OK, that's your interpretation. Someone else would interpret it differently.
This is my whole point -- that there are many quotes in the Bible that can
be interpreted in different ways, and nobody can "prove" (in the way that
Jim demands) that their interpretation is correct and someone else's isn't.
>>or "But those mine enemies, which would
>>not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me,"
>
>This is from one of the parables. It's not a command to anyone to harm
>anyone, but rather a warning of what's in store at the end of earthly life
>for the rebellious.
So, it wouldn't be an unreasonable leap of logic for a person to decide
that they want to "help Jesus along" by bringing "what's in store" to
someone while they're still on earth.
>>or "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth... and men gather them into
>>the fire, and they are burned" (a quote that was particularly popular among
>>members of the Inquisition).
>
>Again a figurative warning of the punishment that awaits the rebellious in
>the hereafter.
Define "the rebellious". Who *exactly* is deserving of this punishment,
and who isn't?
>Not a command to anyone to harm anyone else. The
>Inquisiton misapplied this passage.
Easy for us to say today. And I'm sure 100 years from now, Christians will be
looking at how Christians today misapplied all sorts of other passages. That's
the whole problem; this "eternal moral standard" is changing all the time.
>>Or consider the following quote: "The Son of man [Jesus himself] shall send
>>forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that
>>offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of
>>fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 13:41-42)
>
>Again, a figurative account of what will befall the rebellious at the hands
>of God (and only at the hands of God) in the hereafter.
Same logic applies as above.
>>How does one define "things that offend"? A Crusader in the 11th century
>>would define that as a Muslim living in Jerusalem. Some modern Christians
>>would define that as an atheist, or a homosexual, or an abortion doctor. And
>>a few have apparently taken it upon themselves to do the job of the
>>aforementioned
>>angels.
>
>The Bible also says, "Vengeance is Mine. I will repay." Those who believe
>they are the instruments of God's retribution have not read all of the
>Scriptures carefully. Just as you rightly disavow (say) Hitler's actions
>as being a valid practice of your worldview, I disavow the actions of
>so-called Christians (they may be misguided Christians, or they may not
>even be Christians at all.) when they violate clear teachings of Scripture
>(e.g. love your enemies, visit the sick and those who are in jail, repay
>evil with good, care for the poor, the widow and the orphan, etc.)
Well, by Jim's logic (when Jim's logic is applied consistently), scripture
is as responsible for the Crusades as "materialism" is for Hitler's acts.
After all, "ideas have consequences".
>>And what about slavery? Jesus said "And that servant [slave], which knew his
>>lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will,
>>shall
>>be beaten with many stripes." (Luke 12:47)
>
>Again, this is a parable. You cannot consider a parable a prescription for
>how society ought to function, except within the confines of the subject
>the parable is intended to teach. A parable has a particular purpose.
>It's dangerous to infer anything beyond the clear purpose of the parable.
Personally, I agree with you. But others wouldn't.
>Jesus apparently had no problem
>>with slavery -- or with the beating of disobedient slaves. Little wonder that
>>slaveholders, all the way up to Abraham Lincoln's day, believed that they were
>>being perfectly good Christians.
>
>But not as a logical consequence of the parable you quoted a fragment from.
It is if you use JimLogic.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.