The Sermon on the Mount

[linz]

The Beatitudes
1Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them saying:
3"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Salt and Light
13"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.
14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

The Fulfillment of the Law
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Murder
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
23"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

25"Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

Adultery
27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
Divorce
31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But 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.
Oaths
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
An Eye for an Eye
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that 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. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

As religious text goes, there might be more artistry in other text, but never more truth. The message that Christ is telling warns of pride and loftiness, judging others, and materialism. It also gives hope to those seeking righteousness. Christ has narrowed down to a refined and beautiful Sermon everything that is important in men, and that men can understand plainly. It is to this Sermon that I go more often than any other message of Christ, as since I understand and attempt to apply it in my own life, I believe that man's goodness is a light that can never be extinguished.

[troubadour]

How, when you say 'man's goodness is a light that can never be extinguished,' can there be 'an evil person'?

[linz]

How, when you say 'man's goodness is a light that can never be extinguished,' can there be 'an evil person'?

'Evil' is not a person, but an action by a person.

[JGL57]

The basic thing I conclude from reading this famous sermon is that Jesus wasn't a republican.

[Pendragon]

As religious text goes, there might be more artistry in other text, but never more truth. The message that Christ is telling warns of pride and loftiness, judging others, and materialism. It also gives hope to those seeking righteousness. Christ has narrowed down to a refined and beautiful Sermon everything that is important in men, and that men can understand plainly. It is to this Sermon that I go more often than any other message of Christ, as since I understand and attempt to apply it in my own life, I believe that man's goodness is a light that can never be extinguished.

I agree. And it is that very simplicity that makes people have such a hard time. People are always thinking and making it harder, arguments start over "'dos and don'ts", and instead of the reconciliation Christ taught, it becomes a shatterpoint, "We disagree, so we do not want anything to do with you." Sad, really.

God Bless

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l108/AbsalomKane/Smilies/PuppyLove.gif

[weepingforloman]

The basic thing I conclude from reading this famous sermon is that Jesus wasn't a republican.

Rules anyone?

[littlewing53]

...it is the spirit of Christ within us that makes man good...alone we can do nothing..how honorable to share and hear the good news of the gospel..it is our hope, our faith and our belief...it is Christ born of a virgin by the spirit of God, crucified by man and after three days resurrected...without the resurrection of Jesus Christ there is no gospel...Jesus no longer hangs on the cross...he is sitting at the right hand of god...we as believers await his return as king of kings and lord of lords...

[JGL57]

...it is the spirit of Christ within us that makes man good...alone we can do nothing..how honorable to share and hear the good news of the gospel..it is our hope, our faith and our belief...it is Christ born of a virgin by the spirit of God, crucified by man and after three days resurrected...without the resurrection of Jesus Christ there is no gospel...Jesus no longer hangs on the cross...he is sitting at the right hand of god...we as believers await his return as king of kings and lord of lords...

Maybe. Maybe not. Hard to prove either way.

Whatever floats your boat.

[Redzeppelin]

The Sermon on the Mount is Christ's "upping the ante" in terms of human behavior and the motivations behind it. What really is striking is that the entire sermon is a flat-out attack against the superficiality of externally observable behavior. The Pharisees believed that not doing something was praise-worthy (murder, adultery); Christ hammers home the crucial truth: it is what is in your heart that takes priority to external behavior. This is where Christ dismantles the idea that God simply wants us to "be good" - what God wants are people with right hearts - which is what the sermon is really about.

Hi there, JGL: you come across as a thinker of sorts - rather than be dismissive, I'd like to hear what you think about Christ's actual sermon in terms of what it says about behavior and motivation. Pretend some philosopher said it (instead of the Son of God) and comment away.

[Gorilla King]

'Evil' is not a person, but an action by a person.


To clarify this a bit more, Augustine said that evil is not a thing in itself. Rather evil is a lack of good. Along a similar line of thought, people have all sorts of notions about hell, but in it's most simple terms, hell is absolute separation from God. Since God is the source and standard of all good, hell is a place both devoid of God and good. Hence it's the most evil place possible.

