Adventures in Atheist Absurdity I - Luke 19:27

[The Laughing Man]

Want to see prime examples of atheist absurdity? Do a websearch for "Luke 19:27" and read what quite a few atheists have written about that verse:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lk/index.html (the infamous "Skeptic's Annotated Bible") - In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words of Jesus: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me."

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.html (the "great" Freedom From Religion Foundation) - The birth of Jesus was heralded with "Peace on Earth," yet Jesus said..., "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19:27. In a parable, but spoken of favorably.)

http://www.bandoli.no/whyimmoral1.htm - He tells his disciples to turn the other cheek, but he also tells them to slay his enemies before him. (Luke 19:27)

http://www.stormy.org/bible.htm (a "book review" of the Bible) - The greatest mistake attributed to this "peace-loving Christ" is in the Book of Luke. For those brought up worshipping the Prince of Peace, Luke 19:27 comes as quite a shock. "But those mine enemies which would not that I should reign over them. bring hither, and slay them before me." (King James Version; all common translations agree he is describing the Divine Kingdom, how it's to be run. and how to deal with dissenters from authority.) For example, according to this passage, King George would have been justified in killing all the signers of the American Declaration of Independence. We have already seen that this brutality is consistent with the Old part of The Book. And just to make sure the point is very clear and understood, parts of this Luke parable are repeated in Matthew 25:14-30. [A one ounce Gold reward is offered to the first person who can successfully dispute this interpretation]

But apologists still say, "That's taken out of context." We judge communications and publications on the results: the proof is in the pudding--is it working? For many centuries, people have been misunderstanding. The Catholic Church and the Popes during the Inquisition, took Luke 19:27 very literally, and had dissenters cruelly, brutally murdered in public. Someone else who was confused by his biblical upbringing was Adolf Hitler.

http://www.geocities.com/anatheist2001/submonday22.htm ("Monday School - 'The Rational Corrective To Alll That Nonsense You Learned Yesterday!'" :rofl: ) - When I first quoted these words of Jesus, I was taken to task by several noteleavers. They thought that I'd taken these words completely out of context. They charged that Jesus was actually quoting somebody else and that we simply mustn't think that he would ever urge us to do anything as impolite as slay his enemies - oh, no no no!

Never mind that it's not clear that he was, in fact, quoting anybody else. Never mind that - if he was quoting someone else - he certainly seems to have been quoting them approvingly.

Pretty pathetic, really. One has to wonder if these hacks could get through life if they took everything so hyper-literally and out-of-context as they do this verse from one of Jesus' parables (which they obviously don't understand the meaning of).

[stevencarrwork]

Always best to put these parables in context, for the benefit of atheists :-

Just before the parable starts in Luke 19, we have in verse 11 'While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.'

So the parable was taught to allay misconception that the kingdom was going to appear at once. So simple for atheists to understand!

So how does the parable help atheists to learn when the kingdom was going to appear?

And the parable is about a man of high rank (Jesus) who was going to a country far away (death) to be made king (resurrected), after which he was coming home (second coming inaugurating the kingdom of god).

So the wicked king in the story , who says "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." is Jesus.

[johnransom]

03-04-2003 @ 02:11 AM
stevencarrwork:

Always best to put these parables in context, for the benefit of atheists...

Yeah, well, the atheists Jinx cites had the entire Bible to hand and still couldn't get it.


So the parable was taught to allay misconception that the kingdom was going to appear at once. So simple for atheists to understand!

Nothing's that simple. However, you get half a star for more or less getting it:


So how does the parable help atheists to learn when the kingdom was going to appear?

And the parable is about a man of high rank (Jesus) who was going to a country far away (death) to be made king (resurrected), after which he was coming home (second coming inaugurating the kingdom of god).

Which would mean, self-evidently, not "at once". Very good, Stevie; you may remove the dunce cap...temporarily at least.


So the wicked king in the story , who says "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." is Jesus.

