I believe

[Miken]

"Neither God nor Satan will enter your home uninvited, but beware. For who gets that invitation is determined by actions not words."

My D.A. type query was, so if I perform pious actions but talk dirty about my fellow humans, by that witticism I would still get the benefit of a divine visitor rather than an infernal one, since it is my pious actions which determine the outcome, and not my nasty words?

It did not say pious actions. Matthew makes it plain that the key is actions with consequences.

Matthew 19
16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, 19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Most of these are from the Ten Commandments. But not mentioned in the list are the ‘worship’ commandments or the ‘covet’ commandments. It is all about action with consequences. And bearing false witness is one of the ‘action’ commandments. The final ‘love your neighbor as yourself’ would certainly preclude talking dirty about your fellow humans.

Your D.A. example is like the Pharisees that Jesus berates in Matthew 23, obsessed with details and missing the big picture, “straining out a gnat but swallowing a camel”. (Mt 23:24)

 

[Cino]

So the divide is not between words and actions after all.

(And I agree, from my humanist standpoint)

 

[Namaste Jesus]

"Neither God nor Satan will enter your home uninvited, but beware. For who gets that invitation is determined by actions not words."

My D.A. type query was, so if I perform pious actions but talk dirty about my fellow humans, by that witticism I would still get the benefit of a divine visitor rather than an infernal one, since it is my pious actions which determine the outcome, and not my nasty words?

Ah, I see. I should think however, the action of hypocrisy would endear you more with Satan than the Almighty.

Matthew 7:22-23

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

 

[Miken]

Matthew 7:22-23

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

In Matthew 19, Jesus says “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” (Mt 19:17) And Jesus goes on to emphasize the action commandments and the fundamental principle of Love Your Neighbor. It is not about proclamations of faith or pious appearances (like the Pharisees in Matthew 23!) It is about what you do and the real-world consequences of that.

On the subject of ritual religion versus real religion, Jesus quotes Hosea
Matthew 9:13 Go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’

And to the Pharisees
Matthew 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.

To make it clear that this means action:

Matthew 25
34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

 

[RJM]

To make it clear that this means action:

Matthew 25
34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Perhaps love is an action?

But somewhere Jesus also says, when asked about which commandments are the greatest, to love God first, and then your neighbour as yourself.

The first commandment always takes precedence. 'The golden rule' is a natural result. But there are hermetic and meditative followers of the first commandment too, who isolate themselves from the world?

 

[Miken]

Perhaps love is an action?

But somewhere Jesus also says, when asked about which commandments are the greatest, to love God first, and then your neighbour as yourself.

The first commandment always takes precedence. 'The golden rule' is a natural result. But there are hermetic and meditative followers of the first commandment too, who isolate themselves from the world?

Love should result in action or it is devoid of meaning. To love God is to do what God said to do. In Matthew 19, Jesus points out that it is not his commandments “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” (Mt 19:17) It is the commandments that God gave that matter. Each of the requirements Jesus lays out are from the God-given Torah.

Luke 10
25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

This is followed by the story of the Good Samaritan who helped a stranger in serious need when a priest and a Levite, both supposedly very religious people, passed him by. Despite having presented the First Law in far more words than the Second Law, it is the Second Law that is now emphasized at great length.

Love is not an action by itself. Only if it leads to loving action does it count. In the story of the Sheep and the Goats alluded to earlier, those who act in accordance with love are rewarded. Those who do not are punished.

There was a time when the cloistered religious orders performed a valuable service, preserving and disseminating the knowledge of the past when civilization had failed. Most religious orders today also perform valuable service in education, charity work etc. (Despite some very serious problems in the organizations) But the original purpose of the cloistered orders no longer exists. It seems to me that the scriptures clearly indicate that to love God is to do what God said to do and that is to love your neighbor and all that entails. Hiding away from the world does not serve that purpose.


To return to the pericope of the Two Commandments, in Matthew’s version (Mt 22:34-40) it is Jesus who states them, not a lawyer as in Luke. Matthew’s audience were law observant Jewish Christians. Luke’s audience were mainly Gentiles. Having a Jewish lawyer state the laws allows Jesus to be seen as more universal in character, a major theme of Luke. Also, Luke emphasizes that ‘neighbor’ means everyone. The Temple priest and the Levite (assistant to the priests) may have been oh so observant of the letter of the Law but not its implications, as Matthew often says. Love requires action to be righteous. And it is a hated Samaritan who is more righteous than the ‘we’re so holy’ Jewish clergy.

 

[RJM]

But the original purpose of the cloistered orders no longer exists.