And to clear any further misconceptions on this point, some believe that if a person dies and goes to hell that it is a temporary thing. However, all souls, not just those who go to heaven are eternal. Therefore, there is no such thing as ceasing to exist within Christianity, but rather it's a choice between God or no God....Good or evil....light or dark.

[linz]

The message I get from Christ, is a his disdain for hypocrisy, which he used the Pharisees to lay his examples. With in the Sermon on the Mount is the spirit of truth. But in life, without proof of God, many simply go to and fro without consulting specifically if they are being a hypocritical or if what they are doing is right or wrong and so on. Universal truths are, in and of themselves, the good of life, and it might be the only thing on this earth that is eternal.

[Pendragon]

To clarify this a bit more, Augustine said that evil is not a thing in itself. Rather evil is a lack of good. Along a similar line of thought, people have all sorts of notions about hell, but in it's most simple terms, hell is absolute separation from God. Since God is the source and standard of all good, hell is a place both devoid of God and good. Hence it's the most evil place possible.

And to clear any further misconceptions on this point, some believe that if a person dies and goes to hell that it is a temporary thing. However, all souls, not just those who go to heaven are eternal. Therefore, there is no such thing as ceasing to exist within Christianity, but rather it's a choice between God or no God....Good or evil....light or dark.One point, please. This is something I run across all the time, and I am just wondering. There is a general statement against religion in general and Christianity in particular that goes something like this: "I do not choose to have someone else do my thinking for me." I don't think you could, if you wish to be honest, dispute that statement.

OK. This is almost always immediately followed by someone quoting a philosopher, take your pick from Nietzsche, Spinzona, Kant, Descartes, Augustine, or a scientist such as Stephen Hawkings, and saying their way of thinking is the way that it must be. Isn't that allowing that person's thinking to become your thinking? So you do choose to have someone else think for you.

[weepingforloman]

One point, please. This is something I run across all the time, and I am just wondering. There is a general statement against religion in general and Christianity in particular that goes something like this: "I do not choose to have someone else do my thinking for me." I don't think you could, if you wish to be honest, dispute that statement.

OK. This is almost always immediately followed by someone quoting a philosopher, take your pick from Nietzsche, Spinzona, Kant, Descartes, Augustine, or a scientist such as Stephen Hawkings, and saying their way of thinking is the way that it must be. Isn't that allowing that person's thinking to become your thinking? So you do choose to have someone else think for you.

Right you are: it's hard to be original.

[Gorilla King]

One point, please. This is something I run across all the time, and I am just wondering. There is a general statement against religion in general and Christianity in particular that goes something like this: "I do not choose to have someone else do my thinking for me." I don't think you could, if you wish to be honest, dispute that statement.

OK. This is almost always immediately followed by someone quoting a philosopher, take your pick from Nietzsche, Spinzona, Kant, Descartes, Augustine, or a scientist such as Stephen Hawkings, and saying their way of thinking is the way that it must be. Isn't that allowing that person's thinking to become your thinking? So you do choose to have someone else think for you.

I for one don't object to allowing other great minds to run free in my mind nor do I believe the value of so called individualism is so high that it ought to paralyze us from standing on the shoulders of those who came before. However, it is ignorant to stand upon those shoulders without knowing what is below and what came before. For me personally, I came to faith in Christ in ignorance, but I am a logical thinking person and I never felt satisfied with that as some people were. I've spent the past several years in study and still am studying the matter, but I've arrived at a point where the REASON behind Christianity makes far more sense to me than the reason behind atheism (which is what I was before). However, I have my doubts that any person can come to faith in the truthfulness of Jesus and what he did based on reason alone. There seems to me at least to be a gap which can only be crossed by faith and beyond that a vast country to explore that stretches to eternity.

[JGL57]

One point, please. This is something I run across all the time, and I am just wondering. There is a general statement against religion in general and Christianity in particular that goes something like this: "I do not choose to have someone else do my thinking for me." I don't think you could, if you wish to be honest, dispute that statement.