Oh dear, just when there was a glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel, Stevie turns back around. Lose the half star and put the cap back on, for irrational moralizing and arguing from outrage.

[stevencarrwork]

Atheists should read Matthew Henry's Commentary. I know John Ransom (not his real name, of course) likes Matthew Henry

'In the sentence passed upon them at his return: Those mine enemies bring hither, v. 27. When his faithful subjects are preferred and rewarded, then he will take vengeance on his enemies, and particularly on the Jewish nation, the doom of which is here read. When Christ had set up his gospel kingdom, and thereby put reputation upon the gospel ministry, then he comes to reckon with the Jews......The wrath of Christ came upon them to the uttermost , and their destruction redounded very much to the honour of Christ and the peace of the church.'

Clearly the wicked king who will take vengeance on the Jews is Christ himself, according to Matthew Henry's Commentary (not a work written by atheists, of course)

[spl_cadet]

Maybe it's just me, but couldn't the "king kills all those who didn't want him king" bit be explained as a story detail, meaning it's part of the story (to wrap up the ending) and actually doesn't have any theological significence itself (though the rest of the parable does). Seems to me that that's the way it would be, especially as that's kinda how we expect king-type people to act.

[Jin-Roh]

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words of Jesus: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me."

:doh:

Allow me just to say "well that's just your interpratation".

I suppose this kind of stuff is neccesarry to critique the Bible, because if you did so otherwise the Bible might, well you know, True.

:rofl:

[stevencarrwork]

03-05-2003 @ 06:07 AM
Jin-Roh:



:doh:

Allow me just to say "well that's just your interpratation".

I suppose this kind of stuff is neccesarry to critique the Bible, because if you did so otherwise the Bible might, well you know, True.


Strange, because the poster previous to you said the Bible was meaningless :-)


In fact, none of the Christians here have told us why Matthew Henry's commentary is wrong.


They have just said that this Christian interperation was wrong, but refuse to say what is right.

I suppose they have to deny what the Bible says, because if they do otherwise, the Bible might be , well you know, disgusting.

[Jin-Roh]

I think you're missing the point of what I posted. Which is not big deal, because what is probably going to fly by a few others as well.

Typically, when you present something out of the Bible to someone who holds a dissenting oponion with it --skeptic, liberal-protestant, fence-rider, whatever --you'll typically get "Well that's just your interpratation" as responce. Its an attempt to basically say "the Bible can mean anything [so it actually means nothing]."

Just today, I was listening to a Rabbi critisize the NT words of Jesus in other areas. It was rather emotional. Something along the lines of "You think that when Jesus said he was the way you think that means he's a road with asphalt and a sign? No its metaphor!"

And indeed it is metaphor, but I'm pretty sure we can all understand what he was saying. As could you could if I said something like "I'm taking the long way home." or "he went that way."

So all that off-subject stuff I just stated, what a said was just vent frustration and cheep jab at an agrument that uses spliced-up scripture to prove a point (prooftexting). I'll be sure to give the usual :argh: next time.

[Jin-Roh]

Maybe it's just me, but couldn't the "king kills all those who didn't want him king" bit be explained as a story detail, meaning it's part of the story (to wrap up the ending) and actually doesn't have any theological significence itself (though the rest of the parable does). Seems to me that that's the way it would be, especially as that's kinda how we expect king-type people to act.

...and for the record, I would say "no" to this statement.

Go ahead and tell me why you think it might be otherwise though.

[spl_cadet]

03-04-2003 @ 10:19 PM
stevencarrwork:
Strange, because the poster previous to you said the Bible was meaningless :-)

No I didn't. I said that that verse may have had no theological significance and was just a story detail.

And since you want what is right if it is wrong: It is most likely a metaphor for the condemnation to Hell of those who reject Christ.

Rephrased some stuff

[johnransom]

03-05-2003 @ 12:19 AM
stevencarrwork:
In fact, none of the Christians here have told us why Matthew Henry's commentary is wrong.

They have just said that this Christian interperation was wrong, but refuse to say what is right.

