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?

[Menotu]

.
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?

I suppose it depends on how much he likes his sheep and to what value her attributes to them.
Would I die for my family? Yes
Friends? Some of them
Stranger? Very unlikely
But then again, I'm no shepherd, so.....
Seems to me a good shepherd should be able to save both himself and his sheep. A perfect shepherd would definitely be able to do such a thing without death being involved for any party.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Seems to me a good shepherd should be able to save both himself and his sheep.

Indeed.


From the same chapter on the good Shepherd:

The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." John 10:17, 18



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

[Zzyzx]

.
If choosing shepherds, I would choose one that was smart enough to stay alive.

If choosing gods, I would choose one that was smart enough to NOT require death of part of himself to appease another part of himself and 'save' humans from damnation for failing to sufficiently obey himself.

[Clownboat]

.
If choosing shepherds, I would choose one that was smart enough to stay alive.

If choosing gods, I would choose one that was smart enough to NOT require death of part of himself to appease another part of himself and 'save' humans from damnation for failing to sufficiently obey himself.

I submit that this conclusion (choosing a shephard that would stay alive) is a result of thinking the scenario through. Obviously a dead shephard is of no use to a flock, but a person must consider this of course to realize it.

I personally think that encouraging members to be child like and sheep like is a mechanism to stop followers from actually thinking scenarios like this through. "God is your shephard and you are part of his flock" sounds good, until you follow it to its logical conclusion where you are just a sheep expected to do what sheep do. Same can be said for being child like and feeling things in your heart IMO.

To the OP, a dead shephard is of no value to its sheep.
Only a living shephard can tell its members about how tithes and offerings to the church will net them 7 fold returns! Again, being sheep like and child like when this is leveled at you will likely garner more funds for the organization, thus motive to perpetuate such teachings.

Is being sheep like or child like a quality people should strive for in everyday life? Sure, if you would like to increase your chances of being taken advantage of. Not a quality I plan to teach my children though.

[Mithrae]

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. `

Feeling disgusted by something is an emotional reaction. Doubtless many folk would find a corpse "disgusting," while medical examiners and the like have learned to adopt a more clinical, objective perspective. Some folk have less tolerance for such things than others of course. Folk who feel disgusted by a two thousand year old story about sheep and thieves by all appearances must be extremely intolerant.

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.

No it doesn't. For example in one passage Jesus tells his disciples to be "as wise as serpents and harmless as doves"; in other he compares his critics to children in the marketplace and himself and his followers to the children of wisdom. Innumerable other biblical passages laud the virtues of wisdom, as do virtually all Christian sects. A few do the opposite, but applying the characteristics of those few to "the Christian religion" is (quite obviously) a fallacy of composition.

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.

Repeating an ignorant claim a dozen times in a dozen different ways won't suddenly make it true

[Mithrae]

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.

You initially used the term "disgusting" apologies and metaphors, ones for which there is a feeling of disgust, but maybe you were merely highlighting DI's emotionalism rather than sharing it.

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.

As highlighted in my post above, innumerable biblical passages and most Christian sects (certainly most major denominations) laud the virtue of wisdom, and it is obviously a fallacy of composition to apply the characteristics of those few which don't to "the religion" as a whole.

That said I might have jumped the gun a bit in my response: DI made a rather sub-par, emotional post and in response you suggested (perhaps rhetorically) that he was 'wise' in contrast to the childishness of others, which I took as a comment on folk who disagreed with him in general. If it was merely an off-topic critique against some members who you'd disagreed with in a previous thread I probably shouldn't have got involved.




Edit: More or less as an aside, since this seems to be weighing on your mind even in your most recent post, it's worth noting that (though you haven't specifically cited them) the passages in which Jesus says that one should receive the kingdom of God as a little child probably have nothing to do with wisdom, let alone belief: Rather, they're about trust in God's provision of daily bread by their Father for those who'd forsaken their earthly treasures and stopped working for money (cf. Matt. 6:19-34). As I've noted, when it comes to wisdom there are multiple passages in which Jesus treats childishness as bad and wisdom or being a child of wisdom as superior, but those in which he talks about receiving the kingdom as a child could easily be taken the wrong way (particularly given most churches' determination to ignore Jesus' teaching about forsaking all wealth etc. and imagining that the kingdom of God is merely about 'belief').