What’s so special about the CHEESEMAKERS???:eek:
Obviously it’s not to be taken lit’rally, my dear. It refers to all manufacturers of dairy products.
I think the writers thought Jesus was coming back real soon, as in any day now (not 1900 years). So, when he comes, be sin-free. Don’t even risk it. Don’t fight back if provoked, don’t grab too much wealth, don’t store up any hate. Most of these are relatively easy to do for a while, but all but impractical in the long term (don’t defend yourself?)
Do whatever you can to keep the slate as clean as possible in the short term, because he’s coming VERY soon. Stay meek, peaceful, sacrifice whatever for the next few days or months. Then it will all be over.
Agnostic checking in.
I always had a problem with the praying behind a door bit. I can certainly understand ‘don’t be religious for social profit,’ but what exactly does that leave praying? Prayer is still asking God for profit - i.e. ‘He will reward you’.
Now, if he’d added ‘pray not for yourself but for others’, it’d make a lot more sense. That eliminates selfishness altogether. Also, some ‘action is better than prayer’ would be fine too, but that might put the deity in question out of business.
**Libertarian wrote:
I was hoping you would drop in! I’ve always thought that (genuine) Christian and Wiccan principles were compatible. This is an especially keen insight:**
Thank you. No, I don’t think that there’s a compatibility problem between the Wiccan Rede (An it harm none, do what thou wilt) and the Sermon of the Mount. The real issue comes with theology; monotheism verses polytheism and the question of the necessity of salvation.
I think zev_steinhardt was on the right track with his questions. What is context of the Sermon on the Mount? Who was Jesus talking to? Remember those words were written during the Roman occupation and I think they (the words) need to be considered within that context.
Since the Sermon on the Mount strongly echo from the Torah, one could also wonder what Jesus’s intent was behind His ministry. A new religion? A sect within Judaism? Something else entirely?
**JerseyDiamond wrote:
What’s so special about the CHEESEMAKERS???**
Isn’t it obvious? They will show us the whey!
(Thank you, thank you! Don’t forget to tip your wait-staff!)
Thank you for the compliment, Howard, and welcome to the boards!
Zev Steinhardt
Then again, Israel was under Roman occupation at the time. When the Jews tried to revolt, they were hammered down, and the Temple was destroyed.
Keeping a low profile and being nice to the Romans would have been a much better strategy…
From an agnostic: Of course you should expect to be judged by the same standard you use in judging others, but judge them you should. Most societies have elaborate systems (called legal or justice systems) the purpose of which is to do exactly that. I suppose this statement is directed more at individuals than at societies trying to protect themselves. I think it is not only right but necessary to judge persons who commit crimes, and, of course, to expect like judgment if we do the same. If, on the other hand, this statement was intended to instruct individuals not to take too harsh a view of others’ flaws, since they may may have equal or worse ones, it’s perfectly reasonable. Like many statements in the NT, this leaves too much to interpretation. I think a teacher should make his message clear and unambiguous, and Jesus, if Matthew quotes him correctly, was only so-so in that regard.
Anybody who can come up with such a groaner is my kind of Doper! 
Um…are Swiss cheese makers holey-er than…never mind.
He isn’t saying “why” they should be blessed. He is saying that God will be next to them.
He isn’t talking about this world though.
Sad to say, he didn’t make an absolute (or even necessarily probable) rule that its would help us in this world, save that we could find peace and happiness in it. He never promised anyone temporal wealth or pleasure, though.
Move your imagination forward a hundred years, and you’ll hear the sermonizing that went on in the American South, and in South Africa, where the “black” churches were important tools in maintaining the status quo of white supremacy.
For me (Jewish and mildly observant), this poses one of the fundamental questions about the validity of the Christian message as it came to be represented by the established Churches. I am not alone in the feeling that the religion would more correctly be called Paulism, after the individual whose mindset it came to represent, rather than that of the intinerant Jewish preacher who spoke so powerfully to his co-religionists.
I am not in any way trying to belittle or offend - it simply is an expression of why I’m not a Christian.
I don’t think it was either belittling or offensive. In fact, it was positively embiggening.
And after all, there’s no reason similar observations couldn’t be made about Judaism…
This is an interesting interpretation. St. Francis de Sales, in his book An Introduction to the Devout Life, has a chapter titled, “On Poverty of Spirit Amid Riches” – he sees this particular beatitude to be an exhortation to avoid avarice. His chapter ends with:
Thanks for sharing that, Gallows Fodder.
Rampisad wrote:
No offense taken. I opened the thread knowing that I might likely encounter interpretations that differ vastly from my own.
Regarding the meekness and so forth, it is interesting from my perspective to see people’s concern that unscrupulous politicians (both in religion and government) can use Jesus’ words to oppress and to exercise tyranny. Setting aside that there is no teaching that they cannot spin for their own benefit, the fact remains that slaves were freed, Jews reestablished their homeland, and South Africa is now governed by blacks.
Oh. And of course, there was that Gandhi/India thing. 
And Uncle Tom’s Cabin played no small part in that development. (This is mostly in response to Arnold’s reference to the novel as an “opiate of the masses” kinda thing).
Otherwise, we probably wouldn’t ever have heard of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It’s not like it’s a great book or anything, it’s important for its historical significance.
Such a being would not eat food or drink water anymore.
