Matthew 7:6
Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before
swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you
to pieces.(Or rend you.)

What that says to me is that when we learn the mysteries of the words of
Jesus, (actively seeking knowledge). It will be revealed to us.
But to try and make believers of those that do not believe, could turn
on us and kill our spirit. So not to put ones self in the position to be
eaten up, so to speak.
And those that have contempt or irreverence for what is sacred will be
swown the truth. Perhaps, in the end times?

Kat

Dud, *shown.

HUMMMM!!!

Who among us are pearls, and who are swine???

I guess that is the rich, humbling and yet unanswerable question
here?!?!?!

Thanks Kat.

Wow Spider, I hadn't realized that was a biblical quote- interesting
comment bl8ant, although I do wonder what your metric is for
determining swine...

Wow great discussion going on over all though.

For starters, neturselia, no worries, my post was not an accusation
towards ANYONE, nor have I taken anything said personally. I don't
debate for the sake of debate, but rather to clarify various issues.

Abra, man we have fun here don't we? Ok, so about my "assumption
of a semantic definition"...
The reason why we have specific language is to establish common ground.
You can call a shovel a pitchfork, but it's still a shovel, no semantics
about it. Therefore, when every accepted definition of religion involves
the phrase "set of beliefs" that negates an argument of semantics. We
aren't talking about the difference between saying off-white and
mother-of-pearl, we are talking about what elements comprise religion.

So let's look at your argument closely.

"Christianity is a perfect example of a religion. It is firmly based on
doctrine and would have absolutely no meaning if that doctrine were
dismissed as being completely irrelevant. That would mean that the
religion would need to survive without any knowledge of any of the
stories in the bible including any mention of the story of Jesus.
Clearly Christianity would cease to exist without its doctrine.
Christianity is all about believing in its doctrine. And that doctrine
requires certain practices and rituals. The simple requirement that a
Christian must accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior is the most
obvious ritual associated with this religion, but there are many other
commandments that are required of the followers of this faith too."

"a·the·ism /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

So, using your argument, the only thing needed to make your belief
without meaning, is to dismiss it's doctrine, which you describe
throughout your post. As for "rituals", those are merely things that
comprise belief. For example, the Universal Life Church has only 2
doctrines, no rituals, and is an established religion. Their doctrines
are "Only do what is right." and "You determine what is right."

By contrast, you have a number of doctrines in your "religion" (I'll put
it in quotes for now). 1. Belief in God (you have a disagreement as to
the nature of this entity/being/etc. but it does involve belief.) 2.
Keep in mind lack of association does not equal denunciation- however
you not only denounce religion, but also disassociate yourself from it,
categorically. The only apparent reason is that the word "religion" to
you has a negative connotation, seeing as you don't agree with the
definitions that lump your beliefs in with that of Christians. 3. Your
assumption that atheists believe in God is slightly flawed because
atheists, by definition, believe there is no God. Those that believe in
God but do not associate with religion are generally considered
non-secular or Agnostic.
4. Claiming you can experience you God via direct experience is similar
to Christian statements of "experiencing the divine", and about as
verifiable as near-death experiences.
5. I had mentioned this before, but cave-man is a nice segue way, but
cave-men would likely be Shinto, a religion you might find appealing if
you can rationalize the idea of Kami.
6. A semantic point, but a point none-the-less, people don't worship
doctrine. They worship a deity. The doctrine is just how they choose to
worship. Whether that be by enjoying life or eating an unsalted cracker,
doctrine is doctrine and a deity is a deity.

"It’s totally unimportant to god what a person believes. But
what is taught about god may very well be important to the future of
humanity." - I just like this quote of yours, because I feel the same
way.

It is not for me to say. It is just my opinion on what that phrase
means.

I meant no harm. I suppose that what I said could be taken on either
side of this issue.

Kat

To answer questions about Matthew 7:6, I will give a brief commentary on
this lesson that Jesus taught, hopefully without offending too many
people.

Matthew 7:1-2
----------------------------------------------------------
"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge,
you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured
to you."
----------------------------------------------------------

This is Jesus telling us that we should judge fairly, because the
measure we use will be used when He judges us.

Matthew 7:3-5
----------------------------------------------------------
"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not
notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your
brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is
in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye,
and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's
eye."
----------------------------------------------------------

This lesson is very simple, "Don't be a hypocrite". This lesson assumes
you have learned the lesson taught in Matthew 7:1-2, so you are judging
fairly, but you have being hypocritical by judging someone for something
you do yourself.

