Luke 6: A Verse (or Two) at a Time

[Mendalla]

Well I disagree but that's fine. I might not be explaining myself properly. Apparently the author of The Message sees it as you do. He mentions pats on the back and expecting a medal.

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 6:32-34 - The Message

“Here is a simple rule of thumb for behavior: Ask yourself what you want people to do for you; then grab the initiative and do it for them! If you only love the lovable, do you expect a pat on the back? Run-of-the-mill sinners do that. If you only help those who help you, do you expect a medal...

www.biblegateway.com

This is kind of where a paraphrase might have an advantage over a straight translation. You have more leeway to try to put the concepts into modern language and vernacular.

 

[paradox3]

Yes I usually like The Message. It's often sharp and pithy like it is in this text.

Tomorrow things will get interesting because Jesus has a little different twist on the matter of giving. (Luke 6: 38)

 

[Mystic]

Good morning everyone. We have a puzzler today. Here is Luke 6: 35-36

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 6:35-36 - New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

Instead, love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

www.biblegateway.com

Do you think these verses support a universalist view of salvation or do you think just the opposite?

According to Jesus, we are to expect nothing in return for ethical behavior. Yet our reward will be great. What's up with that?

(1) Expect nothing in return from the person you served.
(2)"Your reward will be great" in Heaven, not here on Earth.
Note: Jesus never says there's something wrong with loving those who love you back. But if your love stops there, God won't consider you "a child of the Most High."

Being known as the children of the Most High sounds like something wonderful. But why does Jesus remind us here that God is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked?

We are called to be merciful just as God is merciful. It seems correct to respond to God's mercy by being merciful to others.

What do you make of this reading?

We are told to imitate God's mercy precisely because God is the source of all goodness (Mark 10:18) and there is no such thing in ancient Judaism and early Christianity as doing what's right simply because it's right, quite apart from its grounding in God's nature and will.

 

[paradox3]

(1) Expect nothing in return from the person you served.
(2)"Your reward will be great" in Heaven, not here on Earth.
Note: Jesus never says there's something wrong with loving those who love you back. But if your love stops there, God won't consider you "a child of the Most High."

This makes so much sense!

We are told to imitate God's mercy precisely because God is the source of all goodness (Mark 10:18) and there is no such thing in ancient Judaism and early Christianity as doing what's right simply because it's right, quite apart from its grounding in God's nature and will.

Why is there no such thing as doing right simply because it is right?

 

[Mystic]

This makes so much sense!


Why is there no such thing as doing right simply because it is right?

First, because there is no such statement either in ancient Judaism or early Christianity.
Second, because it is meaningless to claim that absolute right and wrong exist apart from accountability.
As you learn in a freshman college philosophy class, you can't derive an "ought" out of "what is."
Without accountability to the divine, ethics is grounded on nothing more than pragmatic cultural values and expediency.
Thus, there is no objective reply to an atheist who asks, "Why shouldn't I expoit the others if that makes me happy and I can get away with it?'

 

[paradox3]

First, because there is no such statement either in ancient Judaism or early Christianity.
Second, because it is meaningless to claim that absolute right and wrong exist apart from accountability.
As you learn in a freshman college philosophy class, you can't derive an "ought" out of "what is."
Without accountability to the divine, ethics is grounded on nothing more than pragmatic cultural values and expediency.
Thus, there is no objective reply to an atheist who asks, "Why shouldn't I expoit the others if that makes me happy and I can get away with it?'

So it all depends on accountability to the Divine? Can we have this without fear do you think?

What about humanistic values? How do they fit in or is there no such thing in your view?

 

[paradox3]

Thus, there is no objective reply to an atheist who asks, "Why shouldn't I expoit the others if that makes me happy and I can get away with it?'

Sure there is. Such attitude does not serve humanity at large or any particular community.

I think it is a mistake to assume atheists lack a moral compass.

 

[BetteTheRed]

I think it is a mistake to assume atheists lack a moral compass.

Especially considering that there are non-theists not only within Christianity but also every other world religion, thus implying that non-theism lacks a moral compass, and that seems a real stretch of philosophy, morality, religion, etc.

 

[Mendalla]

Anyone who thinks atheists lack a moral compass hasn't done much reading in secular philosophy. Or noticed how many atheists are better behaved than some theists.

God is one path to morality and hasn't always been an especially successful one. If God=morality was such an obvious, simple equation, how do we explain witch burnings, persecution of heretics, religious wars, and so on. And that's not directed at Christianity. We have seen it in many traditions.

Morality and how humans derive moral values is much, much more complex than that.