This is where I disagree. There will always be those who want to seek God in quietness and prayer away from the world. The first commandment always comes first, imo.

"I am the vine you are the branches ..."

Love requires action to be righteous

I think perhaps this is agape love: of several types of love defined by the Greeks?

And it is a hated Samaritan who is more righteous than the ‘we’re so holy’ Jewish clergy.

This is true. As with most of Christ's parables it may have several different levels of meaning, and I think it may also be Christ's message as universal, beyond the Jewish tribes alone?

Eventually it is not necessary to feel emotional love, but to act with love?

 

[RJM]

It becomes a godless secular humanism that concerns only the body not the soul imo

 

[RJM]

Religion and faith, and the church in general, with its emphasis on the soul, is nowadays in woke new atheist secular culture, projected as the historical oppressor of the human spirit and the human condition.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Love is not an action by itself. Only if it leads to loving action does it count. In the story of the Sheep and the Goats alluded to earlier, those who act in accordance with love are rewarded. Those who do not are punished.

I agree with you that we need to act on our love for God. It is our duty to seek knowledge and act upon it.
However, we all fall short, and the Almighty isn't so quick to punish as He is to reward.
His forgiveness is greater than His wrath.

..the original purpose of the cloistered orders no longer exists. It seems to me that the scriptures clearly indicate that to love God is to do what God said to do and that is to love your neighbor and all that entails. Hiding away from the world does not serve that purpose.

I would agree that generally speaking, hiding away from the world is not what God wants us to do.
However, the world today is losing itself.
It is not wrong to escape from the ignorance and madness of modern city life, for example.

 

[Miken]

This is where I disagree. There will always be those who want to seek God in quietness and prayer away from the world. The first commandment always comes first, imo.

"I am the vine you are the branches ..."

I think perhaps this is agape love: of several types of love defined by the Greeks?

This is true. As with most of Christ's parables it may have several different levels of meaning, and I think it may also be part of Christ's teaching being taken up by gentiles, while rejected by the Jews for whom it was first intended?

Eventually it is not necessary to feel emotional love, but to act with love?

The first commandment, to love God, implies doing what God said. Otherwise it is pointless. Concentrating entirely on the first and ignoring the second is not going to work. The second is implied by the first. “On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Mt 22:40)

In Leviticus 19:18, where ‘love your neighbor’ comes from, the Hebrew word used is ahab which is used to indicate affection in all its forms – loving your brother, loving your wife, loving a juicy steak. While Biblical Hebrew did not distinguish among different types of love except by context, Koine Greek did. Matthew and Luke wrote in Greek for Greek speaking audiences and the word they used is agapaō, which indicates the highest form of love, and which implies charity.

Matthew wrote for law observant Jewish Christians and introduced this pericope as part of his ongoing campaign of stressing action, especially charity, over and above mere attention to the ritualistic details of the Law, as the Pharisees did. (These are clearly Shammai Pharisees BTW.) Luke took it and both elucidated the point more clearly and shifting the focus a bit as part of his campaign of making Jesus universal.

It is the performance of charity that matters. If one does not feel emotional love, charity is still required. It is results that count.

John 15:1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

 

[Miken]

Religion and faith, and the church in general, with its emphasis on the soul, is nowadays in woke new atheist secular culture, projected as the historical oppressor of the human spirit and the human condition.

Woke too often translates into thinking what one is told to think and saying what one is told to say in the exact words one is told to use. Sounds like a religion to me

 

[RJM]

It's tribal. My tribe is the people, other tribes are not people. So they fall outside the rules of civilised behaviour, because the rules apply to my own tribe only?

So my tribal law requires me to have to share my blanket with my brother from my own tribe, but if he is not one of my own tribe/family I step over him dying in the street and think nothing about it?

Because I can expect the same treatment from them.

 

[muhammad_isa]

From wikipedia:-
In July 2020, Australian journalist and commentator Rita Panahi has accused woke individuals or corporations of preferring to "obsess about historical grievances that happened hundreds of years ago" in the Western world while turning a blind-eye to contemporary examples of slavery and human rights abuses against ethnic minorities in non-Western nations such as China.

I suppose it's human nature. People who are suffering right now due to the political system, feel that it is a continuing
scenario that is embedded in the elite.
Western civilization is begininng to fall. People have different views as to what is causing it.

If we look at history, we see that ALL civilizations rise & fall. It is our human nature i.e. our weaknesses, that is the cause.
When a civilization begins, it needs a lot of perseverance to establish itself. Over the generation, people begin to take it all for granted.

 

[Contrarian Deist]

*I BELIEVE in one God and no more, and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy*- Thomas Paine , *Age of reason*.

