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?

[Clownboat]

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.

Perhaps these disgusting apologies and metaphors just don't make sense to you because you are wise? If only you were like a child and could be convinced of just about anything!

Matthew 11:25-26 (NIV) is as follows:

25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

You may make good arguments, but that's only because you suffer from having wisdom I'm afraid. Lose your wisdom and perhaps the apologies will start to make more sense. If you can manage, just be child like and believe what others tell you. Seems to be the key. Whatever you do, don't be wise though!

It is anti-intellectual, saying that those who are educated won't understand his teachings while uneducated children will.

Guess who would believe such a teaching? Yup, a child. Therefore the religion must poison the well for the wise person while praising being child like or sheep like. Clearly humans at work here and not a god concept.

[Zzyzx]

.

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).

The OP refers to ‘lay down his life for his sheep’. 1 Samuel 17:34 is directly contrary to that (even though it appears quite fanciful or fictional):

1 Samuel 17:34 But David said to Saul, “Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, 35 I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it.

Seized a lion or a bear by its hair and killed it? Sure you did.

What does it take to believe such tales? Perhaps 'childlike gullibility' as CB suggests.

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

Perhaps the mistake is that modern people reading ancient texts have no understanding of the metaphor since VERY few have any familiarity with sheep or shepherds.

Sheep are a novelty item to most current people (80% of whom are city dwellers in the US). A friend here raises sheep and it is almost a ‘petting zoo’ atmosphere when people come around – even here in rural Bible Belt. The friend is not a shepherd in the usual sense of that word. His sheep are enclosed in fencing and his dogs ‘guard’ the sheep.

His visitors probably have more exposure to sheep than do most people who might read about them in Bible tales – yet they know next to nothing about the reality of keeping sheep.

Therein lies a problem in attempting to gain wisdom reading tales from long ago and far away in a culture that is radically different from one’s own. It might be prudent to read modern writings that relate to actual conditions.

[Mithrae]

Perhaps these disgusting apologies and metaphors just don't make sense to you because you are wise?

Is it wise to display intolerance and emotionalism so openly in your choice of language?

If only you were like a child and could be convinced of just about anything!

Matthew 11:25-26 (NIV) is as follows:

25 At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. 26 Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do.

You may make good arguments, but that's only because you suffer from having wisdom I'm afraid. Lose your wisdom and perhaps the apologies will start to make more sense. If you can manage, just be child like and believe what others tell you. Seems to be the key. Whatever you do, don't be wise though!

It is anti-intellectual, saying that those who are educated won't understand his teachings while uneducated children will.

Is it wise to incorrectly portray a written passage by taking it out of context? In the immediately preceding verses Jesus contrasts great cities like Tyre and Sidon against the Galilean towns he and his disciples had preached in (Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum), and explicitly says that the great cities would have accepted the message while those to whom it had been revealed mostly did not. The Jewish communities - who thought they held and understood God's revelation - are the ones being brought down a peg, likened to infants, and failing to accept to the wisdom Jesus offered.

Guess who would believe such a teaching? Yup, a child. Therefore the religion must poison the well for the wise person while praising being child like or sheep like. Clearly humans at work here and not a god concept.

Speaking of poisoning the well, is it wise to base an entire post/argument on the fallacious ad hominem assertion that the only reason people hold views contrary to your own is because they are unwise, uneducated and child-like?

I'm not even a Christian, but honestly you guys are kind of making the Christian responses look good by comparison

[marco]

[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.

We are clutching at straws to redeem Christ's metaphor.

"But David said to Saul, "Your servant has been keeping his father's sheep. When a lion or a bear came and carried off a sheep from the flock, 35I went after it, struck it and rescued the sheep from its mouth. When it turned on me, I seized it by its hair, struck it and killed it."

There is no question of lives being lost since the point of the story is to elevate the already elevated David, slayer of Goliath. Of course the owner of property will try to save it. Here's a GOOD metaphor from Goldsmith about a village preacher:

And, as a bird each fond endearment tries,
To tempt its new-fledged offspring to the skies;
He tried each art, reproved each dull delay,
Allured to brighter worlds, and led the way.

We tend to think that Jesus being Jesus would be adept at all he attempted. We know nothing of his skills in mathematics, nor of his ability to write. Here he is supposing the shepherd has a flock of sheep he would not wish to harm, and yet the same shepherd might enjoy lamb chops. Does Jesus want to eat us, or skin us for our wool? Additionally it is insulting to call people sheep. The metaphor is just bad.

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

We know that "appropriateness" is very much in the eye of the beholder.

Metephor like poetry may be considered appropriate to one person or group of persons and inappropriate to the next. Given thd context, period and culture his audience, I personally find it a superbly "appropriate" metephor. Of course its a biblical "appropriate"metephor, reflecting a theme that is repeated throughout scripture from Abel to John from a "new" angle to reflect the Christian theology.

