erasmusinfinity - 08 January 2008 02:36 PM

J
In the book of Luke god (and subsequently christ) says
[quote author="Luke19:27"]But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

In the bible christ says that he wants us to do some flogging.  No?

No.  You’ve taken this out of context.  Jesus is not described as standing before his followers and saying, “God said, “Bring my enemies and slay them before me.” This verse is the last line of a parable, in which God is portrayed as a rich man who returns from a long journey and rewards servants who performed well in his absence and punishes a servant who did nothing.  The man follows the punishment with a speech that warns that those who refuse to submit to the man in the parable will be brought before him and killed.  Near as I can tell, the idea is simply another example of the Bible reiterating the warning that God will punish unbelievers in the so-called ‘end times’, which I assume is what is alluded-to by the ‘return’ of the rich man.

Is Jesus not accepted by christians as god?

jboeyink - 08 January 2008 02:38 PM

I don’t understand why a Christian belief that unbelievers are going to Hell is even relevant, except where it inflames Christians to evangelize, presumably out of benevolent interest in the spiritual welfare of those around them.  But aside from that, what difference does it make if Christians DO believe this?  My understanding is that most denominations hold the question of salvation as existing between the individual and God, and if you want to reject Christ, that’s your option.  You just face the consequences as detailed out in the verses quoted, which is only relevant if you believe said verses have any validity.

Yes, that is a modern, liberal interpretation of it. But if you take hell seriously, that is, an infinite time spent in extreme torment, then really there ought to be quite a lot one would do to get oneself and others out of there. This was the rational justification for things like the inquisition, as well as much religious violence. Yes, religion isn’t its sole cause; much so-called religious violence has other ethnic or economic triggers as well. However, there is no doubt that getting a supposed sinner out of hell is a good additional motivator for forced conversions. After all, torture on the rack was only temporary pain. If it could get you to profess a belief in God, it could save your eternal soul, and so save you an eternity of such pain.

What’s modern and liberal about your interpretation is that it is secularist: it is leaving the matter of faith in God up to the individual, and saying that if that individual doesn’t want to believe, no skin off my nose. If that were how all religious people viewed the problem, then yes, there would be no problem. (Except for the issues involved in having rational debates about whether God existed, etc.)

jboeyink - 08 January 2008 02:38 PM

Also: my impression was that Barak Obama was not a Christian either.  Perhaps I was mistaken there.  At any rate, it is clear that Obama is taking a vocal stand against allowing religion to play too firm a hand in voters’ decision-making, which is, I’ll grant you, very brave of him.  While Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, Christianity proper does not consider them to be so.  Since we’re talking about popularity, which stems from the perspective of the voters, what the Mormons think of themselves is far less relevant here than what other Christians believe about Mormons.  There have been discussions about Mitt Romney’s not-quite-Christianity around here, but ultimately what I see is that, for good or ill, most Republicans prefer him to Giuliani simply on the grounds that Giuliani is Pro-Choice.

According to his spokesman, Obama is “a committed Christian who attends the United Church of Christ in Chicago.” (See for instance HERE).

jboeyink - 08 January 2008 02:48 PM

erasmusinfinity - 08 January 2008 02:36 PM

J
In the book of Luke god (and subsequently christ) says
[quote author="Luke19:27"]But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

In the bible christ says that he wants us to do some flogging.  No?

No.  You’ve taken this out of context.  Jesus is not described as standing before his followers and saying, “God said, “Bring my enemies and slay them before me.” This verse is the last line of a parable, in which God is portrayed as a rich man who returns from a long journey and rewards servants who performed well in his absence and punishes a servant who did nothing.  The man follows the punishment with a speech that warns that those who refuse to submit to the man in the parable will be brought before him and killed.  Near as I can tell, the idea is simply another example of the Bible reiterating the warning that God will punish unbelievers in the so-called ‘end times’, which I assume is what is alluded-to by the ‘return’ of the rich man.

Did you read the entire passage. It’s obvious Erasmus doesn’t care for accuracy, only propaganda, but why should you follow suite.

How are you seeing this as “God is portrayed”, I’ll guess because the man is referred to as Lord, well he is a Lord, with servants.

<>

Well Zarcus, you seem to find more value in picking apart the details of my argument and looking for contradictions in the wording (something that you seem to want to call accuracy). I suggest you reread the context of my arguments in this thread.  You seem to be lacking their context.  It strikes me as rather inconsistent considering how important it is for you to “interpret” parable to the T.  Your accusations of me propagandizing sound to me like nothing but your usual emotional rants in support of belief in belief.  They strike me as propagandizing indeed.

jboeyink had made a point about christian intolerance being neither a manner of christian practice or scripture.  I demonstrated nine factual cases where it was a manner of scripture.  If you don’t want to accept these arguments than you are clearly as drunk with god as he is.  Or else you are just trying to flex your arm at me for the sake of your ego.

Come on Zarcus.  Quit posting inflamitory remarks and changing them.  It is quite unfair to leave my remarks looking so harsh without proper context.

And, I still love you indeed. 

I made a mistake in misreading your second quote as a replacement for the first, which it wasn’t I take back my last post’s comments about your changing your posts.

And I take back my comment about loving you too. 

<>

Then I won’t indulge your trollishness with anything else on the matter that you might regard as “spewed pandering garbage.”

zarcus - 08 January 2008 03:55 PM

How was this meant then, Erasmus?

I couldn’t care less who you love, Eras, your phony concern and piety turns my stomach each time I see it displayed like spewed pandering garbage on this forum.

Zarcus, are we back to this again? Please, avoid the abuse. You have been warned about it before. If you disagree with something someone is saying, please, it’s more informative to say precisely what the disagreement is rather than simply resorting to abuse. Thanks.

<>

zarcus - 09 January 2008 10:06 AM

erasmusinfinity - 08 January 2008 04:09 PM

Then I won’t indulge your trollishness with anything else on the matter that you might regard as “spewed pandering garbage.”

That’s because you’re a coward. You posted that quote without knowing what you were doing, it’s called propaganda the way you used it.

I’ll bet a great deal you got it from the Skeptic Annotated Bible. You just punched in some key words, liked what you saw and quoted it. You may not like skepticism, but applying it is useful to be honest with yourself and others.

Zarcus, you’ve been asked to stop with the abusive accusations twice now, this is the third time and the last.