I suppose they have to deny what the Bible says, because if they do otherwise, the Bible might be , well you know, disgusting.

:dufus: Why would I say something is wrong when I think it is right?

It is the idiotic conclusions of the atheists Jinx cited that are wrong. Not to mention your irrational argument from outrage.

Yet again Steven shows his appalling lack of reading comprehension.

[Jin-Roh]

For the sake of arguement, I think somebody should at least explain the grievence here.

The skeptics stated this right?

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow.

Here's the first part where I think they are wrong. Jesus it not saying that the father is going to be a cruel man who is going to "take what is not rightfully his," the phrase that they seem to think indicates such was the master responding to the whiny excuse of a lazy servernt.

InContext, when the master returns to collect his dues:


16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'
17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'
18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'
19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'
20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'
22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

Luke 19:16-23

So the master is just calling out the lazy servernt on a bad excuse for being lazy. That's what the statement in v22 actually means.

[undead]

The context is this. Peace for those obey God. Judgment for those who don't. That was always Christ's message. Christ did not come to bring peace anyway. Pacifism has nothing to do with Christianity (but then neither does arbitrary killing.)

Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Mat 10:36 And a man's foes [shall be] they of his own household


And how true that is. Many wives are enemies of Christian husbands - just waiting for the day he slips up; so they can have some semblance of an excuse to grab his money and run.

(Hey! I always knew I should have bought that cheap Uzi.)

[johnransom]

03-05-2003 @ 04:59 PM
Jin-Roh:

For the sake of arguement, I think somebody should at least explain the grievence here.

Here's the first part where I think they are wrong. Jesus it not saying that the father is going to be a cruel man who is going to "take what is not rightfully his," the phrase that they seem to think indicates such was the master responding to the whiny excuse of a lazy servernt.

You forget, JR (er...oops, that could be me too:thumb: ), that atheists read the Bible as if every statement in it were literally true, regardless of context. Any idiot could see that the master was being thoroughly ironic and sarcastic here, but that would hardly serve the atheist agenda, or fit with the atheist tactic of argument from outrage. (Note to atheists: ironic means stating the opposite of what is expected, just in case you were still confused)

Also, following on in the outrage mode, the cites indicate that a great part of the objection is that a peace-loving God wouldn't go around slaying his enemies. This of course is precisely the same absurdity committed by our current anti-war protesters: that not eliminating one's enemies (notwithstanding how belligerent the enemies may be) somehow promotes peace.

Most atheist arguments are emotional and vacuous, and these cites prove it admirably.

[stevencarrwork]

03-07-2003 @ 06:51 PM
johnransom:


Most atheist arguments are emotional and vacuous, and these cites prove it admirably.

Best to quote non-atheist commentaries. I know you like Matthew Henry's commentary and have quoted it with approval on this forum. Here is what it says about Luke 19:27

''In the sentence passed upon them at his return: Those mine enemies bring hither, v. 27. When his faithful subjects are preferred and rewarded, then he will take vengeance on his enemies, and particularly on the Jewish nation, the doom of which is here read. When Christ had set up his gospel kingdom, and thereby put reputation upon the gospel ministry, then he comes to reckon with the Jews......The wrath of Christ came upon them to the uttermost , and their destruction redounded very much to the honour of Christ and the peace of the church.'

How different from atheist talk of Jesus in Luke 19:27 talking about his enemies in terms of 'vengeance', 'doom', 'wrath', 'destruction' etc

[johnransom]

03-07-2003 @ 02:21 PM
stevencarrwork:



Best to quote non-atheist commentaries. I know you like Matthew Henry's commentary and have quoted it with approval on this forum. Here is what it says about Luke 19:27

''In the sentence passed upon them at his return: Those mine enemies bring hither, v. 27. When his faithful subjects are preferred and rewarded, then he will take vengeance on his enemies, and particularly on the Jewish nation, the doom of which is here read. When Christ had set up his gospel kingdom, and thereby put reputation upon the gospel ministry, then he comes to reckon with the Jews......The wrath of Christ came upon them to the uttermost , and their destruction redounded very much to the honour of Christ and the peace of the church.'

