Morals and Religion

[cybercoma]

THE BIBLE: Luke 19:27 "'But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.'" -Jesus

THE QU'RAN: Sura (2:191) "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]"

THE TORAH: Deuteronomy 17: 22-23 "22The LORD your God will clear away these nations before you little by little. You may not make an end of them at once, lest the wild beasts grow too numerous for you. 23But the LORD your God will give them over to you and throw them into great confusion, until they are destroyed."

Do religion and morality really go hand in hand?

[jefferiah]

You are missing something from the Jesus quote. It was from a parable.

Luke Chapter 19

12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"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. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

[jester]

A religious quotation taken out of context. I'm sure thats never happened before........

[Figleaf]

You are missing something from the Jesus quote. It was from a parable.

Luke Chapter 19

12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'

14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"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. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

So what is Jesus' point? Does he approve the idea or not?

[myata]

Well in the interpretation known to me, the parable illustrates the future reign of Christ following second coming (people who waste their time on earth on unworthy things - as opposed to investing into their future salvation - will be harshly punished). I didn't quite remember the "slaughter" part, but it appears that in the context of this interpretation, the original post does have a point, i.e., would the "slaughter", in literal or parable terms, be a necessary prerequisite (or attribute) of the second coming?

[cybercoma]

I'd hardly say it's taken out of context. The parable was a message about God's reign over people and accepting the gift that God has given them. If you do not accept God you are to be slaughtered, slayed, struck down, killed, etc.

Check out this Bible study page for more information: http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/19_11-27.htm

You can twist the words all you want, pretending that the word of the Bible is not absolute, but as soon as you do you're giving man the power to interpret for God.

The meaning is clear and that meaning spans many religions. Slaughter those who do not believe in your faith. Lessons for morality? Lessons for peace on earth? Hardly.

Don't think I'm picking on Jesus, because I really do like Jesus and I like a lot of the things he preached. Loving one another and peace on earth, etc. The only problem is he's two-faced in the Bible. There's good ol' peace loving Jesus, then there's the slaughter all the enemies of God Jesus. Slaughtering and peace don't go hand in hand.

It's not just Christianity that's the problem, Judaism and Islam are as much a problem as well. Religion is destroying the world and tearing nations apart. It is definitly not building a case for morality.

[jefferiah]

I'd hardly say it's taken out of context. The parable was a message about God's reign over people and accepting the gift that God has given them. If you do not accept God you are to be slaughtered, slayed, struck down, killed, etc.

Check out this Bible study page for more information: http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/19_11-27.htm

You can twist the words all you want, pretending that the word of the Bible is not absolute, but as soon as you do you're giving man the power to interpret for God.

The meaning is clear and that meaning spans many religions. Slaughter those who do not believe in your faith. Lessons for morality? Lessons for peace on earth? Hardly.

Don't think I'm picking on Jesus, because I really do like Jesus and I like a lot of the things he preached. Loving one another and peace on earth, etc. The only problem is he's two-faced in the Bible. There's good ol' peace loving Jesus, then there's the slaughter all the enemies of God Jesus. Slaughtering and peace don't go hand in hand.

It's not just Christianity that's the problem, Judaism and Islam are as much a problem as well. Religion is destroying the world and tearing nations apart. It is definitly not building a case for morality.

He is not telling Christians to slaughter non-believers. In fact the New Testament gives a commision to live among the world but not to be of the world. That's it. If there is any judgement it is left to God, not to us. We are to take care of the minas.

[myata]

In the words of your own quote, the God let his followers to make and execute the judgement. They can't be any clearer.

BTW unwillingness of the official church to deal with these kind of messages from old texts is a bit concerning, to me at least. Sure, we're living in a different age, shouldn't take it literally and so on. Until and unless ...

[cybercoma]

Please explain to me what Luke 19:27 means, because you're contradicting what Jesus was peaching that day. He is clearly instructing non-believers to be slaughtered. Not to mention the countless times in the Old Testament that God demands that non-believers be slaughtered or he's slaughtering them Himself. And Jesus never once preached that the Old Testament is invalid now that He has come. In fact, he said the exact opposite.

[cybercoma]

Sure, we're living in a different age, shouldn't take it literally and so on. Until and unless ...

To me, that's just convenient. The text shouldn't be taken literally. I mean, either it's the inspired word of the Lord, who actually exists and Jesus lived and was the son of God or we should just assume the entire text is metaphorical, not to be taken literally. In which case, why does religious beliefs require unquestioning respect?

