Spider>

You stated...
'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.'

I take the term 'pearls before swine' to mean something totally
different.

If you throw peals in front of hungry swine rather than food... in their
hunger for something to eat they may eat you.

What you see as a pearl my only be a pretty (and useless) bauble to a
person that is hungry and in need of food of substance.

Was that for me?? o you think I was attacking you? ot so.
I was merely making comment to my interpretation of the quote.

Spider said it more clearly than me.

To think I was attacking anyone is in effect attacking me. I never do
that, ever.

It is my opinion, a verse to wisdom, or mentality. Or lack of. The
differences in intellect or beliefs. This can be strewn about by all
sides.

Kat

Dang it. Excuse my typos.

What am I?

Am I an athiest because I believe in an inherent order to the universe
that has nothing to do with a big head in the sky?

Am I a Christian because I believe in treating others as I would like to
be treated?

Am I Gnostic because I believe in the responsibility of a personal
relationship based in knowledge with that which can be called God?

Am I Taoist because I believe in flow and harmony with my surroundings?

Am I Buddhist because I believe the path to enlightenment comes from
mindfulness and non-attachment?

Am I pagan because I welcome each new moon with fresh eyes and
hope....and love the connection the Native Americans have with the
animals and the land.

Am I a disciple of the church of the naive fool because I live from a
place of humility and gratitude...and believe in the inherent goodness
of people?


When I am in the mountains where the air ... just sounds different.
Where all at once I feel feel incredibly big and incredibly small and
part of everything. Where I ask questions and the answers just come -
in my head ... or someone will say something ... or I am compelled to
pick up a book that when I open it has just the information I needed at
that moment.

What does it matter why that happened? Who cares if it is Divine
intervention or the universal law of attraction or mere coincidence. I
am just grateful when it happens. How I define that experience is mine
to own.

What does it matter which teaching I pick up? We are discerning human
beings. We are exposed to varying perspectives all the time. I pick up
what resonates with me and I let that which doesn't sit on the floor
where it lay.

It is through my expanded vision that I can embrace varying perspectives
and have them live in harmony within me. The notion of separate is
foreign to me therefore the idea that one religion or dogma is correct
while others are not makes no sense.

Some people believe in an afterlife, some people don't. So what is the
worst that will happen? If you don't and there is one ... won't you be
surprised when you die.

And while you are holding up the line to the light trying to figure out
what just happened and where you are, I will be the one at the back
saying yes you are here, you are safe, would you mind moving it along
please.

If you do believe in an aferlife and there isn't one. When you die, you
won't know the difference anyway.

We do like to put people in boxes and dress them up with fancy labels.
Put me in whatever box you like, I won't stay in it anyway.




Oink oink

Hey gurl. That was awesome. I'm gonna read that again.And again.
Kat

Hmmm, seems to me like you follow the label of "new age" which is often
a combination of varying "pagan" and "orthodox" beliefs. Other "rituals"
that are a part of this belief system are Reiki, meditation, and a
belief in the healing power of energy. Often there is an additional
connection to Jungian and Ericsonian disciplines. *Tomo draws
a big box*

I feel claustrophobic already ... where's the window?

*points to window* Well, there is a lot to be said for the individuality
of every person. Just because you are grouped doesn't take away your
ability to be unique. That would be like saying we are all the same
because we all have heads. Just because we all have heads doesn't mean
we are all the same, it just means that "heads" is a trait shared by
that group-excluding the other features that makes you a unique
individual.

Spidercmb,

You're doing it again. We had covered that together quite a few posts
back.

Someone expresses a different perpective from yours, and you take
offense to it, it seems. You then proceed to judge that person as a
swine, and tell him (namely me), "... you STILL don't seem to get it",
in defense of your doctrine.

I said it before, I have all the respect in the world for the fact that
YOU clearly believe in an absolute truth above all other possible
truths. The truth of thruths, given by YOUR God of all Gods: the one and
only. Among those truths of thruth, YOU hold is this 3 point lesson :
1. Judge others fairly
2. Don't be a hypocrite
3. Don't offer advice to someone who won't accept it.

Believe me I got it: YOU really believe in that, and I don't suggest
you should stop believing in whatever it is that YOU belive in,
including this 3 step lesson.

Again don't venture in intellectual bankruptcy, it doesn't serve you.

For myself, (and obviously at this time, NOT FOR YOU)
... judging my brothers and sisters is absolutely redundant, whether it
is 'fairly' or otherwise.

Again, for me, judging belongs to our primitve brain, and all things of
the primitive brain is taken care of without any need for us to
intervene consciusly. You don't need to think about breathing, you don't
need to manage the carrying of nutrients and oxygen to every cell of
your system, you don't need to think about judging. It all happens
instinctively. And it is marvelous that way, I might add.

