Of what value is a dead shepherd?

[Zzyzx]

.
Of what value is a dead shepherd?

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

Does this make sense? Should a shepherd die to protect some sheep?

[Diagoras]

Sticking with John 10, verse 13 explains that hirelings ‘fleeth’ when the wolf comes. And what does Jesus do in verse 39? Yep, run away.

A bit hypocritical to claim to be a good shepherd, perhaps.

[JehovahsWitness]

.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

Does this make sense? Should a shepherd die to protect some sheep?

Emohasis MINE

I belive "sheep" is a metaphor for people (human beings) and yes, it is often considered an act of great merit to pay the ultimate price to protect the lives of others.

Indeed soldiers and rescus workers are often honoured for doing just that.

[Zzyzx]

.

I belive "sheep" is a metaphor for people (human beings) and yes, it is often considered an act of great merit to pay the ultimate price to protect the lives of others. ]

Of course, of course, when Bible tales don’t make sense, claim they are ‘metaphors’ – but claim that other Bible tales are literally true.

Are ‘miracle’ tales metaphors also? The ‘resurrection’ a metaphor? Who decides? By what criteria?

Even if the shepherd tale is intended as a metaphor, it is a VERY poor one unless shepherds actually ‘lay down their life for sheep’ (really incompetent shepherds).

[Zzyzx]

.
If a shepherd is with sheep and a wolf approaches are the options only
1) die, or
2) run away

Let's add: 3) deal with the situation at hand

A shepherd's staff (or crook) is an awesome weapon if used correctly as designed. A person who spends time afield with animals should be in good physical condition -- and should know how to handle emergencies.

A dead shepherd is of no value to sheep – or people.

However, some people choose to worship ‘dead shepherds’

[marco]

.
Of what value is a dead shepherd?

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

Does this make sense? Should a shepherd die to protect some sheep?

Presumably some of the sheep are lambs, ripe for slaughter and some sheep might transform into mutton chops. The shepherd would then be offering his life for somebody's dinner.

[marco]

I believe "sheep" is a metaphor for people (human beings) and yes, it is often considered an act of great merit to pay the ultimate price to protect the lives of others.

The point is about the appropriateness of Christ's chosen metaphor. The shepherd does not die for a sheep, at least on the fields of planet Earth. Soldiers die for their country, as you say, and firemen may die trying to rescue someone. But it's best to stick to the OP about shepherds rather than involve stories of heroism away from pastureland.

In conclusion Christ chose a bad metaphor, but then he was out of his depth. Perhaps a metaphor from carpentry might have been more successful.

[Divine Insight]

I belive "sheep" is a metaphor for people (human beings) and yes, it is often considered an act of great merit to pay the ultimate price to protect the lives of others.

Indeed soldiers and rescus workers are often honoured for doing just that.

Hardly. It isn't even remotely similar.

For one thing, soldiers and rescue workers risk their lives fighting against actual dangers to save innocent people. Moreover, when they die, they actually die.

This religion that you have bought into has offered you these absurd metaphors that aren't even remotely compatible with their evil religion. Yet here you are repeating their insults to soldiers and rescue workers.

The Christ of Christianity was not fighting against any danger. That would be impossible unless you want to claim that Christ himself was vulnerable to danger.

Christ's scenario was not an act of bravery, it was an act of cowardice. He basically committed suicide necessarily designed, arranged, and orchestrated entirely by him.

And was he saving innocent people? No. According to Christ himself he was only here to save the sinners, the evil people. This is not what soldiers or rescue workers do. They don't voluntarily offer themselves up for suicide to be the scapegoat for evil people.

Moreover, what is Christ saving us from? Well if your a Christian then you know that Christ is either saving people from his own wrath, or from the wrath of a Father God. So either Jesus himself is the villain, or the Father God is the villain that we need to be saved from. And also if you are a Christian you have no choice but to view Jesus and the Father God as being one in the same, otherwise you would be a polytheist where Jesus saves us from Yahweh.

So the idea that Jesus was like a solider or rescue worker is nonsense. He doesn't even come close. For one thing he didn't even stay dead. Even his death was a dishonest fraud. Just a disgusting game he played on humans which did nothing but prove his dishonesty.

Thankfully the whole thing is nothing more than a very poorly created myth created by men who have no sense of morality.

Why have you accepted these disgusting apologies and metaphors for this religion? Christ doesn't even begin to compare with soldiers and rescue workers. They are far above Christ in terms of moral values.

This apology for Christianity is an insult to humanity. And here you are perpetuating and supporting it.

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

A more persuasive case might be made by avoiding all those insults, emotionalism and personal value judgements. Your oft-repeated "disgust" doesn't prove anything except perhaps extreme intolerance for values which differ from your own. Opinions on what constitutes an "evil religion" can be found in places like Deuteronomy as easily as in your post, with roughly equal validity. The frequent fallacies littered throughout the post - false dichotomies, strawmen and (perhaps most worryingly) the suggestions that rescue workers perform a moral assessment of folks' character before deciding whether to save them and that their heroism is somehow diminished if there is an afterlife - might have been avoided by a more thoughtful, less passionate approach.

The shepherd analogy of course is rather flawed, but I suppose there weren't any professional rescue workers around in Jesus' day.

[bjs]

[Replying to marco]

There is evidence that in ancient Israel shepherds who owned the flock, as opposed to hired hands, were willing to risk their lives for their sheep (see 1 Samuel 17:34-35).

Jesus did not use a modern metaphor. That doesn’t mean it is a bad metaphor.