One good thing about repeating one’s central points several times is that it makes it more difficult for one’s opponent to evade them.

Indeed. And in our favorite parable, the nobleman does the judging and the Good Servants do the "slay"ing. I hold out a sliver of hope that you’ll address that fact some time before the Second Coming actually happens.

But Servant Three has already been judged. By the nobleman. Therefore the above cannot be the meaning of the parable of Luke 19:12-27. Your attribution of judging to Good Servants has absolutely no support in the parable--and that, Andrew, is called smuggling.

And slaying does not equate with judgment unless you, Andrew, can show that the two are equal.

Well, it kind of ends up being six of one versus half a dozen of the other. Before, you were using the passive voice to bury the unpleasant details of the story. Now, you’re just lying. Relative agreeable-ness is thus a tough call.

And where, pray tell, have I argued for a "literal reading of the parable"? I’m perfectly willing to entertain any other reading of "slay," as long as it is justified by the text of the passage. Interpretations which are patent unsupported falsehoods concocted to get the speaker off the hook are another story. "Slaying" and "judging," as you more or less conceded above ("Judgment does not equate with genocide"), are two very different things; in the absence of any justification on your part, I can discern no other reason for your decision to interpret the former to mean the latter than your desire to avoid the conclusion that this story counsels violence.

Ah, yes. Apparently the fact that Servant Three is to be robbed of what he "hath" (present tense), and not what he ‘will receive’--turning your interpretation into a further laughable rationalization--is of no serious interest to you.

And I’m glad to repeat: anyone who can, without argument, interpret a brutal act of violence to represent the innocent act of deciding culpability is interested in something other than the truth.

- Nathan

Now we're getting broader than I previously thought when I first tackled this thread. It's all about hermeneutics. I don't really have time to go into all of it right now, but I strongly recommend chapters 1, 2, 4, and 10 of Robert H. Stein's A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible (especially chapter 10 since that deals particularly with parables). It's quite inexpensive and ships quickly.

Sorry I can't offer any specific arguments at this time. (I'm a wee bit exhausted right now.) Good day.

Andrew

I have no doubt that christians, most being well-meaning and peaceful people, have constructed various theologies that do not call for things (like genocide) considered vile and disgusting by most of the human race. This issue is not in dispute.

However, how does one pick and choose between various interpretations? Clearly one cannot use the bible to decide which interpretation of the bible is more correct. One must apply standards that are external to the bible. But once you have stepped out of the bible, you have abandoned the "solid ground" of absolute moral and epistemological justification that most theists claim the bible represents.

And again I ask you, on what basis should I accept or believe Robert H. Stein's interpretive schema over Jim Jones' or David Koresh? Each claims to be a believing christian, to have an authoritative interpetation, and that contradictions are only apparent.

Shall I distinguish based on my own judgement?

I'd like to chime in that I, too, am entirely convinced that most Christians have constructed such (relatively) respectful theologies. To my mind, however, they can only do so by ignoring (or, if pressed, rationalizing away) passages such as Luke 19:27 in order to do so.

Such a "cafeteria" exercise, I think, speaks well of Christians' ethical sanity but often poorly of their intellectual honesty.

- Nathan

Meaning is contextual. So, I am not surprised that Christians have a different view of this passage and of hermeneutics in general than Single Dad, Nathan, and Bob K do.

IMHO: Single Dad writes an incomplete description of 'the Bible alone' and claims that thus the "absolute" moral and theological foundation of the Bible is disrupted. Nathan claims his own right to interpret this passage over and against other explanations. Bob K seems to be arguing that because Christians must believe the dictation theory of inspiration and the Bible is contradictory in ways that contravene that theory, that Christians should not believe in the Bible as a source of truth. Hopefully I am characterizing all of your arguments fairly.

Single Dad- why choose an extra-Biblical model to interpret the Bible? I respond that it is not in fact an extra-Biblical model that I would propose. Instead, the scheme for interpretation is written into the Bible. Meaning is contextual, and so the way to interpret the Bible is to understand the context: the meaning the authors were trying to convey. That is not an extra-biblical standard; rather, like all communication, the meaning of my sentence is bound up in the pragmatics of the situation and the context I give to my words in my larger discourse.

