Christianity moral or immoral? Sermon on the Mount

[Gawen]

*First I must mention that this does not delve into the Divine Command theory of ethics (except for one instance), Jesus' historicity, redactions, mis-transliterations, virtue ethics, Utilitarianism, authorship and dating of the Gospels and I do not refer to the misnomer of the Hebrew Bible, known by Christians as the Old Testament (I find it an insult to Jews and I am not even Jewish)*

INTRODUCTION

I thought it might be best to start a new thread instead of wading through 8 pages to get to the next installment. In the parent thread,
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8288.0
I asserted that Christianity is immoral by listing certain precepts (amongst other things) of that religion. Here, I would compare the Ten Commandments to the Sermon on the Mount, one sermon that Christians see as paradisiacal, the sermon some would call the Jesus Manifesto. Of course, there will be a great deal of commentary.
*Edited to add 23 Oct 2011: The comparison to the 10C's was lacking. Tremendously lacking. As I went through the Sermon, it became clear that there really is no comparison to the 10C's, although there are some allusions to it.
I have never made use of a thesaurus like I did in this...*chucklin*

Most Christians have a glowingly loving image of Jesus and will often refer to and defer to his alleged highly ethical standards and morality. Even nominal Christians and many non-Christians have considered Jesus to be one of history's great "moral teachers". Is this image of Jesus' accurate? Does he stand up under scrutiny? I intend to explore that issue and hope to shed some light on a matter in a depth never discussed when I was at church. If I cannot shed light, I at least hope to raise more questions than Jesus himself would have a difficult time in answering.

One may find it odd that the more fundamental sort of Christian makes a big issue out of the usual set of Ten Commandments and not the Sermon on the Mount, despite their professed adoration of it. I would suppose the lack of intense adorability and devotion over the SotM is not quite the same because the Sermon's diktats are not featured on, inside of or in front of government buildings. At any rate, fundamental Christians claim they worship Christ, yet they ignore that collection of his teachings. It is equally odd that liberal Christians seem to ignore the Sermon on the Mount altogether.

The Divine Command ethics in the Hebrew Bible generally do not explain their reasoning in any other way than that God commands them. The utility of some commandments can be surmised; others conjectured. Many seem to be embedded in ancient cultural or cult-like connections. Most modern readers would ordinarily regard as unethical and immoral many of God's commands, such as the numerous examples of commanding the slaughter of whole peoples. Furthermore, the ethical injunctions are not laid out in a systematic form; murder may be discussed in one section, while the next may deal with a different topic. God's ethics and morality are the way of life for his chosen people on Earth while, in contrast, the ethics of Jesus' chosen people is one of salvation for the afterlife, for the end is near and the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

Ironically, the New Testament's instructions are viewed by most Christians as a manual for living life - for the afterlife, as a "true Christian". The key element of Christian theology (all of which is based on faith) is that the Bible is divinely inspired or, to some, the literal word of God. These Christians claim the Bible as divine and authoritative and that the themes present in the book transcend wisdom and intelligence. Some specifically claim the SotM as an obvious example of the divine nature of Jesus, asserting that one need only read the sermon to see that these are indeed the words of God.

I came away with an entirely different view.

[Gawen]

The story builds up in chapter 4 of Matthew with Jesus' three temptations in the desert. Afterwards, he departs the desert and hears that a certain John was put in prison. Jesus then makes his way to Capernaum where, "The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."; alluding to a prophecy of Esaias (Isaiah).
*Esaias is thought by Christians to be the star cast member of the Book of Isaiah from the Hebrew Bible, who prophesied the virgin birth of Jesus: (Isaiah 7:14, KJV): "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." This has been thoroughly debunked.
 
The sermon is in chapters 5-7. It parallels Luke's Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17-49) as well as a few parallels and some passages from Mark and the Gospel of Thomas. The sermon begins with the Beatitudes: A number of claims that list conditions which are irritating and/or distressful in this life

• Will be rewarded in the life to come,

• Allegedly gives insight into Jesus' views on Jewish law and,

• Gives instructions on prayer along with general instructions on how to live.

