Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Hi Marc,

It's an interesting passage, quite a test of faith.  One aspect I see in it is 
to let go and let God.  If we ourselves try for vengence, what do we get?  
More vengence.  If we turn over to God the things that are God's, we may start 
to see that all people are made in the Divine image and that creation is Good.

Turning the other cheek doesn't necessarily mean you let people walk all over 
you, but you do run the risk of being hurt (mentally, physically, 
spiritually).  You need community, a place to heal.  You need cooperation.

Peace,

Jim

Marc,

I think this can be well understood by recognizing the difference
between individual responsibility and corporate responsibility.  The
individual is not to show vengeance or be vengeful, even in the
Old Testament.  Likewise, the government is not to ignore evil, in
in the New Testament.

Those that Jesus were talking to were taking an Old Testament commandment
which was meant for the ruling authorities and justifying their personal
actions and thoughts with it.  Each of us has a proper role and
responsibility and that individual responsibility is to love those
who persecute us.

Collis

Hi Marc,

Actually, Jesus was referring to the oral tradition of the pharisees in
Matthew 5:38, because he uses the term "You heard that it was said," .
When quoting scripture from the Hewbrew Scriptures he would use a
term similiar to that in Matthew 4:4 "It is written" .

Matthew 5:39 NWT reads " However, I say to YOU: Do not resist him that is
wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to
him." A slap on the cheek is normally an insult and it seems that the
pharisees were taking God's written word to extremes by using it as an
excuse to return insult for insult. Jesus was not nullifying God's written
word.

Hope this helps

Phil.

    Hummm.....but how far do we go to love those that are trying to hurt
    us?
    
    I see the difference here,in that Jesus is telling those not to use the
    Old Testament teaching as a "tool" to further their own "agenda"....
    He is trying to explain and give insight into what the words mean....
    but....the statement "turn the other cheek" doesn't place any
    limit on how often you turn the other cheek.
    
    Still confused
    
    Marc H.

    I think Jesus's pacifism must not be understood to be passive.  He
    actively opposed evil, but he did not do so through violence, and he
    asked us to do the same.  To resist evil through non-violent means is
    an active process; it does not mean sitting on one's hands in response
    to evil.  Loving one's enemies implies that one has enemies, after all.
    But what this principle means is that resisting evil, social or
    otherwise, must be accomplished through loving and non-violent means.

    One problem with violence, I believe, is that it not only hurts others,
    but it also damages ourselves, because it harms the human spirit.  I
    also believe that, in the long run, violence only serves to create new
    sets of problems that can only be solved by love.  Perhaps non-violent
    solutions don't always "work", but then neither do violent solutions,
    either; after all, wars that have winners also have lovers, and for the
    losing party their violent means were clearly a failure.  Not only
    that, but the alleged "success" of a victorious war is often anything
    but a success.  The killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians by U.S.
    bombs, and the many more who will die from the health effects of the
    destroyed infrastructure, are only one side of it; meanwhile, the old
    Kuwait regime is back in power, torturing and executing dissidents
    after convicting them with mock trials.  We'll never know now what
    would have happened if Bush had had the moral courage to resist his
    impulse to exercise America's military muscle.

    The pacifism that Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount is one of the
    most fundamental reasons why I am attracted to Christianity.  It is
    fundamental to my morality that I will not take another human life.

    -- Mike

    Re: .6
    
    O.K.....let's say you are in a city and a man threatens you with
    a knife,wants your wallet.  Do you hand over your wallet,watch,ring,
    i.e. all you have? Or do you strike back with a weapon you have;
    i.e. knife,gun,fists.
    
    Marc H.
    
    

In case anybody is wondering. I deleted .6 and before I could add my modified
entry, Marc replied to it .

Sorry for the confusion.


;O.K.....let's say you are in a city and a man threatens you with
;    a knife,wants your wallet.  Do you hand over your wallet,watch,ring,
;    i.e. all you have? Or do you strike back with a weapon you have;
;    i.e. knife,gun,fists.


If one respects life above material things then one would handover what
material things the mugger wanted. But, then it would be everybodies
duty to report the incident to the respective authority.

below is the amended reply

Phil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re.4

Marc,

;Hummm.....but how far do we go to love those that are trying to hurt
;us?

Could you please explain in what context you mean by "trying to hurt us?" . 
E.g. do you mean persecution or criminal acts. 

I agree that the statement "turn the other cheek" doesn't place any limit
on how often you turn it- Compare Matthew 18:21,22.

Phil.
 

re Note 261.0 by FLOWER::HILDEBRANT:

>     I can't help but ask myself,if we truely followed this line of
>     behavior,wouldn't the evil people of the world,Hitler,Sadaham H.,
>     rule? 

        Don't they anyway?

        Even the leaders of the "free world" are the leading
        proponents of military violence as a means of achieving
        foreign policy goals.

        I have no doubt that things would be different if we followed
        Christ;  but in the balance, would they be any worse?  Or
        would they be better?

        Bob

re Note 261.2 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> I think this can be well understood by recognizing the difference
> between individual responsibility and corporate responsibility.  

        Collis,

        What is the basis, Biblical or otherwise, for your position
        that different standards apply to individuals and governing
        bodies?

        Isn't this distinction drawn, as the Church Lady would say,
        because it's so conveeeenient?

        Bob

Hi Bob,

I've entered this distinction a number of times (a dozen?) in this and
other notes conferences.  Actually, it is not something I made up,
but a commonly recognized understanding of what the Bible teaches.

One or two weeks ago, I entered some minimal Biblical support for
this understanding of corporate vs. individual responsibility.  It was
in the "this notes file" topic, I believe.

And no, I didn't write this because it was convenient.  My beliefs are
not based on what is convenient, but rather what is true (as best as
I can ascertain).  If the Bible did actually teach what Mike is
claiming in .5, that is what I would teach (and live out, I hope) as
well.  But Jesus' comments on individual responsibility do not claim
in any way to address corporate responsibility and do simply confirm
the teaching of the Old Testament on individual responsibility.

None of this is meant to imply that corporate responsibility supports
any given war (such as the war in the gulf).  That is a much tougher
issue to call.  However, since Jesus himself will come back and condemn
many to hell and kill many who oppose Him, Jesus is not teaching strict
pacifism either.

Collis

    The law of justification that Jesus referred to was the tradition which
    limited retaliation,  to the equivalent damage that was received. Thus,
    and eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth analogy meant, that you could not go 
    beyond the equivalent damage that was received. To do so  would
    be sinful, under Jewish law. Jesus saying turn the other cheek doesn't 
    mean, don't defend yourself, but you should not use the old law of 
    justification, once harm to yourself is no longer threatened. In the
    old law if someone stab you with a knife and you managed to knock the 
    person defenseless and get the knife from them, you could stab 
    the person, even if the person lay unconscious without bringing sin upon
    yourself. Jesus was saying do not repay injury for injury.

    With all the lawsuits in our legal system, it makes you wonder what
    ethic we live under today ?

    Peace
    Jim

For some interesting perspective on this subject, I recommend the book _The 
Evolution of Cooperation_ by (I think) Robert Axelrod.

It explores through the story of a computer contest playing a variation of 
the "prisoner's dilemma" originally suggested by _Scientific American_ how,
in a world of "looking out for number one", cooperation can develop and
flourish. 

As a game the rules are simple (here's an example):

If we both cooperate, we each get 3 points.
If I cooperate, and you don't, you get 5 points, I get -2.
If you cooperate, and I don't, I get 5 points, you get -2.
If neither of us cooperates,we each get 0 points.

Now, if you cooperate, I can get either 5 points (by being a fink), or 3.
If you don't cooerate, I can get 0 (again, by being a fink) or minus 2.

So whether you cooperate or not, my expected return is 2 points greater by 
defecting.  Therefore, I should always defect.

However you, going through the same logic, also choose to defect, thus we each 
end up with zero points, where we could have each earned 3 points had we 
cooperated with each other.

(The origin of the problem involves two partners in crime being questioned 
independently by police.  Their length of sentence depending on each of their 
willingness to testify against the other.)

The fun starts when you bring the concept of time into action.  Imagine we 
each own a business, trading a product we each desire.  We are in a continuous
relationship, and we have memories, so for instance, if I try to cheat you in
a trade, you may remember that and attempt to punish me by cheating back, 
maybe once, maybe twice, maybe randomly, maybe forever after. 

What is a good strategy for dealing in this kind of business? 