Where our thinking, which distinguishes us from other primates, could
kick in (not always, that'S the free choice we have) is distinguishing
whether our instinctive (primitive) reactions to everything that happens
aroundus, is pertinent: necessary or not. If we get to think about, it
is most likely that it is not necessary.

In my relation to other human beings, unless, again, they're coming at
me with a baseball bat, ... I AM NOT IN DANGER!!! ... and there is no
need for fear, judgement, correction, fighting, arguing, defending and
all the rest of that primitive stuff. If I do not disengage the
automatic intincts, I will invent the illusion of danger, where there is
none. The funny part is, I will act consistent with the danger I've
invented, and not with what is really unfolding. A self fulfilling
prophecy.

The example you brought up about a man and his daughter, in my profond
conviction, is the perfect example where judgement needs to be
interrupted, not enforced.

There is no threat to 'you'. You're not involved in the illusion of
danger. You have no use for judging on a fight-or-flight basis. There
is no use for administering a correction either.

The father and daughter are in survival mode, NOT YOU. In survival, NO
LOVE, NO GRACE, AND NO SPIRIT are PRESENT TO THE MOMENTARY SURVIVAL MODE
INDIVIDUALS.

In my conviction the last to do, is adding your 'self' (ego in this
case) to the survival equation through judgement and correction.
Like the kid being afraid of a 'monster in the closet', father and
daughter have an illusion of 'danger' which separates them from the
presence of their love.

What's required here is someone chosing to come from LOVE (PRESENCE OF
WHICH THEY NEED TO BE REMINDED OF: not judgement).
unconditional love within 'self', grace and spirit, free of judging
their situation, or judging them.

They'll each handle cleaning up the space between each other the moment
love will have been restored. There is no need on yours, or anyone' part
IMO, to administer 'correction'.

Who are we to judge. Who are we to decide that 'correction' is needed.
And who are we to decide that we're the ones to provide this
'moralizing' correction.

That's all coming from a view that there is SOMETHING wrong, and that
SOMEONE is wrong, and your only job is to bring 'correction'. It's all
from that primitive, instinctive brain of ours.
And while you busy your energy to that survival paradigm, the paradigm
of the spritit and the grace is wating, ... and missing, cause no one
is there to carry it.

I understand your 3 step approach. I don't subscribe to it personnally,
but I understand it, and I am not trying to convince you of anything.

I am merely stating MY personal convictions. The fact that my conviction
on the subject is different from your conviction on the subject, is of
no importance. We are clear about our difference on this subject, so is
everyone else probably at this time. Difference of convictions, is
good. And freedom to our legitimate conviction is one of the greatest
gift life has to offer.

Don't be offended by convictions, they are not intended to offend
anyone. And please, let me decide for myself about the corrections
I'll bring in my life.

Thanks Spidercmb.

Bravo

voileazur,

I was explaining the lesson that Jesus taught. I didn't tell you that
you had to live your life by it. When I said "you still don't get it",
it was because you just don't understand the lesson. I wasn't angry or
offended and I most certainly didn't call you a swine, although you are
acting like one now. You made comments about the lesson that Jesus
taught that just weren't true. I understand that you think everything
is relative, when Jesus said "Be nice to each other" you heard "Hate one
another", but the fact is, WORDS HAVE MEANINGS. You are taking the
lesson as an insult and an immoral call to treat people unfairly. You
got the lesson wrong, it's as simple as that. Some people understood my
commentary, but you refuse to. I won't speculate as to why that is, all
I know is that you refuse. I wasn't trying to force my beliefs on you,
I was correcting your understanding of a lesson Jesus taught. If you
had said "When Jesus said to love your neighbor, he meant to have sex
with them", I would have corrected you just the same. I don't care if
you agree with Jesus or not, but I think it is derogetory to my religion
for you to state falsehoods. I think it's remarkable that only someone
as openminded as you can be so close minded.

Spider wrote:
“I was correcting your understanding of a lesson Jesus taught”

Are you an ordained minister Spider?

I personally believe that you are treading extremely dangerous water
when you claim to be ‘correcting’ other people’s interpretation of
anything.

I totally agree with Voilezur when he speaks about your arrogance of
assuming to be ‘correcting’ other people’s views.

If you wish to state your views that’s one thing. Telling other people
that you are ‘correcting’ them is nothing short of arrogance. There's
just no other way to put it.

reading this bring up a question ... so I will just ask it...

Who is to say what Jesus meant? How can we be sure and who decides?




