Witch hunting

[Mountain_Girl406]

Reminds me of a CS Lewis quote:

"Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the 'Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?’ But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did—if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather—surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did? There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house." - Mere Christianity

In my opinion, one of the least convincing arguments made in the book.

 

[ananda]

I already told you what it means. It's not that difficult really. You don't have to believe it of course, but you would be incorrect. Do you also believe Jesus is a schizophrenic teacher as well?

This interpretation you shared I agree with: "the king will judge his enemies and will have them slain."

This part remains questionable: "It was not a command for us to go out and kill God's enemies". Seeing Jesus as the king, he does in fact command his servants to slay his enemies before him.

Whether that command applies now, or in some future scenario, is another story. Whether his biographies are incorrect, corrupted, or he was mentally ill, is also another story.

 

[rjs330]

This interpretation you shared I agree with: "the king will judge his enemies and will have them slain."

This part remains questionable: "It was not a command for us to go out and kill God's enemies". Seeing Jesus as the king, he does in fact command his servants to slay his enemies before him.

Whether that command applies now, or in some future scenario, is another story. Whether his biographies are incorrect, corrupted, or he was mentally ill, is also another story.

Are claiming that any or all of the above are accurate? Which ones?

 

[ananda]

Are claiming that any or all of the above are accurate? Which ones?

I don't claim to know for sure. I am merely pointing out that the interpretation I provided is one valid interpretation.

 

[rjs330]

I don't claim to know for sure. I am merely pointing out that the interpretation I provided is one valid interpretation.

The one I shared is the only valid one because it is consistent with the rest of Christ's teachings and the rest of the scriptures written by the apostles. The interpretation that Jesus was telling his followers to go kill people is entirely a misinterpretation due to it's complete inconsistency with the rest of his teachings and the teachings of the apostles.

That is also why any religious hunting of witches in the past is so wrong. And one of the things that was wrong with some of it was the people did not know or study Scripture themselves but we're led by pharisaical priest who didn't really know scripture from a hole in the ground. A dark time indeed.

 

[ananda]

The one I shared is the only valid one because it is consistent with the rest of Christ's teachings and the rest of the scriptures written by the apostles. The interpretation that Jesus was telling his followers to go kill people is entirely a misinterpretation due to it's complete inconsistency with the rest of his teachings and the teachings of the apostles.

That is also why any religious hunting of witches in the past is so wrong. And one of the things that was wrong with some of it was the people did not know or study Scripture themselves but we're led by pharisaical priest who didn't really know scripture from a hole in the ground. A dark time indeed.

Nevertheless, the verse casts a shadow on the "all loving", "all forgiving" idea of Jesus.

 

[rjs330]

Nevertheless, the verse casts a shadow on the "all loving", "all forgiving" idea of Jesus.

Ah.. another misrepresentation of Jesus. He is not just all loving, he is also righteous and perfect in justice as well. Which means he is the perfect judge and will judge one day. He is not all forgiving either. Not everyone gets forgiven in the end. We are all judged in the end and depending on where we stand in him we receive reward or punishment. It's not a secret anymore. It is all there in the book for those who are willing to learn and study such things and NOT take things out of context. Context being the totality of teaching and not just a verse or two. Jesus is all forgiving when we come to him in repentance and believe in Him and strive to live for him and let him live through us. He is not all forgiving to those that reject him.

 

[ananda]

Ah.. another misrepresentation of Jesus. He is not just all loving, he is also righteous and perfect in justice as well. Which means he is the perfect judge and will judge one day. He is not all forgiving either. Not everyone gets forgiven in the end. We are all judged in the end and depending on where we stand in him we receive reward or punishment. It's not a secret anymore. It is all there in the book for those who are willing to learn and study such things and NOT take things out of context. Context being the totality of teaching and not just a verse or two. Jesus is all forgiving when we come to him in repentance and believe in Him and strive to live for him and let him live through us. He is not all forgiving to those that reject him.

"Context" ... the reason for countless Christian denominations

 

[rjs330]

"Context" ... the reason for countless Christian denominations

Yep, unbelievers do not own the sole rights of missing context. But that doesn't change the fact that you missed it as well.

 

[ananda]

Yep, unbelievers do not own the sole rights of missing context. But that doesn't change the fact that you missed it as well.

Do you claim divine infallibility in your interpretation?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, actually I do interpret it that way. I see it as claiming that Jesus commands his servants to slay those who refuse to have him reign over them.

And yet that has not been the Christian interpretation, it is not the position of any exegete either in antiquity or today. On the contrary, the unanimous position of the Church for the first several hundred years was that violence was, under no circumstance, acceptable. And when the State became, nominally, Christian and the use of violence was controversial, and official ecclesiastical response to the State's use of violence against pagans and heretics was anything but universally accepted; when Priscillian, the first heretic executed by the State, was executed the immediate response from a number of leading churchmen (including Siricius of Rome, Ambrose of Milan, and Martin of Tours) was to condemn the act.

To go from universal condemnation of violence to the acceptance of violence didn't happen over night, but was a transition that occurred as the Church adopted a position that, first, Rome was divinely ordained as the civil protector of the faith to (in Western Europe with the fall of Rome in the 5th century) to the emerging feudal states, in particular with the crowning of Charlemagne and later Otto. With this theological accommodation the State was no longer perceived as an antagonist, but as the Church's worldly ally--which was relied upon as a source of temporal protection and, far too often, as a means of crushing opposing ideas: heretics, pagans, Jews, and eventually Muslims as well.

I don't believe there is any justification for this accommodation, I can understand why Christians, once becoming accustomed to protections under the civil law would become comfortable with it (after all, it's human nature), but the acquiescing to stately violence that accompanied this transition is deeply immoral and wrong. And we are still suffering from it today.