When there are people that believe others should die for not having the same 'faith' (read: unquestioning belief in the irrational) it's a little discomforting... And this is supposed to be the definition of morality (for those christians out there, I don't just mean christianity...think outside your box, there are countless other religions out there).

[guyser]

Do religion and morality really go hand in hand?

Morality and religion could not be farther apart. Religions have never been the standard for morality that some may think it is.

Stick to showing respect to people and all will be okay. Oh how simplistic....but true.

[DarkAngel_]

to be honest, i never read all of the bible, but i have observed the follower and the god they worship, and am often disappointed or unsuprized.

new morals are needed, but the words of the past way heavy, they are lessons learned by our ancestors, is not god a reason to act or wait? Existence is obviously no reason to stay alive, and the inquisition of non-believers is just a quite shame, a shunning and spout of bad words at new morals... is it not wrong to say all who do not believe will suffer?

How about this... god does come, and take the believers to salvation... as seen in evangelical belief.

Would you choose to stay and protect the non-believers? If they had been unknown hero's of there time? Would you protect the wise and strong? Or the strange and weak?

Would you be chivalrous and not put 'enemy' on the heads of the marked damned... what of the untaught children?

Any god that damns... even the well morale men and women in the world... is not worth worshiping.

but in the strangest difference from the same book, religion in any western based culture is always stuck up and condescended, unable to question that which is not right, the metaphors in the bible are constantly 'tilted' in the favor of the reader, as if the quote "27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me" is just saying: "but those who oppose me who did not trust my greatness and good will, shall be lead to me and lead to salvation."

a purposely twisted translation from literal to metaphorical...

my morals i choose, and are my base and rule of conduct, if i was to be taken to salvation, and others would suffer and i would not... i would choose to stay and fight!! i do not let the fear of suffering or the hope of deliverance get in the way of actions better suited for the situation, call it helpless heroics... but most religions are brought and kept by the prospect of hope and fear. Faith is just the hope that the path you took leads to enlightenment…

pathetic in my eye’s… no offence.

[jefferiah]

Please explain to me what Luke 19:27 means, because you're contradicting what Jesus was peaching that day. He is clearly instructing non-believers to be slaughtered. Not to mention the countless times in the Old Testament that God demands that non-believers be slaughtered or he's slaughtering them Himself. And Jesus never once preached that the Old Testament is invalid now that He has come. In fact, he said the exact opposite.

No he is not. First off whatever judgement is to be given is not to be given until the King returns. He is not mandating that people kill while he is away, or to pass judgement---for he is the judge. Also you will note that the offenders were not non-believers since they knew he was going to be King.

[jefferiah]

Every believer is a non-believer at some point. As myata says it is definitely meant as an end of days thing, since the King has not returned. The life in between is a period of grace. And once again I point out that in order for those men to have rebelled against the King they must have known he was becoming one.

[jefferiah]

And actually I think the story would not be realistic at that time without that ending. Not even a few hundred years ago. If I am not mistaken that parable which he was using as an illustration was taken from an actual event of the time period, which the people would have been quite familiar with. Archelaus I think was his name.

[jefferiah]

Matthew 10: 34 "Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the Earth! No, I came to bring a sword."

This one can be seen as equally disturbing, however the meaning of "sword" has two sides. The apostles who spread the message throughout different parts of the world were all executed for what they said, excepting John I believe.

Brother will be against brother.

One brother's weapon is the truth he speaks, the other brother's weapon is the literal sword with which he silences the honest brother (his own conscience).

Throughout the New Testament there a several references to warfare in which the truth is to be used as a sword and salvation as a helmet, etc. Scripture is compared in the epistles to a double-edged sword.

And in Revelations (which is very very surreal) the King returns and slays his enemies with a "sword from his mouth".

Do you understand?

[jefferiah]

Ephesians 6:11-20

12

For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.

13

Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground.

14

So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate,

15

and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace.

16

In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all (the) flaming arrows of the evil one.

17

And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

18

With all prayer and supplication, pray at every opportunity in the Spirit. To that end, be watchful with all perseverance and supplication for all the holy ones

19

and also for me, that speech may be given me to open my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel

20

for which I am an ambassador in chains, so that I may have the courage to speak as I must.