 

[Mystic]

Thus, there is no objective reply to an atheist who asks, "Why shouldn't I expoit the others if that makes me happy and I can get away with it?'

Sure there is. Such attitude does not serve humanity at large or any particular community.

Why should our atheist care about what "serves humanity at large" or "any particular community' as opposed to what serves his own selfish interests?
It is irrelevant to reply, "If everyone thought like that, we would have dysfunctional social chaos." The atheist might legitimately retort pragmatically." But everyone doesn't think like that; so I can get away with it."

Parodox3: "I think it is a mistake to assume atheists lack a moral compass."

Irrelevant because it misses the point that there is no accountability for those atheists who can get away with pursuing their own selfish agenda without regard to how this adversely affects others. So it is meaningless for loving atheists to claim they can ground their strong "moral compass" in objective Truth. Right and wrong don't exist in some Platonic realm of Forms. Again, the philosophical point is that an "ought" can't be derived from what is.
On the other hand, if God is Love and the ground of all being, then Right and Wrong are grounded in reality itself and Mendalla's kvetching about abuse of the God concept is irrelevant to the question of the necessary condition for epistemologial meaningfulness.

 

[jimkenney12]

Sure there is. Such attitude does not serve humanity at large or any particular community.

Why should our atheist care about what "serves humanity at large" or "any particular community' as opposed to what serves his own selfish interests?
It is irrelevant to reply, "If everyone thought like that, we would have dysfunctional social chaos." The atheist might legitimately retort pragmatically." But everyone doesn't think like that; so I can get away with it."

Parodox3: "I think it is a mistake to assume atheists lack a moral compass."

Irrelevant because it misses the point that there is no accountability for those atheists who can get away with pursuing their own selfish agenda without regard to how this adversely affects others. So it is meaningless for loving atheists to claim they can ground their strong "moral compass" in objective Truth. Right and wrong don't exist in some Platonic realm of Forms. Again, the philosophical point is that an "ought" can't be derived from what is.
On the other hand, if God is Love and the ground of all being, then Right and Wrong are grounded in reality itself and Mendalla's kvetching about abuse of the God concept is irrelevant to the question of the necessary condition for epistemologial meaningfulness

So, all people who claim to be theists but act as though they are not accountable are functional atheists.

Do you do what is good for others because you are accountable to God or just because it is the right thing to do?

What do you mean by objective truth?

To me objective truth is found by observing the effects of various actions in various situations or learning of others observations.

Personally, I feel affirmed within myself when I am able to help someone else which is objective truth for me.

 

[Mystic]

So, all people who claim to be theists but act as though they are not accountable are functional atheists.

True

Do you do what is good for others because you are accountable to God or just because it is the right thing to do?

Consider these 2 questions: does God command it because it's right? Or is it right because God commands it?
The first question is self-contradictory because it assumes (1) that an "ought" can be derived from what is and (2) that a standard exists apart from God to which God is accountable. The 2nd question points to the answer to the problem that an "ought" can't be derived from what is.
If God is love and is the ground of all being, then morality based on love, justice, etc. is grounded in the nature of the universe itself to which we are accountable.If I were a secular humanist, I would still pursue justice and love, but only because doing so gives me satisfaction, not because it is the right thing to do in any epistemologically meaningful sense.

What do you mean by objective truth?

Moral truth that is valid beyond culturally conditioned values, principles of social cohesion, and the subjectively shaped dictates of conscience.

To me objective truth is found by observing the effects of various actions in various situations or learning of others observations.

As a Christian who believes a loving God is the ground of all being, your position is valid. But a selfish atheist might take great satisfaction in the exploitative "effects of various actions" and argue that his personal pleasure is his ultimate standard of morality.

Personally, I feel affirmed within myself when I am able to help someone else which is objective truth for me.

 

[jimkenney12]

So is a person who claims to be a Christian but is completely selfish a Christian?

 

[BetteTheRed]

Here's an example of the fluidity of right and wrong that has always bothered me.

Heard an interview on CBC many years ago. The woman speaking, young, in her late teens, was an adopted Romanian orphan, who had been untouched for her first three years of life. This woman was very articulate, and recognized that, because of her childhood trauma, that she was a psychopath. She had no real choice. She couldn't demand to be locked up for something she might do (she confessed to having harmed animals), but she also recognized the inevitability that she would probably someday murder or severely damage someone.

Who is guilty in this case? The "State"? The parents who tried to help her by adopting her? Who is irredeeemable? It's always haunted me. I wonder what happened.