The most robust strategy found in the computer marathon was a little routine 
called "tit for tat".  It is described anthropomorphically as

1. nice			(it never defects first)
2. quick to punish	(if you defect, it defects next move.)
3. quick to forgive	(if you cooperate, it cooperates next move)
4. be simple		(that's all, that's it)

(This always reminds me of God's covanents with us.)

It explores various instances of cooperation from bacteria through various 
forms of human interactions, in places where one would not expect it (between
opposing forces in the trenches of World War One, for example). 

It explores the importance of the future and how that affects cooperation. 
Making the future important will foster cooperation.  How important does 
Christianity make the future?  

It explores how while a single isolated "nice" entity cannot survive in a
"mean" world, it really takes a surprisingly small population of "nice"
entities to thrive. 

I found the book fascinating, revealing, and easy to read and understand.

For what it's worth...

Peace,

Jim

    "The significance of turning the other cheek?  Our pastor, who spent
    some time in Iran in the Peace Corps, explained it in one of his
    sermons on conflict:  In middle-east culture, the left hand was used
    in cleansing oneself after toileting.  If you were struck
    on one cheek, presumably it was with the attacker's right hand.  To
    offer him your other cheek put him in the embarrassing position of
    having to hit you with his left hand or having to hit you with the
    *back* of his right hand, equally bad (though I don't know why).  To do
    either would be embarrassing to him. Therefore, to turn the other cheek
    is to put your attacker in an embarrassing situation where doing
    further harm to you would put him in a bad light!"

	The foregoing is part of a mail message I received a while back.  I
thought sharing it here might help provide yet another Christian perspective.

Peace,
Richard

 

re. 13

>In middle-east culture, the left hand was used
>    in cleansing oneself after toileting. 

That include the Jewish customs as well at the time of Christ?

ace

    ace,
    
    they were also a desert culture, and had no water to cleanse
    themselves, so I see no reason why that would be different.
    
    BJ

re .6

Marc,

The Bible speaks of striking the cheek, not so much to inflict physical harm,
but to chastise, reproach, or insult. The prophet Micaiah was struct on the
cheek for prophesying bad consequences against wicked King Ahab of Israel.
(1 Kings 22:24; 2Ch 18:23) Job was reproachfully struck on the cheeks by those 
who disrespected and ridiculed him during his trial at Satan's hands. -Job 16:10

Jesus was not teaching pacifism or denying the right of self-defense from 
bodily harm, but he was teaching that a Christian does not need to pay back
blow for blow, retaliating, taking vengeance. This is something similar to
what Jim said in .11 . Also Jesus was inculcating the principle of avoiding 
quarrels by not replying or reacting in kind.

Phil.

re.15

Bonnie,

	yes I understand the logic, but it is so? The children of Israel
had some different practices than those nations around them.

ace

    Re: .16
    
    It would be more convincing to me if you would you cite an example
    where Jesus resorted to some form of self-defense.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I don't believe that corporate actions are exempt from moral
    considerations, the evils of Nazism being an illustration of this
    point.  In any case, I agree with Jesus's pacifist teachings, not
    simply because Jesus said them, but because I believe they are right. 

    When I first read the Sermon on the Mount, in my teenage days, I felt a
    deep conviction that this was *right*, that love *is* the highest
    principle.  I still feel that way to this day.  For those who are
    interested, I strongly recommend the book "Our God is Non-Violent", by
    John Dear, for a discussion of those who, historically, carried out
    Jesus's message of nonviolent love and made a difference in the lives
    of others.

    -- Mike

    Interesting replies to date. Thanks so far for the comments.
    
    Marc H.

    RE:18
    Richard, 
    	    all though it was not self defense, Jesus did make a whip
    out of rope and drove the money changers from the temple. 

    Again, the turn the other check doctrine does not imply that we not
    duck when a blow is in coming.

    Peace
    Jim

    The only occasion I can think of when Jesus needed self-defense was
    when he returned to Bethlehem to preach.  The congregation was incensed
    at his effrontery, and began to stone him.  As I remember it, the
    statement is that "he passed to the other side" of the throng (away
    from the cliff edge they had driven him to) and left the town, never to
    return.
    
    My conclusion/interpretation has always been that when one is attacked 
    while doing God's work, the best action is to lovingly leave the scene,
    confident in the knowledge that further harm can't come if no
    additional "harm" is offered.
    
    Alison 

re: Note 261.10 by Collis,

> ...since Jesus himself will come back and condemn many to hell and kill 
> many who oppose Him, Jesus is not teaching strict pacifism either.

Collis,

I'm not sure what note the topic of a loving God is, but my understanding is
that we condemn ourselves to Hell by refusing Jesus'freely made gift through 
the cross, no? 

Peace,

Jim

MAT 26:51       And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out
		his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high
		priest's, and smote off his ear.
MAT 26:52       Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place:
		for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
MAT 26:53       Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall
		presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
MAT 26:54       But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it
		must be?

LUK 22:49       When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said
		unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
LUK 22:50       And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut
		off his right ear.
LUK 22:51       And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched
		his ear, and healed him.

but also

MAT 10:34       Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to
		send peace, but a sword.
MAT 10:35       For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and
		the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against
		her mother in law.

and from Revelations

REV 13:9        If any man have an ear, let him hear.
REV 13:10       He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that
		killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is
		the patience and the faith of the saints.

My personal belief is that God calls people to be pacifists, that to take a life
is a sin. "Judge not.." "Thou shalt not kill..." "Vengance is mine sayeth the
Lord." Turn the other cheek means literally that. Do not resist with violence.

As for Hitlers, Husseins, and other evil people - that is actually two problems.
The easy part is to not put your faith in yourself or other human institutions
to deal with such evil by yourself, but to trust in God. The second part is
why I no longer claim to be Christian - the problem of evil. But that's another
note.

	-- Charles

    Re.6

        Marc:
             
              Having been relieved of my wallet once under threat
        of violence I can tell you without doubt that the idea of
        getting killed for it's contents never once entered my mind.
        If you got the drop on me and you want it...no problem. I'll
        even be polite while I hand it over to you.
               I'll freely admit to being what some would regard as
        rather cowardly. Given the choice between fight or flight, color
        me gone. When trouble rears it's ugly head, Mike beats feet to
        get far away at least as far as my own person is concerned.
               On the other hand try commit an act of violence against
        someone else in my presence and I'll will do everything I can
        to stop you. 
                I believe I have a moral obligation to be non-violent.
        I also believe I have a moral obligation to protect others even
        at the risk of my personal safety. Contradictory ? Perhaps, but
        life if filled with contradictions.

                                                               Mike

    If we can come to a place of not fearing our own death
    and the death of others, then it may become a fairly natural 
    response for us to "turn the other cheek" in *any* given situation.
    
    For some people, a deep trust and faith in the Divine enables one
    to overcome the fear of death.  
    
    Kb

    RE: Turning the other cheek
    
    More than any other situation named so far, I think (many) blacks in 
    America could elaborate on the benefit of turning the other cheek, with
    their very lives.  Although the militant black vehemently cautions
    against this sort of thing, the black minister can tell you much on
    this.
    
    In my own words and experience, to "turn the other cheek", is like the
    gentlemen in #4 or #5 said, relates to "insults" moreso than physical
    slaps.  It means continuing to believe in the Word regardless of the
    adversaries/enemies of God's Word.  I don't think this has to anything
    to do with "self defence", but it serves to commit the enemy to his
    position against God, and establish you in God.  
    
    Jesus never turned his cheek in the face of physical violence but
    always escaped it very quickly, except at "his time".  Yet we find many
    examples of Jesus, where he first makes a righteous statement then the
    scribes, pharisees, or Jews would refute him, and then he would
    verbally criticize them for their refuting him (many occasions of
    this), and then they'd seek to kill him and he'd escape.  When he
    criticized them for refuting him, this is the "turning the other cheek"
    so they could slap it, but surely as we all know if someone slaps you
    and you turn the other cheek they'll mostly likely ball up the fist and
    hit you the next time...which is to say try to kill you.
    
    I can elaborate this further...
    
    Playtoe

Yes, Jim, we do condemn ourselves to hell by refusing Jesus' freely
made gift through the cross.

Collis

    Re: .21
    
    Jim,
    
    Indeed, Jesus was *not* passive.  If you reread the section in John
    (John 2.13-22), you'll note that the whip was actually used for driving
    out large herding animals, rather than on human beings.
    
