Re: Tough Question for Christians #11: Kill all unbelievers

[wpditerl]

Thats a pretty weak/convoluted answer to a simple straight question.........but I applaude how polite and calm you are. You are not arrogant, you are not being petty or mocking. If only all christians conducted themselves as such, maybe they might attract more followers.

[MVaughnII0001]

By the way, this dude is pretty much head on. This is assuming that Christ has returned. This is after His people, the Christians, have been persecuted severely by non-Christians. Tell me, if you were a parent, would you punish the child who loved you, or would you punish the child who was throwing ROCKS at the child who loved you? This is the same idea. Those who reject God are rejecting their Father.  Direct disobedience...that punishment is death.

[MVaughnII0001]

Anyway, the killing is entirely in the hands of God. Not the destruction of the body, but the destruction of the soul. So don't worry bout Christians killing people. That only happens when an idiot misinterprets scripture.

[bbkingzor]

Wrong, they are still killing in the name of God, as Christians have done for houndre of years.

[MVaughnII0001]

Yeah...I hear about that ALL the time. "Come to Eastside Baptist! Or we'll kill you!"

Seriously dude...the only time that people are killed in the name of God is when people pervert that which God has written. You can find a hypocrite anywhere. I know lots of fake "Jews" and "Hindus" and whatnot...there are fakers everywhere. If you want to use the minority to label the majority, then you're severly mistaken.

[bbkingzor]

MVaugn, you're wrong, this is not a minority. The old Crusaders were issued by the pope himself. Also, you say the only time people are killed in the name of God, it's when people pervert the word of God? He was pretty straight forward when he say "Thou shalt not worship any other God" (or however he said it). I realize modern Christians would never kill people, and those who do would be a minority. But that's not at all in question here.

[bbkingzor]

Cont.

MVaughn, to not accept to killing of unbelievers, like you do not ofc, since you're a rational person who would never kill a person, is to defy the almighty himself. If you have not killed any nonbelivers, which I am sure you havn't, you will go to hell. You're defieing the word of Jesus

[MVaughnII0001]

I understand where you're coming from, but I honestly believe that this scripture was taken out of context...have you read the whole thing? It's a parable. It talks about the master who leaves his servants in charge of His estate. That's like God leaving us here on Earth till he comes back. People are not killed until His return. At this point, life as we know it is over...a new age begins. All who were unfaithful to God are killed. This scripture doesn't apply to today, but tomorrow.

[Pimaster42]

This seems to be a slightly flawed argument. Why would God even have to leave in the first place if he is an all-powerful being?

[MVaughnII0001]

I thought this thread was dead...lol! I forgot about it..

Why would an all-powerful being leave? Well, why would an all-powerful being even create? It's what He wants to do...God desired to be loved by things that had the choice to love or hate Him. In order to let that happen, God created beings with free will. The time here on Earth before Jesus returns is sort of a trial stage where people make these decisions...I don't know if I explained that very well. Ask questions if you want.

[MVaughnII0001]

...Uh...I don't think the last message I wrote got posted, so I'm trying again...if you see it and it repeats itself...sorry...lol.

Anyway, the scripture in question does not command Christians to kill unbelievers. It's talking about the end of this age. Have you read the context of the scripture? Read the verses before Luke 19:27...it's actually not a difficult parable to analyze, but when somebody only reads one verse (as azsuperman01 did) then it's easy to get confused.

[MVaughnII0001]

Anyway, this parable talks about a master who leaves His servants in charge of his estate while He leaves. When He comes back, He rewards the ones who improved his estate, and he punished (killed) the ones who rebeled against Him. When He commands for the rebellious ones to be killed in verse 27, this is supposedly after Christ returns. This age, as we know it, is over...out with the old, in with the new. This is basically apocalypse. Evil is destroyed...God reigns forever.

[MVaughnII0001]

It is actually quite obvious that the killing occurs after the second coming of Christ. So Christians in this day and age are not commanded to kill non-believers.

By the way, about the crusades and the pope...I COMPLETELY disagree with everything that happened there. In this era, the church became the government, so it became corrupted. People who didn't even believe in God were forced to claim Christianity. This caused lots of fakes and hypocrites to infest the church.

