We're back to a question that I ask all the time but never get an answer for.
Why do Xtians fight tooth and nail to claim the bible means exactly the opposite of what it says?
Firstly, what's with 'Xtians' instead of Christians? I see it here often.
Secondly, why do you think the bible, as a document, should be studied without adhering to the usual rules of context that are used to help aid understanding?
You did not answer the question though. Instead posing your own question.
Are you seriously telling me that wasn't a rhetorical question? Come on...you were making a statement.
In what context is it okay to bring non-believers before Jesus and slay them, as he demands you do? Perhaps once you answer that question, you will understand why many of us could care less for your "context" escape hatch.
Let's look at the context
of the verses you refer to, shall we. I have bolded the one which you seem to think compels me to bring non-believers to Jesus and slay them:While they were listening to this, he started to tell them a story. He did so because they were near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God would begin right away.
12 So he said, `A man who belonged to a respected family went to a country far away. He went to get power to rule. Then he was going to come back.
13 Before he left, he called ten of his servants. He gave each of them some money. He said, "Go and trade with this money until I come back."
14 `His people hated him. They chose some men and sent them after him to tell the king, "We do not want this man to rule over us."
15 But he was given the power to rule and came back. Then he called the servants to whom he had given the money. He wanted to know how much money each one had made by trading.
16 The first one came to him and said, "Sir, your money has made ten times more money."
17 `The ruler said, "You have done well. You are a good servant. You will rule over ten cities because you have done well with a very small thing."
18 The second one came to him and said, "Sir, your money has made five times more money."
19 The ruler said, "You will rule over five cities."
20 `Then another servant came and said, "Sir, here is your money. I hid it in a cloth and kept it.
21 I was afraid of you. You are a hard man. You take in where you put nothing out. You gather where you did not plant."
22 `The ruler said "You bad servant! I will judge you by your own words. You knew that I was a hard man! You knew that I take in where I put nothing out. You knew that I gather where I did not plant.
23 Why did you not put my money in the bank? Then when you came home I would have had my money with interest."
24 `Some men were standing there. He said to them, "Take the money from him. Give it to the man who has ten times as much."
25 They said, "Sir, he has ten times as much already!"
26 The ruler said, "I tell you. Anyone who has some will get more. But he who does not have anything, even the little that he has will be taken away from him.
27 But where are those people who hate me and did not want me to rule over them? Bring them here and kill them right here in front of me." '
28 When Jesus had said this, he went on ahead of them towards Jerusalem.
This is a parable, used to convey a meaning beyond the literal words used. This particular parable relates mainly to believers, and addresses the gifts we have been given by God to further His kingdom. You needn't concern yourself with this part of the parable at this time in your life.
The bolded verse is a warning of the fate that awaits those who reject Jesus as God's appointed judge and redeemer. This part concerns you. (or it should)
Now: havig carefully considered the context, do you think that bolded verse is a directive to Christians to kill non-Christians? Is that the context of the verse? Is the Christian explanation of that verse reasonable, or do you maintain that it's a baseless and contemptible attempt to explain away something unpleasant?