    Ducks, however, are not mentioned in these verses.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Ace,
    
    In the absence of conflicting evidence, my tendency is to assume
    that the shared  culture had similar meanings in both societies.
    
    Bonnie

RE.30

Bonnie,

	Yes I see. As long as you realize that by inference you may miss out on 
the truth.

	Frankly, I don't know whether it was the custom or not but given the 
extreme regulations concerning hygiene, I doubt it...

ace

    Actually, it is the extreme regulations involving hygenie that
    make me think it is true..
    
    at least they would be familiar with the hygenie practices of
    their neighbors..
    
    and we are talking about dealing with an enemy, who is very likely
    of a non hebrew people, so it makes sense that they'd use the
    enemy's customs against them even if they didn't have any similar
    ones..
    
    and are there any prohibitions on 'toilet' practices in the Bible?
    
    seems like I should ask some of my Jewish friends.
    
    bonnie

    RE:  base note
    
                       I didn't want to reply to this note.  I don't like
    it!   Why....because it hits me where it hurts.  All my life I have 
    determined that *NO* person could take advantage of me and get away
    with it.  I guess its the "macho" in me and thats why I don't like
    this note....I know I'm wrong and I know God expects better of me.
    Ya know...I hate being a hypocrite....but most of us are.
    
    Dave

    Re: .33
    
    It is not an easy teaching, is it?  Kind of like, "Love your enemies
    and pray on behalf of those who persecute you."
    
    You're right.  Most of the time, our initial reaction is to retaliate,
    rather than to reconcile.  The only problem is it's just not the Way,
    is it?
    
    Pax et bonum,
    Richard

I don't see why there is confusion about this. What the Bible says is clear,
whether you accept it or not is up to you. I find that the Bible and my inner
voice are in complete agreement on this issue though.

For example, the portion of Matthew that talks about "turning the other cheek"
is quite explicit:

    Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a
    tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
    smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.  And if any man
    will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak
    also.  And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
    Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn
    not thou away.  Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy
    neighbour, and hate thine enemy.  But I say unto you, Love your enemies,
    bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for
    them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the
    children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise
    on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the
    unjust.  For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not
    even the publicans the same?  And if ye salute your brethren only, what do
    ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?  Be ye therefore
    perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

This is not subtlety about cultural mores, this is not allegory about insults.

	"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that
	hate you"

What could be more clear? We are *all* God's children. There is that of God in
each and every person - even the evil ones. It certainly isn't easy though.

	-- Charles

re .18

Hi Richard,

;    It would be more convincing to me if you would you cite an example
;    where Jesus resorted to some form of self-defense.

John 18:35,36 shows that self-defense would have taken place if this had
been in Christ's kingdom.

But, the point is that a slap on the cheek is not intended to injure that
person. So Jesus was not talking about self-defense in this case. What Jesus
was saying was that if anybody tried to provoke a Christian into a fight or
argument by either slapping with an open hand or stinging him with insulting
words, it would be wrong to retaliate. This is in harmony with the teaching
of the apostles, 1 Peter 3:9 NWT reads "not paying back injury for injury or
reviling for reviling, but, to the contrary, bestowing a blessing, because you
were called to this [course], so that you may inherit a blessing." Also compare
Romans 12:17-21.


Phil.

    This  whole discussion reminds me of the story of when Gandhi was
    making his symbolic march to the sea to make salt. When they came
    to the end of the road, the British soldiers stood in their way to
    block them from proceeding. Gandhi's followers being so many, could have 
    over run the soldiers despite their having guns. However, Gandhi knew the
    power of non-violence better than we do. Instead they approached the 
    blockade two by two, and were struck down. As two went down, two more took 
    their place. Well, it became so disgusting for even the soldiers, that 
    after eight had been struck down, the officer in charge ordered the 
    soldiers to stop and let them pass. The world was outraged at the British 
    for beating defenseless men and from that point on, Gandhi had the world 
    on his side in the pursuit for independence. With this non-violent action,
    only eight men were beaten, compared to the thousands that would have
    been killed and injured had they chose to over run the soldiers.

    Perhaps there is still much we have to learn and trust in the lesson of 
    Jesus's  turning the other cheek doctrine. We are surely still infants
    in our reasoning in the power of non-violence.

    Peace
    Jim

re .35

Hi Charles,

;This is not subtlety about cultural mores, this is not allegory about insults.

;"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that
; hate you"

As I understand it this portion of Scripture that you posted in .35 discusses
two oral traditions of the Pharisees and Scribes were Jesus uses the term
"Ye have heard that it hath been said" and does not centre around "turning 
the other cheek". Jesus said one should "turn the other cheek" instead 
of practising the Pharisees oral tradition of "eye for eye and tooth 
for a tooth". Those present would have been well aware what this oral 
tradition was that replaced God's commandment in Deuteronomy 19:21. Perhaps 
looking into what this oral tradition was will help us understand what Jesus 
meant by "but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him 
the other also."

Jesus said to "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them
that hate you" instead of listening to the oral tradition of the Pharisees and
scribes "Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy". Again, looking
into the background of this oral tradition will help us understand what Jesus
meant.

I myself would need to do some research to find the full import of these two
oral traditions. I know were to look so perhaps I might be able to post my
findings here tomorrow. Or perhaps someone in the know could post them. Should
a new note be set up to discuss all the oral traditions of the Pharisees and
the Scribes mentioned in Matthew 5 verses 21,27,31,33,38 and 43?.

Phil.


[Please note has been modified after re-reading .35]

    Dave .33,
    
    For some reason your note reminded me of something that happened to me
    years ago.  I was a cocktail waitress and one night I arrived at work
    late and was absolutely starving.  The bartender who I was not
    particularly friendly with offered to get me a sandwich from the
    kitchen.  I was struck by his kindness and said "Thank you, that'd be
    nice".
    
    Well he brought it out and I hungrily took two bites (I had customers
    already) and all of a sudden my mouth lit up on fire.  He had put
    tobasco (sp?) sauce in it -- as a joke!  I cannot tell you how pissed I
    was.  Now I was still starving and my stomach ached from the tobasco
    sauce that made it to my stomach.  I told him to stay the **** away
    from me.
    
    Anyway a week later I attended a Christmas party at his house with a
    few other waitstaff people.  When he answered the door and saw me he
    looked very sheepish.  He didn't think I would come after the tobasco
    ordeal.  But I did.  And I had in my hand a bottle of his favorite
    champagne.  I handed it to him and said, "I know this is your favorite
    and I wanted to give to you as a special gift from me.  Merry Christmas"  
    
    He slunked down so low he could've slid under the door.  He accepted it 
    and walked around in a daze for a little while.  He never said another 
    word to me about it, but from then on he was very interested in my 
    well-being of that of our relationship and we eventually became very 
    good friends. 
    
    But I'll tell you, I was *tempted* to handle the original situation 
    another way. :-)
    
    Kb

I'm told that historically, (or pre-historically .-), in nomadic cultures, it
was sometimes dangerous to travel from place to place.  The general law was 
"seven eyes for an eye, seven teeth for a tooth". (Code of Hammurabi, 
perhaps?)  In other words, if a member of one group was attacked by another
group, the offending group was punished much more severely.  As it was
generally known that this was the policy, it was hoped that fear of such
reprisals would keep the peace.  (This sounds a lot like our cold war policy
of "Mutually Assured Destruction.) 

Of course this couples in with the "hospitality laws", wherein one is charged 
with caring for and protecting the travelling stranger.

The Mosaic Law of "an eye for an eye" was therefore quite radical in its time.
An equal punishment for the crime instead of escalation.  It was, for the 
time, a very loving and humane practice!

Jesus then provides us with an equally radical idea...

Peace,

Jim

re.40

Jim,

Thanks, for the bit about the general law in nomadic cultures.

;The Mosaic Law of "an eye for an eye" was therefore quite radical in its time.
;An equal punishment for the crime instead of escalation.  It was, for the 
;time, a very loving and humane practice!

;Jesus then provides us with an equally radical idea...

I disagree that Jesus referring to the Mosaic Law in Matthew 5:38 becuase
he uses the term "Ye have heard that it hath been said" instead of the term 
"It is written" Matthew 4:4.

Also, one has to keep in mind that Jesus had to fulfill this Mosiac Law,
Matthew 5:17, so to provide a radical idea would be like saying "Dont do
as I do but do as I say" (and I think even then he would be breaking it).


Phil.