OK. This is almost always immediately followed by someone quoting a philosopher, take your pick from Nietzsche, Spinzona, Kant, Descartes, Augustine, or a scientist such as Stephen Hawkings, and saying their way of thinking is the way that it must be. Isn't that allowing that person's thinking to become your thinking? So you do choose to have someone else think for you.

I think there is an important point you are missing here. People commit to a religious tradition. They commit to going along with the creed. It is their choice but, in effect, they basically say "I agree with the creed and that is that.". Thus, no thinking is really needed after that. Some large portion of western monotheists are in this "god said it, I believe it, that settles it" boat.

OTOH, I've never really heard any non-religious person say, in effect, that he or she is committed to the philosophy of another atheist or atheist organization, 100 per cent, with no questions, analogous to what many dogmatist religionists do.

OK - there are two groups who are exceptions here among the non- religious: some Marxists and some Ayn Randroid Objectavists. Most non-religious are like me, though - we pick and chose. The reasoning of some famous atheist makes sense to us, and we may quote him and admire him for articulating ideas we agree with, BUT we have no committment to accepting another person or an organization as over-arching authorities in our life, as do many religionists regarding their creeds. I.e., I doubt if I agree 100 per cent on philosophy with any other atheist who has ever lived, famous or not, and that is ok. I will still not go to hell for being a heretic. ;)

[Pendragon]

I think there is an important point you are missing here. People commit to a religious tradition. They commit to going along with the creed. It is their choice but, in effect, they basically say "I agree with the creed and that is that.". Thus, no thinking is really needed after that. Some large portion of western monotheists are in this "god said it, I believe it, that settles it" boat.

OTOH, I've never really heard any non-religious person say, in effect, that he or she is committed to the philosophy of another atheist or atheist organization, 100 per cent, with no questions, analogous to what many dogmatist religionists do.

OK - there are two groups who are exceptions here among the non- religious: some Marxists and some Ayn Randroid Objectavists. Most non-religious are like me, though - we pick and chose. The reasoning of some famous atheist makes sense to us, and we may quote him and admire him for articulating ideas we agree with, BUT we have no committment to accepting another person or an organization as over-arching authorities in our life, as do many religionists regarding their creeds. I.e., I doubt if I agree 100 per cent on philosophy with any other atheist who has ever lived, famous or not, and that is ok. I will still not go to hell for being a heretic. ;)Well, it took me years to get the, well, let us call a spade a spade, "religious indoctrination" out of me, but I finally stand on my own. I discovered many misquoted scriptures and several outright lies. But I hold to the faith.

[littlewing53]

if i believe in christ i'm ignorant...hmmm...one day i woke up and without rhymn or reason i took him at his word...nay, there is far more in the walk than in the talk...it is in the trying to make worldly sense of it that the unbeliever chooses not to believe...and hey, that's ok....fly your freak flag high...

[JGL57]

if i believe in christ i'm ignorant...hmmm...one day i woke up and without rhymn or reason i took him at his word...nay, there is far more in the walk than in the talk...it is in the trying to make worldly sense of it that the unbeliever chooses not to believe...and hey, that's ok....fly your freak flag high...

And Theravada Buddhists are convinced both you and I are missing out.

And life goes on.


Well, it took me years to get the, well, let us call a spade a spade, "religious indoctrination" out of me, but I finally stand on my own. I discovered many misquoted scriptures and several outright lies. But I hold to the faith.

No argument with that. I too hold to a faith, in a manner of speaking.

A decidely different faith.

But the important thing is we all think for ourselves, you would agree?

I thought so.

Then good.

[Gorilla King]

No argument with that. I too hold to a faith, in a manner of speaking.

A decidely different faith.

But the important thing is we all think for ourselves, you would agree?

I thought so.

Then good.