Personally I also believe in a pre-existing divine mind/God/creator-emanator which became or emanated from it's own mind/substance/being it's own creation(the cosmos and all within...AND without). And I believe that all religions and non religions are a combo of some valid truths and some invalid biases...confused as *truth*. I am a Pan-Deist.
I believe in individual over collective(though collectives have their place...just not above the individual) and individual liberty, life, pursuit of happiness and of freedom and individual justice(and collective, but individual first/foremost). I believe in the primacy of reason...but that does not mean classical materialism or pseudo skepticism....I believe in a spiritual dimension to the cosmos and to existence and life.
I believe in forethought/freedom of opinion/belief/conscience, freedom if speech/expression, freedom of association/affiliation, freedom of assembly and of peaceful dissent/protest... and the freedom to offend(and to feel offended)I believe in thess as absolutes ...for every individual and every collective(and every individual in every collective). I believe in *first principles*.
I believe in empathy and compassion...but not imposed in authoritarian manners and not in bubble wrapping people and infantilizing the perpetually offended, I believe in telling truths that others do not wish to hear.
I believe in many other things on top of this...but these are foundational.
Everything else...is up for debate(actually so are the above, everything is up for debate).

In reason.
Contrarian Deist.

 

[Thomas]

Hi CD —

... I believe in individual over collective(though collectives have their place...just not above the individual) and individual liberty, life, pursuit of happiness and of freedom and individual justice (and collective, but individual first/foremost)...

I tend to regard the 'individual v collective' thing as something like your def. of religion, both sides of the debate a combo of valid truths and invalid biases (but then that's the nature of human, so what should we expect?)

Generally, I suppose I come down in favour of the collective, as the pursuit of individual 'rights' and 'freedoms' are both constructs, too often and too easily subordinated to the lowest possible human denominator ... ideally, the collective puts the brakes on the worst excesses of our nature. Then again, the collective can also mindlessly express those self-same excesses ...

The more you pursue it, the more utopia is a chimera, but that's no reason to surrender the pursuit![/QUOTE]

 

[Aupmanyav]

You all have very good imagination.

 

[Contrarian Deist]

Hi CD —

I tend to regard the 'individual v collective' thing as something like your def. of religion, both sides of the debate a combo of valid truths and invalid biases (but then that's the nature of human, so what should we expect?)

Generally, I suppose I come down in favour of the collective, as the pursuit of individual 'rights' and 'freedoms' are both constructs, too often and too easily subordinated to the lowest possible human denominator ... ideally, the collective puts the brakes on the worst excesses of our nature. Then again, the collective can also mindlessly express those self-same excesses ...

The more you pursue it, the more utopia is a chimera, but that's no reason to surrender the pursuit!

[/QUOTE]

I understand where your coming from on that.
But remember this, collectives are comprised of individuals...and the trick of collectivism over individualism is to make individuals subservient to hive mind mentalities that ultimately repress all individuals for a Borg collective...and if the individual steps out of the party line of the collective...even a little...they become subject to being heresy hunted. Yes collectives exist, they arw important but they are only an outgrowth from the core expanding from the individual outward- individual-family-clan-tribe-neighborhood-municipality-province/state-culture-country-continent-world/globe-solar system-galaxy- and so on. The individual being the cornerstone in an expanding outward by degrees to the collectives of these various levels...and ultimately to Godself.

If a collective does not put the individual in the collective first above collectivist ideological dogma and hive mind tendencies, then it becomes a cancer making the individuals in the collective disposable to the collectives herd mind and ultimately to the power thirst of who ever is at the top of the particular collectives heirarchy(and ALL collectives by their very nature have heirarchies).

 

[Cino]

If a collective does not put the individual in the collective first above collectivist ideological dogma and hive mind tendencies, then it becomes a cancer making the individuals in the collective disposable to the collectives herd mind and ultimately to the power thirst of who ever is at the top of the particular collectives heirarchy(and ALL collectives by their very nature have heirarchies).

I observe that at the top of the hierarchy there sits an individual.

Your posts to various threads here tend to revolve strongly about the individual/collective topic. Would you start a dedicated thread about that in the Philosophy section? That way, it can be discussed without all threads on the forum having to be about it.

 

[Contrarian Deist]

I observe that at the top of the hierarchy there sits an individual.

Your posts to various threads here tend to revolve strongly about the individual/collective topic. Would you start a dedicated thread about that in the Philosophy section? That way, it can be discussed without all threads on the forum having to be about it.

You are correct.
Usually an authoritarian one that controls via collectivism.
Unless the respect the individuals below them...they are illegitimate.

I'll think about it.