Luke 19:27 , Jesus, "Kill them before me" ???[MOVED for relevancy]
Offline Luke 19:27 That story and verse is a clumsy stumper for many. Jesus is saying, don't be afraid of me, I am not that kind of murderous king or leader, .... elsewhere he says we are his equals. "Ye are gods", etc etc
Keep in mind the edited bible was more of a goverment control book than an honest attempt to help anyone. The church turned atheistic Jesus philosophy into silly superstition and dogma.
Actaully the King in this story can also translated as a "nobleman" or "Rich man" etc. Jesus seems to be illustrating that they should not be afriad of him and to use their talents, as the three slaves in the story represent. The one slave was afraid. Jesus is saying don't be afraid.
Of course we must also take this story into context as well, ... would slavery be considered a "bad thing" back in the ancient days? No, it would be a normal every day thing. Also a slave wasn't always really a "slave", but a live in worker. Sometimes poor people would become "salves" for money, a place to sleep and food to eat. Some slaves where even treated as family back then. Also, in the story the master gives the slaves money to invest with, which shows some respect for them.
Today this story could read something like this:
One day a stock company boss had to leave on a business trip. He left 3 of his employees some things to invest with. Two of them took chances and doubled their original amount and another was too "scared" to do anything. When the Boss returned he gave the two a raise and fired the other one. A boss even today can have a lot of power and be a tyrant. He won't kill you, but can make you miserable.
Another thing , Jesus doesn't say he aproves or disaproves of that "kings" behaviour. It's considered obvious and taken for granite Jesus doesn't approve. Like us telling a story about jack the ripper, is not saying go out and murder hookers.
You can read the bible even as an atheist in a positive way ..... remembering the tragedy of it's history, and the hypocrisy of the church/gov that Jesus was against.
Jesus rocks, the Bible sucks. Jesus and Socrates were a pain in the governments ass so the killed them. Philosophy/Science was often even against the law. The church/gov didn't like the competition.
Jesus was no xain .....
Sorry if my posts are a bit much, Religion riles me. (( thanks martini7B7
I am an Atheist for Jesus against religion ......
- Login to post comments
Wait. Wait. Wait.
That is the lamest spin on this parable that I have ever read.
#1 What about the other seven servants and their investments?
#2 What would have happened had this servant that kept the pound had instead invested it and lost it?
#3 How is it 'righteous' to 'reap what thou hadst not sown'?
#4 If every worker that did not produce a profit were treated in such a manner then we would be in a sad shape as a society. At no point in the servant's instructions was he told WHAT to do with the pound other than to 'occupy'. To me, that means do something with and the servant did exactly that. He safeguarded for the master's return. Does that not seem more 'righteous'?
#5 Don't forget that RIGHT AFTER this, the disciples stole a 'colt' for this 'sacrosanct' 'master' to ride upon into town to 'claim his kingdom'.
#6 And let us also remeber that he went into the temple to CAST OUT those that bought and sold there which means that the servants who were investing money in there for their masters were regarded as SINNERS.
The sheer hypocrisy of declaring oneself the ONLY good person flies in the face of reason and understanding.
No fucking wonder this whole story ends with the guy getting crucified.
How is this a 'GOOD' story?
Every other hero in this 'book' ushers in a new era of prosperity and conquest. This guy comes along and BAM fucks up the jews for the rest of time.
In my humble opinion, you need better heroes.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Bill Gates has personally taken interest in 7 new hires. He calls them into his office, hands each of them a laptop and tells them to invent something cool. A few months later he calls them back and says "show me what you've got". Six of the new hires have come up with things ranging from moderately interesting to fantastic, and Bill can already see his bottom line going up. The last one tells him, "I didn't do anything because I knew I wouldn't get any of the patent rights. In fact, I didn't even turn the laptop on because I knew anything I did on it would becoome your intellectual property."
So Bill fires his ass.
Was Bill's action justified?
My Artwork
It's a matter of degree concerning the severity of punishment. Is it possible to cross an innappropriate level of payback ?
Regarding Luke 19:27 where Jesus threatens to have the rebellious killed in front of him, I suppose the answer would depend entirely upon a person's concept of justice and their theological frame of reference. Most mainstream Christians embrace the concept of never-ending agony for those who deny God. Some Christians reject the concept of a literal Hell ( for various reasons )
My biggest problem with this parable is the contradiction that it presents when paired with other teachings:
but...