Is this a one-shot take all proposition, or is it frequency dependant? Am I more comforted if I mourn my entire life?
If I mourn once, should I assume that I am as comforted as I can ever become, regardless of evidence to the contrary?
Again, starvation. It also teaches/re-enforces the idea that evidence does not matter in ones own life or perception as it is all encrypted beyond the death/suicide line (this is how all religions construct and hook the indentured system). This invariably creates fantastic slaves and drones for exploitation, for those who actually do use things like evidence to consider cause and effect.
This doesn’t specify the quality of that fullness, simply that it will be filled. Video poker machines use this to earn extra-ordinary profits from people who require very little re-enforcement to simulate their belief in correct action and consentual reward. They just keep plugging along, knowing that they are right, until they are broke - years of personal devotion of labor and spirit sucked up within a few days to a few well crafted evolutionary algorithms. If they object? “You are filled; Prove me wrong.”
There is no standard applied to righteousness here chuckle
Again, encrypted beyond the life-cycle - this mercy is considered a given after death and trains people to become accustomed to not even requiring evidence for it within the confines of life. It also places the perspective upon them by defining it as them “You have been shown mercy; Prove me wrong.”
This is absurd.
There is no equation of peacemeking with righteousness here (righteousness BTW, which also doesn’t have a standard in this text). We can place the entire population on happiness drugs, by making them ignorant by default. A wholly pacified slave population - peaceful people with a peace-maker leadership.
Again, absurd. I this day and age, righteousness is more defined by the Buddhist sense of not reaching for nirvana until everyone is accounted for along the same path. Jesus also utters a wonderful speech about how “the time is now”, basically advocating that one not consider injustice upon others, and only consider their own security within the gates of heaven. It preaches a lack of compassion, a lack of something to compare the promise to… etc… This is perfectly consistant with not allowing 3rd party observation of a ‘test’ of God. Such an act renders that all beings considered will go to hell. Falsification is coded out of the ability to enter heaven, repeatedly and unfailingly within the Bible.
“God treats everybody on earth equally, so do the same - when it really matters; he’ll punish those people for eternity; just make sure you smile at them while screwing them, when the two of you aren’t segregated for eternity yet. It will make it easier for you to steal their wealth of ego.”
I agree with this, curious how Gods’ own chosen break this rule; including every prophet in the Bible - not to mention Jesus.
If you’re going to have a civilization where only certain people can pray publicly or only a certain prayer can be uttered; then it becomes vitally important to make sure that 3rd party verification cannot exist between those not under the direct watch of the church, as it becomes too easy to discover how empty these prayers are with regards to life when at least one other person is involved with you, to falsify the event and corrorberate the event.
This again, is keeping in line with the “Do not test God in the third person”
Absurd. Starvation. This also ties in with the taxation program regarding currency “Sure, you work 16 hours a day laboring for basic shelter, food and water, and you can’t buy those things without currency BUT, the currency does not have your picture on it, so give it back to your boss after your boos gives it to you for your hard labor - because… it really belongs to your boss in the first place. Don’t be immoral and keep the paper that doesn’t have your picture on it, that is stealing.”
Mute autism. Also renders falsification as a sin. Renders the seeking of evidence as a moral crime.
Absurd. People who have sons asking for bread, give their sons anal rape and a beating to the death. There is a real world outside this wonder-land of ignorance which is Jesus’ house.
-Justhink
Wiccan checking in.
I think the sentiments expressed in this sermon are (along with some beautiful art and architecture) Christianity’s main positive contribution to Western Civilization. I think I’d like a clarification on “righteousness,” though.
Buddhism contradicts itself here with another little known doctrine of buddhism, which basically sums up as:
“There are an infinite amount of souls and not all of them can be in nirvana or attain nirvana; therefor, do not consume yourself with worrying about these souls at the expense of your own nirvana.”
What this does is remove potency from the attainee of the realized state… it opposes any standard of unillateral use which is marked by science and philosophy.
Unless a being can actually bestow nirvana instantly upon those who ask them for it, they are deluded as to the nature of what nirvana is. The same is true for the messiah archetype. Real human communication relies upon granting an ability to be or use or achieve as not dependant upon a specific state of being or learning. Remote controls do not discriminate when someone wants to watch television. Truth does not discriminate, it collapses resources by abstracting them outwards so everyone can use them. All religions require that this phenomenon is blocked or considered sinful; blocking these innovations is also the key to maintaining a capitalistic system and a necessary slave population.
We know that God always had the option to grant the fruit from the tree of life; at which point we could choose simulations of reality with which to experience his lessons without compromising our consent in the process. God shows that violating consent is the key to his power, with literally every stroke of the pen in the Bible. The capacity to explore the world of truth, so as to abstract a collective use of a technology is considered work of the Devil. Segregation is considered divine - movement to collapse it and form peer relationships is considered the original sin; and ultimately impossible - as is preached in buddhism.
-Justhink
Hamish
Thanks for checking in. The word translated as “righteousness” is derived from [symbol]dikaiosuhe[/symbol], and means “being as one ought to be or as one was designed to be”.
Justhink
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?
Yes, but the civil rights movement owed its success to the actions of people like the rebellious George and Eliza in the novel (see text here), not to Uncle Tom, who behaved in an “exemplary, Christian” fashion in the novel.