Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 03-15-2012, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

In this case, the story related to the common practice of monarchs eliminating political or personal opposition, particularly on accession. The spiritual lesson to be drawn is that opposition to deity results in eternal damnation. The moral was that, if earthly kings remove their opponents, don't expect the creator to be any different.

That is, don't expect the creator to be any better than earthly tyrants; don't expect the creator to live up to a higher ethical standard of behaviour or anything like that.

If it's true it's a useful warning, but I don't see how to feel good about it.

Steve Weiss · 03-15-2012, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

The parable of the pounds is commonly believed to be an allusion to the journey of Herod Archelaus to Rome to receive his kingdom and the embassy against him by his subjects (Antiquities XVii, 11.) 19:27 in that context would be retribution for those who conspired against Archelaus, with what appears a strong hint at a coming judgment on the Jews for rejecting Jesus as their king.

It's believed by some. Archelaus was not a Jew, and was of disreputable character; was not actually made king, only ethnarch; was only a Roman vassal, in any case; and was dismissed by Rome due to public complaints. The complaints previously made, that some think were the subject of allusion by Jesus, were actually reasonable complaints of incompetence, and may have been vindicated by the eventual outcome. Rome evidently got this one wrong.

So Jesus did not pick a good model, if this is who he alluded to. His hearers possibly thought, "Not Archelaus, then." However, the concept of sending a deputation to request that a ruler not be appointed would have been made familiar to them by the history of Archelaus.

This parable, incidentally, is one that supports the view that Jesus hinted at a possible long period between his departure and his return.

So typical. Promise salvation within the foreseeable future (one generation at most), but hedge if it doesn't happen. 2000 years is a lot of hedging.

Steve Weiss · 03-15-2012, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

In this case, the story related to the common practice of monarchs eliminating political or personal opposition, particularly on accession. The spiritual lesson to be drawn is that opposition to deity results in eternal damnation. The moral was that, if earthly kings remove their opponents, don't expect the creator to be any different.

That is, don't expect the creator to be any better than earthly tyrants; don't expect the creator to live up to a higher ethical standard of behaviour or anything like that.

If it's true it's a useful warning, but I don't see how to feel good about it.

Like the Greeks gods, the creator referred to above is all too human and nonsensical.

mountainman · 03-16-2012, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

In this case, the story related to the common practice of monarchs eliminating political or personal opposition, particularly on accession. The spiritual lesson to be drawn is that opposition to deity results in eternal damnation. The moral was that, if earthly kings remove their opponents, don't expect the creator to be any different.

That is, don't expect the creator to be any better than earthly tyrants; don't expect the creator to live up to a higher ethical standard of behaviour or anything like that.

If it's true it's a useful warning, but I don't see how to feel good about it.

Like the Greeks gods, the creator referred to above is all too human and nonsensical.

sotto voce · 03-16-2012, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

In this case, the story related to the common practice of monarchs eliminating political or personal opposition, particularly on accession. The spiritual lesson to be drawn is that opposition to deity results in eternal damnation. The moral was that, if earthly kings remove their opponents, don't expect the creator to be any different.

That is, don't expect the creator to be any better than earthly tyrants

That's wild, anachronistic misrepresentation. Monarchs were not, as a rule, tyrants (Archelaus was deposed because he was tyrannical), but the principle means of maintaining order and the rule of law. Modern, democratic minds obviously have a different view (that may well stem from the origins of Israel, as it happens), but monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe. A compromise, perhaps, in a less than perfect world, where monarchs had their uses for the common man.

So the moral is quite different: if monarchs were justified in removing influences that would destabilise civil order and progress, the pursuit of happiness, it could be no surprise if deity took a similar attitude when selecting citizens of the permanent, eternal 'society'.

Doug Shaver · 03-16-2012, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

What's the official story about this verse?