Which is the first of the Beattitudes. (And which, incidentally, hints at a non-atheist Jeshua Ben-Joseph.)
So which is it? Are the poor going to be compensated for their suffering, or are they going to have what little they've managed to scrape together taken away? Some might say the parable itself is meant to refer to spiritual matters, but if so, Matthew's version of 6:20 uses the phrase 'poor in spirit', so it seems there's still no escaping the inherit contradiction.
Contradictions like these are a large part of why it's so easy to be skeptical, y'know?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Write your own fucking parable if you don't like mine. Changing it to suit your whims is lame.
My Artwork
...it's not "lame" if it illustrates my point. I altered your parable for a legitimate purpose. At the end of your edited parable I provided a defense of my position based upon how the two versions differ concerning the degree of punishment. If you wish to interpret that as deliberate provocation or an attempt to "dis" you then that is beyond my control.
ps, why don't you just counter my argument instead of starting a flame war ?
What is your argument? Instead of answering my question (was Bill justified?) you injected hyperbole into it and reiterated the question. Because Bill was justified and that conclusion doesn't support whatever is going on in your mind, you instead divert what is problematic for you by changing it. But when I use a little hyperbole I'm accused of starting a flame war.
My Artwork
Your original parable was an example that most people, including myself, would agree was an appropriate response to the level of culpabilty of the fired employee.
In the second revised scenario Gate's response was intended to represent an unjustified over-reaction, similar to how most atheists and even some Christians view the doctrine of Jesus and eternal torture, per Luke 19:27 which btw, this entire thread is predicated upon.
Is that "fucking" clear enough for you ? ( later edited by PDW to eliminate possible uncontrolled chain-reaction in response to excessive use of the word "fuck" in a single sentence. My apologies. )
I see you've made an effort to dial down the heat.
What is fucking clear to me is that a parable can only be taken so far. They are meant to illustrate the essence of an idea not an absolute. It's not my fucking fault that fucking theologians make up their own fucking absolute interpretations of a some fucking words attributed to jesus, which even if he did fucking say something like that, what actually fucking said was not fucking likely accurately quoted.
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK.
If by now you aren't laughing a little then there is no fucking hope for you.
My Artwork
This Luke stuff is misleading to many, and maybe intentionally so by the author/editors. Some even say Luke was written like 2 CE. See, After 70 CE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#After_70
I use the Bible and especially "Jesus" philosophy to teach atheism !
wavefreak "So Bill fires his ass. Was Bill's action justified?"
But Jesus is saying he himself won't fire anyone, not to be afraid of using your talents to spread atheistic ideas of "the good news" that Jesus preaches. no?
ProzacDeathWish "Regarding Luke 19:27 where Jesus threatens to have the rebellious killed in front of him,..."
Jesus is saying he is NOT that kind of punishing king who would physically hurt anyone.
BMcD , As a simple atheist I read Jesus as an atheistic type of Buddha philosophy. I take the trouble because the the "damned" Xains completely screwed up the Jesus message of "The kingdom of God/Heaven is now". Jesus even said 'Ye are Gods". Keep in mind Jesus wrote nothing and the bible is a "Pauline" slanted collection of the winning books. The gnostic ideas were mostly tossed, but the bible editors weren't able or smart enough to keep it entirely "Pauline", so to speak.
Luke 19:26 wrote: He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away.
? Belief in correct ideas and living brings rewards, wrong ideas rob you of heaven on earth.
Luke 6:20 wrote: Looking at his disciples, he said:
"Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."
? Because the poor in "spirit" compassionatly know the ills of the world , and or have not taken to greed, thievery, .....
...... Yeah Jesus barrowed an ass to cleverly fullfil the old OT. The pharissees didn't like like that shrewed in their face Jesus. I think George Carlin is alot like that Jesus.
wavefreak "If by now you aren't laughing a little then there is no fucking hope for you."
YUP , hey ... smart Jesus "philosophy" was atheistic, The BIBULL is basically B.S. Luke and Paul maybe the most guilty of all. I seem to like only bible James.
Acts : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles#Date
It is worth noting, however, that no ancient source actually mentions Acts by name prior to 177.The author of Luke also wrote the Book of Acts.
'That bible shit is a pain in our ass', said a Buddha ..... stupid evil Xian church .... and Jesus would agree ....
