# Non-christian viewpoints of the Sermon on the Mount **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 17, 2002, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390 "2002-12-17T19:49:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/41 "2002-12-18T20:01:44Z")
> [@](#): > > I had forgotten about you, but I’m delighted that you stopped by. Could you tell me in, say, a thousand words or less what your religion is? Validating consent without virtualizing consent or encrypting the evidence of consent into the unknown. The impossibility of corruption or slavery or consent violation. Complete decision making power without the necessity to violate ones consent in the process. I find it to be quite clear that Gods power rests on His lack of providing a choice for non-existence; rather He has either eternal heaven or eternal damnation… He doesn’t provide any outlet for dissent, nothing with which to even have the pressure with which to observe that He may actually be accountable for His creations and/or his behavior in general, and/or his belief of self-perfection and superiority. I find that if consent is not considered the marker for truth, then truth itself is meaningless and everything is by necessity absurd and pointless with regards to belief and attainment - all things are acausal and ultimately pointless. I think that my religion is about as true as any statement about existence can be. To that degree, I don’t consider it a religion. Purpose is either rational or not rational. One either acts in accordance with one idea of purpose or the other by default (unless there is no default and rationality is ultimately absurd). -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/42 "2002-12-18T20:01:51Z")
Justhink wrote: > [@](#): > > I agree with this, curious how Gods’ own chosen break this rule; including every prophet in the Bible - not to mention Jesus. One part of the Sermon on the Mount that I left out was Jesus teaching people how to pray. He gave what’s known as “The Lord’s Prayer” as a template. It was not a prayer per se. The actual prayers of Jesus that we know about are as follows: (1) Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house and went off to a solitary place, where he prayed. — Mark 1:35 (2) Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. — Mark 14:35 (This was while all the disciples were asleep at Gethsemane.) (3) Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. — Mark 14:39 (Still alone.) (4) But Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed. — Luke 5:16 The sole exception was at the Last Supper, just after the disciples ate His body and drank His blood, and just before He was arrested. He prayed in front of His disciples, first for Himself, then for them, and then for all others who would come to believe. It’s the whole chapter of John 17. ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/43 "2002-12-18T20:11:45Z")
As a Christian, I’ll refrain from lengthy comments since this thread is working well as intended. I’ll just add a few points. The word ‘blessed’ (Greek makarioi ) has (somewhat rarely) been translated as ‘happy’ (In the KJV, it does get rendered that way in other places). Still, our meaning of the word ‘blessed’ is the best fit. I just feel it’s more of a statement on their condition rather than a bestowing, as of a blessing from God. I imagine it as ‘you should think of these people as blessed, and here’s why’. The mote/log thing has brought some comments, and Lib’s explained it well. In Luke[sup]\*[/sup], those statements come shortly after he says, “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit?” (Luke 6:39). The emphasis is that everyone should be working on reducing each other’s faults, but it’s a better start if each works on their own first. **Howard Juneau** , you may be familiar with it, but if not, check out Luke 6:24-26 - these are ‘woes’ which parallel the preceding ‘blesseds’. [sup]\*[/sup] the sermon starting at Luke 6:17 is known as the Sermon on the Plain. The bulk is similar to the SoM in Matthew. Some of the parts recorded in Matthew also appear in different contexts in Luke. It’s a moot point whether there were several different sermons, or if Matthew collated various teachings into a single sermon. For those seeing it for the first time, the OP contains the meat of the Sermon. I just thought I’d throw in a few extras. ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/44 "2002-12-18T20:14:35Z")
Anyone feel free to include the part about women from this sermon… You know, the meat of it and all. -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/45 "2002-12-18T20:29:44Z")
One of the many unique things about Jesus’ ministry was that women played a vital role in it. There were prostitutes, divorced women, married women, wives of statesmen, spinsters, women related to Jesus, women who were outcasts, and foreign women. It was almost completely women among His followers who attended Jesus’ crucifixion. And a woman was the first person to see the resurrected Jesus. In those days, women leaving their homes or travelling with men was positively scandalous. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/46 "2002-12-18T21:05:37Z")