    
    I agree with Charles (.35).  I just don't see any room for
    interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount that allows for violence. 
    This is Christ's challenge to us: this is the roadmap for creating the
    Kingdom of God on earth.  I find this challenge very scary, because
    non-resistance could cost me this life.  Still, we all dwell almost
    exclusively on the negative consequences of non-resistance to evil,
    because we can barely picture the fruits of Christ's message.
    
    The beauty is that, not only is non-resistance faithful to Christ's
    teaching, it works!  And the results can be just as dramatic as smart
    bombs down chimneys, though those results may not be so instantly
    gratifying.  To Gandhi, who drew his inspiration directly from the
    Sermon on the Mount, non-resistance did not mean avoiding violence,
    running from the fight.  Rather it meant willingly suffering at your
    attacker's hands.  Only by suffering violence gladly could one hope to
    touch the attacker's heart and move him to abandon violence as a
    solution to anything.  It took patience, but eventually the British
    grew tired of beating people who willingly offered themselves as
    objects to be beaten.  
    
    What has done more for civil rights in this country -- armed struggle
    or images of defenseless blacks being brutalized?  Those images touched
    hearts.  This is what turning the other cheek means to me, an active
    appeal to that of God in your attacker.  Love, patience, and suffering
    create peace.  When will we wean ourselves from violence?
    
    I feel poorly equipped and ill-prepared to put non-resistance actively
    into practice in my life, raised as I am on violent methods of conflict
    resolution.  But I know it's right, even if I'm not confident in my
    abilities.  May I have the strength to practice what Christ teaches.
    
    Norm                                                     

    I agree with Jim's point that Jesus was taking the principle of the Old
    Testament law to its logical conclusion, and thus he was fulfilling it. 
    The concept of "an eye for an eye" may seem barbaric to modern ears,
    but at the time it was intended to place *restrictions* on vengeance;
    if this is so, then it actually would have been quite enlightened for
    its time.  In fact, my understanding is that the concept of "an eye for
    an eye" was generally not, in practice, literally carried out to that
    extreme in most cases anyway, precisely because of moral sensitivities
    in that area.  This implies that what Jesus did was to logically extend
    this concept of "an eye for an eye" by rejecting vengeance and violence
    per se, thus fulfilling the spirit of the old law.

    -- Mike

    RE: 35
    
    Charles, well well well, we have total agreement.
    
    The scripture you've entered is quite clear, as you say.  If we want to
    be "true" or "conscious" children of God, we will do these things,
    inspite of our own pride and arrogance, whatever...
    
    It's hard to understand or get to this scripture without having gotten
    to some others however.  It says "...resist not evil: but whosever
    shall smite thee on thy right cheek..."  what does it mean "resist not
    evil?  I submit that this is just an aspect of the well rounded
    character of the child of God...it's deep I can't really explain it. 
    When I have more time and give it a little more thought, I can relate
    some instances in my life showing the benefit of this...
    
    But thanks for that scripture...it's beautiful...if you listen to black
    people's jazz, it is much like the bible, in terms of understanding it. 
    It moves you, up and down, in and out, and in the end it leaves you
    with a peaceful and loving state of mind, as if you've been lightyears
    away but never gone anywhere...it's just beautiful, the beauty of God!
    
    Playtoe

    .37
    
    Amen, Jim.  Too many times we justify violence.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re: .39
    
    Karen,

	You know what?  You've got chutzpah!
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re.43

Mike, thank you for explaining what Jim meant.

Jim,

Please except my apology, I mis-interpretted what you wrote in .40. I thought
about deleting the reply but whats said is said (I will delete .41 if it offends
you, or if you prefer that it is deleted). My own understanding is that Jesus
was not setting a side the Mosiac Law and substituting it with something else,
but he was deepening and widening its force by showing the spirit behind it.
I do however draw a different logical conclusion to "turn the other cheek".


Phil.

    Hi Richard,
    
    re chutzpah  :-)
    
    Yes, I suppose so. :-)  It's one of the gifts God has so lovingly
    provided.  I *do* try my best to glorify the Divine Presence with it. 
    ;-) 
    
    Karen

Phil,

I'm not offended in the least! .-)  This is a fascinating discussion.

And Mike, I thank you too for your expansion, that ties several odds and ends
together in my mind. 

Peace,

Jim

In the following reply I hope to show that Jesus was referring to the oral 
traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees and not the Hewbrew Scriptures in 
Matthew 5 verses 21,27,31,33,38 and 43 were he used the words "It was said".
But, before I do, I would like to describe a little the background of the 
Pharisees oral tradition and those they oppressed the common people. Please
note that this reply is about 140 lines long.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was sharply contrasting two classes: the
scribes and Pharisees and the common people they oppressed. He spoke of two
kinds of righteousness, the hypocritical righteousness of the Pharisees and
the true righteousness of God. (Matthew 5:6,20) Pharisaic self-righteousness
was rooted in oral traditions. These had been initiated in the second century
B.C.E.  as "a fence around the Law" to protect it from the inroads of Hellenism
(Greek culture). They had come to be viewed as part of the Law. In fact the
scribes even rated the oral traditions above the written Law. The Mishnah says
"Greater stringency to the observance of the words of the Scribes[their oral
traditions] than to the observance of the words of the written Law." Hence,
instead of being "a fence around the Law" to protect it, their traditions 
weakened the Law and made it void, just as Jesus said: "Adroitly you set aside
the commandment of God in order to retain your tradition."-Mark 7:5-9; Mattthew
15:1-9.

The common people who were flocking to listen to Jesus were spiritually 
impoverished, having been "skinned and thrown about like sheep without a
shepherd."(Matthew 9:36) With arrogant haughtiness the scribes and Pharisees
scorned them, called them 'am ha'a'rets(people of the land), and despised them
as ignorant, accursed sinners unworthy of a resurrection because they did not
keep the oral traditions. By Jesus' time those traditions had become so
voluminous and such an oppressive morass of legalistic nit-picking- so laden
with time consuming ceremonial rituals- that no workingman could possibly
keep them. No wonder Jesus denounced the traditions as 'heavy loads on the
shoulders of men.' - Matthew 23:4; John 7:45-49.

So those listening to Jesus on the sermon on the mount would have been his
disciples and spiritually starved people. They must have found his opening
pronouncements startling. Who can be happy when they are poor,hungry,weeping
and hated? And woes were declared for those were rich, well fed,laughing and
admired! (Luke 6:20-26) In just a few words, Jesus had reversed all customary
evaluations and the accepted human standards. It was a dramatic reversal of
positions, in line with Jesus' later words: "Everyone that exalts himself will
be humiliated, but he that humbles himself will be exalted."- Luke 18:9-14.

In contrast with the self-satisfied scribes and Pharisees, those coming to 
Jesus on this particular morning were aware of their sad spiritual state.
His opening words must have filled them with hope: "Happy are those conscious
of their spiritual need, since the kingdom of the heavens belongs to them."
And how their spirit must have soared when he added: "Happy are those hungering
and thirsting for righteousness, since they will be filled"! (Matthew 5:3,6;
John 6:35; Revelation 7:16,17) Filled with righteousness, yes, but not the
Pharisaic brand.

"If your righteousness does not abound more than that of the scribes and
Pharisees," Jesus said,"you will by no means enter into the kingdom of the
heavens." Some of the people listening must have thought 'more righteousness
than the Pharisees? They pray, fast, tithe and give alms and spend their lives
studying the Law. How can our righteousness ever surpass theirs?' But it had
to  abound more. The Pharisees were highly esteemed by men, but not by God, On
another occasion Jesus said to these Pharisees: "You are those who declare
yourselves righteous before men, but God knows your hearts; because what is 
lofty among men is a disgusting thing in God's sight."- Luke 16:15

The rabbis had invented their own rules for gaining righteousness. One was
merit by descent from Abraham: "The disciples of Abraham our father enjoy
this world and inherit the world to come." (Mishnah) Possibly it was to counter
this tradition that John the Baptizer warned the Pharisees who came to him:
"Produce fruit that befits repentance; and do not presume to say to yourselves,
'As a father we have Abraham[as if that were enough].'"-Matthew 3:7-9; see
also John 8:33,39.

A second way to gain righteousness, they said, was by giving alms. Two
Apocryphal books written by devout Jews during the second century B.C.E.
reflect that traditional view. One statement appears in Tobit: "Almsgiving
saves one from death and expiates every sin." (12:9, The New American Bible)
The book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) agrees: "Water quenches a flaming fire,
and alms atone for sins,"-3:29 NAB.

