Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 01-19-2003, 09:29 PM

BTW, according to what I've read over the last few years, a large number of atheists still consider theists "bigoted, narrow minded jerks," so I don't know if "outmoded" is applicable. Anyway I don't think Wells thought that, based on his other writings.

Rad

Radorth · 01-19-2003, 09:31 PM

Perhaps you were unaware Wells was an atheist. I will make that clearer above.

Rad

Peter Kirby · 01-19-2003, 09:41 PM

Radorth,

I am aware that H. G. Wells was an atheist. I did read your post--I just haven't read his book.

I disagree with those atheists who believe that all theists or all Christians (or all "fundamentalists") are bigoted, narrow minded jerks. I also disagree with those theists who think that atheists are degenerate "scum" or something like that. Any such generalizations reveal more of the speaker than of those spoken about, and practically nothing about the truth.

best,
Peter Kirby

Family Man · 01-19-2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
If they weren't enough to hold a war (a la Muhammed) then they could not be used for that, now could they?! So it doesn't make a damn bit of difference what he meant.

Unbelievable.

Rad

What is unbelievable is that you can't seem to understand that swords are metaphors for violence, hence when he said he came not for peace, the only possible conclusion that he was advocating violence. That he wasn't in any position to do so only makes it more ludicrous. (But then we are talking about a guy that managed to piss off the authorities so much in one week that they executed him.) But that's assuming he actually said that, and it wasn't put into his mouth by later followers.

Apparently, you don't think he meant anything since you haven't offered a single alternative explanation of what the metaphor could have stood for. Any ideas, Radoth, or are you going to continue to allow me to point out you don't have any coherent response?

Radorth · 01-19-2003, 10:02 PM

Quote:

What is unbelievable is that you can't seem to understand that swords are metaphors for violence, hence when he said he came not for peace, the only possible conclusion that he was advocating violence.

Funny none of the apostles could figure that out, isn't it? They write against violence. Muhammed's "apostles" OTOH had no problem at all. So Jesus aposles were what, morons?

Get over it man.

Rad

Goliath · 01-20-2003, 12:00 AM

luvluv,

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
Golliath says:

I never thought I would ever meet a large body of intellgent people who are totally incapable of processing metaphors.

Then I found II.

Please either show that the verses referred to above were not intended by the author(s) to be taken literally, or retract your assertion.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Family Man · 01-20-2003, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Funny none of the apostles could figure that out, isn't it? They write against violence. Muhammed's "apostles" OTOH had no problem at all. So Jesus aposles were what, morons?

Get over it man.

Rad

Why? I don't have a problem assigning the obvious meaning to it, and inconsistency is par for the course for your man Jesus and your religion. And you still can't provide an alternative explanation for what he meant by the swords. I think you're the one having a problem "getting over it."

As for the intelligence level of his apostles, I suggest you check out the Gospel of Mark. They weren't exactly depicted as rocket scientists.

Family Man · 01-20-2003, 08:14 AM

BTW, Radoth -- the Islam dodge isn't going to fly either. If Christianity evolved in 7th century Arabia instead as a minor cult in the Roman Empire, it's history might have been considerably different and violent.

Are you ever going to learn to deal with the issues, Radorth, or are you going to continue to embarrass yourself by refusing to answer the most basic questions?

PandaJoe · 01-20-2003, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth
Two swords actually, apparently used for making salads. (Luke 22:38)

Interesting that you pull a quote from Luke to explain another quote from Matthew. Yes, he was talking about swords in both, but what makes you think they apply to one another?

This is a pretty good breakdown of the quotes from Luke.
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/22_35-38.htm
These parts are especially relevant.

Quote:

The hard part of this passage to understand is Jesus' directive to purchase a sword. The noun "sword" is Greek machaira, "a relatively short sword or other sharp instrument, 'sword, dagger.' "[3] This isn't a soldiers long sword, but a small sword, the handgun of the ancient world. The problem we have is that elsewhere Jesus decries violence. Does he mean this literally or figuratively? We'll examine that in a moment.
First, let's see what he does say:
"If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (22:36b)
"Cloak" (NIV) or "garment" (KJV) translates the Greek noun himation, "outer garment,"[4] a garment of prime importance to travelers to keep them from the chill of the night. Notice how emphatic this clause is. Marshall says: "A garment for wear at night was an utter necessity; to give it up for a sword implies that dire circumstances are at hand... The saying is a call to be ready for hardship and self-sacrifice."[5]
Why, then, is a sword of more importance than keeping warm at night? We have two choices:
1- Jesus means for his disciples literally to carry a sword on their journeys for protection.
2- Jesus is speaking figuratively and doesn't really mean for his disciples to be armed on their journeys.

Quote:

Let's look at verse 38 next, before we conclude with verse 37.
"The disciples said, 'See, Lord, here are two swords.'
'That is enough,' he replied." (22:38)
What does Jesus' reply mean? "Enough" is the Greek adjective hikanos, "sufficient, adequate, large enough."[11] While it could mean, "Two will be sufficient at this time," it very probably means "That's enough of this conversation."[12]
Does Jesus encourage his disciples to equip themselves with a sword in the coming days in order to carry out their mission among hostile world? Though others might disagree, I think perhaps so. But the main point of this passage is to be prepared and self-sufficient for the next phase of their ministry, determined to serve the Kingdom no matter what.

So it seems that this passage might be figurative, and that Jesus didn't really mean they only needed 2 swords. Not that it would really make sense if he had.
Of course, you still need to explain why these passages refer to one another. Why would Jesus telling his disciples to buy two swords have anything to do with another verse where he says he brings a sword.
Your "can't make war with 2 swords" argument doesn't really work.

Radorth · 01-20-2003, 09:32 PM

The actions of the first "apostles" of any religion speak volumes about their leaders intent. They knew him, his demeanor, his kind or unkind acts, so I'll take their word and actions as superior commentary to your tendentious guesses FM.

Rad

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

01-19-2003, 09:29 PM	#61
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	BTW, according to what I've read over the last few years, a large number of atheists still consider theists "bigoted, narrow minded jerks," so I don't know if "outmoded" is applicable. Anyway I don't think Wells thought that, based on his other writings. Rad

01-19-2003, 09:31 PM	#62
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	Perhaps you were unaware Wells was an atheist. I will make that clearer above. Rad

01-19-2003, 09:41 PM	#63
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Radorth, I am aware that H. G. Wells was an atheist. I did read your post--I just haven't read his book. I disagree with those atheists who believe that all theists or all Christians (or all "fundamentalists") are bigoted, narrow minded jerks. I also disagree with those theists who think that atheists are degenerate "scum" or something like that. Any such generalizations reveal more of the speaker than of those spoken about, and practically nothing about the truth. best, Peter Kirby

01-20-2003, 08:14 AM	#68
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	BTW, Radoth -- the Islam dodge isn't going to fly either. If Christianity evolved in 7th century Arabia instead as a minor cult in the Roman Empire, it's history might have been considerably different and violent. Are you ever going to learn to deal with the issues, Radorth, or are you going to continue to embarrass yourself by refusing to answer the most basic questions?

01-20-2003, 09:32 PM	#70
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	The actions of the first "apostles" of any religion speak volumes about their leaders intent. They knew him, his demeanor, his kind or unkind acts, so I'll take their word and actions as superior commentary to your tendentious guesses FM. Rad

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.