Death of Osama Bin Laden

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Is it just me or has this thread outlived its usefulness?

I don't know. I think there is an interesting discussion to be had here.

Suppose Bin Laden had been arrested, every terrorist organisation in the world would start taking hostages or trying to mount a rescue attempt. It would be chaos; the security services would be stretched to breaking point.

It could be that the whole operation was an act of extraordinary rendition but it would be better to publicly annouce Osama's death rather than risk an even worse back-lash than the one that is to come.

Remember, although Osama was thought to be responsible for 9/11, it is not known that he was. We do know however, that Bin Laden was not responsible for destabilising the Middle-East.

My concern is that if Osama Bin Laden is still alive then the situation might be that the whole world thinks him dead and lost to the sea when in fact he is secreted underground in a torture-chamber somewhere. This to me is entirely plausible but makes may feel uneasy.

I couldnt care less how the americans acted he wud have been sentenced in prison anyway put him out of his misery he shall suffer for his sins:D

anymore wrote: »

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
– Luke 19.27 *

Jesus wept. Amazing what you can get when you quote out of context an incidental detail from a story Jesus told, isn't it?

anymore wrote: »

Would your comment be an example of what you can get when a biblical quote is posted without comment, good bad or indifferent ?

My comment would be an example of how people get frustrated when irrelevant snatches are ripped out of a text as if they had relevance to the subject at hand. Instead they just clog up a thread with off-topic noise.

The point is it an intersting quote in the context of the subject matter of the thread which revolves around the reaction to the death of Osama Bin Laden who if not an enemy of christianity certainle seemed to see christians as enemies of his.

To be honest I found it more irrelevant than interesting.

The quote was part of a parable in which a fictitious king appointed his servants to look after his assets. The point of the parable is that we should be good stewards of whatever is entrusted to us. The incidental details of the parable, which add a bit of color and spice to the story to make it more interesting, are just that - incidental details.

Despite this we have a history in this forum of non-Christians trying to rip such verses out of context to make the silliest of points. For example, one atheist has quoted this verse in question more than once to argue that Jesus advocated violence against anyone who rejected His message. :rolleyes:

What next? The fact that the Good Samaritan put the wounded man on a donkey in that parable should be used in a discussion about what type of ambulances are best?

anymore wrote: »

somthing that many ' committed ' catholics are very prone too in my experience.

I'm not a Catholic, so that jibe rather missed its mark. But it was still unnecessary.

If we are to put this, the quotation, into context, then we have to look not alone at the parable and its potentially many meanings - and there are various interpretations - but also at the history of the Church in relation to violence and executions. Would you agree ?

I'm quite happy for the history of the Church in relation to violence and executions to be discussed. It is relevant to this thread.

I don't think it's relevant to the context of the parable. Unless, of course, you can point out examples of where the Church misused that parable to justify its actions. The context of the parable is determined by its setting in the 1st Century, not some accidental parallel with the actions of people centuries later.

PDN wrote: »

I'm not a Catholic, so that jibe rather missed its mark. But it was still unnecessary.


I'm quite happy for the history of the Church in relation to violence and executions to be discussed. It is relevant to this thread.

I don't think it's relevant to the context of the parable. Unless, of course, you can point out examples of where the Church misused that parable to justify its actions. The context of the parable is determined by its setting in the 1st Century, not some accidental parallel with the actions of people centuries later.

PDN, it is unlike you not to reply to a question so i am wondering if you are having difficulty in placing Luke 19.27 into a proper context having regard to both the times they, Jesus and his audience, were living in and to any local issues which may have influenced Jesus in his decision to make this uncharacteristically aggressive statement. The fact that the statement appears to be unlike the general commentary offered by Jesus means that it simply cannot be dismissed as trivial or irrelevant. It could be, for example, that Jesus didnt actually say this and that Luke either erred or was making the statement for his own purpose.

anymore wrote: »

PDN, it is unlike you not to reply to a question so i am wondering if you are having difficulty in placing Luke 19.27 into a proper context having regard to both the times they, Jesus and his audience, were living in and to any local issues which may have influenced Jesus in his decision to make this uncharacteristically aggressive statement. The fact that the statement appears to be unlike the general commentary offered by Jesus means that it simply cannot be dismissed as trivial or irrelevant. It could be, for example, that Jesus didnt actually say this and that Luke either erred or was making the statement for his own purpose.

No difficulty - since I do this for a living. Tbh I hadn't bothered answering because I had my doubts whether you're really interested in listening to any answer.