 

[Waterfall]

Here's an example of the fluidity of right and wrong that has always bothered me.

Heard an interview on CBC many years ago. The woman speaking, young, in her late teens, was an adopted Romanian orphan, who had been untouched for her first three years of life. This woman was very articulate, and recognized that, because of her childhood trauma, that she was a psychopath. She had no real choice. She couldn't demand to be locked up for something she might do (she confessed to having harmed animals), but she also recognized the inevitability that she would probably someday murder or severely damage someone.

Who is guilty in this case? The "State"? The parents who tried to help her by adopting her? Who is irredeeemable? It's always haunted me. I wonder what happened.

She was very honest and self aware, which would make me feel she wasn't irredeemable.
I think even an honest, good person can become something they thought they'd never become if they are suddenly without food and water. Then truth becomes ugly and distorted.

 

[Mystic]

Your question strikes close to home because my brother adopted a 2-year old Philippine orphan girl whose mother was an abusive alcoholic.
I've seen similar adoptions turn out badly, but it was not my place to express my concern. The girl grew up to be a thief and had 2 children out of wedlock, who have been homeless for long periods. In such a case it seems pointless to play the blame game. Yes, she is morally responsible for her poor actions, but it seems arrogant for me to assume that, under similar circumstances, I would turn out better. Her kids absolutely adore gramma and grampa due to their constant loving attention and now seem normal and emotionally healthy as a result. The adopted daughter seems to be finally getting her act together and seem s to now be behaving more responsibly.

I look forward to Mendalla's discussion of Ecclesiastes. One of my takeaways from Ecclesiastes is that the beginning of wisdom is to know what you don't know. Too often we blur the disctinction between accurate insight, opinion, wishful thinking, and bias. I suspect this may apply to your case and mine. So the best question is not how to distribute blame but what can be done now to remedy the situation as much as possible. I know you realize this.

 

[unsafe]

So is a person who claims to be a Christian but is completely selfish a Christian?

The word Christ-ian is only meant in Scripture to mean one is Born Again ---that is they have received Jesus as their Lord and Saviour and have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit ----they have laid down self

So to answer your Question -----No ---Bible claims a selfish person who claims to be a Christian is a False Christian ----they see themselves as white washed on the outside but are really filthy on the inside ----

The Pharisees are a perfect example of being False christians ---they think they do all the right things but do out of selfish motives ----so they get the Glory --not God

 

[Luce NDs]

Anyone who thinks atheists lack a moral compass hasn't done much reading in secular philosophy. Or noticed how many atheists are better behaved than some theists.

God is one path to morality and hasn't always been an especially successful one. If God=morality was such an obvious, simple equation, how do we explain witch burnings, persecution of heretics, religious wars, and so on. And that's not directed at Christianity. We have seen it in many traditions.

Morality and how humans derive moral values is much, much more complex than that.

Yet, there is this drive to be simple ... which ought t' be a hare splitting event ... so that one side goes down while the other Eris cis?

That's logos ... sophisticated sufficiently to leave something B' hind for a second light! Most likely all fogged myth ... bearing clouded psyches ...

Few pious believe in psyches ... due t' the haze in Shenandoah ... rests and dwells in the bottoms ... there Harper's Cross ... co incident between the horizontal and the vertical ... upstanding, ethic thing? Like ET it was there then done gone ... like the humanitarian flash ... unreal! Like mortal word mostly unproved expression ... no doubt! So it folds the gambler states ... a wrinkle ... where?

 

[Luce NDs]

Like id'll come to you as anon ... nothing expressed is a sum zero event ... there are repeat runs at it ... until the proper word is extracted from the right ... might be OCH Mon ... a hawker? Raven mad he was ... to come here and think you could teach the firm anything different! Whose soft in the Sah man, now? Expect transitions ... transmutations as the silent coming forth ...

 

[paradox3]

Good morning everyone. Here Luke 6: 37-39

Bible Gateway passage: Luke 6:37-39 - New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition

Judging Others - “Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap, for the measure you give will...

www.biblegateway.com

To paraphrase this teaching from Jesus, what we do unto others will be done unto us. Jesus begins with the negative (judging, condemning). But the principle also applies to the positive (forgiving, giving).

When it comes to our present day world, there is much wisdom here. Anger often begets anger and generosity of spirit often begets generosity of spirit.

Not always though. There are many exceptions to the rule.

Judge not lest ye be judged. Luke 6:37 (KJV) has made its way into popular culture. It is often assumed to mean divine retribution.

The other possibility is that Jesus is once again describing an insular or utopian community.