I suggest people READ Uncle Tom’s Cabin, instead of just taking all their knowledge from the epithet “Uncle Tom.” The character of Tom is NOT just a guy who knuckles under to everything the white man demands of him, and is indeed much more complex than that. zev\_steinhardt, I think the key to many of these categories, and the key to the historical importance of the Sermon in a Jewish context, is that it is inverting many of the common ideas of purity, and they have to been seen in that context to be appreciated as radical. While one can go so far with Nietzsche as to make a harsh critique of the Sermon from this perspective, I don’t think he or many other commentators were essentially wrong when they (to put it very simply and crudely) observed that Jesus was saying to the people who were in general considered habitually unclean and screwed “actually, you’re not screwed.” He was rejecting the grounds on which righteousness was normally seen in a later-day Talmudic context, post temple-state. Of course, depending on what Jesus means by “Do not even unbelievers do that?” I’m a little insulted to be slandered so. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/47 "2002-12-18T21:18:28Z")
Actually, the word used is derived from [symbol]telonhs[/symbol] and means a Roman equestrian, a tax gatherer or collector, or a collector of tolls. It has been translated variously as publican, unbeliever, and pagan. I used unbeliever merely to vary the phrasing, even though the NIV uses pagan. If I offended anyone, I take personal responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![Justhink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/edb3f5/32.png) [@Justhink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justhink)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/48 "2002-12-18T21:21:54Z")
Isn’t there a part about women not being able to commit adultery and re-marrying, while men doing the same can do whatever? -Justhink ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/49 "2002-12-18T21:36:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > I suggest people READ Uncle Tom’s Cabin, instead of just taking all their knowledge from the epithet “Uncle Tom.” The character of Tom is NOT just a guy who knuckles under to everything the white man demands of him, and is indeed much more complex than that. Actually, I did read it (about 15 years ago) and I thought that his “turning the check and forgiving those that do me harm” went a little too far. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/50 "2002-12-18T21:38:21Z")
I’m an agnostic who was raised in a fundamentalist christian home. > [@](#): > > Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. I read this as the poor being blessed in spirit _because_ theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Or that if a person can be joyful and exhuberant in life even when the question of where the next meal may be coming from lurks in the background, then they have found a measure of peace and serenity. > [@](#): > > Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. A person who does not reject grief but opens up to it and lets it run its course is a person willing and able to achieve self-knowledge. Again, a road to peace and serenity. > [@](#): > > Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. I don’t know the connotations of the word translated as meek, but for me the english word is related to humble. And to my way of thinking humility is at the core of the Beatitudes; a truly humble person has no illusions about what they are – and the ability to clearly see their flaws and strengths is their greatest strength. > [@](#): > > Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. What is righteousness but the ability to question your moral or ethical condition, and to act in ways which improve it? See above comments. > [@](#): > > Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Be compassionate, you are not alone in the world. Help when you can. See meek. > [@](#): > > Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. The closer you come to full awareness of yourself, the closer you come to peace. > [@](#): > > Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Give comfort where you can, it will comfort you. > [@](#): > > Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. If you know yourself well enough, and are attacked for doing what you believe is right, the serenity you have gained will carry you through. > [@](#): > > You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even unbelievers do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. We are all human. The universe does not hold a bias for or against individuals, or for or against humanity, or for or against anything else. Try to achieve this in yourself. > [@](#): > > And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. I think the spirit of this is also humility. Especially if I equate prayer with helping others. A bumper sticker I saw once expresses it best, “Practise random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.” Don’t brag about how good you are, just do what you can. > [@](#): > > Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Again, peace and serenity are what this means to me. > [@](#): > > Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Examine your own actions, and make right your own wrongs. Then, if you can help another _who would like_ to do the same, do so. > [@](#): > > Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. This is a rhetorical summation of the preceding passages, and an exhortation to people to examine the ideas contained in the sermon and to examine themselves in the light of those ideas. Know thyself … ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/51 "2002-12-18T21:40:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Justhink \* > \*\*Isn’t there a part about women not being able to commit adultery and re-marrying, while men doing the same can do whatever? > > -Justhink \*\* You might mean this: It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. — Matthew 5:31-32 ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/52 "2002-12-18T21:42:28Z")