How different from atheist talk of Jesus in Luke 19:27 talking about his enemies in terms of 'vengeance', 'doom', 'wrath', 'destruction' etc

And if you had any ability to read, you would see that I have already agreed with that assessment. It is the conclusions that you and the atheists cited in the original post come to that are emotional and vacuous. Henry, and any other rational thinker come to that, sees no problem in Christ's future actions here: he says it's to his honor; you say it shows him to be wicked.

Hmmm...you have shown you speak German; can you speak French and Russian as well?

[stevencarrwork]

03-07-2003 @ 08:31 PM
johnransom:



And if you had any ability to read, you would see that I have already agreed with that assessment. It is the conclusions that you and the atheists cited in the original post come to that are emotional and vacuous. Henry, and any other rational thinker come to that, sees no problem in Christ's future actions here: he says it's to his honor; you say it shows him to be wicked.

Hmmm...you have shown you speak German; can you speak French and Russian as well?

I see American spellings have got to you.....

If you think the destruction of people is to the honor (sic) of the Prince of Peace.....


My Russian is fine , provide you confine your discourse to 'vodka' and 'pivo'.

I hated French, and know only a little.

[johnransom]

03-07-2003 @ 03:04 PM
stevencarrwork:

I see American spellings have got to you.....

If you think the destruction of people is to the honor (sic) of the Prince of Peace.....

Thanks for the entirely predictable response. Since the whole point of Christ's eschatological plan is to sort the good people from the evil people and provide the appropriate rewards to both, inevitably evil people are going to be destroyed. Kindly explain how not doing so would increase either peace or His honor.


My Russian is fine , provide you confine your discourse to 'vodka' and 'pivo'.

I hated French, and know only a little.

Evidently you missed my point. Quelle surprise.

[stevencarrwork]

03-07-2003 @ 10:25 PM
johnransom:



Thanks for the entirely predictable response. Since the whole point of Christ's eschatological plan is to sort the good people from the evil people and provide the appropriate rewards to both, inevitably evil people are going to be destroyed. Kindly explain how not doing so would increase either peace or His honor.




In Luke 19:27 Jesus compares himself to a king who orders his enemies to be brought before him so that they can be killed. Do you feel that such a king in this parable is not 'wicked' to use my term in describing the king in the parable? Remember I am talking now about the king in the parable, rather than Jesus.

[johnransom]

03-07-2003 @ 09:15 PM
stevencarrwork:



In Luke 19:27 Jesus compares himself to a king who orders his enemies to be brought before him so that they can be killed. Do you feel that such a king in this parable is not 'wicked' to use my term in describing the king in the parable? Remember I am talking now about the king in the parable, rather than Jesus.

Given the fact that any analogy of a human kingdom will not perfectly represent christ's kingdom, this is an irrelevance. But if I must answer: brutal perhaps by modern standards, but wicked no, and certainly not wicked by first century standards. If you have to justify it, then quite simply there is no wickedness in eliminating wickedness. Call it a pre-emptive strike. But of course that's the modern comparison I've been getting at all along, isn't it? It is only a warped view of justice that does not understand this.

[ryukyuk]

do you not see that you follow a violent god i would only follow a god of pure love there fore i have not found one bhudda was the closest person on EARTH to never threaten his followers but he serves no god and i dont worship idols so i am left with no god

[Scotsmanatt]

Steven Carr
Always best to put these parables in context, for the benefit of atheists :-

Just before the parable starts in Luke 19, we have in verse 11 'While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once.'

So the parable was taught to allay misconception that the kingdom was going to appear at once. So simple for atheists to understand!

So how does the parable help atheists to learn when the kingdom was going to appear?

And the parable is about a man of high rank (Jesus) who was going to a country far away (death) to be made king (resurrected), after which he was coming home (second coming inaugurating the kingdom of god).

