Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Baidarka · 06-08-2004, 09:50 AM

"Baidarka, stop being a literalist. It is an allegory, dude."

Of course it's an allegory but it is an allegory that can only be understood from a criminal perspective. It is an uncouth allegory. It is gangster rap.

mrmoderate · 06-08-2004, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baidarka

Matthew 12
29"Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.
Mark 3
. 27In fact, no one can enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.
Luke 11
21"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe. 22But when someone stronger attacks and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils.

There is something rotten about this metaphor. What can we say about the mind that came up with it? What can we say about the cult that produced and preserved such an ignominious statement in it's holy writ.

These versions of Jesus's parable follow Jesus's defending Himself of the accusations that He had cast out demons by the authority of Beelzebub. The strong man is Beelzebub and the possesions are the demons. The point is that in order to cast out demons in the name of Beelzebub one would first have to attack Beelzebub himself which would make no sense to do. It was a ridiculous accusation to claim that demons were cast out for the one who owns the demons.

Therefore, Jesus has explained that he had overcome Beezlebub in his own house and had robbed Beezlebub of his demons.

Toto · 06-08-2004, 10:31 AM

I notice that the Biblical commentaries seem to want to change "strong man" into "tyrant" to feel comfortable with the metaphor.

It sounds like the sort of edgy metaphor that a Zen master might use to shock some sense into his pupils.

dado · 06-08-2004, 10:40 AM

seems he is simply saying there will always be someone with a bigger gun, so don't invest too much emotion in possessions that - ultimately - can't be protected by force. am i missing something?

Toto · 06-08-2004, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dado

seems he is simply saying there will always be someone with a bigger gun, so don't invest too much emotion in possessions that - ultimately - can't be protected by force. am i missing something?

That was my first impression from reading the verses out of context. But if you read the surrounding text, you will see that Jesus is talking about casting out demons, and defending himself from the charge that he used the powers of Beelzebub. As in many other places in the New Testament, a "house" is a metaphor for the body. The strong man must, therefore, be Satan, who is in possession of the body of the possessed man; to cast him out, Jesus must tie him up.

Baidarka · 06-08-2004, 11:11 AM

He is comparing Satan with any strong man you may wish to rob. We are still talking about breaking and entering. What is being described is a crime. The writer is using the low street talk of petty criminals to explain complex theology.
I think that this does not belong on a high theological plane. It's low gutter talk.
Its like saying "Hey dig this, If you want to take a big man's Bling-Bling ya gots ta tie 'im up. Then ya can take his shit!"

TheBigKahoona · 06-08-2004, 05:23 PM

I think that this does not belong on a high theological plane. It's low gutter talk.
Its like saying "Hey dig this, If you want to take a big man's Bling-Bling ya gots ta tie 'im up. Then ya can take his shit!"

Its a METAPHOR. You don't have to be a "gangster" to understand what he was trying to say. If you think the Bible is giving instructions on how to rob someones house your not going to find much. I'm no burgler but that "advice on how to rob a house" seemed pretty useless.

Robbing a house, a simple guide

Step 1. If the house has a guard simply tie him up.

Step 2. Rob the house.
AARRRRRGGGGG :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

judge · 06-08-2004, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baidarka

"Then he can rob his house. "

Gangster Rap! It says nothing about liberating the lost souls imprisoned by Satan. It says "Then he can rob his house."

This was written by a criminal mind and it was meant to appeal to criminal minds.

Yes, it is the sick who need a doctor.

Ponzi · 06-08-2004, 08:55 PM

While I'm not usually one to defend the Bible, this is really reaching for something to dislike. If you want to find something objectionable about the Bible, why not point out all the old testament stuff about slaughtering women and children?

mrmoderate · 06-08-2004, 09:06 PM

"By taking away the bad guys guns we rob him of his power to do harm".

Does this put the term "to rob" in an easier perspective?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-08-2004, 09:50 AM	#11
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	"Baidarka, stop being a literalist. It is an allegory, dude." Of course it's an allegory but it is an allegory that can only be understood from a criminal perspective. It is an uncouth allegory. It is gangster rap.

06-08-2004, 10:31 AM	#13
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I notice that the Biblical commentaries seem to want to change "strong man" into "tyrant" to feel comfortable with the metaphor. It sounds like the sort of edgy metaphor that a Zen master might use to shock some sense into his pupils.

06-08-2004, 10:40 AM	#14
dado Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 839	seems he is simply saying there will always be someone with a bigger gun, so don't invest too much emotion in possessions that - ultimately - can't be protected by force. am i missing something?

06-08-2004, 11:11 AM	#16
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	He is comparing Satan with any strong man you may wish to rob. We are still talking about breaking and entering. What is being described is a crime. The writer is using the low street talk of petty criminals to explain complex theology. I think that this does not belong on a high theological plane. It's low gutter talk. Its like saying "Hey dig this, If you want to take a big man's Bling-Bling ya gots ta tie 'im up. Then ya can take his shit!"

06-08-2004, 05:23 PM	#17
TheBigKahoona Regular Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: USA Posts: 171	I think that this does not belong on a high theological plane. It's low gutter talk. Its like saying "Hey dig this, If you want to take a big man's Bling-Bling ya gots ta tie 'im up. Then ya can take his shit!" Its a METAPHOR. You don't have to be a "gangster" to understand what he was trying to say. If you think the Bible is giving instructions on how to rob someones house your not going to find much. I'm no burgler but that "advice on how to rob a house" seemed pretty useless. Robbing a house, a simple guide Step 1. If the house has a guard simply tie him up. Step 2. Rob the house. AARRRRRGGGGG :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

06-08-2004, 08:55 PM	#19
Ponzi Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: California Posts: 628	While I'm not usually one to defend the Bible, this is really reaching for something to dislike. If you want to find something objectionable about the Bible, why not point out all the old testament stuff about slaughtering women and children?

06-08-2004, 09:06 PM	#20
mrmoderate Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Baltimore/DC area Posts: 1,306	"By taking away the bad guys guns we rob him of his power to do harm". Does this put the term "to rob" in an easier perspective?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.