—If I offended anyone, I take personal responsibility.— Uh, why? They aren’t your words, and you aren’t, at least in this thread, even endorsing them. I just don’t being lumped in with a group that supposedly practices the bear minimum of concern for only their own tribe, when as far as I can tell, I’m more tolerant and loving than the speaker in many respects (except in tolerance of tyrrany, he’s got me beat there) and with far fewer psychological resources to work with. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/53 "2002-12-18T21:43:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Justhink \* > \*\*Isn’t there a part about women not being able to commit adultery and re-marrying, while men doing the same can do whatever? > > -Justhink \*\* What I believe you are thinking of is the Jewish law that states that a woman who commits adultery becomes forbidden to remain with her husband. She is also not allowed to marry the man with whom she has committed adultery. She is not, however, forbidden from marrying at all. A man, however, while not being allowed to have extra-marital sex, does not face this restriction, simply because of the nature of Biblical law in that a man can have more than one wife anyway. (Note: This was later prohibited among Ashkenazic Jews by Rabbinical decree). Since a man (unlike a woman) could have more than one spouse at a time, he wasn’t penalized in that sense (since he could always end up marrying the woman anyway). What does this have to do with the Sermon on the Mount? Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![asrivkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9d8465/32.png) [@asrivkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asrivkin)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/54 "2002-12-18T21:46:07Z")
There is, actually, a book entitled “A Rabbi Talks with Jesus” by Neusner, which covers this very subject, from a Jewish perspective. I recommend it, even if it can be a bit of a frustrating read. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/55 "2002-12-18T21:47:21Z")
> [@](#): > > There is a story of a Rabbi in the Talmud, who upon seeing an Emporer who was known for his harsh decrees against the Jews, greeted him with blessings of health and long life. Whe the emporer asked him why he would wish long life and health to someone who clearly meant him and his people harm, he was told that it was well known that he was harsher than his father. He was therefore wished long life becuase it was assumed that his son would be harsher than he was. I love this story, **zev**. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/56 "2002-12-18T21:48:09Z")
Fatwater Fewl Thank you! What profound insights! ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/57 "2002-12-18T21:51:13Z")
—Actually, I did read it (about 15 years ago) and I thought that his “turning the check and forgiving those that do me harm” went a little too far.— Perhaps, but Uncle Tom was no Uncle Tom. He refused to fight back when beaten, sure, but he also definately refused to apologize for things he was not guilty of. And he was finally beaten to death because he refused to give up his friends to recapture and further slavery! Say what you will about other strategies he might have adopted: he in no way was simply a compliant rollover. So his forgiving of his tormentors was part of his faith, not a sign that he wasn’t willing to stand up for what he thought was right. ---
**Author:** ![Fatwater\_Fewl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/4491bb/32.png) [@Fatwater\_Fewl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fatwater_Fewl)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/58 "2002-12-18T22:05:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*Fatwater Fewl > > Thank you! What profound insights! \*\* You’re welcome, **Lib**. Thanks for giving me a chance to think about this. ---
**Author:** ![Howard\_Juneau](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/bb73d2/32.png) [@Howard\_Juneau](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Howard_Juneau)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/59 "2002-12-18T22:50:27Z")
While we’re all thinking… Why do they call it the “sermon” on the mount rather than the “teachings” on the mount? When I think “sermon” I think of expounding on an existing text – something that provides an overall context. No one overarching text is quoted (although several may touch on different points). Would Psalm 1 fill the bill as the basic springboard? I guess what I’m getting at is, “Is this one message or a bunch of little ones?” If it’s a bunch of teachings, let’s call it the “Bunch of Teachings on the Mount!” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2002, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390/60 "2002-12-18T22:50:40Z")
I’m glad you seized the chance. I must have read your post twenty times already. Your take on Jesus is strikingly similar Kahlil Gibran’s in [Jesus the Son of Man](http://leb.net/gibran/works/jesus/jesus.html), and very much like my own. Here is Gibran’s own poetic version of the [Sermon on the Mount](http://leb.net/gibran/works/jesus/matthew.html). Enjoy! 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/non-christian-viewpoints-of-the-sermon-on-the-mount/143390.md?page=4)