Killing In The New Testament

I think a lot of what it boils down to is people. I don't think that God ordained The Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition or the infamous Witch Hunts. I think people need something to "fuel" them, if that makes any sense. People can be stupid and violent and if they can escape the blame for something and still be able to get away with doing it then by all means they will. War happens. The only reason you don't find many wars in a society without religion is because societys without religion do not last a long time. That's just history.

Sawatsky wrote:I think a lot of what it boils down to is people. I don't think that God ordained The Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition or the infamous Witch Hunts. I think people need something to "fuel" them, if that makes any sense. People can be stupid and violent and if they can escape the blame for something and still be able to get away with doing it then by all means they will. War happens. The only reason you don't find many wars in a society without religion is because societys without religion do not last a long time. That's just history.

I disagree completely. I think people are urged by what's in the Bible. The Bible specifically says to kill non-believers and witches. The people at the time of major witch hunts were doing what the Bible instructed them to do. You add divine power and right into that equation, and you're going to get results. I don't believe that the majority of people are born with that urge of bloodshed and aggression. I think indoctrination and a divine book filled with teachings of murder, genocide, rape, etc leads people in that direction. If there were no books saying to kill Witches, why would anyone do it? Without the Bible (or any other religious doctrines for that matter), none of the past atrocities listed would have been able to happen. The Bible was the Constitution of the land at that time. People were born into a killing mindset.

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:Religion may have not caused some wars, but it certaintly was used as the justification for some of the longest and bloodiest wars of all time. That's pretty much just semantics to me.

If you ever find yourself in court, you'll find there's a big difference between being accused of murder, or being used as a justification for murder. I think we should be careful in accusing religion of things that they didn't do. On the atheist side of the battle, facts are the best weapon we have. We should make a point of sticking to them. We don't need lies anyway: There's enough evil that they did do to keep us busy. ;-)

You can't really say the Crusades would have happened if Christianity and Islam did not exist.

I don't know enough about the Crusades to give a definite answer. All I can say is: If people are willing to kill each other over their favorite fucking soccer team, then who needs religion to start any war?

Sawatsky wrote:I think a lot of what it boils down to is people. I don't think that God ordained The Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition or the infamous Witch Hunts. I think people need something to "fuel" them, if that makes any sense. People can be stupid and violent and if they can escape the blame for something and still be able to get away with doing it then by all means they will.

So far, you make perfect sense. (Of course God didn't ordain anything, since he doesn't exist, but that's not the point.) The point is: Whatever a person or group has done, they can always find justification in the Bible. It's vague and contradictory enough to justify literally anything. People will gladly use it, if they lack other means of justification. (It's been said that super-intelligent people don't act different than average people - they're just better at justifying their actions afterwards. That might be why I don't need a Bible. ;-) )

War happens.

Sadly, yes. But let's not shrug it off as if it were inevitable; perhaps it isn't. I would very much like to see the world turn into a peaceful, enlightened place - but religion will have no place in it. To change the world, we need facts, not faith.

The only reason you don't find many wars in a society without religion is because societys without religion do not last a long time. That's just history.

What's your data on that - or did you pull it out of your hat?

P.S. just to bring the discussion back on topic...

In Luke 19:26-27 Jesus the gentle Nazarene specifically orders the collection of those who don't worship him and then for them to be killed in front of him.

Akuma9 wrote:

Also, Jesus never existed. There is no historical evidence for Jesus. Only the Bible says Jesus existed. Not even the most prominent historians and political writers of the time mention him. You are striking out left and right.

Akuma9, there is plenty of historical evidence for the existence of the man named Jesus of Nazareth. The most notable historian to make mention of Jesus was Flavius Josephus. Check out this link for more info, and stop making easily disproved claims.

I think we should stick to the subject, instead of exploring every single nook and cranny of the bible. There's always the option of creating another post?

But for arguments sake dedtekker, goto this page and search for "Flavius Josephus".

Christian apologists continuously use these writings by Josephus because they do appear to be the strongest evidence supporting a historical Jesus Christ, well that is if you don't do any research on Josephus or his works.

Once again, this is not a reliable contemporary account. Josephus was not even born until the year 37, seven years after the supposed life of Jesus Christ. The sections referring to Jesus are only talking about the beliefs of a Jewish sub group that were well known by the year 94.

...If anyone wants to discuss a topic other than the new testament killings, please create a new post - new discussions are always welcome! :-)

Clint wrote:...If anyone wants to discuss a topic other than the new testament killings, please create a new post - new discussions are always welcome! :-)

I've opened up a new thread to discuss staying on topic.
https://truth-saves.forumotion.com/general-discussion-f4/how-to-stay-on-topic-t14.htm#88

dedtekker wrote:

Akuma9 wrote:

Also, Jesus never existed. There is no historical evidence for Jesus. Only the Bible says Jesus existed. Not even the most prominent historians and political writers of the time mention him. You are striking out left and right.

Akuma9, there is plenty of historical evidence for the existence of the man named Jesus of Nazareth. The most notable historian to make mention of Jesus was Flavius Josephus. Check out this link for more info, and stop making easily disproved claims.

