trendkill

This is just a reiteration of the previous claim, with no new argumentation. I already explained why it's wrong. Isn't any atheist here familiar with parables? Anyone besides me go to Sunday school as a kid? Anyone?

I'm not nearly as familiar with the Koran as with the Bible, so I wouldn't know. But my guess is that it's not the same at all. Mohammed actually led troops in battle, I believe; Jesus didn't. So it seems more likely that Mohammed's followers would be ordered to kill in his book.

I basically agree with Eli's interpretation. Except he evidently sees Judgment Day as a good thing; I think it's barbaric myself. God is quite clearly being portrayed as a despot here. Jesus doesn't even try to hide it, because there is no negative stigma attached to authoritarianism in his day. You do what God says, or he'll kill you. It worries me that this is seen as some sort of justice even today.

That's the thing--the violent part is not even close to being the point of the parable. The meaning of the parable is stated clearly:

"Use it or lose it" is how we would say this nowadays. Jesus is telling people to make the most of their abilities and their resources. That's the entire point of the parable. The threat at the end is just kind of tacked on. It's like, "oh, and remember, if you don't do what God says, He'll get you, so be good for goodness' sake". It's just there because in Theism you're always supposed to keep in mind that you're going to be judged, and that's supposed to motivate you to do whatever you're told. It's a reminder to fear God, and yes, it's a questionable teaching approach to say the least. But it's not an order for followers of Jesus to kill people.

fta

Acts 11:26 - And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Amaleq13

That isn't clear from your earlier interpretation. You said the nobleman represented Jesus and the end of the parable has the nobleman giving the command to kill.

It seems to me that both of you are rather selectively interpreting the parable. The nobleman only represents Jesus when he is saying things you agree with?

I think Eli's interpretation is correct and the nobleman represents Jesus but I find his outright denial of the final statement and your dismissal of it as "tacked on" equally unbelievable.

Eli

There is no way that I can understand this parable of Jesus for you.

Sensei Meela

Since when are Christians not ordered to kill?

Mark 7:
9And [Jesus] said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’"

Luckily, most Christians have abandonded their God-ordered morality in favor of their own traditions...

At it's very core, Christianity is just another blood sacrifice cult; Christians are ordered to kill the son of God -- sacrifice him -- so that his blood may cleanse them.

Amaleq13

No one can understand something for someone else.

What you appear incapable of doing is explaining this parable without applying a selective interpretation.

As it stands, the nobleman in the parable represents Jesus/God and the parable concludes with the nobleman commanding his followers to bring his enemies to him and kill them.

That a plain reading of this appears to fail to support your belief in a consistently peaceful Jesus is not my problem.

French Prometheus

I think it's annoying that Christians try to pass off the moral of a parable for something else just because they don't like what it says. This was discussed in this old thread: Jesus, the epitome of tolerance? I think not...

BTW, katasphaxate is better rendered in English as "slaughter".

John A. Broussard

There's no contradiction in the mind of theists concerning killing non-believers. The killing is being done out of love. Even the killing of believers is OK, if done for the right reason. Don't they firmly believe that Abraham loved his son?

trendkill

You don't need to be an expert to understand this stuff, you just have to have a little familiarity. If you go and read more than one of Jesus' parables, you'll notice that no matter what they're about, there's usually some sort of punishment at the end. It doesn't always take the form of violence. For instance, in the parable of the ten virgins, the lord shuts the virgins out of the wedding (i.e. shutting them out of the kingdom of heaven). These are both from Matthew 25 btw.


The next one, which is very similar to the one we're talking about here (I suppose it may be the same parable just reworded, but like I said, I'm not an expert), ends like this:

Are you going to argue now that the morals of these two parables are that 1. unbelievers should be kept out of weddings, and 2. that unbelievers should be thrown outside at night, where they will then grind their teeth and make loud noises? I mean, wouldn't that conflict with all the killing?


I'm an atheist, my misguided friend, and so is Toto, who correctly identified the moral of the parable on page one of the thread.

Any religion that believes in a day of judgment or a vengeful god can reasonably be considered intolerant. But the fact remains that you didn't understand the parable. The final line is not the moral of the story. And it doesn't take Christian belief, or expert knowledge of the NT, to get this. All it takes is halfway decent reading comprehension.

Amaleq13

And this let's Jesus/God off the hook for commanding the murder of "enemies" in this one how?

Interpreting this as an End Times parable seems entirely correct. Pretending that the ending is irrelevant does not. The fact that this ending was included and worded in this way cannot just be ignored or explained away as something that was "just tacked on".