Personal opinion,


JW

[Tcg]

.
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?

It makes no sense at all. A dead shepherd would be of no value to the flock.

A good shepherd would of course face threats, but would stay alive at all costs for the sake of the sheep. Only a foolish shepherd would allow himself to die leaving his flock undefended.


Tcg

[tam]

Peace to you,

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.

Not hypocritical at all.


He escaped those who tried to seize Him. They were not attacking His sheep.


A more appropriate example would be on the night of His arrest:


“I told you that I am He,� [Jesus] replied. “So if you are looking for Me, let these men go.� This was to fulfill the word He had spoken: “I have not lost one of those You have given Me.�




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[1213]

.
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?

According to the Bible Jesus still lives, so I think he is not dead shepherd.

I think what Jesus means is, good shepherd defends his sheep fearlessly and is not afraid of death and uses his life to protect the sheep. Bad shepherd would be a person who leaves his sheep alone and don’t defend them and instead lives for himself (uses this life for himself).

[Clownboat]

Is it wise to display intolerance and emotionalism so openly in your choice of language?

This thread is about the value of a dead shepherd. Bad analogies and metaphors have been introduced and my responce was directed at those. I trust I did not offend Divine Insight with my choice of words that were directed at him.

Is it wise to incorrectly portray a written passage by taking it out of context?

This verse was fresh in my mind due to a Jehovah's Witness leveling it at me just 3 weeks ago using it as a sword for why I don't understand scripture in general like him.

This thead is not about how easy the Bible is to take out of context though.

In the immediately preceding verses Jesus contrasts great cities like Tyre and Sidon against the Galilean towns he and his disciples had preached in (Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum), and explicitly says that the great cities would have accepted the message while those to whom it had been revealed mostly did not. The Jewish communities - who thought they held and understood God's revelation - are the ones being brought down a peg, likened to infants, and failing to accept to the wisdom Jesus offered.

Agreed, but you have missed the mark. None of this addressed that fact that this exact verse IS used as a weapon against those that don't believe like those who would level such a verse at you. It being out of context or not does not stop its use. I'm addressing this verse and how it is often used.
Pearls before swines is another example that comes to mind.

Guess who would believe such a teaching? Yup, a child. Therefore the religion must poison the well for the wise person while praising being child like or sheep like. Clearly humans at work here and not a god concept.

Speaking of poisoning the well, is it wise to base an entire post/argument on the fallacious ad hominem assertion that the only reason people hold views contrary to your own is because they are unwise, uneducated and child-like?

How about you attempt to address what I did said? Do you disagree that this specific religion encourages its members to be child like? Do you disagree that it encourages its members to be like sheep (getting back to the topic of the thread)? Do you disagree that it discourages getting wisdom (as well as getting it). Did the god of the Bible not claim he would destroy the wisdom of the wise?
I believe I am pointing out reality. If you disagree, please show me that I'm not being realistic and that my observations are not sound so I can amend them.

I'm not even a Christian, but honestly you guys are kind of making the Christian responses look good by comparison

You are entitled to your own opinion and your own experiences about how Christians use scripture as a weapon. Feel free to feel unimpressed when the tables are turned.

[Divine Insight]

Is it wise to display intolerance and emotionalism so openly in your choice of language?

Yes, it is indeed wise to debunk such obvious myths. It's is hardly intolerance to reveal ignorance and fallacies.

As far as the emotionalism you claim, that can only be in the mind of the reader who pushes their own emotion onto what they read as there is no emotion involved at this end. Observing that something is disgusting requires no emotion. There is a logical sound basis for the disgusting things that Christianity teaches. `

Speaking of poisoning the well, is it wise to base an entire post/argument on the fallacious ad hominem assertion that the only reason people hold views contrary to your own is because they are unwise, uneducated and child-like?

I'm not even a Christian, but honestly you guys are kind of making the Christian responses look good by comparison

Then you aren't paying attention because it's the Christian religion that demands that their followers must not be wise and must be as naive as uneducated children.

So this is their demand, not a demand of the non-theist. We simply recognize that there is no mature educated defense for this theology (just as this theology itself decrees).

We're actually agreeing with this much of this theological scam. We agree that to believe it one must forfeit any and all wisdom and rational thinking.

So why then try to turn this back on us? It's the theology that itself demands that its own followers must remain ignorant and not ask intelligent questions.

If that's offensive to anyone, then that offense is owned entirely by the theology itself. We're just parroting what the theology itself preaches. But when we do that we are labeled as "offensive". When in fact, all we've done is point out the absurdity that the theology itself expects people to buy into.

The theology demands that their followers must be ignorant.

We just point out this truth.

If a person finds this offensive, then its this theology they need to distance themselves from. Not from the people who point out the flaws of this theology.