The third way they sought righteousness was works of the Law. Their oral
traditions taught that if a man's deeds were mostly good, he would be saved.
Judgment "is according to exess of works that be good or evil." (Mishnah) To
stand favourably in judgment, their concern was "to achieve merits which would
outweigh sins." If a man's good works exceeded his bad works by one, he would
be saved- as though God judged by keeping count of petty activities! (Mattthew
23:23,24). Presenting a correct view, Paul wrote: "By works of law no flesh
will be declared righteous before [God]." Romans 3:20 Certainly, Christian 
righteousness must abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees!.


When Jesus previously quoted from the Hewbrew Scriptures, he said "It is
written." (Matthew 4:4,7,10) But six times in the Sermon on the Mount, he
introduced statements from the Hewbrew Scriptures with the words "It was
said." (Matthew 5:21,27,31,33,38,43) Why? because he was referring to the
Scriptures in the light of Pharisaic traditions that contradicted God's
commandments.( deuteronomy 4:2; Matthew 15:3) This is made apparent in Jesus'
sixth and last reference in this series: "You heard that it was said, 'You
must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.'" But no Mosaic Law said, "Hate
your enemy." The scribes and Pharisees said it. That was their interpretation
of the Law to love your neighbour- your Jewish neighbour, no others. This
sixth and final reference, Jesus clearly showed how the Mosaic Law was 
weakened by rabbinic tradition. The written Mosaic Law put no limits on love:
"You must love your fellow as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18) It was the Pharisees
who balked at this commandment, and to escape it they limited the term
"neighbour" to those who kept the traditions. So it was when later Jesus
later reminded a certain lawyer of the command to 'love your neighbour as
yourself,' the man quibbled: "who really is my neighbour?" Jesus answered
with illuatration of the good Samaritan- make yourself a neighbour to the
one that needs you.- Luke 10:25-37.

The fifth reference "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" has been explained in 
my previous replies. And I wont go into the other first four references 
of "It was said" unless somebody wants me to.

Jesus carries onto to say in the Sermon that 'God showed love to the wicked. 
He caused the sun to shine and the rain to fall on them. There is nothing
extraordinary in loving those who love you. The wicked do that. There is no
reason for reward in that. Prove yourselves sons of God. Copy him. Make 
yourself a neighbour to all and love your neighbour. And thus "be perfect, 
as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matthew 5:45-48) What a challenging 
standard to live upto! And how far short it shows the righteousness of the 
scribes and Pharisees to be!.  

So when Jesus referred to parts of the Law and added, "However, I say to you,"
he was not setting aside the Mosaic Law and substituting something else in
its place. No, but he was deepening and widening its force by showing the 
spirit behind it. A higher law of brotherhood judges continued ill will as 
murder. A higher Law of purity condemns continued lustful thinking as adultery.
A higher Law of marriage rejects frivolous divorcing as a course leading to 
adulterous remarriages. A higher Law of truth shows repetitious oaths to be 
unnecessary. A higher law of mildness sets aside retalation. A higher Law of 
love calls for godly love that knows no bounds.

what a profound impact such unheard of admonitions must have had as they fell
upon those hearing them for the first time! How utterly worthless they
rendered the hypocritical self-righteousness that came from slaving for 
rabbinic traditions!


This reply has been copied ( in parts) and written with the aid of a 
Watchtower study article, pages 10-15 of the October 1st 1990 Watchtower. 
All scriptures cited are from the NWT unless otherwise stated.

I hope it is of help to this discussion

Phil.   

re .49

Jim,

Thank you, it certainly is an interesting discussion.

Phil.

As a slight tangent can someone explain to me what chutzpah is. I looked
it up in the dictionary but couldn't find it, is it American slang or
something?.

    Chutzpah is Yiddish. Traditionally Yiddish words are explained using a
    story. There is a common one to explain "Chutzpah".

    An example of a person with Chutzpah is the man who killed his mother
    and father who at his trial pleaded for mercy because he was an orphan.

    		Alfred

    Phil,
    
    Chutzpah is defined by Webster's dictionary as "brazenness: nerve"
    
    Karen

RE: .53 Websters *understates* the word. :-)

		Alfred

I like the story, too.  Now, is there any way to describe how to *pronounce* 
the word, without being too graphic?  (Cats and fur-balls come to mind.. .-)

Jim

    I've always used the word "chutzpah" for the highest level of
    courage, internal fortitude, or simply put: guts.  Chutzpah
    defies ordinary instinct.  See the Swedish word: Sisu.
    
    Jesus had chutzpah.  Karen has chutzpah.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Huts-pah?

    More like Hgkutz-pah.
              ^^^
           very throaty!
    
    Mozel tov,
    Richard

re last few

Thanks, for explaining chutzpah . I might use the word in notes, but I dont 
think I'll try to pronounce it.

Alfred, I enjoyed your story, another story is of a few Italian farmers who had 
chutzpah ( as per Websters definition) . Because of too much milk being produced
in the EEC, the Common Agricultural Policy set milk producing quotas for farmers
and any excess cattle that were slaughtered the farmers were compensated. To 
claim compensation the farmer would have to send an ear as proof of the cow 
being slaughtered. Needless to say that this policy has now been changed after 
many one eared/earless cows were found roaming around Italian farms.

Phil.

Many replies seem to be saying that Jesus was teaching that we should confront
violence by not running away from it and suffering the consequences of it. Thus
touching the attackers heart so as to move him to abandon violence. Though this
may be true in some cases, I do not believe it is true in all cases.

I have read about a program that has been set up in America were drink drivers,
who have killed someone, are confronted by the victims family. He thus comes to
realise the harm and distress that he has caused. The same would be good for
those of other violent crimes. But, this is not the same as confronting it
at its source. 

As I see it confronting violence was not the example set for us by the first 
century Christians. They would avoid violence when severe persecution flaired 
up, they placed a bigger importance on spreading the good news than confronting
the violence, compare Acts 8:2,4. This is not to say that they did not give
a bold and courageous witness under persecution.

Are all the hearts of those who see sickening violence on helpless victims
touched?. What influence did the sickening violence, in the Roman circus, 
have on those watching. Did it touch the hearts of all those watching to 
the extent that they saw that violence was sickening and not a solution to 
anything?. They would have known that by attending such an event that they 
were condoning it.

Today, many watch violent videos in their homes, were scenes are shown of 
helpless victims being attacked. Does this mean that violent attacks of
defenseless victims are on the decrease or increase?.

The best way of helping someone turn away from a violent course, is by the
preaching of the good news to all, and thus showing them how they can put 
on a new personality (Ephesians 4:24) and promote peace with their neighbour.
This will softens peoples hearts before the violence has chance to take place.

But, not everybody wants to let go of this violent world, their hearts are so
hard that they are impervious as to being softened. To do so would take humility
which most people do not wish to exhibit.


Phil.

    Well, for my own value system, a philosophy of non-violence doesn't
    necessarily advocate martyrdom any more than it necessary advocates
    running away from it.  There is no question that loving one's enemy
    can, in many instances, be very "disarming" for the enemy, and may
    touch that of God in them; that is often its beauty.  But I agree that
    it doesn't always work that way. and I think that it would be a mistake
    to argue that this alone is the reason for nonviolence.  Once we fall
    into the habit of looking for some magical behavior that will control
    others effectively, I believe that we are sharing the same assumption
    that lies behind the violent impulse.

    I think that a philosophy of non-violence has long term implications
    for the benefit of society.  But I don't think it necessarily "works"
    in every specific instance.  By behaving non-violently, we are planting
    the seeds of love.  That is all that God can ask of us.  I believe that
    non-violence is its own inherent reward.  It nourishes the spirit, and
    avoids the damage to the spirit that hatred and violence can so often
    incur.  I think that this is the real greatness of Jesus's message in
    the Sermon on the Mount.

    -- Mike

| Well, for my own value system, a philosophy of non-violence doesn't
| necessarily advocate martyrdom any more than it necessary advocates
| running away from it.  There is no question that loving one's enemy
| can, in many instances, be very "disarming" for the enemy, and may
| touch that of God in them; that is often its beauty.  But I agree that
| it doesn't always work that way. and I think that it would be a mistake
| to argue that this alone is the reason for nonviolence.  Once we fall
| into the habit of looking for some magical behavior that will control
| others effectively, I believe that we are sharing the same assumption
| that lies behind the violent impulse.