Wow....I see you are....COMPLETELY WRONG!

Using Josephus as a legitimate source is like sourcing Richard Dawkins on Quantum Mechanics. It's Bullshit.

Josephus has been debunked so much and so many times that it is laughable that you bring it up.

Neils already pointed out the basic flaws in using Josephus as a source. And Clint posted up even more on it.

So you failed by providing easily disprovable evidence to support your theistic claims.

Well, Clint(and Akuma9), if you find Josephus to be an unsatisfactory source, go to Tacitus, who looked unfavorably on the Christians. And yes, I did read the truth-saves blurb on the Roman historian. I found it to be misleading. The writer took the phrase "pernicious superstition" out of context, saying that the existence of Jesus was superstition. However, taken in context, Tacitus was referring to the Christians' belief in Jesus as superstition. See the surrounding text for yourself here.

For a website that claims to seek truth, I certainly see a lot of truth-twisting.

Akuma9, my original point stands. You made the erroneous claim that no contemporary historians made mention of Jesus of Nazareth. I refuted your claim by giving you a list of historians that mention Jesus. You should really be more careful when posting such absolute statements.

Okay, back on topic.

Clint wrote:In Luke 19:26-27 Jesus the gentle Nazarene specifically orders the collection of those who don't worship him and then for them to be killed in front of him.

Keep in mind that this is a parable. If I were to say to you, "A priest, a rabbi, and an imam walked into a bar. . .", would you take it literally? Of course not. You would recognize that I was telling a joke. Have three clergy from three separate faiths ever really walked into a bar together? Probably not.

Also, in this parable, Jesus did not refer to Himself as the nobleman who called for the death of his enemies. Jesus actually referred to Himself as a servant(Matthew 20:28, Mark 10:45), which is the polar opposite of a nobleman(ruler).

It's all about the context, really.

Akuma9 wrote:

So you failed by providing easily disprovable evidence to support your theistic claims.

Also, I'd like to point out that my claims are not theistic, but rather existential in nature. We are not discussing the topic of Jesus' deity. We are discussing whether or not a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed.

I don't see what's parable about it. How you can take Luke 19:26-27 metaphorically? or in any other way for that reason? The message is black and white. ...This is just another example of how people cherry-pick the bible, taking the 'good' verses literally, and the 'bad' verses as a metaphor. What reason do you have to take this particular verse metaphorically over other verses in which you don't? What criteria are you using to decipher what is literal and what's not?

dedtekker wrote:
Also, I'd like to point out that my claims are not theistic, but rather existential in nature. We are not discussing the topic of Jesus' deity. We are discussing whether or not a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed.

Good point. I suggest we discuss that in another thread:
https://truth-saves.forumotion.com/bible-christianity-f5/who-was-this-jesus-guy-anyway-t17.htm#102

Clint wrote:I don't see what's parable about it. How you can take Luke 19:26-27 metaphorically?

Luke 19:11 wrote:Now as they heard these things, He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately.

Clint, perhaps if you had read the entire story instead of "cherry-picking" two verses, you would have known that this is a parable. In fact, all throughout Luke, whenever Jesus tells a parable, it is labeled as such.

dedtekker wrote:In fact, all throughout Luke, whenever Jesus tells a parable, it is labeled as such.

Labeled as such? Which bible translation do you have? I'd like a copy.

I would too...

and yes I did read it all, I realise it's a representational message. But you have to consider what he is representing. It's extremely difficult to take this message any other way. To explain himself, he uses a story that's quite clear; a story of a "noble-man" nearing Jeruselam. He then proceeds to explain quite clearly his message that those who refuse to accept 'Jesus Christ' as their savior, will be slain. It's obviouse what it's advocating.

Or if you want to take it as a different spin and looking to take it as a 'moral' message. It is without doubt to teach you that those that do not follow and serve Christ, will suffer eternal damnation. If you do want to take it like this, it's even more cruel and unjust then simply slaying someone. "God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow".

Thanks Clint!

Clint wrote:I don't see what's parable about it. How you can take Luke 19:26-27 metaphorically? or in any other way for that reason? The message is black and white. ...This is just another example of how people cherry-pick the bible, taking the 'good' verses literally, and the 'bad' verses as a metaphor. What reason do you have to take this particular verse metaphorically over other verses in which you don't? What criteria are you using to decipher what is literal and what's not?

I gave up with trying to point this out to Christians. You are 100% right about it being literal in context, grammar, and structure. There is no way around it for a rational minded person. Unfortunately, there's not many people that attribute to that such trait....

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:
I gave up with trying to point this out to Christians. You are 100% right about it being literal in context, grammar, and structure. There is no way around it for a rational minded person. Unfortunately, there's not many people that attribute to that such trait....

True - but intelligent Christians do exist. Just once, I've managed to make a fundamental Christian think about things, leading to an almost instant conversion to atheism.

You can't expect even the most intelligent Christian to doubt his/her beliefs without ever being exposed to the facts. That's why I keep pointing out those facts, again and again, for those few that might be able to understand.