So the wicked king in the story , who says "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." is Jesus.

M.Bell
What in the text justifies your characterisation of the king as wicked?

S.Carr
Atheists should read Matthew Henry's Commentary. I know John Ransom (not his real name, of course) likes Matthew Henry

'In the sentence passed upon them at his return: Those mine enemies bring hither, v. 27. When his faithful subjects are preferred and rewarded, then he will take vengeance on his enemies, and particularly on the Jewish nation, the doom of which is here read. When Christ had set up his gospel kingdom, and thereby put reputation upon the gospel ministry, then he comes to reckon with the Jews......The wrath of Christ came upon them to the uttermost , and their destruction redounded very much to the honour of Christ and the peace of the church.'

Clearly the wicked king who will take vengeance on the Jews is Christ himself, according to Matthew Henry's Commentary (not a work written by atheists, of course)

M.Bell
What in the text of Matthew Henry's commentary justifies your characterisation of the king as wicked?

[The Laughing Man]

03-09-2003 @ 12:35 AM
ryukyuk:

do you not see that you follow a violent god i would only follow a god of pure love there fore i have not found one bhudda was the closest person on EARTH to never threaten his followers but he serves no god and i dont worship idols so i am left with no god

Why is it that you can have proper capitalization, grammar and punctuation (for the most part) in your signature, but not in your main post? Clean that post up and we can talk about it.

[kendal]

Strange, because the poster previous to you said the Bible was meaningless :-)


In fact, none of the Christians here have told us why Matthew Henry's commentary is wrong.


They have just said that this Christian interperation was wrong, but refuse to say what is right.

I suppose they have to deny what the Bible says, because if they do otherwise, the Bible might be , well you know, disgusting.
:ahem: No,fableboy,it's your ugly mean-spirited attitude that is disgusting!!!
If you ever did read the holy bible then you'd know that the lost won't ever understand it!!!!
If I said you are proof that some people evolved from cock roaches,would that make it so?

[kendal]

do you not see that you follow a violent god i would only follow a god of pure love there fore i have not found one bhudda was the closest person on EARTH to never threaten his followers but he serves no god and i dont worship idols so i am left with no god
:blush: Thats right,you serve a god who says it's o.k. to love so much you have to spread disease and illness's that kill what you claim you love. Hmmm...... !!!there is something so wrong with orgies and loose sex that it's disgusting!!!
How can anyone ever say that a God who doesn't discipline is loving?
I would much rather the Holy Father be my judge than a loose so called god wannabe,amen.
God doesn't threaten his followers,or his children.
To some people,when they use to stone the rebellious children,they thought it was cruel,but if they still did it today,we wouldn't have the teen murders,drug abuse,teen suicide or pregnancy that the world has today. Some things seem cruel,yet they save more lives than not doing anything.
You cannot truly love anyone or anything by allowing them to be lost in sin and darkness.
You hate God because he dares to discipline and stop sin from controlling the world.
Wait until you get a taste of the so called false god you wish for,you will certainly wish you hadn't wanted it soon enough,amen.
Rebellious children were stoned so they wouldn't spread their evil,and there were only a few children that ever actually had to be stoned. Most children would get right before it came to that.
Clean behavior saves lives and if you are truly a good person you won't have any trouble accepting the holy God of the bible,amen.:pray:

[Seasanctuary]

Pretty pathetic, really. One has to wonder if these hacks could get through life if they took everything so hyper-literally and out-of-context as they do this verse from one of Jesus' parables (which they obviously don't understand the meaning of).
Jinx, nonChristians have a legitimate complaint about this "parable." Allow me to explain.

Notice that the reason Jesus told this story was "because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once." (Luke 19:11)

Jesus wanted to prepare his disciples for the news that he was not going to usher in the Kingdom of God immediately. Instead, he (the "man of noble birth") was going away to Heaven ("to a distant country") to "have himself appointed king and then return."