	Mike, very well put. I liked that.

| I think that a philosophy of non-violence has long term implications
| for the benefit of society.  But I don't think it necessarily "works"
| in every specific instance.  By behaving non-violently, we are planting
| the seeds of love.  That is all that God can ask of us.  

	Mike, what constitutes non-violence? I think that what you're saying
makes a lot of sense, but it would make more sense if I knew your definition of
non-violence. :-)

| I believe that
| non-violence is its own inherent reward.  It nourishes the spirit, and
| avoids the damage to the spirit that hatred and violence can so often
| incur.  I think that this is the real greatness of Jesus's message in
| the Sermon on the Mount.

	Very well put my friend. 


Glen

Matthew 5:43 RSV reads "You have heard it was said, 'You shall love your
neighbour and hate your enemy.'"

Who would have been the neighbour and enemy as understood by those listening
to the Sermon on the Mount ?.

Phil.

| <<< Note 261.63 by YERKLE::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>
| -< A question >-


| Matthew 5:43 RSV reads "You have heard it was said, 'You shall love your
| neighbour and hate your enemy.'"

	Doesn't that statement sound a little contradictory? How do you love
your neighbor and hate your enemy when your enemy could be your neighbor? Also,
when loving thy neighbor comes into play, I was always under the impression
that it meant more than just next door, but every person in this world. Was I
wrong for thinking this? Is this just one of those love/hate things? Can
someone explain this?


Glen

    
    RE: .64
    
    Maybe the definition of 'neighbor' was different in those days?
    
    Carole

Hi Glen,

re. 64

|Matthew 5:43 RSV reads "You have heard it was said, 'You shall love your
| neighbour and hate your enemy.'"

;	Doesn't that statement sound a little contradictory? How do you love
;your neighbor and hate your enemy when your enemy could be your neighbor? 

Yes, the statement does sound contradictory, the Mosiac Law had put no limits
on love:"You must love your fellow as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18) However, those
in attendance would have heard this statement before and they would have 
understood what teaching Jesus was discussing. Was the enemy and neighbour
viewed as two separate groups?.

;Also,
;when loving thy neighbor comes into play, I was always under the impression
;that it meant more than just next door, but every person in this world. Was I
;wrong for thinking this? Is this just one of those love/hate things? Can
;someone explain this?

Jesus reminded a man about the commandment "Love your neighbour as yourself",
in reply he quibbled "who really is my neighbour?", Jesus answered with 
the illustration of the good Samaritan- showing one should make oneself
a neighbour to the one thats needs you.(Luke 10:25-37) 

Phil.

| |Matthew 5:43 RSV reads "You have heard it was said, 'You shall love your
| | neighbour and hate your enemy.'"

| ;	Doesn't that statement sound a little contradictory? How do you love
| ;your neighbor and hate your enemy when your enemy could be your neighbor?

| Yes, the statement does sound contradictory, the Mosiac Law had put no limits
| on love:"You must love your fellow as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18) However, those
| in attendance would have heard this statement before and they would have
| understood what teaching Jesus was discussing. Was the enemy and neighbour
| viewed as two separate groups?.

	Seeing people are finding reasons for NOT following all of the Old
Testiment, why should we follow any of it. I always thought it was an all or
nothing deal?


Glen

Note 261.63

>Matthew 5:43 RSV reads "You have heard it was said, 'You shall love your
>neighbour and hate your enemy.'"

>Who would have been the neighbour and enemy as understood by those listening
>to the Sermon on the Mount ?.

Phil,

	The version I grabbed uses, "...love your friends," rather than,
"...love your neighbour."

	To me, using "friends" is more readily understood, especially in
modern times.  Our neighbors now tend to be more anonymous than they were
at one time.

	I noticed you used the British spelling of neighbour.  Forgive me for
not going through all of Note 3.*, the Introductions Note, to find you, but
I'm curious.  What part of the globe are you writing us from?

Peace,
Richard

    re:  love your friends...
    
    It's very easy to love one's friends.  In fact, it's practically a
    given.
    
    I know Jesus and the Divine Presence teaches more than this and 
    demonstrates more.  I've had several occasions in my life where what 
    I considered my so-called "enemies" at one time, became very good 
    friends (re .38 ?)  And vice versa, that some so-called friends 
    behaved in such a way you'd think they were my "enemies." 
    
    How do we know that in time our enemies won't become our friends?  
    How do we know that our love and compassion will not make friends out 
    of enemies?  How do you identify who the "enemy" is anyway?  Sadam 
    Hussein used to be "our friend". ;-)  The Soviet Union used to be 
    our "enemy"...  
    
    I don't know.  Since I passed my teen years, I've quietly ceased
    using the label "enemy".  It just doesn't fit anyone or anything I
    know or desire to know as such.  Call me naive, call me foolish, 
    maybe I am.  But <shrug> so what.  I've never had more love in my 
    being at any time in my life than I have today, in this moment.
    
    Thank you Divine Presence that dwells within us all, and us within
    your heart,
    
    Karen

	RE: .68

	Phil is in Reading England.

			Alfred

Note 261.2

Collis,

>I think this can be well understood by recognizing the difference
>between individual responsibility and corporate responsibility.  The
>individual is not to show vengeance or be vengeful, even in the
>Old Testament.  Likewise, the government is not to ignore evil, in
>in the New Testament.

	I have heard this rationalization before from others.  It has always
sounded like a cop-out to justify nationalism to me.  It says to me that
my corporate responsibility is unrelated to my responsibility as a Christian,
when, in reality, one is an outgrowth of the other.

	From whence does it come?  Certainly, it is not stated outright
within Scripture.  It must be based upon conjecture and inference.

>Those that Jesus were talking to were taking an Old Testament commandment
>which was meant for the ruling authorities and justifying their personal
>actions and thoughts with it.  Each of us has a proper role and
>responsibility and that individual responsibility is to love those
>who persecute us.

	And I do love you in Christ, Collis,

Peace,
Richard

Re .68

Hi Richard,

Alfred is correct, I am part of UK Engineering here in Dec Park Reading. 

;	To me, using "friends" is more readily understood, especially in
;modern times.  Our neighbors now tend to be more anonymous than they were
;at one time.

I agree, at times our lives are so busy that we dont get to know those
who live just a few doors away. Well that's how it is England, though the
English are well renowned for being withdrawn. But, it has not always been
this way.

The terms "friend" or "neighbour" and "enemy" do seem very general though. I 
would like to see how others view how those attending the Sermon would have 
understood it. My own understanding was posted in .50, they were being taught
previously that their "friend" was their Jewish friend, in fact those who 
were keeping the Pharisaic traditions. All others would have been their enemy. 
I think it is important to look into this background, otherwise one might not 
get the full import of Jesus' message.

Phil. 

re.67

Hi Glen,

;	Seeing people are finding reasons for NOT following all of the Old
;Testiment, why should we follow any of it. I always thought it was an all or
;nothing deal?

The deal that I think you are speaking about was only between Jehovah God and
the nation of Israel (Exodus 19:5,6; 24:7,8) the Gentiles were not part of 
this covenant. But, God's Word is beneficial for 2 Timothy 3:15,16 RSV reads 
"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, 
for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be 
complete, equipped for every good work."  

True Christians are not under the Mosaic Law they no longer believe they can 
earn God's approval and gain eternal life by complying with certain rules and 
observances. That was the error of faithless Jews who, by 'seeking to establish 
their own righteousness, did not subject themselves to the righteousness of 
God.'(Romans 10:3) True Christians recognize that all of us are born sinners 
and that it only by faith in the sacrifice of Christ that anyone can have a
righteous standing with God. They endeavour to take to heart and apply all
the teachings of God's Son. They humbly accept counsel and reproof from
God's Word. This does not mean that they think that they can earn God's
approval in this way; instead, what they do is expression of their love and
faith. By such course they avoid the "pattern of disobedience" of the Jewish 
nation.

Hope this helps

Phil.

re Note 261.56 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> See the Swedish word: Sisu.
  
        Is THAT what all those license plates that simply have the
        letters "SISU" on them are all about?!  Especially since they
        were all capital letters, I always assumed that they were
        some sort of acronym.

        Bob

    I always thought the classic person with chutzpah was the man who
    murdered his mother and then threw himself on the mercy of the court
    because he was an orphan.
    