There is a larger discourse about what the apostles believed in the writings of the early church, and that may give us clues as to their meaning in various contexts. I will also add that viewing a certain document in the Bible against the backdrop of larger discourse in the Bible is instructive; otherwise, you might assume that "the man of lawlessness" means "a 21st-century jaywalker"! There is certainly more context than that.

I will also add that Catholics unashamedly argue for an extra-biblical interpretative scheme in holy Tradition. So it seems to me that this particular argument only has teeth for the Protestants out there.

Nathan is committing a linguistic error when he assumes the fiat to interpret someone else's language as he means, rather than as they meant. Cherry-picking the Bible for this or that verse (and I think Nathan might have trouble finding parallels to his example here about commanded genocide in the last days. If not, produce them) ignores the larger context of discourse on the subject. The editor's discourse as a whole (Luke's) actually is about much different subjects and suggests a very different slant than Nathan chooses to understand.

Nathan also ignores the smaller context of literary form to make his argument. He makes Origen's error when he makes his typological argument out of the slimmest of threads. Origen found up to five different senses of a given verse of Scripture, and found numerous basically unwarranted parallels in the freedom he took with the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Meanwhile, he produced profound theology. I wouldn't insult him.

Bob K, the boundary interaction between God as inspirer and human as writer has many more solutions than the pigeonhole you stuff Christianity into. For example: the Bible is written entirely by God's chosen men, who are trustworthy because they are God's messengers, not because they have laid down word for word what God has instructed them to write.

There is also a cottage industry designed to avoid the problem you pose by positing that the 'original autographs' are free from error, while the documents we have now are changed from those first manuscripts. It got revved up in modern times with the Old Princeton theology, but the question of problems in the Bible is really very old. The "dictationist" would probably say that your argument is not good enough to be a falsifier. If there are good enough (whatever the standard is) reasons to suppose that the original autographs are free from error, then your argument is teethless as well.

Personally, why argue about one verse out of one parable out of one chapter of a book written by a guy two thousand years ago? It's not like the problem is really preventing you from becoming a Christian. That seems to be your tone though: "this kind of thing should prevent someone from being a Christian. It's so stupid!" Perhaps I am wrong though and you just enjoy having these mental wrestling matches.

Cheers,
Dan

PS

I will add, Bob K, that I went to your website and disagree with many many of the standards you use to judge holy books. Some seem very arbitrary to me, and flawed, and so I am willing to wrestle with them. But not tonight! It's late.

Cheers,
Dan

Indeed I do, but only to the same extent that everyone else does.

Let us presume that a given verse of the Gospels reads, “Jesus said, ‘The sky is green.’” And let us further presume that an Andrew Anderson-like apologist, addressing that verse, writes: “Jesus is saying that the sky is red.” Please note that he forwards this explanation without any supporting argumentation at all; he merely rejects out of hand the idea that Jesus could declare the sky to be green.

You are entirely correct that I claim the right to interpret such Biblical language over and against an alleged explanation which flatly contradicts the text. So does anyone who interprets any passage of the Bible to mean anything.

To the contrary, the intent that Jesus had in the parable of Luke 19:12-27 is precisely what I am trying to determine. I am merely using the words that he allegedly spoke as an indicator of that intent--and surely that in itself is not controversial. If there is no connection between a speaker’s words and his intentions, one wonders why he bothers to speak in the first place.

You appear to support other devices than textualism for divining Jesus’ intent in that passage. This does not seem to me a per se fallacy, but I have some doubts about (y)our ability to apply such devices impartially, without substituting our own prejudices for impartial tools. (I would like to reiterate that Mr. Anderson has provided no reason, textual or otherwise, for us to believe that Luke 19:27’s “slay” means “judge.” He has merely presented this as a bald declaration. I do indeed claim the right to reject such an argument by assertion.)