Now, the servants are the Christians left on earth after Jesus left the earth, who are supposed to be tending their minas until Jesus comes back. Jesus wanted them to be active in the meanwhile.

Now, considering that Jesus was headed immediately to his triumphal entry...and, look, the disciples were crying "Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!" (vs 38). And what happened right after that? The representatives of the Jewish religious establishment, the Pharisees asked Jesus to rebuke his disciples.

That sounds a LOT like Jesus' own subjects (the Jews, as he was King of the Jews) sending a delegation of Pharisees to him directly to express their desire that he not become their king. In fact, they asked Jesus right there to declare that it wasn't his intention. Jesus did no such thing, of course.

Then, look what happens during the triumphal entry! Jesus predicts Jerusalem's destruction because the Jews (his people) did not recognize him for who he was.

This "parable" is quite obviously about Jesus himself and the Jews who did not want to recognize him as their God and King. Jesus not only says that those who rejected him will be destroyed...as Jerusalem was destroyed by Romans a bit later...but he asks his servants, the Christians, in verse 27 to themselves do the slaying.

Now, granted, it's rather fuzzy on exactly when this is all supposed to happen. If it's all about 70ad (which is likely...especially if you're a preterist), then it's odd that the Christians weren't the ones to level Jerusalem.

Considering that Christians are so fond of "double prophecy fulfillment," it wouldn't be a stretch at all for a post-70ad Christian to take it upon himself to kill unbelieving Jews for Jesus' sake...on the instruction of this thinly-veiled parable about Jesus, and Christians, and unbelieving Jews.

For some reason, modern Christians aren't ashamed to recognize Luke 19:41-44 about earthly slaughter of Jews on account of their non-acceptance of Jesus. This reason is probably that the pagan Romans did it...and their own religion isn't besmirched by it.

However, Luke 19:27 has a strong parallel to 19:41-44 and is something asked of Christians to do. Not pagans, not angels, not separation from God, but the servants of the King himself who are to be dilligent before his return...the Christians.

It'd be nice if Christians would wait for the second advent to start slaying Jews. (Neither I nor the Jews are expecting that to happen anytime soon.) However, Jesus is already crowned king, so it might be open season already.

At any rate, Christians embrace a wide variety of interpretations of their Scriptures. Right now, Jinx is trying to claim that no Christian would ever think Luke 19 gives license for Christians to slay Jews...because to do otherwise would make Christians look bad. It is, however, one very obvious interpretation of those Scriptures. It is completely unjustified to blame Atheists for taking things too literally or out of context to manufacture this problem. The problem is with one of the plain (or very thinly veiled) in-context meanings of the text.

Regards,
Seasanctuary

[Vorkosigan]

But of course that's the modern comparison I've been getting at all along, isn't it? It is only a warped view of justice that does not understand this.

Slaying one's enemies is just? I am glad to have a warped view of justice, the kind that views enemies humans who deserve compassion and understanding. It is wicked to slay one's enemies, and there is no way around it.

Anyway, clearly only stupid atheists could understand Jesus as the King here. For example, that notorious atheist John Calvin (http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comment/calvin/comm_vol32/htm/lxxx.htm) wrote of this passage:

"Luke 19:27. But those my enemies. In this second part, he appears to glance principally at the Jews, but includes all who in the absence of their master, determine to revolt. Now Christ's intention was, not only to terrify such persons by threatening an awful punishment, but also to keep his own people in faithful subjection; for it was no small temptation to see the kingdom of God scattered by the treachery and rebellion of many. In order then that we may preserve our composure in the midst of troubles, Christ informs us that he will return, and that at his coming he will punish wicked rebellion."


It is easy to locate commentaries that view Jesus as the King who slays those who say "non serviam" under his feet. Just type {"Luke 19:27" commentaries} in Google and read what comes up.


have to justify it, then quite simply there is no wickedness in eliminating wickedness

Why, yes there is John. Especially when you have the power to change those who disagree with you, and further, know who will be wicked and who will not. There is absolutely no question that Jesus is behaving in a wicked manner.


