How do liberals in the church explain this?

[Mortimer]

English Standard Version, Luke 19:27
But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

That does justify violence against infidels, right? At least against blasphemers or radical anti-christians, who not only dont believe but also attack christianity and blaspheme God.

[Faklon]

Stop posting bullshit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabl...lents_or_minas

It's not jesus who is speaking but an unnamed king.

The objective of investing or trading during the absence of the master was intended to counter expectations of the immediate appearance of God's kingdom. The parable of the minas is generally similar to the parable of the talents, but differences include the inclusion of the motif of a king obtaining a kingdom[5] and the entrusting of ten servants with one mina each, rather than a number of talents (1 talent = 60 minas).

[Mortimer]

Stop posting bullshit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabl...lents_or_minas

It's not jesus who is speaking but an unnamed king.

Jesus tells this parabel about Gods Kingdom. Shut up you Greeco-Armenoid rat.

[Faklon]

Jesus tells this parabel about Gods Kingdom. Shut up you Greeco-Armenoid rat.

No Australoid brown perverted boomer, the point is that loyalty is rewarded even by a nasty king.

[Mortimer]

No Australoid brown perverted boomer, the point is that loyalty is rewarded even by a nasty king.

you are perverted because you do it greek, and greek means in many languages homo pederast

[Faklon]

you are perverted because you do it greek, and greek means in many languages homo pederast

Fuck off gypsy scum, go workout by stealing some copper.

Animalistic fat mass jerking off to infidels

[geriatric_millennial]

What? Conservative Protestants don't even take that verse the way you are, twisting it and taking it out of context. The key word in that verse is "mine." That means Jesus will destroy His enemies -- not us. The Bible says elsewhere that vengeance is God's, not ours:

"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Romans 12:19)

It's not just me who says this -- here is a conservative Calvinist explanation of that parable, defending what I just wrote:

https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-ten-minas.html

"The enemies who rejected the king in the parable are representative of the Jewish nation that rejected Christ while He walked on earth—and everyone who still denies Him today. When Jesus returns to establish His kingdom, one of the first things He will do is utterly defeat His enemies (Revelation 19:11–15). It does not pay to fight against the King of kings."

Christians aren't Muslims; we don't commit violence against "infidels." We're commanded to love our enemies and give vengeance over to God in other passages, which further goes against the idea of killing infidels. Again, it's so clear that it is Jesus who destroys His enemies at the end in this parable, not us. The "mine" makes that so clear, and when we compare this Scripture with other Scripture, we see a very consistent theme that vengeance is only God's, that we love our enemies, and all those things leave no logical room whatsoever for "killing infidels."

[Radimir]

Ezekiel 34:16

“I will seek what was lost and bring back what was driven away, bind up the broken and strengthen what was sick; but I will destroy the fat and the strong, and feed them in judgment.”

2 Thessalonians 3:10

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

[Mortimer]

What? Conservative Protestants don't even take that verse the way you are, twisting it and taking it out of context. The key word in that verse is "mine." That means Jesus will destroy His enemies -- not us. The Bible says elsewhere that vengeance is God's, not ours:

"Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord." (Romans 12:19)

It's not just me who says this -- here is a conservative Calvinist explanation of that parable, defending what I just wrote:

https://www.gotquestions.org/parable-ten-minas.html

"The enemies who rejected the king in the parable are representative of the Jewish nation that rejected Christ while He walked on earth—and everyone who still denies Him today. When Jesus returns to establish His kingdom, one of the first things He will do is utterly defeat His enemies (Revelation 19:11–15). It does not pay to fight against the King of kings."

Christians aren't Muslims; we don't commit violence against "infidels." We're commanded to love our enemies and give vengeance over to God in other passages, which further goes against the idea of killing infidels. Again, it's so clear that it is Jesus who destroys His enemies at the end in this parable, not us. The "mine" makes that so clear, and when we compare this Scripture with other Scripture, we see a very consistent theme that vengeance is only God's, that we love our enemies, and all those things leave no logical room whatsoever for "killing infidels."

They twisted it if they said so, the verse clearly says WE should kill them before Jesus.

[geriatric_millennial]

They twisted it if they said so, the verse clearly says WE should kill them before Jesus.

Mine doesn't mean "we." Jesus is clearly talking about Himself. And the other Bible passages I gave clearly explain that vengeance is God's to carry out, not man's.

Further, the example of Christ's followers in the New Testament never once follow the pattern of slaughter. None of Jesus' disciples slaughtered anyone. Nor did Paul. In fact, when the early Christians were persecuted, Paul penned Romans 13 to respect the government. Christians never persecuted in return. We're told not to return evil for evil in Romans 12.

Again from the conservative Calvinist Christian web site, which backs up its claim with numerous other verses:

https://www.gotquestions.org/holy-war.html

"Christians are strictly forbidden from using violence in an attempt to spread their faith. Christ directly told His disciples not to use violence to further His ministry (Matthew 26:52–54). He lived out a philosophy of peacemaking and taught others to do the same (Matthew 5:9–10). When arrested and facing death, Jesus clearly said that His kingdom was not earthly, so His disciples would not fight to protect Him (John 18:36). Christians expect persecution, not conquest, since Christ experienced the same (John 15:18–21). The example of the earliest believers was that of civil disobedience (Acts 5:25–29) and submission (Romans 13:4–5), never armed revolution or conquest. In fact, for the first three centuries of its existence, Christianity was effectively illegal, yet it spread throughout the Roman Empire."

This will be my last writing on the subject, as I doubt you will change your mind. But for anyone else on this web site who is reading and may be led astray, there aren't any conservative Christian denominations I'm aware of that take that verse in the way you do. I've laid out the interpretation, the words used, and other passages that clearly condemn Christians using violence against others, and always leave it in the hands of God.

Also, the Crusades were undertaken hundreds of years after the New Testament canon was already established; they aren't "early Christians," and the Crusades went against the Scriptures that I and GotQuestions have clearly outlined. Protestants place their faith in God's Word, not atrocities like the Crusades. You have shown no example supporting your view whatsoever from the New Testament -- you've only shifted the goalposts.