I am reminded of my studies in art history where we spoke at great
length about an artist who had been dead for hundreds of years. People
... art historians, instructors, general folk ... make decisions and
judgments about what that artist meant with a particular painting.

They created all sorts of stories about what it was, what it meant, its
place in history, how it was influenced. Their opinions varied. What
if none of them are right? How can you know the intention of a person?

And their interpretation is just that ... their interpretation...


I was at an art openning for a show on domestic violence a few years
ago. A group had congregated around a man as he descibed a painting to
his following of eager eared people.

He spoke about the piece describing what it was, what the artist meant
by it, what the influences were, it's place in history, where the
inspiration came from, how it was relevant, what the context of it
was...

...it was all very impressive. I stood there absorbing it all with
everyone else.

A few other artists were lined up on the opposite wall observing because
they knew what that man didn't...they knew that I was the artist of the
piece.

He interpreted my painting through his own filters. It made sense to
him within the confines of what he thought he knew.

Did it match with the message and the intention of the artist? Some of
it did, much of it did not and I have no idea where some of it came
from.

He preached his truth like gospel...yet his vision was incomplete. How
could he know the intention of the artist?


Now that just makes me curious about we perceive the bible, or the torah
or any of the ultimate truth books.

...just a question and am interested in perspectives...

Spider>

what makes you feel that you need to 'correct' anyone. Each of us is a
vessel. Each holds its own measure. Pouring your measure into my
vessel will only spill that measure upon the ground. My cup is full
with the glory of god.

I do not need the wisdom of spider.

Abra, you correct other peoples' understanding of evolution when they
get it wrong. True, there is far more room for interpretation in Jesus'
stories then there is in evolutionary theory, but the 'pearls before
swine' story is entirely new to Voil, and Spider is attempting to flesh
out the context for it.

Hmmm... I have the impression that people have seen a certain kinds of
behavior on Spider's part elsewhere, and may carry that experience into
this exchange, perhaps jumping to some conclusions about what he is
really doing here.

Messagetrade wrote:
"Abra, you correct other peoples' understanding of evolution when they
get it wrong."

I was correcting other people's falsehoods concerning what is actually
scientifically known. I never corrected anyone on their
‘interpretation’ of anything.

Correcting people on their interpretation of philosophical parables is a
whole differnet matter entirely.

Abracadabra wrote:

Are you an ordained minister Spider?

I personally believe that you are treading extremely dangerous water
when you claim to be ‘correcting’ other people’s interpretation of
anything.

I totally agree with Voilezur when he speaks about your arrogance of
assuming to be ‘correcting’ other people’s views.

If you wish to state your views that’s one thing. Telling other people
that you are ‘correcting’ them is nothing short of arrogance. There's
just no other way to put it.

==============================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

All Christians are commanded to be ministers. I am a minister, because
I teach the Gospel. I am not ordained, but being ordained only means
that you are qualified to minister to other ministers.

It is arrogant for someone to take Christians scriptures out of context
and deride Christians who try to put the scriptures back into context.
I don't know the religion of you or anyone else who has insulted and
attacked me. But if I did know about your religion, I would try to
correct you in your own beliefs or re-interpret your scriptures. That
is ignorant and arrogant. How is it arrogant to explain to him what
those scriptures mean? Words have meanings. Jesus meant to convey a
message when he said those words. The meaning of those words is
accepted and understood by Christians. So how is it arrogant to inform
him that his interpretation is not correct? You are doing exactly what
you accuse me of doing. How can you and others write untrue things
about Jesus and expect me to not say anything in defense of the truth?
If the situation were reversed, you would be telling me how arrogant I
am for trying to interpret his Holy scriptures in a negative light when
the interpretation is already clearly understood.

Let me be perfectly clear. I was explaining what the scriptures mean. I
was not telling anyone how to live their life. I wanted to clear up any
misunderstandings of what Matthew 7:1-6 teaches. I had no desire to
force anyone to believe the way I do. Everyone is entitled to their
opinions, but to have a opinion in variance with the facts is stupid.
What Matthew 7:1-6 teaches is not subjective, it is objective; opinions
are only valid when the object of the opinion is subjective.

Abra, Yes, you are right that it is another matter altogether. But
just because there may be many justifiable interpretations of a teaching
does not make all interpretations equal, or all justified.

massagetrade wrote:

Hmmm... I have the impression that people have seen a certain kinds of
behavior on Spider's part elsewhere, and may carry that experience into
this exchange, perhaps jumping to some conclusions about what he is
really doing here.

============================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

Please read what I have written and judge me yourself. I have been
active over the past couple days in several threads. I have no agenda
other than to explain and defend Christianity.