...no, and certainly not wicked by first century standards.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Objective Morality Parade will be back after this Station Break for Situational Morality.

Vorkosigan

[GakuseiDon]

Considering that Christians are so fond of "double prophecy fulfillment," it wouldn't be a stretch at all for a post-70ad Christian to take it upon himself to kill unbelieving Jews for Jesus' sake...on the instruction of this thinly-veiled parable about Jesus, and Christians, and unbelieving Jews.

For some reason, modern Christians aren't ashamed to recognize Luke 19:41-44 about earthly slaughter of Jews on account of their non-acceptance of Jesus. This reason is probably that the pagan Romans did it...and their own religion isn't besmirched by it.

However, Luke 19:27 has a strong parallel to 19:41-44 and is something asked of Christians to do. Not pagans, not angels, not separation from God, but the servants of the King himself who are to be dilligent before his return...the Christians.
Don't forget Luke 20:9-18, which also fits within that pattern.

[Mountain Man]

It is most likely a metaphor for the condemnation to Hell of those who reject Christ.
Bingo.

[garthoverman]

I really have to wonder what purpose was intended of this thread by its author.

If it was intended as an argument against the validity of atheism, or alternatively for the validity of Christian theism, it has failed terribly. Giving Jinx72 the benefit of the doubt, I'll easily dismiss this as a candidate.

What remains, then? Was it to point out the follies of a few vocal groups of atheists regarding their interpretations of some select scriptural passages? This seems like a more probable reason. But then, what end does that serve? Is it part of an effort to paint all atheists as foolish as he finds these few? Is it a veiled attempt to malign the atheists on this board by exposing the participants to the intellectual blunders of a small subset of atheists? How malicious.

To me, it could be likened to a post reminding Christians of the follies of the Ku Klux Klan or Fred Phelps or murderers of abortion clinic pathologists and nurses. Surely the more rational individuals on this forum, theist and atheist alike, can see clearly that the actions of a few in any group in no way reflect upon the integrity of the beliefs of the group as a whole. However, it seems that, if Jinx72's purpose is as I've described here -- that is, to malign the character of atheists in general by reaching to associate them with some mistakes made by a subset of that group -- then it would appear that Jinx72 is not among those reasonable individuals that readily recognize the irrelevance.

How sad.

Of course, it's possible that I've misconstrued his(her?) intent entirely, and I'll certainly entertain alternative statements of purpose and evaluate them in the context of the arguments presented herein.

Yours,
Garth

[AtheistArchon]

- This is a very old thread.

- Thank you. Carry on.

[Seasanctuary]

Spl_Cadet:
It is most likely a metaphor for the condemnation to Hell of those who reject Christ.

Mountain Man:
Bingo.

Seasanctuary:


Danger! Danger! Possibility of Christians being guilty of slaying Jews!
Ignore the part about Christians being told to do it. Whew, now it's only God slaying Jews.
Claim it's a metaphor for a metaphorical place of torment...and it means anyone, not just Jews. Whew, now God's not slaying anyone.
Claim that God doesn't have anything to do with people being stuck in Hell. Whew, now Jesus telling Christians to slay Jews is safely turned into various people deciding to cause themselves murky mental torment.
Christians are exonerated once again. :pray:

[kendal]

What will atheists do when the AC comes and demands they do as he says?
Soon there won't even be any atheists so the real debate is with false religions and false teachings.
Evolution is being spread rapidy in many churches today,so we are most likely in the times of the apostasy!
remember,we are not going to be the in crowd,and we are not going to have many friends on our side in the last days.
When the people begin to fall away from the faith of God,what faith will they be falling away from? a new faith in God or an old one?
The one world religion (Inter-faithism) will have a form of godliness,remember?
Do not trust the false teachers that are running wild like crazy maniacs out there trying to spread their germs to anyone who will take them even slightly serious. Stand strong for the truth of the good old fashioned Gospel!!!
If Job could not understand how God made all things,how can we?
The bible says there are some things that are too wonderful for us to know.
Col.2:8 gives clear warning about the liars that are in the world,then and now.
What is hard to understand about the wicked hating the righteous?
They do and they always will until God banishes them all out of the world.
Smile,because soon there won't be one atheist left standing or sitting soon!!!

