Well, not really.

The part about being thrown into the sea is about the horror that awaits if you sin or lead into sin others, such that it's better to drown oneself than do that.

The part following is about the importance of interpersonal forgiveness, not divine forgiveness.

It's in line with Paul's shtick about not eating meat offered to idols - not because it's wrong - but because if someone else thinks it's wrong and then they do it, you'll have led them into perceived sin.

Taken together, those lines exemplify the most fucked up aspects of canonical Christianity.

• If you do bad things you face horrific divine punishment
• But you must forgive others who do you wrong

This was part of how the church was able to manipulate and abuse their followers for thousands of years.

'Forgiveness' as outlined in that passage has been almost certainly directly cited by the church to silence pedophile victims of its members.

The version of Christianity that passed the survivorship filter of the Roman empire is the one that enabled slavery, servitude, and the oppression of the most vulnerable, and used pleasant sounding terms like 'forgiveness' to do it.

Why does that feel like a non sequitur? The whole thing seems to be about forgiving an asshole for being a dick seven times a day as long as he says sorry (especially since being a dick is a given), but where does the little ones even come in?

Kind of bad advice, either way.

I think Mathew's interpretation of events to be kind of more straightforward....

Mathew 18:6
6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! 8 If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

It's because it's coming from Mark 9 where there's a kid, but it was split up in Luke to the kid being in Luke 9 and the saying here in Luke 17.

Which itself has a very interesting backstory, as around 80% of academics recognize 1 Timothy as a second century forgery, and around half think the part in 1 Cor about women teaching is a later interpolation.

There was a sect of early Christianity which was my main research interest who claimed their sect came from a woman teacher. This group had a fair bit of overlap with the things Paul rejects in Corinth, who he says "recieved a different gospel/version of Jesus."

In the late first century, Corinth deposes the elders sent by the Roman church and the bishop of Rome writes them another letter (1 Clement) where he repeatedly emphasizes that youth should defer to their elders and that women should obey their husbands and be silent.

So you probably had a competing sect of early Christianity with an emphasis on youth and women (as this later 'heretical' sect did) which was causing trouble for the group who had better financing and institutional support, which later forges and possibly alters letters to denounce their competition by attacking their practices, one of which happened to be empowered women.

And then we got two millennia of misogyny that persists until today.

It's a real shame too. That other later sect is the only religious group in Western antiquity I'm familiar with that was centrally incorporating Greek atomism, which was the context in which they interpreted the mustard seed and sower parables - likely coming from Lucretius using the term for 'seed' in place of atomos in his widely celebrated poem on naturalism 50 years before Jesus was born, where he even described failed biological reproduction as "seed falling by the wayside of the path". (The sower parable is much more interesting with this perspective in mind, and might explain why in Mark it's the only one given a secret explanation in private which clumsily interpolates the scene where it takes place.)

While Christianity became unambiguously misogynistic, it's doubted whether or not this sentiment actually reflects the historical Paul and the early churches he moved amongst. Faced with having to choose which of his writings are more genuine: the inclusive writings or heavily patriarchal writings, it really does seem his more radical opinions were watered down by the later church which caved in to the pressure of the existing misogyny.

Paul regarded that men and women had equal access to Christ's grace (Gal 3:28) within a discourse in which he explains the point of law is a temporary restraint to limit sin but ultimately it ought to fall away. He names and thanks dozens of women in helping to run and support the house church networks. He names "Junia" as the only names female apostle (Romans 16:7). Calls others "co workers" and "fellow servants" in the gospel.

It all falls in line with the traditions that are least likely to have been invented given the prevailing sentiment : that women were the financial support of Christ's ministry (Luke 8:3), the first portrayed as gathering others to Christ (John 4:27-30), the first witnesses of the resurrection, the first commissioned by Christ to the take the news to others etc

God can compare, though. He is a villain to many.

And the LORD was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron.

But....but what the fuck happened to omnipotence?