When the Church makes its bed with the State, the Church always loses. Because when the Church betrays her teaching and mission granted her by Christ, she has lost.

"The Church is a harlot, but she is also my mother." - often attributed to St. Augustine, but also seen it attributed variously to Dorothy Day, Daniel Berrigan, and Phillip Berrigan.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[radhead]

That CS Lewis quote is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. He doesn't even acknowledge that Christianity has always been misogynistic. But I guess that in order to be a true Christian one cannot admit that there might be basic flaws to the faith.

 

[ananda]

And yet that has not been the Christian interpretation, it is not the position of any exegete either in antiquity or today. On the contrary, the unanimous position of the Church for the first several hundred years was that violence was, under no circumstance, acceptable...

What's your interpretation of Luke 19:27?

 

[JackRT]

What's your interpretation of Luke 19:27?

Luke 19:27 is the concluding line of a parable. The beauty of a parable is that it often has a surprising twist that makes it memorable. But when we Christians twenty centuries later read such a parable without any understanding of the social, religious and historical contexts we can often make poor interpretations. The true hero of this story is the third servant who recognizes that his master is greedy and rapacious. The other two servants were morally subverted by the master's greed and followed his example. The third servant is not subverted and remains morally upright by refusing to exploit his fellow man. As so often happens he is punished for it. The peasants who heard this parable would have seen this point without difficulty.

Consider just one line --- 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’ The Jewish peasants would have known full well that the collection of interest was illegal in Biblical law. They would have also known that this law was widely ignored by the rich and powerful.

 

[ananda]

Luke 19:27 is the concluding line of a parable. The beauty of a parable is that it often has a surprising twist that makes it memorable. But when we Christians twenty centuries later read such a parable without any understanding of the social, religious and historical contexts we can often make poor interpretations. The true hero of this story is the third servant who recognizes that his master is greedy and rapacious. The other two servants were morally subverted by the master's greed and followed his example. The third servant is not subverted and remains morally upright by refusing to exploit his fellow man. As so often happens he is punished for it. The peasants who heard this parable would have seen this point without difficulty.

Consider just one line --- 23 Why then didn’t you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?’ The Jewish peasants would have known full well that the collection of interest was illegal in Biblical law. They would have also known that this law was widely ignored by the rich and powerful.

Who is the greedy and rapacious master supposed to represent in the parable, the "nobleman [who] went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return", then (especially in context of the fact that Jesus allegedly spoke this parable after others "thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear")?

 

[StTruth]

That CS Lewis quote is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. He doesn't even acknowledge that Christianity has always been misogynistic. But I guess that in order to be a true Christian one cannot admit that there might be basic flaws to the faith.

That's not totally true. I'm a true Christian. I have been an altar boy since I was a toddler. But I'm the first to acknowledge the many flaws of the Christian faith. I have seen how some Christians in CF behave towards non-Christians and sometimes to other Christians. Sometimes, they tenaciously refuse to admit they are wrong or the faith is wrong not because they are good Christians but because they aren't totally honest. It's an ego problem. They feel that they have to win the argument because of their big fat ego. It's got nothing to do with the Christian faith which teaches against having a big fat ego and which teaches us to be absolutely honest. To be absolutely honest must mean that we must admit we are wrong when we are wrong.

So, you are mistaken to think that a true Christian cannot admit that there are flaws in their religion. The person who refuses to admit it when he knows it's true is dishonest and egotistical. That's not being a true Christian.

Cheers,

St Truth

 

[rjs330]

Do you claim divine infallibility in your interpretation?

What I claim is the message is clear according to the context of scripture and teaching of Christ. If you take another view you have just violated the law of context. You have also violated the rules of proper exigetical understanding and hermeneutics.

But don't feel too bad about it many people do. It's very typical of the unbeliever and too common in Christianity these days. But at least believers get the point that only Jesus saves. Often there are many other parts of scripture that one can decide it means something other than what it says and it does not affect salvation.

 

[ananda]

What I claim is the message is clear according to the context of scripture and teaching of Christ. If you take another view you have just violated the law of context. You have also violated the rules of proper exigetical understanding and hermeneutics.

But don't feel too bad about it many people do. It's very typical of the unbeliever and too common in Christianity these days. But at least believers get the point that only Jesus saves. Often there are many other parts of scripture that one can decide it means something other than what it says and it does not affect salvation.

You claim that the message is clear, but you're not 100% sure that your interpretation is correct?

 

[Uber Genius]

Congratulations. You have just constructed an excellent case demonstrating that morality is relative - not absolute.

I agree.
OB

You seem to conflate two ideas here. How moral standards are applied in any particular culture, and the moral itself.

Requirements of the law for the camp culture while the Jews were in the desert are very different then the laws practiced by the second temple Jews in Jesus' day, and different again for Christians. Cultural context is key.

As to the source of morality, God's nature, atheists are without a source.

There is no live inference given atheism. The universe doesn't spit out moral laws like it does sub-atomic particles.

On atheism all good and evil are illusory.

Every time you condemn Judeo-Christians for a cherry-picked "moral outrage" such as the Crusades, or Spanish Inquisition, you have to steal the idea of a moral standard from the Judeo-Christian worldview just to make your claim.

Self-refuting premises and presuppositions are hardly intellectually praiseworthy.

 

[Uber Genius]

Jesus did affirm that every aspect of the law remains valid.

(Well, according to Matthew anyway)

context?
Who is he responding to in Matt 5:17-48?
What was their question?
The law "valid" for what purpose?
Does verse 48 seem possible given that thought-crimes Jesus described earlier in the pericope are held against each of us?

These are simple exegetical questions that every believer knows to ask of scriptures and every scholar knows to ask when interpreting literature and especially ancient literature written in another language, culture, genre, with different figures of speech.