But, in the hope that I'm not wasting my time, here goes:

The main context that needs to be understood is the form of the parable itself. A parable is a story that was used to teach one main point of spiritual truth. Parables are not allegories (where every detail has some symbolic meaning). So, for example, it would be silly to try to imagine who the pigs represent in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, or what the two coins represent in the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

Parables were designed to be attention grabbers and ice breakers. They dealt with things that were familiar to the hearers (farmers sowing seed, fish in nets etc). They covered the same ground as would be popular in the gossip of the marketplace (debtors being thrown in jail, kings putting down revolts etc). Parables often used colorful and violent details to keep the attention of those listening.

It was important that a parable didn't detract from the main point by leaving unanswered questions hanging in the air. So, here in Luke 19, the Parable is designed to teach that we should exercise good stewardship, making maximum use of our talents and resources. The last thing Jesus wanted was for people to ignore that point and spend their time wondering what happened when the king got home. Therefore He included a typically conclusive ending. It has no more significance than when we close a fairy story be saying "They lived happily ever after".

In fact, the makers of Shrek played a typically offbeat joke when they actually included a land called "far far away". The point of that joke is to impart significance to a stylised phrase in a story to which we all know that we aren't supposed to ascribe significance.

So, based on everything we know about Parables, Hebraic thought in the 1st Century, and the other Parables of Jesus, it would be foolish to try to see some great significance in the detail of what the king in the parable did to his enemies.

anymore wrote: »

Having read the parable a few times( I used the link below ) I am beginning to think it is a good deal more relevant to this thread than I actaully realised. The inclusion of the phrase " ."But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." is neither incidental nor uncharacteristic when one looks further on to the# 'Triumphal Entry' to where Jesus says " The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side.
They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you "
# http://www.ebible.com/bible/Luke.19.12-Luke.19.27

Er, that is recognised to be a prophecy of what would happen to Jerusalem when it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. It is hardly encouraging violence - rather it is lamenting the violence that would befall Jerusalem.

I can quite see how christians who believe the Bible to be literally inspired by God could use this parable to justify the killing of Osama bin Laden who is undoubtedly an enemy of christianity.

Only if the Christians in question were exceptionally moronic and left their brains behind when they read the Bible.

The other thing peculiar about this parable is that any budding capitalist could happily use this parable as a motivator as he/ she uses their talents and energies to accumulate and accumulate. What seems to be completely missing is any sympathy for the more timorous amongst us who feel they have to take the safest and most risk free path through life: " .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."

Yes, it has been taken as endorsing the principle of risking capital to increase your investment rather than keeping your money under the mattress.

You may want to read up on the history of banking and capitalism - particularly the role of Reformers like John Calvin (whose use of scripture in this regard gave birth to the prominence of Swiss banking). You might find the whole idea of the Protestant work ethic to be worth further study, explaining why industry etc often developed in Protestant northern Europe (where people interpreted the Bible more literally) rather than in Catholic southern Europe (where they interpreted Parables allegorically seeing lots of hidden details about the Pope and sacraments etc). The sociologist and economist Max Weber would make a good starting point for studying this.

Any way, we're way off topic because, interesting as I find all this, it's got nothing to do with Bin Laden.

PDN wrote: »

Er, that is recognised to be a prophecy of what would happen to Jerusalem when it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. It is hardly encouraging violence - rather it is lamenting the violence that would befall Jerusalem.


Only if the Christians in question were exceptionally moronic and left their brains behind when they read the Bible.


Yes, it has been taken as endorsing the principle of risking capital to increase your investment rather than keeping your money under the mattress.

You may want to read up on the history of banking and capitalism - particularly the role of Reformers like John Calvin (whose use of scripture in this regard gave birth to the prominence of Swiss banking). You might find the whole idea of the Protestant work ethic to be worth further study, explaining why industry etc often developed in Protestant northern Europe (where people interpreted the Bible more literally) rather than in Catholic southern Europe (where they interpreted Parables allegorically seeing lots of hidden details about the Pope and sacraments etc). The sociologist and economist Max Weber would make a good starting point for studying this.

Any way, we're way off topic because, interesting as I find all this, it's got nothing to do with Bin Laden.