Matthew 7:6
----------------------------------------------------------
"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before
swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you
to pieces."
----------------------------------------------------------

This lesson assumes that you have learned both of the previous lessons.
You judge others fairly and you are not a hypocrite. The lesson tell us
this: Don't waste your time trying to teach (correct) people who don't
want to be taught. Any advice you give someone who isn't open to
correction with be taken as an attack and they will attack you.

Scttrbrain, I haven't forgotten you, I just noticed my post was growing
kind of long, and I wanted to make sure it didn't get too long.

Good points, all of them. As far as Atheistic schools, unfortunately
even though this is "the land of the free", we are still limited by
tradition and folkways; the majority tend to control our culture, and
the majority tends to be rabidly anti-atheistic. Besides with the
mis-informed idea that religion can't coexist with science, atheism is
introduced in other, subtle ways. Over all though, I think the biggest
hindrance to the spread of atheism is the lack of culture it inhabits.
Same goes for libertarians (myself included). While we are a political
affiliation, we are loosely connected by virtue of the independence that
is the hallmark of our beliefs.

voileazur, hmmm, I haven't addressed any of your comments yet, and I
always want to-truly you have a unique outlook. Let me start off by
saying that I mostly agree-labels are unnecessary, however, when I say
you look like Locke from Lost, without labels you couldn't tell if that
was Good, Bad, or a death threat. Labels, like knives, have their
purpose. It's the intention that makes all the difference, at least in
my opinion.

"For a religion to exist, there first must be an official body of dogma
and practices wich establish the rapports of practitioners to their form
of divine. It must also comprise a dimension of ritualistic vows or
commitmemts, to respect and obey the dogma and rules of an officiating
body: usually the church. This church then has power over the proper or
improper conduct of its practitioners." -See, I think you are mistaking
religion, for institutionalized religion. An agnostic still has
religion, even as a Samurai religiously follows his code. There are
people who religiously drink coffee at breakfast, and of course there
are schizophrenics who have no known religious beliefs. You don't get
expelled or excommunicated from the Shinto or Bhuddist religions, and
excommunication hasn't been used by even the Catholic Church for quite
some time to the best of my knowledge. Like Scatter said, Not believing
is the same as belief in a non-existence.

The funny part about that quote though, is appears to me that you must
adopt a paradigm of US vs THEM again.

Furthermore, you must appoint yourself as the enlightened one (pearl),
and make a judgement on the pagan or unworthy one (swine). That is
pretty obnoxious!!!

I'm working non-stop (hard job) to keep my 'arrogant' and 'jugemental'
tendencies in check. I fail a lot. But keep working at it. And anything
from the US vs THEM, or ME vs YOU paradigm is going to fall short of
helping.

How primitive, barbaric, and dark a paradigm of separation that is.

But then again, on the other side of the separation coin, if I become
clear that someone has judged me as 'unworthy' from his 'separate'
perspective, I, all of my own free will, can still chose to be 'whole'
and 'one' with this brother.

I can chose to include the illusion of separation, for what it is: an
illusion, not real, therefore not 'separating' unless one gives it
credence.

A kid whom tells you he has seen a 'monster' in his closet, for the kid,
the monster is real (not an illusion to him).

Hopefully the parent has long dealt with that one, and while not making
fun of the child's 'monster reality', will not start believing in the
illusion of the monster in the closet. A bit of light and (make-light),
and the 'Whole' and 'one-us' becomes present, without ever addressing
the exact nature of 'the monster'.

SORRY!!!

Just in case, the quote I'm referring to is the 'pearls to swine' quote.

voileazur,

No, that scripture shows that people are different. Everybody is
different and unique, everyone has a different degree of intellectual
and emotional capabilities. If someone is not open to correction, they
will take it as an attack. If someone is open, honest and willing to
listen, they will take a correction for what it is. The pearl is not a
person, it is wisdom. Don't offer wisdom to someone who will take it as
an insult or attack. I am chalking up your misunderstanding to language
barrier, because you have stated your native language is French and not
English.

I like that, because, quite frankly, I don't let the beliefs and actions
of others determine my behavior. If someone is a moron, racist, thief,
mass-murderer, mime, etc.; it won't effect the way I treat them one
iota.

Spider>

All things are subject to interpretation based upon an individuals
knowledge and experiance.

Pearls could be any number of things as could be swine. The number of
meanings could be as vast as the number of humans in existance at any
one time.

Or as small as two. (each believing themselves and their wisdom to be
the pearl).

Which are you?