    DR

| The deal that I think you are speaking about was only between Jehovah God and
| the nation of Israel (Exodus 19:5,6; 24:7,8) the Gentiles were not part of
| this covenant. But, God's Word is beneficial for 2 Timothy 3:15,16 RSV reads
| "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, 
| for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be
| complete, equipped for every good work."  

	Phil, if what is said above is to be taken as the truth, then why
wouldn't we be following the ways of old (no shellfish, certain hoved animals,
the dove/pigeon sacrafice for having unclean sex, etc) today seeing that back 
then these were things God said people had to do to gain righteousness, and 
were things that God had taught them which would help them become complete,
equipped for everyday good work? Especially seeing what you wrote above says we
can be profitable by it. Curious.

| True Christians are not under the Mosaic Law they no longer believe they can
| earn God's approval and gain eternal life by complying with certain rules and
| observances. 

	Then why did God ever make these rules? Don't they help to keep people
in the, "always thinking about what you're doing" mode, which in turn will cut
down on sinning, which would lead us to a closer relationship with God? I mean,
isn't that one major stumbling blocks with us humans? We act a lot of times
without thinking about what could actually happen, right?

| That was the error of faithless Jews who, by 'seeking to establish
| their own righteousness, did not subject themselves to the righteousness of
| God.'(Romans 10:3) True Christians recognize that all of us are born sinners
| and that it only by faith in the sacrifice of Christ that anyone can have a
| righteous standing with God. 

	Faith is needed, that's for sure. But even with faith, we still forget
just what we are supposed to do (at least with me anyway). 

| They endeavour to take to heart and apply all
| the teachings of God's Son. 

	I think we need to be realistic here. No one can understand all of the
teachings, never mind remember and apply them. Or maybe I just have a bad
memory? ;-)

Glen

Re:  .71

Richard,

I'm sorry that you don't see the distinctions I have discussed in the
Bible.  I honestly believe that they are not hard to see; that are
clearly there.  When God gives laws to the government or the church,
it is clear that they have rights and responsibilities to judge and/or
punish.  When God gives commandments to individuals, it is likewise
clear that they are to love, accept and be discerning but not to
punish.

I think it is unfortunate that you chose the word "cop-out" to
express your disapproval.  This goes beyond an opinion of this
understanding to the underlying motivations of those who see that the
Bible teaches this.  As is common among many conservative Christians 
today, I actually prefer to keep government *out* of most things rather
than getting government unnecessarily involved.  My understanding of
the Bible (although colored by my experience like everyone else's)
is not based on a desire to create government control, but rather an
understanding which is plainly (IMO) taught in Scripture.  If Scripture
taught otherwise (or if you can show me where my understanding of
Scripture is lacking), I would gladly believe otherwise.

Collis

    Re: .77
    
    See .35
    You just can't get much clearer than that.
    
    My morality, ethos, or principles do not vary in a corporate
    environment from those I possess as an individual, any more
    than do Jerry Falwell's.
    
    Love through the God who is Love,
    Richard

Re:  .78

Yes, I read .35 and agree completely with it.  These instructions
to individuals (they, after all, were not spoken to an organized body
of rulers, but to individuals) are clear.  If you wish to maintain
that an organized body should respond exactly the same way, you need
to address the many commands to these same bodies that *require* them
to judge and punish (not "love, forgive and forget") which are rampant
throughout the Old Testament and confirmed in various places in the
New Testament.  You need to explain Jesus' acceptance of authority
when He says that we are to give Caesar that which is Caesar's.

None of this have you done (in this conference) that I am aware of.
I don't think you would want to be accused of selectively reading the
Bible...  :-)  

Collis

    It is true that Jesus says that we are to give Caesar that which is
    Caesar's.  But when Caesar and God come into conflict, I believe that
    we should choose what we understand to be God's will, rather than
    Caesar's.  Unfortunately, I believe that Caesar and God don't always
    agree.  As was pointed out in Nuremburg, obeying authority is not an
    absolute--that there are times when we must disobey authority in order
    to be in accord with a higher principle.  The Nazi atrocities
    illustrated the fact that organized bodies are not exempt from moral
    considerations.  Organized bodies, and governments, may very well
    expect their constituent members to commit acts which are intended to
    serve a legitimate function, but in an illegitimate and immoral manner. 
    On other occasions, states may expect individuals to carry out
    completely illegitimate and immoral, which there is no legitimate way
    of carrying out.  In either case, individuals have a moral
    responsibility to refuse to carry out those acts.

    This, of course, raises the question of what constitutes a legitimate
    action of the state.  In my view, though, even if we believe that war
    serves a legitimate purpose, it nevertheless uses immoral
    means--namely, the taking of human life--to accomplish its aims.  I
    further believe that it is not consistent with the moral imperative of
    loving one's enemy, and that it violates both the letter and the spirit
    of Jesus's teachings at the Sermon on the Mount.  That is also why, for
    example, the early Christians were pacifists.

    This is perfectly consistent with Jesus's statement that we must give
    to Caesar that which is Caesar's.  I doubt very seriously that Jesus
    was asking us to absolve ourselves of moral responsibility for our
    actions just because we do them in the name of the state.  If so, then
    Jesus was hardly taking the moral high road.  The point is that some
    actions belong exclusively to the legitimate actions of the state, and
    some have nothing to do with the state.  It is those actions which
    involve both God and the state which necessitate that we obey God
    rather than the state when the two aims are in conflict. 

    I don't think Jesus can be more clear about his ethical instructions. 
    Yes, they apply to us as individuals, as do any ethical actions, but
    our responsibility to act ethically doesn't cease once we belong to an
    organized body.  If the state asks me to kill, I will not do so.  I
    don't believe that Jesus's teachings are correct merely because Jesus
    said them, but rather because I believe that they are right.  I would
    not have a problem with disagreeing with Jesus's teachings if I thought
    they were wrong, but I don't happen to believe that they are; it is
    because I admire the pacifism of Jesus that I am interested in
    Christianity at all.  This is true, despite the image that some have
    Jesus, which sometimes seems to depict him as preaching something less
    than a message of love.

    Since I believe that there is no way that one can reconcile killing a
    person with loving that individual, I therefore will not choose to kill
    a human being, even if the state orders me to do so.  That is because I
    listen to my understanding of God before I listen to Caesar.

    -- Mike

Note 261.79

>  You need to explain Jesus' acceptance of authority
>  when He says that we are to give Caesar that which is Caesar's.

Collis,

	I have observed that even Bibliolators read Scripture selectively,
though they'll tell you that they do not.  See Note 122.*.

	Concerning the tax question, Jesus said to pay to the Emperor (which
I take it must be the same to you as the U.S. government) what belongs to the
Emperor, and pay to God what belongs to God.

	Superficially, the conclusion seems obvious.  The answer was enough
to stun the Pharisees, at any rate.

	In reality, Jesus leaves it to us to determine for ourselves what
belongs to Caesar and what is genuinely God's.

	I, for one, belong to God and not Caesar.

Peace,
Richard

PS  Certain persons elected to the Executive Office of the United States
    in recent history might bear some resemblance to the Caesars in attitude
    and actions, but IMHO, no U.S. President is Emperor.

    Re: .72
    
    Phil,
    
    I just reread .50.  We are generally in accord.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 261.79 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> You need to explain Jesus' acceptance of authority
> when He says that we are to give Caesar that which is Caesar's.
  
        I always thought that this was a clever evasion on Jesus'
        part, although it does answer the question:  ultimately, all
        is God's, nothing is Caesar's

        Bob

Note 263.13

>     A similar train of thought comes to mind with respect to weapons
>   of mass destruction. If all humans are your brothers and sisters 
>   in Christ then is not killing one crucifying Christ all over again ? 

Here again, Mike, you've summed up the essence of my Christian perspective.
But, alas!  There are loads of people who are convinced that I am the
one who is misguided.

Peace,
Richard

re. 76

Hi Glen,

I am sorry that I havn't replied sooner to your questions. They are good
questions and I will answer to the best of my ability.  

| The deal that I think you are speaking about was only between Jehovah God and
| the nation of Israel (Exodus 19:5,6; 24:7,8) the Gentiles were not part of
| this covenant. But, God's Word is beneficial for 2 Timothy 3:15,16 RSV reads
| "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, 
| for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be
| complete, equipped for every good work."  

