Have you ever been tempted to call someone a fool? If avoid and charges of hypocricy and perhaps ameliorate your chances of going to heaven, you are well advised to take these Jesus's words serious;

Matthew 5

21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.'
22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell

Don't say you were never warned.

huxley:

Don't say you were never warned.

Well, huxley, . . . in as much as you sound the warning, don't you suppose that the warner also himself ought to pay heed to the warning he sounds?

Huxley, Plus_queen pointed out a very important part of that warning to you ignored.

Again, anyone who says to his brother

You're neither my physical nor my spiritual brother so i'm not bound by the warning if indeed i call you out on your folly.

davidylan*:

Huxley, Plus_queen pointed out a very important part of that warning to you ignored.

Again, anyone who says to his brother

You're neither my physical nor my spiritual brother so i'm not bound by the warning if indeed i call you out on your folly.

Funny. Let's take this argument as far as it could go;

In what sense is brother used in this context? Was it meant as a biological brother, a spiritual brother, a kinship brother. Is it possible to tell from the context?

Now, if Jesus was representing a new dispensation (covenant) for mankind, is there any reason he would have wanted to narrow down the definition to mean only those within a small coterie of people? I call this the sectarian approach. Is there any other evidence in Jesus pronoucements where he is seen to be espousing sectarian ideals? I submit, there is plenty;

"Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6).

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24).

Ok, given that Jesus expressed such sectarian sentiments, are we to read "brother" in a sectarian sense? I submit there is a strong case for that given Jesus's own sentiments.


The other approach which I tend to favour is to read it as a all-world or universal approach. I call this the humankind approach. In this sense, Jesus, as the claim universal saviour of mankind, meant brother to mean all humans all over the world, including females (and intersexuals). In this approach, Jesus is signaling his sympathies with all of humankind and the need for politeness in human discourse.

What do you guys think?

huxley:

Funny. Let's take this argument as far as it could go;

In what sense is brother used in this context? Was it meant as a biological brother, a spiritual brother, a kinship brother. Is it possible to tell from the context?

Now, if Jesus was representing a new dispensation (covenant) for mankind, is there any reason he would have wanted to narrow down the definition to mean only those within a small coterie of people? I call this the sectarian approach. Is there any other evidence in Jesus pronoucements where he is seen to be espousing sectarian ideals? I submit, there is plenty;

"Do not go among the Gentiles, or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6).

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24).

Ok, given that Jesus expressed such sectarian sentiments, are we to read "brother" in a sectarian sense? I submit there is a strong case for that given Jesus's own sentiments.

this is a typical athiest outlook. Is it sectarian if people born in America refer to themselves as citizens and you as an illegal alien?

The bible is clear on who is a brother . . . members of the household of faith. If you want to be a part of it then understand that there are rules to follow and a prescribed route of entry. if you do not wish to be a part of this brotherhood of faith then by all means feel free not to.

huxley:

The other approach which I tend to favour is to read it as a all-world or universal approach. I call this the humankind approach. In this sense, Jesus, as the claim universal saviour of mankind, meant brother to mean all humans all over the world, including females (and intersexuals). In this approach, Jesus is signaling his sympathies with all of humankind and the need for politeness in human discourse.

What do you guys think?

This humanistic approach is flawed.
Christ came to die for ALL mankind, however He cant force all mankind to accept Him.

You cant constantly struggle to force christian "benefits" into a humankind approach while ignoring the prerequisites.

davidylan*:

this is a typical athiest outlook. Is it sectarian if people born in America refer to themselves as citizens and you as an illegal alien?

The bible is clear on who is a brother . . . members of the household of faith. If you want to be a part of it then understand that there are rules to follow and a prescribed route of entry. if you do not wish to be a part of this brotherhood of faith then by all means feel free not to.

This humanistic approach is flawed.
Christ came to die for ALL mankind, however He can't force all mankind to accept Him.

You can't constantly struggle to force christian "benefits" into a humankind approach while ignoring the prerequisites.

Yours is quite an inappropriate and bizarre analogy. Let me show you why.

Fristly, are you suggesting that Jesus's (God's) injunctions are on a par with human ones? the epiteths "citizens" and "illegal alien" are simply meant to convey one status vis-a-vis a country or state. They are not meant as insulting or derogatory connotations. I have many friends in the UK who at one time or another have been illegal aliens until their status was regularised.

However, the word "fool" is meant as an insult and to injure feelings. If an American citizen were to call you an illegal alien or a fool - which would you find most hurtful?

The bible is clear on who is a brother . . . members of the household of faith.

Where is the bible clear on who constitute a brother? Chapter and verse, please!

Are you in the same household of faith with Lutheran, Methodist, Mormons, Jews, Muslim, etc?

huxley:

Yours is quite an inappropriate and bizarre analogy. Let me show you why.

Fristly, are you suggesting that Jesus's (God's) injunctions are on a par with human ones? the epiteths "citizens" and "illegal alien" are simply meant to convey one status vis-a-vis a country or state. They are not meant as insulting or derogatory connotations. I have many friends in the UK who at one time or another have been illegal aliens until their status was regularised.

However, the word "fool" is meant as an insult and to injure feelings. If an American citizen were to call you an illegal alien or a fool - which would you find most hurtful?

depends on what you assume "fool" means. See bold, i've had that excuse used one too many times here its becoming ridiculous. You use the physical to understand the spiritual.

huxley:

Where is the bible clear on who constitute a brother? Chapter and verse, please!

Are you in the same household of faith with Lutheran, Methodist, Mormons, Jews, Muslim, etc?

Matthew 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

davidylan*:

depends on what you assume "fool" means. See bold, i've had that excuse used one too many times here its becoming ridiculous. You use the physical to understand the spiritual.

Matthew 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Thanks for that Matt passage. I cannot say I had any lasting memory of it.

But it would still be difficult to know who your brother is, since it is really for god to know. Didn't Jesus say somewhere "Not everyone who says Lord, Lord shall be his disciple . . ."

So since it is beyond humans to read other humans hearts and minds, you can never really know who is your brother.

huxley:

Thanks for that Matt passage. I cannot say I had any lasting memory of it.

But it would still be difficult to know who your brother is, since it is really for god to know. Didn't Jesus say somewhere "Not everyone who says Lord, Lord shall be his disciple . . ."

So since it is beyond humans to read other humans hearts and minds, you can never really know who is your brother.

you have a point. But since we can to a certain extent tell who is a brother or not "by their fruits", its clear you're not.

Matt 7:

21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

davidylan*:

you have a point. But since we can to a certain extent tell who is a brother or not "by their fruits", its clear you're not.

Never mind me. I don't really care about my afterlife. If you or your ilk wish to call me fool, it doesn't really bother me.

I am really concerned about consistency and logicality in the doctrine and teachings of Jesus. On the one hand he forbads his followers calling each other fools, and yet he doesn't give these same followers the means of identifying who are the really true followers, rather than the deceitful hanger-ons.

huxley:

I am really concerned about consistency and logicality in the doctrine and teachings of Jesus. On the one hand he forbads his followers calling each other fools, and yet he doesn't give these same followers the means of identifying who are the really true followers, rather than the deceitful hanger-ons.

[size=14pt]Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.[/size]

What nonsense are you talking about? Did you read the entire bible before coming up with your false "concern" for consistency?

davidylan*:

[size=14pt]Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.[/size]

What nonsense are you talking about? Did you read the entire bible before coming up with your false "concern" for consistency?

Then what is the following palaver about:

[size=18pt]Matt 7:

21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." [/size]

huxley:


Then what is the following palaver about:

what's your problem with that?