OK. So what was He “actually meant?”
We’re discussing his moral and ethical teaching not his spiritual teachings. Aside from that you’re take on what he said in Matthew is a matter of interpretation. If someone said, there are realistic consequences to our choices. Positive choices yield positive consequences {that’s not to say easy, or pleasent} negative choices yield negative consequences, would you disagree? What Jesus was saying was that we cannot avoid the consequences of our choices and was trying to make it clear that certain attitudes and behavior patterns led to negative consequences. He never said you can’t choose them.
That’s your take. If He was merely trying to get across that there are consequences to our choices, which most adults already know, was it necessary to be so drastic as:
Matt.
10-14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor your word,when ye depart out of that city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10-15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgement, than for that city.
My last sentence would be better if I had written that it’s easier to love those whose ethics and morals agree with yours than with those whose ethics and morals don’t.
Matthew was speaking of all of His words in the section referred to and that includes His moral teachings. Typical double-talk to try to give the meaning that you like to the book.
Wow, I think your concept of unconditional love is a little off. Many many things that people call love is anything but. Your example of a battered wife is about a woamn who is emotionally and physcologically damaged and has nothing to do with love, although she may use the word.
As a parent my concept of unconditional love means that if my son or daughter winds up being a drug addict or worse, I will still love them. That doesn’t mean I approve of their actions or become an enabler out of a twisted concept of love. I can condem their actions and allow them to bare full responsibility for them, but continue to love them and be there to support them if they turn their lives around.
What Jesus taught was that all people are connected and so all are worthy if that same kind of love. Basic respect and consideration. We don’t reject people becuase of their tribe or race or cultural barriers. He also taught that kindness and consideration were a better way to deal with those who don’t love us, rather than antagonism returning hatred for hatred.
As stated before, it’s a matter of interpretation. I can certainly understand people looking at what Jesus taught and deciding it’s unrealistic or impractical. I don’t happen to think so but since we’re talking morals and ethics it’s basically an exchange of opinions.
There are areas of spirituality where there is no way to apply scienctific standards. Much in the same way we can’t apply science to emotion, morals or ethics.
Again, we’re talking about his moral teachings. What I hear him saying here is that if a town rejects what the apostles are teaching then don’t worry about it move on, you did your best and they chose. There will be consequences to their choices.
Jesus challenged his followers to love their enimies. He said it’s easy to love your families and those that are in your little group. Try to extend that love out beyond your immediate group.
I’m unclear what you’re trying to say in thsoe last two sentances. Could you explain?
I interpret the passages as a threat that He will see that unbelievers will get the severest punishment. It sounds a petulant, “You’ll be sorry” sort of statement.
I was only referring to your saying that what I claim the passages mean is only my interpretation. Well, your statements are only your interpretation, or that of others who make the words say what they would want them to say.
I’m guessing that the phrase, “Unconditional Love” was never used by Jesus: indeed, it has a suspiciously modern ring to it.
Matthew 5:43-48 has a love thy enemy sequence as does Luke 6:27-28, 32-35.
Interesting Matthew 48 summarizes:
“To sum up, you are to be unstinting in your generosity in the way your heavenly Father’s generosity is unstinting.”
Luke summarizes:
“Be compassionate in the way your Father is compassionate.”
It seems to me that the Biblical Jesus was elaborating upon and extending the Golden Rule.
Hm. I just found a cite that pupports to relate the views of various religions on love, courtesy of the Unification Church. Take with your preferred quantity of salt.
I see. Jesus also said you will know the truth and the the truth will set you free. I don’t think he means punishment in the sense that he will punish people for not believing what his teachings. Choosing to deny or not believe that truth doesn’t change it , any more than choosing to not believe that fire is hot will save me if I stick my hand in a flame. If someone chooses to hate others and lie, and cheat etc. then there are consequences for those choices.It’s easy to see that is true. He was presenting a way for people to live together in peace and harmony, but they have to choose that path and those consequences.
Agreed. We will both read these passages through the filter of our own experience and desire. There’s no way to be totally objective that I can see.
Of course we don’t know how accurate these quotes are. I do read it trying to see the whole picture. You can pick our select verses such as
and paint a pretty unflattering picture. I try to interpret this type of passage in conjunction with the passages that speak of love for our fellow man, and compassion for the needy. In this case, if Jesus taeches love, brotherhood, and kindness toward our fellow man, why does this passage in Mat 10 seem to contradict those teachings? Is there an interpretation that makes both true?
The answer is yes. What he is saying is that we must be committed to following the truth more than any family or social traditions. In his time a Jewish man who was kind to a Samaritan might be ridiculed by family and friends. In more recent history, a white person in the south was under family and social pressure to act a certain ways toward blacks. It took courage and committment to go against our family and neighbors and stand up for social justice.
Appreciate the cite, thanks. That’s exactly it. It’s easy to love those who are good to you or benifit you in some way. The real challenge is love those that are the most difficult to love. To find forgivness in our hearts.
The Quakers have a saying something like this.
“The dignity of each person cannot be changed or diminished by the act of any other person. It can only only be diminished by an action of that individual.”
or something along those lines.
I agree and the whole picture is of a man trying to get across a message that he believes and getting frustrated when he isn’t received as well as he thinks he should be. The moral code that he pushed seems to me like the moral code that existed long before he appeared on the scene and doesn’t look at all novel. Societies generally frown on those who disrupt the society and try to get the members to not upset the fabric of the society. And one prime rule is to try to get along with one another which can be oversold as to unconditionally love you neighbor.
You are correct. Buddha taught pretty much exactly the same moral code 600 years before Christ was on the scene. Frustrated? I tend to doubt it except in regard to people’s reluctance to see the truth in what he taught. Ever get frustrated at people’s selfishness, dishonesty and greed? I have. I tend to think many of the passages attributed to Christ were added later by the church to serve their own purposes. It’s interesting to note that Buddha never wanted to be deified but just wanted the truth of his teachings to be passed on to others. Man just can’t seem to resist making a stuctured religion out of some good teachings. I think the same about Jesus. He taught he was the Son of God in the sense that we are all the children of God.