andrewcriddle

I quite agree that the fact that not everyone interprets a passage in a given way is irrelevant to its actual meaning.

However to claim that the passage justifies violence even if nobody has ever seriously justified acts of violence on this basis is IMO much more problematic.

(Maybe some people have justified their violent acts using this passage, if so I wouldn't be astonished; however compared to the passage in Luke 15:23 'compel them to come in' which has been widely used to justify persecution by the Christian authorities, I know of no evidence at all for Luke 19:27 being used in this way.)

Andrew Criddle

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

[QUOTE=Amaleq13]Have you read the thread? It has nothing to do with the beliefs of believers. It is entirely focused on what the believers' Holy Book actually says. That some believers are willing to dismiss the apparent meaning of a given passage is irrelevant to that apparent meaning unless the dismissal is accompanied by a rational basis for reinterpreting the passage. QUOTE]

Granted, there is a fine line between addressing what the Scripture says and addressing the beliefs believers hold, but one cannot read this op without seeing the overwhelming disagreement between believers (who hold that the Bible does not command them to kill) and unbelievers (who are arguing tooth and nail to say that the Scripture does command them to kill). The question must be asked: Why are the unbelievers pressing this issue so hard (especially given the believer's position)? Is it simply to prove unbelievers are better exegetes of Scripture? Doubtful. I suggest there is more to it. From the appearance of what is written, not only the integrity of the Scripture is being maligned, but the beliefs and positions of Christians are at least indirectly being attacked.

You state that "believers are willing to dismiss the apparent meaning of a given passage, but any trained interpreter realizes that every detail of a parable is not to be pressed for specific application. From an interpretation standpoint, the parable in question (Luke 19) can be said to surely draw attention to the "seriousness of flouting the orders of the King whom God has appointed as judge", and even to show that it will not be good for those who do, without pressing it further, though it is clear in Scripture that believers will one day participate in the judgment of the world.

I disagree. If Jesus had been interested in his people participating in killing, that is... if Jesus' plans for establishing his kingdom included physical force and violence, then he would not have ordered Peter to put his sword away,... (though some might argue they were outnumbered at the time, but this does not meet with the contextual information of Jesus' knowingly going to the garden to begin with.) The point being this... because Jesus plans are NOT to establish his kingdom by physical force and might, it makes no sense for people to ascribe either to the Bible or to believers the belief that Christians are commanded to kill.

Amaleq13

I think that is problematic only if the command must be understood as immediate rather than to come during the End Times. While I understand the argument presented already that, given an expectation of an imminent End, the command should be understood as immediate but I think it is better understood as a future command.

This appears to be how early Christians interpreted it based on e-Catena by way of Peter's website. Both Methodius and Origen seem to have interpreted this as a reference to End Times events.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Still a broken record. Take this number into account with ALL the other normative Christians who have ever lived. Take also into account that normative Christians acknowledge that believers in the past have erred in doctrine and practice. That does NOT as one pressed earlier, state that the BIBLE commands Christians to kill.

You can dismiss them, but to your own harm. Wisdom calls for one to learn to distinguish the differences before discounting it all.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Perfect example of what I stated earlier about failing to distinguish dispensations, unless Javaman is simply pointing out that there have been times in the past where God commanded his people to kill.

Mageth

Never said it did.

While we're taking things into account, we should also throw in the Spanish/Catholic conquest of the Meso-Americans and what came to be known as "Manifest Destiny" among white American Europeans, and the infamous witch hunts in Europe and the Americas. And don't forget all the many wars fought within the Church, within Christendom, in Europe.

There is also an argument that our current "crusade" (to use a term that Bush himself once used) against "terrorism" and "tyranny" (read: radical Islam) sometimes comes across as a bit too much of the Christian Democratic West vs. Islam. Bush&Co have tried to avoid this, but the tint of that has come through every now and then. And various Christian spokespersons in this country have done their share of characterizing the current situation in that way - as Christianity against evil Islam.

Rather than saying that "normative Christianity" accepts that the Bible (specifically the NT) commands Christians to kill (I don't think it does, actually), I'd say that there are many Christians, even among the mainstream, that accept that killing is sometimes necessary, or even desirable. To put it another way, there are many instances in history, and even in current events, where Christians use the Bible to justify killing, or find justification for killing in the Bible. And many Christians in the past, and today, that are quite willing to use the OT to justify their actions as well as the NT.

And note that "normative" Christians 1000 years ago or even a couple of hundred years ago could and would kill willingly at the command of the Church, and justified by the Bible. What may be "normative" today was not "normative" then. Your notion that "normative" Christians throughout the ages have by and large been against killing is rather naive.

And that "wisdom" has been exercised by Christians throughout the ages to justify various atrocities using the Bible.

Look, I agree with you that the Bible has been misused to justify those atrocities. But the fact remains that "normative" Christians in the past would disagree with your reluctance to kill based on your "wisdom" regarding the NT.

rosy tetra

Looking at the parable of the minas again, as well as the parable of the talents, I get the idea that the last line is not a comment about final judgment or a command for the apostles to kill unbelievers. It sounds more like a foreshadow of the destruction of Jerusalem. (So God used Romans to slay those who would not accept the king.) The noble man giving servants control over cities sounds like the establishment of Christian churches in various cities, not like some future event.

John A. Broussard

Thank you.

I've been looking for more explanations for why god commanded Abraham to kill his son. This is a new one. You are saying he actually didn't command Abraham to do so.

Apparently the so called command was allegorical or methaphorical or mistranslated or misunderstood or????????

Please clarify.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

I appreciate your response and am gald to see our agreement in both the fact that the Bible doesn't command Christians to kill, and that the Bible has been "misused" to justify atrocities.

I would be interested to know in what situations or cases that you feel Christians today are willing to use for example the O.T. & N.T. to justify their actions in this area. Would these be other than normative individuals or groups?

The only place I know of that Christians are authorized to kill if necessary is in connection with positions related to authority such as Romans 13 speaks of.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

No, Abraham was commanded to kill his son (though God used this solely as a test), but one must clearly distinguish between the revelation and commands given during the dispensation of Abraham and that of the church age. Just because God in revealing his sovereignty, wrath, power, holiness, etc, commanded believers in past dispensations to kill under specific orders ... DOESN'T mean that he reveals himself through the same means or commands the same of believers today.

For clarification, in case I misunderstood the thread, ... I would agree that God has in the past at times ordered Christians to kill, but at the same time, Christians today are not commanded to kill unless they do so unless in a position of authority where it is necessary, etc.) (i.e., the way I read this op is that some were suggesting that Christians today should use physical force and kill in order to advance the kingdom(through physical force) which is not the case.)