Atheism Books.
Wish I could edit my OP a bit, but there is no edit button. ? So, again,
Actually the King in this story can also translated as a [ "master" ] or "Rich man" etc. Jesus seems to be illustrating that they should not be afriad of [ he Jesus ] and to use their talents, as the three slaves in the story represent. [ and makes the point ] of the one slave who was afraid, [ stressing the idea that bad consequences can result if you don't ] But Jesus is not saying to be afraid of he Jesus, but rather you will suffer spiritually if you don't use your talent to spread the good word.
Hell, Jesus is a teacher of us all being "one of the father" (creation). This is not a lesson about money or physically killing anyone, but a spiritual one.
"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Re write: "But those mine enemies [ of truth ] , which would not that [ truth ] should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [ the devil of wrong thinking within ] them before me."
Ahh shit, I'm I just covering for a mushroom dangerous Jesus cult or is that more like what it meant ?
Geezz someone help me out here, I can suck at communicating ..... hey religion is such nasty shit ! Buddha might say , who cares (you morons) .... yeah well old wise man, so sorry, but we still have big inescapable idiotic religion problems .....
Anyway, I delight in telling the xains etc that big mystery J was an atheist. Hell read your stinking bible of mostly lies again I say .... shit I am going to get stoned ..... ezy does it friends .... don't drive even on 2 beers.
Spead atheism or I will slay you ! Sharpen your SWORDS !
Atheism Books.
Well, since this a forum populated by individuals who represent the entire countinuum from dedicated biblical literalists ( ie, wzedi ) to more non-conventional theists ( wavefreak ? ) to agnostics, weak atheists ( ie, ProzacDeathWish ) strong atheists, and other variations, their will never be a concensus as to what Luke 19:27 actually means.
Speaking only for myself, when I was a bible-believing, fundamentalist Christian I was instructed to view this passage of Jesus as a literal threat to a persons' well-being ( ie, Hell ) for anyone who failed to submit to his authority.
Now that I have abandoned my faith and view the Bible as a discredited "holy" book this passage still seems to me to convey the same message which is basically a message of obedience or death.
It appears to me to nothing more than a crude threat made by a tyranical figure whose last resort always falls back to that very human way of thinking....might makes right.
As a Christian I accepted verses such as Luke 19:27 as examples of God's prerogative to do as he wished because he had the right to dispose of anyone for any reason that he deemed sufficient...even if it meant killing the unborn, or infants or the elderly, etc.
Now, without the influence of my former beliefs to alter my perception I am free to identify these passages for what they really represent, brutal threats from a savage God....a god that even if he did exist would still be unworthy of worship.
Yikes.
This explains things a bit. When I was in the thrall of fundmentalists, I never saw this passage this way. Even then I never got along with the burn in hell types. I forget sometimes how overbearing some preachers can be. I always thought the gospel was meant to be a message of hope so the fire and brimstone condemnation I heard just felt wrong. I wasn't well liked.
My Artwork
My Christian parents were not at the extreme end of fundamentalism, the did not believe in faith healers or speaking in tongues or handling live snakes, etc. They considered those practices to be spiritually irrelevant and even down-right laughable.
They progressed from the Methodist church, to a non-denominational Bible Church, and finally to the Southern Baptist church.
So anyway you can see where my religious influences came from and why my concept of the Judeo-Christian God would reflect a more literalist interpretation. I was instructed to ignore other religious viewpoints and to consider our version of theology to be the only legitimate path to biblical truth.
I followed that path for many years until I ran into some problems that could not be resolved to my satisfaction ( the doctrine of biblical inerrancy ) and that I could no longer ignore.
The result is that after a difficult transition I abandoned my faith and ( by default ) became an atheist but...... I am an atheist by accident and not by design.
It's always interesting to hear individual stories. I grew up in a home environment that taught me not to trust ANYBODY (highly dysfunctional family, trust was not an option). So even when in church or involved with religion I never accepted anything at face value. I could never accept that what somebody told me about god was a perfect representation of what something as "big" as god was really thinking. I still have this problem today. I don't let anybody tell me what to think. If what somebody says contradicts my own views, I take it "under advisement" and chew on it long enough so that it either makes sense, I can discard it as wrong, or, which is often the case, put on the "well that's an interesting idea" list.
My Artwork