;	Phil, if what is said above is to be taken as the truth, then why
;wouldn't we be following the ways of old (no shellfish, certain hoved animals,
;the dove/pigeon sacrafice for having unclean sex, etc) today seeing that back 
;then these were things God said people had to do to gain righteousness, and 
;were things that God had taught them which would help them become complete,
;equipped for everyday good work? Especially seeing what you wrote above says we
;can be profitable by it. Curious.

The above scripture was written by the apostle Paul to Timothy, at the time
of writting the Law covenant had come to an end as Jesus had fulfilled it. 
This can be seen by comparing Scriptures Colossians 2:13-17; Matthew 5:17,18
and Romans 10:4 . I will show how we can profit from it later in my next reply
but first I would like to answer...

;	Then why did God ever make these rules? Don't they help to keep people
;in the, "always thinking about what you're doing" mode, which in turn will cut
;down on sinning, which would lead us to a closer relationship with God? I mean,
;isn't that one major stumbling blocks with us humans? We act a lot of times
;without thinking about what could actually happen, right?

Why God gave Israel the Law code is mentioned in Galations 3:19,24 NWT and 
reads "It was added [to the Abrahamic covenant] to make transgressions 
manifest, until the seed should arrive to whom the promise had been made... 
Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ, that we might 
be declared righteous due to faith." I agree that "always thinking about 
what we are doing" would lead us to a closer relationship with God, but
we are imperfect and being imperfect we cannot live up to the Law code
that was given to the Israelites. 

Despite any good intention or dilligent effort no Israelite could measure
up to the Law's requirments. Using the Jews as a sample of the imperfect
human family, the Law exposed all the world, including each one of us,
as sinners, liable to God for punishment. Romans 3:19,20 RSV reads "Now
we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the
law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held 
accountable to God. For no human being will be justified in his sight by
works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." So if
we were under the Law covenant we could not gain a righteous standing, for
it would point out that we are sinners. How we gain a righteous standing
before Jehovah God depends on ones faith in the value of Jesus' sacrifice
(compare Galations 3:11,12).

;	Faith is needed, that's for sure. But even with faith, we still forget
;just what we are supposed to do (at least with me anyway).

I do too, but one can ask Jehovah to help guide our steps, but he can only do
this if we have previous knowledge which we have taken into our hearts, so that
we act upon such knowledge. Asking for His holy spirit is needed in this 
regard of taking in accurate knowledge. Our hearts motivate us in our everyday
actions and Romans 10:10 NWT reads "For with the heart one exercises faith for
righteousness,". Also we should ask God for forgiveness, for the things we do
unknowingly wrong, in prayer (Matt 6:12).

| They endeavour to take to heart and apply all
| the teachings of God's Son. 

;	I think we need to be realistic here. No one can understand all of the
;teachings, never mind remember and apply them. Or maybe I just have a bad
;memory? ;-)

This is true (not that you have a bad memory-)), that is why studying God's 
Word needs to be done on a continual basis (Compare Psalm 1:1-2). By taking 
Jesus's teachings to heart through meditation and applying such teachings one 
can be motivated into reflecting Jesus's qualities in our everyday lives. In 
turn Jesus was an exact reflection of his Father Jehovah God. So by taking to 
heart and applying the teachings of God's Son we to can begin to reflect the 
only true God. So as not to mislead, at all times when studying God's Word one 
needs to ask God for guidance through His holy spirit. (Compare Hewbrews 1:3) 



Phil.

Hi Glen

Though we cannot be declared righteous by being under the Law covenant, We can
gain great benefit by taking in knowledge of it. Why? well Jesus was born
to a Jewish mother and therefore came under that Mosaic Law. Certain things 
that Jesus did can only be fully understood on the basis of knowledge of
the requirments of the Law. (Galations 4:4,5) Also, it was among people that
were under that Law, that Jesus carried out his ministry. His teachings
often were built on circumstances related to the Law-compare Matthew 5:23,24.

After his resurrection Jesus said to his disciples "These are my words which
I spoke to you, while I was still with you, that everything written about me
in the law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled" Luke
24:44 RSV. Paul referred to features in connection with the Law as being "a 
copy and shadow of the heavenly sanctuary" Hewbrews 8:4,5 RSV and he said 
that "the Law has but a shadow of the good things to come" Hewbrews 10:1 RSV.
Amazing details that find fulfillment in the priesthood of Jesus Christ and 
in the sacrifice of his human life are embodied in the Mosiac Law. Our grasping
these can enrich the meaning of such provisions to us.

Meditating on the enduring principles on which the Law is based can help to 
build up in us a heartfelt desire to do the things which God will find pleasing.
If we perceive the spirit to which the Law pointed and reflect this in our 
lives, how beneficial this will be to us and others around us. This was 
effectively illustrated by Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount. For example,
speaking to people under that Law he showed that, instead of just being content
that they had not comitted adultery, they should not even look at a woman
lustfully. The same principle(s) should be true today for all followers of 
Jesus, for Romans 13:8-10 RSV reads "Owe no one anything, except love one 
another; for he who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the Law. The commandments,
"You shall not commit *adultery*, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You
shall not *covet*," and any other commandment, are summed in this sentence, "You
shall love your neighbour as yourself." Love does no wrong to a neighbour;
therefore love is fulfilling of the law.  

Hope this helps explain a little why taking in knowledge of the Mosaic Law
can be of benefit.

Phil.

    I don't know if this follows the flow of this note or not but...
    
    This is a sermon that was recently presented:
    
    

    		The Christians'   MIRANDA WARNING

	"Blessed is the man, who, having nothing to say, abstains
	 from giving wordy evidence of the fact"


	Today most people in the world are concerned about their
'rights'.  There is even a new breed of people called 'rights activists'.

	It is very important that we as Christians understand our rights
in the body of Christ.  If you have watched much TV in your life at some
point you have seen a policeman arresting a suspected criminal.  Whenever
someone gets arrested on TV or in real life the officer is obligated to
'read them their rights'.  These rights are part of a law known as the 
Miranda Act.  I would like to talk about the rights of a christian in the
body of Christ in the guidelines of this law.



	If you have been a christian for any amount of time you have had
ample opportunity to be offended.  If you haven't yet been offended just
hold on you will be.  The Bible has much to say about how we are to react
when offended.

What should our response be to offenses?  If you live on earth for any amount 
of time you will be offended.  It is not how often we are offended but how 
we respond to them.  


    1. You have the right to remain silent.  


	"Most of us know how to say nothing, but few of us know when"
						Wes Izzard

	MATTHEW 5:22

	But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without
	cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say,
	Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

	MATTHEW 5:44

	But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those that persecute
	you.

	EPHESIANS 4:31-32
	
	Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put
	away from you, along with all malice.
	And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other
	just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.


	PROVERBS 19:11

	The discretion of a man deferreth his anger; and it is his glory to
	pass over a trangression.



Why must we be concerned about how we react to the abuses of others?  After
all they offended me.  As far as my life is concerned God doesn't care about
how or by whom, I have been offended.  He is more concerned with the way I
react.  




	2. Anything you say can and will be used 
	       against you in a court of law.  

It is so easy to want to get even or to let everyone know how bad we were
hurt.  The problem is that so often when we 'start' with how bad we were
harmed we 'end' with what a terrible person this individual is.  So complaint
often turns into gossip, bitterness and malice.


	MATTHEW 12:36
	But I say unto you, That every idle word that a man shall speak,
	he shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

	II CORINTHIANS 12:20
	For I fear, lest when I come, I shall not find you such as I would
	like, and shall be found unto you such as ye would not; lest there be 
	debates, envyings, wraths, strifes, backbitings, whisperings, swellings.
	and tumults;

	Even a fish would not get caught if he would learn to keep his 
	mouth shut.


    3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer
       and have him present with you when
       you are being questioned.  
    4. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer
       one will be appointed to represent you
       before any questioning if you wish.  
    5. If you decide to answer questions now
       without a lawyer present, you will still
       have the right to stop answering at any
       time.  


	The encouraging thing in all of this is we have an advocate.
A lawyer, who has never lost a case.  When we blow it and lose our temper
or we have a hard time forgiving a wrong Jesus is our help.

	1JOHN 2:1
	My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.
	And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
	the righteous.



    		WAIVER


    1. Do you understand each of these rights I
    have explained to you?  

    2. Having these rights in mind, do you
    wish to talk to us now?  

	That was really good! I liked that. :-)



Glen

    Ed,
    
    	Thanks!  Your sermon would also be suitable in Note 219, but
    the subject matter seems to render it appropriate here as well.
    
    Peace,
    Richard