Isn't this idea of thinking for yourself just one of those phrases that really amounts to nothing? I've yet to meet a utilitarian who became a utilitarian through their own thoughts. And even if one were to say that they interpret things for themselves, they're still interpreting it through a specific lens which is the sum of all intellectual input throughout the course of their lives.

[weepingforloman]

Exactly. It is hard to avoid some level of indoctrination.

[Redzeppelin]

Nobody is completely objective, and all have acquired "filters" through which they view, evaluate and process reality. The Christian acknowledges his "filter"; the non-believer sometimes acknowledges his, more often he does not - instead flattering himself that he is a "clear minded, independent thinker." Right.

[Gorilla King]

Nobody is completely objective, and all have acquired "filters" through which they view, evaluate and process reality. The Christian acknowledges his "filter"; the non-believer sometimes acknowledges his, more often he does not - instead flattering himself that he is a "clear minded, independent thinker." Right.

I don't think it's fair to make an us vs. them sort of thing out of it. I know many people who claim to be Christians but live lives that are anything but. I was once one of them. Are we to say that their filters are broken? Now of course Christian salvation isn't a matter of works, but one would think that a person who had a personal encounter with God would reflect it some way in their actions as well. I didn't have much confidence in my faith until my life began to reflect it and that reflection came at the hands of the mirror of reason.

At any rate, back to the point, I think the important thing is not to "think for yourself" but to seek answers and hopefully in finding those answers find new questions as well which send you on yet another journey. Truth by it's very nature must be an objective thing, therefore, so long as the individual isn't willingly following false paths, each inquiry will bring them one step closer to that ultimate objective truth.

[JGL57]

I don't think it's fair to make an us vs. them sort of thing out of it. I know many people who claim to be Christians but live lives that are anything but. I was once one of them. Are we to say that their filters are broken? Now of course Christian salvation isn't a matter of works, but one would think that a person who had a personal encounter with God would reflect it some way in their actions as well. I didn't have much confidence in my faith until my life began to reflect it and that reflection came at the hands of the mirror of reason.

At any rate, back to the point, I think the important thing is not to "think for yourself" but to seek answers and hopefully in finding those answers find new questions as well which send you on yet another journey. Truth by it's very nature must be an objective thing, therefore, so long as the individual isn't willingly following false paths, each inquiry will bring them one step closer to that ultimate objective truth.

Sure - all that, plus the fact that I can't see how joining up with a mega-church is going to generally be a good idea, seeing that one runs the risk of having your leader of many, many years be revealed to be a Ted Haggard. IOW, there is obvious value in voluntary group association to provide charity work, provide a place for social interactions, focus on a specific legal or ethical goal - but group think regarding a giant ediface of an abstraction-heavy philosophy, either religious or secular - I continue to see a BIG problem with that, i.e., that the bad outweights the good SO much that the case is settled (for me). Others chose differently - as is said, you make your bed and lie down in it.

[Gorilla King]

Sure - all that, plus the fact that I can't see how joining up with a mega-church is going to generally be a good idea, seeing that one runs the risk of having your leader of many, many years be revealed to be a Ted Haggard. IOW, there is obvious value in voluntary group association to provide charity work, provide a place for social interactions, focus on a specific legal or ethical goal - but group think regarding a giant ediface of an abstraction-heavy philosophy, either religious or secular - I continue to see a BIG problem with that, i.e., that the bad outweights the good SO much that the case is settled (for me). Others chose differently - as is said, you make your bed and lie down in it.

I agree entirely. I think the mega churches which largely preach the prosperity gospel (which isn't remotely biblical) are to blame for the apathy and anti-intellectualism within the church today. The fact that I learned far more in three months of personal study than in three years of going to church says a lot. That said though, I certainly don't condemn church itself. I just think it's quite a ways in most instances from what it ought to be. Right now my church is smoking cigars and talking about God on the porch with my friends.

[JGL57]

...Right now my church is smoking cigars and talking about God on the porch with my friends.

I don't smoke, but I agree - if we could get all - theists, deists, pantheists, materialists - to do the same, then problem solved. Job one is to stop the violence and hatred. Your porch idea would be the way to go (IMO).

