriptures say about the roles of government and of individuals. Both the Old and New Testaments teach individual self defense, even if it means taking the assailant's life in certain circumstances.

Artist Reply: Thank you so much for your reply, but in this instance the painting is not refering to vengenance, or man's duty to apply force in defense of himself, loved ones and country but I am instead refering two two individual friends of mine that each at seperate times killed themselves with a pistol...I feel a loss and guilt too. Maybe if my witness would have presented Christ in a greater revelation in my own walk, they would have turned to Him....It is the great "what if???" question....But alas we must turn it over to God and pray still for understanding and His perfect will in our lives..but still I miss Janis and Robert...

Loredana 10 Oct 2009

Great work My friend ..