[MVaughnII0001]

In turn, people like the pope gained holy/governmental positions. Actually, the pope is not biblical. It is a man-made office, therefore, I believe that the pope shouldn't exist.  I could be wrong, but to my understanding, Catholics believe what the pope says takes precedence over the Bible...the word of God. So there is a large amount of corruption in this system. Since this portion of the church wasn't based on the Bible, the crusades occurred...man decided what he thought was right...

[MVaughnII0001]

I don't mean to step on any toes, but the pope is a fallen man just like the rest of us. He is bound to make mistakes...as the pope who commanded the crusades did. Going DIRECTLY from the Bible, God's word, the church is a loving community who honestly cares about the well-being of others...it isn't filled with hate and destruction. Bear in mind that since man has his filthy hands on things, no chuch is perfect. You'll see mistakes being made from time to time.

[yentaleh]

Christianity is BIG BUSINESS. They proselytize to bring in money, and members to a conjecturing and contradicting faith. I personally can't see why people can follow such a scam. To each his own, I guess.

[Provocarate]

It clearly says "bring them here and kill them in front of me." And you're saying it means, "Expand the kingdom of God. The bible is supposedly the unaltered word of god. So why are you trying to twist something that should be interpreted literally, and coming to a conclusive that is far reformed from anything to do with the quote itself. It takes supreme arrogance to believe the world revolves around you, but it's something else to dictate what your holy book is supposed to mean.

[crazyk51]

"A Christian would not take that as a commandment to go out and murder..."

That verse has been used many times during the the time of conquest of south /north america and attempted conquest of the middle east / asia as justification for the murders. I have no doubt that you as a Christian probably would not, but the history has shown that Chrisitians have done exactly what you said do would not do. The problem is that your response is just your interpretion.

[StormTrek]

"The problem is that your response is just your interpretion."

Private interpretation does not translate into relativism. Martin Luther understood this during the reformation.

Thus, we have developed systems of biblical hermeneutics to guide the believer. For the most part, these are the same systems that guide interpretations of secular literature. I can think of only one rule that would not be used in the course of secular study.

[Gplex]

What a load of bs!!

[gemmindownin]

You?

[Gplex]

No you, pay attention.

[BattleshipTx]

Aren't you the one who thinks no one has any free will, and we all are forced to take every action that we take anyway. I don't see how you can reconcile your "no free will" viewpoint with this video.

[StormTrek]

Yeah, and it's actually a pretty popular view among atheists. In my experience, it seems to be a view that is more popular among atheists than Christians.

[BattleshipTx]

So how do you hold these two incompatible positions? What you said in this video and what you said in the free will video are irreconcilable.

[StormTrek]

Yes, it seems that way, but I don't think judgment requires free will for justice to remain intact. Thanks, I think this will make a good subject for a video. I'll work on putting one together.

[BattleshipTx]

Be sure to cover how you can make any judgment if you don't have free will. Cause you can't.

[StormTrek]

Why would the lack of free will preclude the ability to make a judgment?

[BattleshipTx]

A judgment is choosing between two or more choices and without free will you really don't have a choice.

[composer390]

But we need clarification:

Are you talking about moral judgments? Because according to you, you're right, it wouldn't seem that the determinist could subscribe to moral judgments.

But, if we're talking about legal and prudential judgments, then I don't follow how just because if you subscribe to determinism that you couldn't still be judged on these terms.

[azsuperman01]

So you're saying Jesus was telling Christians to slay unbelievers after he returns?

Well, since then he had died, and returned three days later. Doesn't that mean you should be slaying unbelievers now? (Maybe the inquisitors had it right all along)

[StormTrek]

No, I think it probably has to do with the Lake of Fire after the judgment rather than "slaying" unbelievers. In addition, the resurrection is not considered "the second coming." Notice that Christians (servants) have not been judged yet for the way they have used their talents.

[azsuperman01]

StormTrek - The verse is a command given to Jesus' followers. So are you saying that Christians will be throwing unbelievers into the Lake of Fire for Jesus?