[Redzeppelin]

I don't think it's fair to make an us vs. them sort of thing out of it. I know many people who claim to be Christians but live lives that are anything but. I was once one of them. Are we to say that their filters are broken? Now of course Christian salvation isn't a matter of works, but one would think that a person who had a personal encounter with God would reflect it some way in their actions as well. I didn't have much confidence in my faith until my life began to reflect it and that reflection came at the hands of the mirror of reason.

It is not an "us vs. them" issue. I made an observation based upon my experience with various non-believers here and on other forum sites, and - in general (to which there are always exceptions, I know) - many, many atheists refuse to acknowledge that they too view the world through a particular "lens" of meaning. They insist that their rejection of religion has taken away any compromising ideology from their ability to think. Many of them are very fast to point out how Christians' perspectives are "warped" by their religious views, but will not accept that their Naturalism similarly influences how they view the world. Instead, they claim to be unbiased and "open-minded." That is inaccurate.

[PrinceMyshkin]

Exactly. It is hard to avoid some level of indoctrination.


Indeed, and therefore surely all the more important that one resist it.


I didn't have much confidence in my faith until my life began to reflect it and that reflection came at the hands of the mirror of reason.

What you seem to me to be saying here is I didn't have much confidence in my faith until I began to have confidence in my faith whereafter I had confidence in my faith...

And your mirror of reason appears to have been face to face with another mirror until it could not be told which had been the original image.

[Gorilla King]

What you seem to me to be saying here is I didn't have much confidence in my faith until I began to have confidence in my faith whereafter I had confidence in my faith...

And your mirror of reason appears to have been face to face with another mirror until it could not be told which had been the original image.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that my early ignorant faith was weak at best but once I took it upon myself to learn and fill in the blanks, my confidence in what I believed grew.

[weepingforloman]

Indeed, and therefore surely all the more important that one resist it.

What difference, if everything is just so much hot air, does it make if you are indoctrinated?

[Redzeppelin]

Indeed, and therefore surely all the more important that one resist it.

But I'm talking about "indoctrination" that many people may totally be unaware of - the "cultural atmosphere" that we grow up in is rife with philosophic assumptions; if you were raised in a secular home and went to public schools, then your textbooks spoke of evolution as an established fact rather than a popular theory; if you were born sometime in the late 70s to early 80s, then you have absorbed certain ideas about homosexuality as being a genetic thing which has no real substantiative evidence. Rather than start an argument about the two examples I've listed, follow my idea: we are all indoctrinated - some of us consciously, some unconsciously.

[Dark Star]

How is evolution being proven fact a 'philosophic assumption' by any means? That sort of issue deals strictly with science, not philosophy. Do you find naming other proven scientific theories as fact to be 'philosophic assumptions' also?

[Gorilla King]

Science without philosophy to reign it in is a brutal beast that can justify virtually any atrocity. Such as infanticide.

[Dark Star]

That is completely outside the scope of my question. I'm simply curious how calling a spade a spade (saying that proven fact is proven fact) is making a philosophic assumption.

[Gorilla King]

That is completely outside the scope of my question. I'm simply curious how calling a spade a spade (saying that proven fact is proven fact) is making a philosophic assumption.

Wouldn't it being a proven fact require them to have fossil record proof of a species evolving from one to another? Not just similar creatures separated by millions of years, but a demonstrative progression from one creature to the next. I think in the modern society by fact we often merely just mean our own take on things and what we are most favorably disposed towards.

[Dark Star]

The fact that evolution has been directly observed among living species would do, I'd think. And, we do have what you've described, with a few gaps in the record from fossils that were lost to time. Those gaps certainly aren't millions of years wide.

To clarify, you're asking for fossils that show a slow transition from species to species to species over time and not fossils that show one species birthing a different one, correct?

[Logos]

Closed because it's no longer addressing the OP. There is an "Evolution vs. Creation" topic here:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3868