In my experience, Christians consistently use “context” as an excuse to reject any interpretation of a Biblical passage (even if valid) which contradicts their notions of what God, Jesus, Paul, etc., are/were like. It seems to me that such “context” is merely a disguise for the presuppositions that Christians bring to the table. If “context” merely means “Jesus was a great guy, no matter what any individual passage would make you think,” then the Christian case is dogmatically unassailable. I prefer to make an attempt to address what evidence we have as impartially as possible.

If pressed, I can indeed find some “context” which makes a genocidal command from Jesus to his followers look at least somewhat in character: John 15:6 has Jesus using a different metaphor to show “men” (and not God) casting unbelievers into Hell. Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 22:36, and Luke 14:26 all confirm that Jesus was at least perfectly happy to prepare his followers to “hate” or to commit violence against others. To me, the command “You shall slay my enemies when I return” doesn’t seem particularly aberrant coming from someone who also says everything chronicled in the passages above.

I fear that you will, of course, accuse me of “cherry-picking” in citing those passages; naturally, any Bible-based perspective forwarded by an atheist (such as ex-fundamentalist minister Dan Barker) is illegitimate, whereas an entirely equivalent positive critique by a Christian is commendable Acceptable Use Of Context(tm). I hope that you will avoid such a resort (one which is extremely common in Biblical apologetics) to blatant well-poisoning.

As an aside, I care very little about Luke’s “editor’s discourse,” its “subjects” and its “slant.” Human beings are patently willing to support demagogues who advocate genocide (claiming, if necessary, that it’s not genocide), so the thoughts on the matter of a (hardly impartial) commentator fail to rebut my case. I am treating Luke 19:12-27 as a piece of objective history; such an exercise may be on shaky ground, but if so it certainly isn’t the atheist side of the argument that’s in trouble.

In any case, an appeal to personal context (“You have to see what Jesus says elsewhere to figure out what he meant in Luke 19:12-27”) to interpret a given passage requires a further premise which is anything but conceded on these forums. To wit, you presume that Jesus’ entire message was in fact consistent--that he didn’t declare “The sky is green” one day and “The sky is red” the next. My personal account of Jesus’ character, to the contrary, contains myriad personal contradictions on his part; so it is hardly a disproof of my interpretation of Luke 19:27 to show me that he said something different in some other passage. Perhaps Jesus was just having a bad day when he said “slay them before me,” and he changed his mind later on. Perhaps he changed his prounouncements as political circumstances warranted. Perhaps he was misquoted. Frankly, I don’t care: none of these arguments is a sufficient apologia for the background question, which is the perfection of Jesus’ character.

Christians’ use of “context” implicates, of course, a broader question: why should the invaluable (and, by some allegations, inerrant) Word of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity require such subtle, complicated, “contextual” exegesis? Why is “cherry-picking” even possible from such a flawless document? An all-powerful being could, should and would have written more clearly.

Because several million people in my society (some of them very powerful) think that the purported author of that parable and main character of that book is of vital importance, making said character somewhat relevant to my life whether I like it or not. A major belief of these members of my society is that said character was a flawless human being whom we all should try to emulate. In this light, the temperament of said character is a rather relevant issue.

You’re correct that it’s neither the only nor the most significant obstacle between me and Christianity. But you are mistaken if you think that I could conscience worshiping any being which would counsel mass murder upon people who failed to declare their allegiance to it.

Well, I suppose that depends upon what “Christian” means. If one can be a Christian even while refusing to accept the message of passages like Luke 19:12-27, then I suppose there need be no such prevention. Alternatively, if one is comfortable worshiping a being which consels one to commit genocide upon heretics, then clearly one can be a Christian notwithstanding my moral outrage at the parable. (Though I would, indeed, find such a believer’s decision to be worth denouncing.)

Guilty.

- Nathan

[This message has been edited by njhartsh (edited May 31, 2001).]

It is certainly clear enough that Jesus moral teachings preclude his commanding of anything like what you suggest that he is commanding in this parable (Matt. 5:38-42; Luke 6:27-36; Luke 22:47-51 cf. Matt. 26:51-56).