[kendal]

Very soon there won't be an atheist left in the world!

REJOICE!!!!:smile:

[DivineOb]

Jinx wouldn't know an atheist if one [[[[bit]]]] his [[[nose]]], given that he never was one.

[AtheistArchon]

What will atheists do when the AC comes and demands they do as he says?

- The AC Delco man?! He's like, 90 pounds! I'd just knock him over.


Soon there won't even be any atheists so the real debate is with false religions and false teachings.

- Also 'soon', Planet X is going to swoop by the Earth and cause mass devastation. :ahem:


Evolution is being spread rapidy in many churches today,so we are most likely in the times of the apostasy!

- Quick, sell all your belongings and move to Israel! You can mail me your money at:

Bryan Prim
Director, Evil Atheist Conspiracy, Southeastern Chapter
P.O. Box BR549
Atlanta, GA 30004

- C'mon. Where's your faith?


remember,we are not going to be the in crowd,and we are not going to have many friends on our side in the last days.

- I never get tired of that argument.. "the more people disagree with me, the more correct my belief is, therefore it's in my best interest to make people disagree with me'. :ahem:


When the people begin to fall away from the faith of God,what faith will they be falling away from? a new faith in God or an old one?

- I'm not too sure that even makes any sense. What difference does it make to fundies whether you're a recently born again Christian or have been one all your life if you convert from the religion?


The one world religion (Inter-faithism) will have a form of godliness,remember?

- So?

- OHHH, you meant "to" instead of "from" up there. In that case I can answer your question seriously: nobody needs faith in any gods, period. Fundies always assume there's a god; atheists worship the god of science, blah blah blah. That's just you being narrow minded, there is no AC Delco man tempting people away. There IS rationality however.


Do not trust the false teachers that are running wild like crazy maniacs out there trying to spread their germs to anyone who will take them even slightly serious.

- Seriously. Can you show me one of these false teachers? :smile: And can you tell me why you are better?


Stand strong for the truth of the good old fashioned Gospel!!!

- Get bitten by many snakes?


If Job could not understand how God made all things,how can we?

- What an excellent argument! Pride in ignorance. :thumb:


The bible says there are some things that are too wonderful for us to know.

- And we wouldn't want to know anything too wonderful, would we. :ahem:


ol.2:8 gives clear warning about the liars that are in the world,then and now.

- Liar!


What is hard to understand about the wicked hating the righteous?

- Who exactly are the wicked and the righteous? Let me take a guess: you're righteous, right?


They do and they always will until God banishes them all out of the world.

- Real Soon Now (TM).


Smile,because soon there won't be one atheist left standing or sitting soon!!!

- Friend, you scored well. You got 775 out of 1000 millikooks on the kook meter. In the future, to improve your score, you need to bring up Pascal's Wager at least once. A real boost is to use the whole empty tomb argument: "Have YOU ever seen the body of Jesus?!?! No!!!! Nobody has!!! EVIDENCE he is risen!!!!" That would probably push you right up into the 900 area. All that's left after that is to add some gratuitous ad homs and you could be a contender. :thumb:

[kendal]

:blush: Well,with the I.Q. you have,even a fly would appear very intelligent.

It appears that you believe false religion is true christianity.
The inter-faithism going on right now is not the true church,so stop confusing the two.Real christians along with atheists will be killed,although I believe you will change your mind and go along with the trends of the world,no doubt there.
There won't be a police state either,right?
Soon when you tell others there is no god,see if you don't get into trouble with the law for a hate crime and intolerance of others.
Laugh now you little baby,cry later!
It's the biggest mouths that cry the loudest,amen.