PA court rules against privy for Amish

[JaneV2.0]

I'm not a Christian, and certainly not a Bible scholar, but my sense is that the Sermon on the Mount is the defining tenet of Christ's teachings. And as such, is pretty much at odds with all the pious posturers who assert their religiosity in the town square on a regular basis.

[LDAHL]

I'm not a Christian, and certainly not a Bible scholar, but my sense is that the Sermon on the Mount is the defining tenet of Christ's teachings. And as such, is pretty much at odds with all the pious posturers who assert their religiosity in the town square on a regular basis.

I’ve always been partial to “judge not lest ye be judged” myself.

[Williamsmith]

I'm not a Christian, and certainly not a Bible scholar, but my sense is that the Sermon on the Mount is the defining tenet of Christ's teachings. And as such, is pretty much at odds with all the pious posturers who assert their religiosity in the town square on a regular basis.

You have concisely summed up Tolstoy’s , “What I Believe.”

[catherine]

Speaking of the Sermon on the Mount, I'm actually currently reading Eknath Easwaran's commentary on the Beatitudes. It's a fantastic book.

[creaker]

I'm not a Christian, and certainly not a Bible scholar, but my sense is that the Sermon on the Mount is the defining tenet of Christ's teachings. And as such, is pretty much at odds with all the pious posturers who assert their religiosity in the town square on a regular basis.

Me, too. The actual words of Jesus, reported in more than one of the gospels - and probably the most ignored and/or "interpreted" (as in "no, this is what he really meant") passages in the Bible.

[LDAHL]

Until the end of days, people will always be able to make the cheap and easy argument against Christianity that its adherents are insufficiently Christlike. They will be right, in a trivial sort of way. But I think they miss a much larger point about striving to do better. Such sneering, whether well-informed or not, can serve a useful purpose in the humility and self-examination it can promote.

[Packratona!]

The Quaker...Mennonite.......Amish.....May argue:

Matthew 23...The Sermon on the Mount or the Creed is quite clear that the individual Christian response to evil is non resistance (pacifism). And there is no exception given to organized government to resist evil with force. This is an invention of man, who was not willing to accept the simplicity of the doctrine and the radical change it would bring about.

And so the organized church taught that it was fine for Christians to participate in violence as long as the organized church deemed it righteous. The question always has been, how does a Christian enter an army and prepare him or herself to murder other men or women or children in direct contradiction of the commandments of Christ? First, is a Christian permitted to judge evil from good? If so, How does a Christian choose what force and punishment to apply and finally how can any Christian be drafted to go against the commandments in the sermon? Either these simple doctrines apply......or they don’t.

Personally, I think that if the person who orated the Sermon on the Mount was a traditional Jew, (not a Christian), then what he spoke necessarily needs to be considered in the context including linguistic, of traditional Jewish belief and practices. That would differ profoundly from the Christian meaning and application of it.

[Packratona!]

I’ve always been partial to “judge not lest ye be judged” myself.

Depends on what the word "judge" meant in that religious and linguistic context of the speaker and original listeners. Could be interpreted many different ways. We do not live in a perfect world, so judication is necessary. I believe that the person who made this statement was well aware of this. But the point I believe he was making is, it must be done extremely cautiously, and only by those qualified to do it. If it involves punishment, especially.