Violence in Abrahamic texts

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well the point is, violence in text exists. If people of a certain faith adhere to their religious texts, doesn't that mean they take their religion more seriously? Some may twist the interpretation and misunderstand but lets not pretend any one faith is all hug and forgiveness all the time.

Point out the violence in the gospels (well, apart from the crucifixion). TIA

the slaughter of the innocents - in an attempt to make sure the King of the Jews was murdered shortly after being born. All those newborns killed, but Jesus spared, so he could grow up to be killed anyhow, according to his own Father's plan, but not before spreading the Gospel.

That's not germane. We're talking about whether a prophet preaches violence. Jesus message was 180 degrees from that. We all know the world is a terrible place, and Jesus' message is actually about ending war and the slaughter of innocents.

I come not in peace but with a sword. Matthew, 10:34

Go buy a dictionary and look up the word "metaphor."

How can you tell when something in the Bible is a metaphor or is real. If this is a metaphor, then the resurrection could be a mteaphor too - or the vigirn birth. In fact a lot of good Christians believe that.

The Bible explicitly states that the resurrection is not a metaphor. 1 John 4 says that anyone who denies the physical resurrection of Christ is of the spirit of Antichrist. It's pretty easy to read things stated in such a way as meant to be literal. But Jesus spoke in metaphors and parables all the time. In the Gospels, Peter cuts off a man's ear, and Christ tells Him to put the sword away. The message of not bringing peace but a sword is that there are those who will reject Christ as being God, and those will war against those who do. Also, Christ will judge mankind for its sins in the Second Coming. His first coming was to save the world; His second coming is to judge it. All this is there to be known for those who truly want to understand it.

1 John 4 could be a metaphor too. It's pretty easy for different people to interpret things however they want, once it's "OK" to call some things literal and some things metaphorical. There are devout Christians and church leaders who believe that the resurrection is metaphorical or that it "doesn't matter" if Christ literally rose fom the dead -- he is still our Lord and Savior.

No the PP you're replying to but I think I've seen you make this claim before that the "rose from the dead" idea can be a metaphor in some sects of Christianity. Can you point out specific Christian ideologies, sects, "...devout Christians and church leaders" who actually believe that? I ask because I haven't run into any. From where I sit, the idea that a guy actually did literally did rise from the dead is a cornerstone of Christian thought. Otherwise, Jesus just starts to look like another apocalyptic "prophet" running around modern day Israel 2000 years ago.

I think you're trying to resolve the cognitive dissonance between religion and reality.

I'd say it WAS a cornerstone, and still can be, but some people in some denominations do not see belief in a literal resurrection as necessary to be a follower of Jesus. It's his teachings that count -- not the magic he supposedly performed.

Ok, great. What about the part where he taught that the end of the world was near, he would come back as "king of Israel", and each of his 12 apostles would rule over a tribe in Israel? Any thoughts there?

Again, there are no Christian churches, leaders, scholars, etc. that actively promote the idea of a resurrection not being literal. What denominations? I have yet to find any. People who have reached that conclusion are just trying to hang on and can't let go despite what reality is telling them. It seems like you're really reaching. There's no shame in calling it what it is.

they may not actively promote, but they do quietly accept. and they do NOT actively promote that the resurrection IS literal. They do NOT teach children that they must believe it in order to be saved. If you don't believe this, ask some clergy in liberal protestant churches if they actively teach these things and see what they say. Ask if to attend their church you're expected to believe in the literal resurrection.

OK, great. Have any of them actually told you this? Have they stated this publically? Have they written books or articles on this topic? Again, seems like you're assuming an awful lot with little to no evidence.