There is no official story about anything in the Bible.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-16-2012, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

That is, don't expect the creator to be any better than earthly tyrants

That's wild, anachronistic misrepresentation. Monarchs were not, as a rule, tyrants (Archelaus was deposed because he was tyrannical), but the principle means of maintaining order and the rule of law. Modern, democratic minds obviously have a different view (that may well stem from the origins of Israel, as it happens), but monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe. A compromise, perhaps, in a less than perfect world, where monarchs had their uses for the common man.

So the moral is quite different: if monarchs were justified in removing influences that would destabilise civil order and progress, the pursuit of happiness, it could be no surprise if deity took a similar attitude when selecting citizens of the permanent, eternal 'society'.

Who are the "servants" being ordered to do the killing here? If the "King" is God. then who is God ordering to actually do the killing? When God says "kill them in front of me," who is he talking to?

J-D · 03-16-2012, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

In this case, the story related to the common practice of monarchs eliminating political or personal opposition, particularly on accession. The spiritual lesson to be drawn is that opposition to deity results in eternal damnation. The moral was that, if earthly kings remove their opponents, don't expect the creator to be any different.

That is, don't expect the creator to be any better than earthly tyrants

That's wild, anachronistic misrepresentation. Monarchs were not, as a rule, tyrants (Archelaus was deposed because he was tyrannical), but the principle means of maintaining order and the rule of law. Modern, democratic minds obviously have a different view (that may well stem from the origins of Israel, as it happens), but monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe. A compromise, perhaps, in a less than perfect world, where monarchs had their uses for the common man.

So the moral is quite different: if monarchs were justified in removing influences that would destabilise civil order and progress, the pursuit of happiness, it could be no surprise if deity took a similar attitude when selecting citizens of the permanent, eternal 'society'.

Okay, then: the moral is, don't expect the creator to be any better than the earthly monarchs of 2000 years ago; don't expect the creator to live up to a higher ethical standard of behaviour or anything like that. It does look rather as if you do feel good about that because you feel that the ethical standards of the earthly monarchs of 2000 years ago were admirable ones. I differ.

sotto voce · 03-16-2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

In this case, the story related to the common practice of monarchs eliminating political or personal opposition, particularly on accession. The spiritual lesson to be drawn is that opposition to deity results in eternal damnation. The moral was that, if earthly kings remove their opponents, don't expect the creator to be any different.

That is, don't expect the creator to be any better than earthly tyrants

That's wild, anachronistic misrepresentation. Monarchs were not, as a rule, tyrants (Archelaus was deposed because he was tyrannical), but the principle means of maintaining order and the rule of law. Modern, democratic minds obviously have a different view (that may well stem from the origins of Israel, as it happens), but monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe. A compromise, perhaps, in a less than perfect world, where monarchs had their uses for the common man.

So the moral is quite different: if monarchs were justified in removing influences that would destabilise civil order and progress, the pursuit of happiness, it could be no surprise if deity took a similar attitude when selecting citizens of the permanent, eternal 'society'.

Okay, then: the moral is, don't expect the creator to be any better than the earthly monarchs of 2000 years ago

Or of 1000 years ago, or of almost any time before constitutional monarchy or republicanism became the general practice. Monarchies were rarely tyrannies, if only because people will tolerate a tyranny only in particularly adverse circumstances, where they perceive that 'iron law' is essential to preserve order. When they overthrow a monarchy, they may get little or no practical advantage, as occurred in both France and Russia. Monarchy was seen as a moderating influence to control the predations of local tyrants, as indeed was often to occur in medieval Europe.

Diogenes the Cynic · 03-16-2012, 02:12 PM

Nope no tyranny under the Roman empire. Or the Greek or Egyptian or Persian empires. Those were all egalitarian, libertarian paradises.

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

03-16-2012, 02:12 PM	#20
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Nope no tyranny under the Roman empire. Or the Greek or Egyptian or Persian empires. Those were all egalitarian, libertarian paradises.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.