AdventureBegins,

Matthew 7:1-6 teaches three lesson. If you look at them as individual
lessons, it makes very little sense for them to be presented one after
the other. But if you take them as three lessons that are tied
together...Don't judge others unfairly, don't be a hypocrite and don't
try to correct anyone who isn't open for correction, then you see that
it is one coherent lesson where Jesus is teaching us how to judge and
correct others the right way.

You could take "do not throw your pearls before swine" as a spiritual
lesson, that you could apply to many situations. But in the context it
is presented, I have given an accurate commentary.

Thanks for your concern 'Spidercmb', but I don't think this one (pearls
to swine quote) is lost to translation.

AB pretty well formulates in his words what I raised before.

Who's so sure that he his distributing 'pearls', and furthermore,
appoints himself or herself 'judge' of 'swine'.

As I said before, and AB raised again, how do you answer the question :
distributor of pearls, or closed to pearls, thus swine??? Where do
you appoint yourself???

I suggest the question can't be answered by any individual. But it is
worth raising it as a reminder of our arrogance and judgemental
tendencies, as a means of dropping our righteous ways, and getting back
to the essential 'whole'.

we are not seperate......at any given moment we are each pearls and
swine...we use these metaphors as mirrors to see what's what ...to
notice and also recognize the constructs of the ego...

in this case it is beautiful because we all play both sides for each
other....


i found it rather amusing

Spidercmb,

"Don't judge others unfairly,..."
Judging is a defensive mechanism from the primitive brain. Like fear, it
is intinctive. When you apply neo-cortex functions to 'judging', you're
adding chocolate icing on top of your chocolate icing. It is redundant.
Judging happens instinctively. Judging fairly doesn't exist. It's a
trick of the neo-cortex. There is only judging. My job as an
'candidate' to enlightement, is raise above my primitiv instincts, and
distinguish between my fight-and-flight useful primate mechanisms
(judging the difference between someone coming at me with a cake, from
someone coming at me with a baseball bat!!!) all automatic unless I'm
under the 'influence', and the self appointed right I would give myself
(arbitrarily) to judge my brother or sister.

My work on earth is to trust 'soul', and listen to it, when it tells me
the difference, such that I can chose to INTERRUPT judgement.

In that space of grace:
NO need for 'PEARLS VS SWINE' paradigm,
It's 'ALL PEARLS' !!!

don't be a hypocrite and don't
try to correct anyone who isn't open for correction, then you see that
it is one coherent lesson where Jesus is teaching us how to judge and
correct others the right way.

I propose a toast :

" TO ... all the pearl cultivating swines of the planet earth!!!,

... may we all celebrate our swine nature, and may we all together, be
inspired by the infinite variety and wisdom of PEARLS OF THE
UNIVERSE!!!."

voileazur,

You still don't seem to get it, the lessons goes both way. Let me give
you an example.

The lesson was this:
1. Judge others fairly
2. Don't be a hypocrite
3. Don't offer advice to someone who won't accept it.

Alec Balwin calls his daughter and leaves a insulting profanity filled
rant.

1. Judge others fairly: You take into account that he has suffered
parental alienation, but you still feel that he has no excuse for using
that kind of language with his daughter.
2. Don't be a hypocrite: You don't use that kind of language with
anyone, escpecially your children, so move on to #3.
3. You talk to Alec Balwin and suggest that he seek anger and parent
counciling.

Now it's Alec's turn:

1. Judge others fairly: Alec can tell by the way you speak to him that
you are truely concerned about him and his daughter.
2. Don't be a hypocrite: Alec realizes that he wouldn't allow another
person to talk to his daughter the way he did.
<<<BREAK>>>
Alec Baldwin realizes that he has been a hypocrite by treating his
daughter in a way that he wouldn't allow anyone else, even her mother,
to treat her.

In this way, Alec Baldwin learns an important lesson and receives
correction from someone who is interested in his best interests.

In the example above, if nobody ever judge Alec Baldwin, he might
continue talking to his daughter in the manner of his phone message,
which I think we can all agree, would not be a good situation for him or
his daughter.

If you apply these three lessons to your life perfectly, you will be
able to give helpful advice and comfort to those who need it and you
will also never been a dog or swine. None of us are perfect, but if you
practice these lessons to your life, you will still be able to give
helpful advice and you will be the dog/swine less and less often in your
life.

Nice

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie is a hypothetical being that is
indistinguishable from a normal human being except that it lacks
conscious experience, qualia, sentience, or sapience. When a zombie is
poked with a sharp object, for example, it does not feel any pain. It
behaves exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "Ouch!" and so
forth), but it does not actually have the experience of pain as a person
normally does.

A philosophical zombie could not tell the difference in a real pearl and
an imagined pearl.