[DarkAngel_]

so wait, this meaning in literal is a gathering of an 'army' of the faithful?

as if i guess to say, "a great evil will rise and the battle shall start..." is in not true then, that they say the war will be on earth and with man?

have you not heard the saying: "all events are proceeded by prophecy, but without the hero, there is no such event."

that would mean this may be instigated by quacks with a god-complex and want for world order(hey! thats the USA!), or even domination! but what if man picks another route, would you morn our decision to destroy the chances of your salvation? of our own?

would you choose to abandon your god, if it gave mankind unlimited control of their destiny? our perception and logic dictates exactly how reality is defined in our eye's, but if you look into reality with knowledge and curiosity, as well as doubt, the truth of the forever unknown arises with potency.

"after we die, where do we go? not for me to know."

this "undiscovered country" is forever such... and seems to be motivation for those prophecies.

it takes man to make these events happen, that’s the only possible solution to the points made by Jesus:

"27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me"

it may be, that he meant those who WANTED to rule over man, if indeed the intent of man was to rule. Maybe a supreme judgment of the unfaithful to the one and only god, was his intent, that his servants were the countries that are "under god."

although my atheism is set on the thought of gods and demons being a manifestation of man, meaning mankind is the only effect observed that is called 'the hand of god'... in my experience, god was made by man, and can be forgotten by man just as easy, paving the way for modern hopes like science, which has never disappointed my curiosity. whilst, when i was in the Bahá'í, i was often faced with great questions that the faith had no remark too, so i gave up my apprenticeship to study science.

[jefferiah]

You did not understand the meaning then, Dark Angel.

I was pointing out that throughout the New Testament all references to battle point to something much different than what you think of as war. Scripture is referred to as a sword. Salvation as a helmet. And it says our battle is not with flesh and blood.

Now as for Cybercoma's quote, it may be that he posed this as an honest questioning of religion, in which case it is a good thing. But nonetheless I think he was wrong in saying Myata was making a convenient interpretation of the Parable. I've read that story many times, and this is the first time I have ever heard someone say that it was a command to kill non-believers. Basically no one even thinks this, except for Cybercoma. If he insists that we must take it literally he must begin with the line "there was a certain nobleman", and this story is similar to that of Herod Archelaus, who was the brother of Herod Antipas. This Herod Archelaus was a hard man. The son of Herod the great, he travelled to Rome to be crowned King of his alloted territory and in his absence a rebellion occured. A delegation was sent after him, but he did succeed in becoming King, and he massacred many people. In Matthew we are told that Mary and Joseph fled with Jesus to Egypt to escape the slaying of children two years old and under that was commanded by Herod the Great. They did not return to Israel until Herod died. He was suceeded by Archelaus.

Matthew 2:22-

22 But when he (Joseph) learned that the new ruler was Archelaus, he was afraid. Then in another dream he was warned to go to Galilee.

23 So they went and lived in a town called Nazareth.

It was because of this certain nobleman that Jesus became known as Jesus of Nazareth. Nazareth was outside Archelaus's territory. This is why they went there.

Now, if Cybercoma thinks that it is "convenient" for us to say today 2000 years later that Jesus was not telling people to kill others, he will be reminded that the Disciples who actually knew the man and heard the story did not even take it this way, since it was not their practice to go around slaughtering non-believers but to preach to them. In fact these men (with the exception of John, who lived to a very old age) were all slaughtered themselves.

[DarkAngel_]

maybe i worded it wrong: i'd need to know the full text; i was meaning maybe it was telling others to ignore persecuting non-believers, because they would be shown the one and only god in due time, the states under god may be represented as servants of god at the current time, but on the flip side what if the meaning is referring to the events led by noblemen that have done bad based on no one believing, a lesson?

i don't know, as i said, i did not read the bible, but now’s a good time to start, any suggestions on getting over my anger of indoctrination of children into religion? Objectively I still see this as positive brain washing, would never being told ‘there is a god.’ Be a form of brain washing? incomplete information and lack of information are much different, maybe its my personal resentment toward my past and present ties to that indoctrination? Fear perhaps?

[jefferiah]

No suggestions at all. But when I read your post about "so there is to be a gathering" I thought hmmm. Maybe I see where you are coming from in a way. I remember you were the one who posted a thread about the Left Behind video game. Yeah, if you think thats nuts Dark Angel, I dont blame you. I agree.

i was meaning maybe it was telling others to ignore persecuting non-believers----

Well this may or may not be part of the meaning, but nonetheless its a good formulation you have made.