Furthermore, if this was Jesus' desire then why didn't he ever actually carry it out (or at least attempt to do so)? Why is there not even a hint of a suggestion that Christians should kill others in the rest of his teachings, and such a command was nowhere included in his first commission to his disciples (Luke 9:1-6), or in his second commission, the post-resurrection commission, a.k.a., The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20)? True, he did say that he had come to bring "not peace, but a sword" (see Luke 12:53), but he was not referring to physical conquest; he certainly did not bring peace to the Roman Empire by the the post-ascension preaching of his apostles--all of Jerusalem was in an uproar at their preaching! This "sword" was the division he created in the Jewish community, for his resurrection was "a stumbling block to the Jews" (I Cor. 1:22,23).

Finally, the "servants" of the nobleman in this parable were almost certainly not humans, but angels, as in so many of the Lord's parables (Matt. 13).

As Nathan mentioned, you can only draw that inference under the assumption that Jesus was consistent. There is no objective way to determine whether Luke 19:27 should be interpreted in light of the verses you cite or vice versa.

Perhaps Jesus is a fictional character, and it did not suit his author's intentions. Perhaps Jesus was not the son of god. Perhaps Yahweh is a cruel, sadistic and petty god and was not yet ready for the denouement? Perhaps, as has been asserted time and again, "God works in mysterious ways."

This is false to fact: Nathan provides several actual examples. Jesus also explicitly supports the old testament, where Yahweh's hands drip red with blood, time and again commanding the Jews to kill, enslave, and slaughter by the thousands and tens of thousands. Remember, it is only the innocent whom Yahweh protects. Certainly unbelievers are guilty of the most heinous sin of all; there is much in your theology that impels you to actively seek our slaughter.

Again, you add interpretation. But this interpretation is only justified if you assume facts not in evidence; You seem to divine Yahweh's intentions and interpret scripture accordingly, which renders the scripture useless as a basis from which to prove the truth of your religion.

Er... I agree with everything SingleDad just wrote. I only have a few things to add, and they're not particularly vital ones.

This was specifically addressed in the dialogue between Andrew Anderson and me above: by the terms of the parable, the genocide is not supposed to occur yet. It happens at the Second Coming, as Andrew and I (in a significant departure from the general conduct of our dialogue) agreed. Further, nothing in the parable shows the nobleman/Jesus doing any of the "slay"ing himself, so quite possibly he merely expected his cohorts to do the dirty work for him.

I'd also like to know how you know that Jesus and/or his followers didn't try to pull off something on the level of a massacre. It's not the kind of thing that one would expect a Gospel writer to mention in a fawning biography.

As SingleDad noted (that I had noted), the above statement can only stem from ignorance or dishonesty. The passages I cited in my most recent post are John 15:6, Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 22:36, and Luke 14:26. The first of those is the most damning.

SingleDad is (as usual) correct to point out Jesus' acceptance of the outrages of the Old Testament. I would also add the fact that Jesus frequently threatened human beings with Hell--something, I submit, that commendable, peaceful people do not do.

Says you. When I read the words and deeds of Jesus, I see a megalomaniac who was perfectly willing to spread words of peace, justice and love out of one side of his mouth and to spew hatred, arrogance and intimations of violence out of the other, whichever one suited the whim or political necessity of the moment.

My theory incorporates all of the textual evidence. Does yours?

I don't buy this interpretation either (for the reasons SingleDad mentions), but I'd like to point out to your credit that your account has one advantage over the "'Slay' means 'judge'" apologetic forwarded by Andrew Anderson above: unlike Andrew's, your account isn't patently contradicted by the text of the parable.

In essence, though, I don't see how your reading serves to defend Jesus/God's uprightness. Whether Servant Three represents me or Lucifer, I have a hard time seeing how robbing and slaughtering all the Threes in the cosmos is particularly a good, peaceful thing to do. Making the servants into angels doesn't make any ethical difference to me.

- Nathan

[This message has been edited by njhartsh (edited May 31, 2001).]