As you introduced the subject in reply to me, then I feel entitled to reply to the points that, as you said, aren't really relevant to the thread.
So: I am sure that every modern despot, dictator,tyrant, gangster and drug lord is eternally grateful to John Calvin and the Swiss banking system. Need I say more ?
Let me give you some examples of what we owe to the 'alleged' Northern Protestant Work Ethic :
It created enormous fortunes for many of the good protestant Lords and merchants of England from the salve trade. Some make the point that the international slave trade would ahve ended several centuries before it actaully did end were it not for the northern protestant countries..The Northern Protestant work ethic created what even the Slave owners of the Southern States depicted as the ' Satanic Mills ' of England. So notorious were these factories, owned by fine protestant gents of England, that even slave owners could use them as a defence of slavery !:eek: But most of all, most of all, the good Protestant State of Germany gave us the Holocaust where six million poor souls were exterminated on an industrial scale and untold millions died elsewhere. So before lecturing me on Max Weber and the Protestant work ethic, I suggest a little more background reading might be in order.
Oh, did I mention the clearance of the Highlands by the good Protestant Lords of England ?...and the famine.... ?
As you said, these points are not relevant to the thread, but you did imply that you are interested....

Donatello wrote: »

So it's OK for PDN to make little comments about Catholics, implying that they are superstitious, backward, simple minded peasants building haystacks and milking cows, casting scorn on our Sacraments and Pope, whilst Protestants are sophisticated industrialists and bankers?

That chip on your shoulder must get really heavy at times.

anymore wrote: »

As I said it was you who introduced the ' Protestant work ethic' issue and it seemed to be in a manner which you must have been aware could be seen as a slight on catholics, so I felt obliged to reply and I do so in a seperate post so as not to entangle it with the main issue. That seems to be a fair manner in which to do so and I dont think anybody interested in fair debate could take issue with it. For your part you resort to insults - where is the christianity in that ?

I don't resort to insults - but I do recognise what you are.

You try making jibes about Catholics - so I point out that such a jibe is unlikely to upset me since I'm not Catholic.

I respond to your post about capitalism etc by pointing out some historical developments connected with what you said - so you start making irrelevant jibes against Protestantism and Calvinism. Unfortunately your jibes were again wide of the mark since I am not a Calvinist and I don't consider myself to be a Protestant.

Now, if you wish to discuss the death of Bin Laden and its relation to Christian belief then you are welcome to do so. But cut out the rest of the crap - ok?

PDN wrote: »

Er, that is recognised to be a prophecy of what would happen to Jerusalem when it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. It is hardly encouraging violence - rather it is lamenting the violence that would befall Jerusalem.


Only if the Christians in question were exceptionally moronic and left their brains behind when they read the Bible.


...

The point of the reference to the prophecy is of course to illustrate that Jesus could and did use the threat of violence or potential violence in his talks/speeches and i dont think that the reference to killing his enemies can be simply dismissed as incidental or simply as a device to draw attention. The fact that the Christion church did for the greater part of its history enthusiastically enage in the killing of its enemies means, I suggest, that those lines must be taken seriousily.

PDN wrote: »

Sigh, except Jesus was not 'using the threat of violence' - he was lamenting the threat of violence that the pagan Romans would use against Jerusalem.

Nor did Jesus make any reference to killing His enemies. A fictional character in a parable did that.

Violence runs through the Old testament from one end to the other and it is present also in the New Testament. What is one of the most memorable things in Jesus's life ? It is the Crucifixion and all the violence that surrounds it. Frankly it is almost perverse how much violence, actual or threatened is bound up in the Christian religion. Violence is one of the key ingredients of Christianity. The Crucifixion itself is, one could argue, a continuation of the ages long tradition of human sacrifice. The theme of martyrdom is such an important element of the Christian story. And all this in a world created and designed by God. It may not suit present day Christian preachers in this ' touchy feely' era to acknowledge the amount of violence in the Christianity but it is well recorded in history. Jesus we must assume was a man, in most respects, of the times he lived in. It has been argued at points here on Boards, that he was preaching to mainly uneducated people and without some qualification to the parable, which isn't present, then it is reasonable to suggest that some would take the comment literally. What we would like the parable to mean now is not especially relevant. Which is why I asked you at some point to place the comments in a local context. You know full well there are fundamentalist Christians, particularly in the US, who take the words of the bible literally and this phrase could quite easily be taken at face value.
I have suggested that its inclusion by Luke was a mistake on his part or perhaps it was put in for some particular reason which is now not known.
Nonetheless, given that it is in there, people must be allowed to interpret it as they wish. And for that reason i feel it may indeed be used in this thread.