While some of the passages have been or are still considered wise advice by readers of varying beliefs, the sermon has many passages which contradict the claim that Jesus was wise beyond mortal men (Matthew 5:16 vs. 6:1, Matthew 6:7 vs. 6:8-13, Matthew 7:20 vs. 7:21 23). The sermon contains several passages that would qualify as bad advice. Some sections switch justification for the advice in the middle: Matthew 6:25-26 vs. Matthew 6:31-33. And it projects philosophical positions not exhibitive of a wise and transcendent being.

Other than bad advice, it has no underlying theme and is a goulash of botched wisdom. On the whole, the sermon is as coherent as reading all the postulations of Nostradamus's quatrains. As a whole, the SotM is a godawful sermon.

Ten Commandments
Exodus 20 & Deut 5:
1.   Do not worship any gods in preference to Me
2.   Do not worship any idol
3.   Do not take God's name in vain
4.   Do not work on the Sabbath
5.   Honor your father and mother
6.   Do not kill
7.   Do not commit adultery
8.   Do not steal
9.   Do not make false accusations
10.   Do not covet anything of those that believe the same God as you.

Ten Commandments
Exodus 34:
1.   Worship no other god, because I am a jealous god
2.   Do not make cast idols
3.   Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread
4.   All your firstborn are Mine
5.   Do not work on the Sabbath
6.   Celebrate the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Ingathering
7.   Do not offer sacrifice blood with leavened bread
8.   Do not let any of your sacrifices remain until next morning
9.   Bring the first fruits of your land to My house
10.   Do not boil a baby goat in its mother's milk

Summary of the Sermon on the Mount:

Blessed are those that:
•   Are poor in spirit
•   Mourn
•   Meek
•   Hungry and thirsty for righteousness
•   Merciful
•   Pure in heart
•   Peacemakers
•   Persecuted for righteousness sake
•   Reviled and persecuted for Jesus's sake
1.   Do not hide your true self or your works
2.   Follow the Laws of Moses by exceeding the Pharisees
3.   Do not get angry with those that are "brothers" in Christ; agree with your adversary
4.   Do not call people insulting names
5.   Do not look at a woman with lust; that is adultery
6.   Remove parts of your body that make you commit sins
7.   Divorce makes you guilty of adultery, except if done by the woman's unfaithfulness
8.   Do not swear oaths by anything; just say "Yes" or "No"
9.   Do not resist the evil of others
10.   Let your enemies continue to attack and exploit you
11.   Love, bless and pray for those that hate you
12.   If you're being sued, give them what they ask
13.   If you are asked to do something, do twice as much
14.   Give to those that ask of you
15.   Let anyone that asks borrow from you
16.   Be perfect
17.   Do not be seen giving alms; be covert about it
18.   Do not advertise your piety to others in an effort to seem virtuous
19.   Use simple, straightforward language in your devotions, and not impressive-sounding repetitious nonsense
20.   Pray a certain prayer
21.   Forgive other peoples trespasses against you
22.   Do not be sad when you fast; put oil on your head and wash your face
23.   Accumulate heavenly treasures, like piety and virtue, and not earthly ones, because the latter are vulnerable and can easily be lost or destroyed
24.   Do not try to serve both God and money; you cannot serve two masters at the same time
25.   Do not concern yourself with your life, because God will do it just as he takes care of the birds and the wildflowers
26.   Do not think for it will not add to your stature
27.   Do not wear clothes unless God gives them to you
28.   Do not judge others so you are not judged by them
29.   Do not complain about a speck in someone else's eye when you have a log in your own eye
30.   Do not give anything holy to anyone unworthy (referred to as pigs and dogs); it is like throwing pearls to pigs
31.   Ask God and you will receive exactly what you asked for; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you
32.   Do to others what you would want them to do to you
33.   Even when it is awkward and troublesome for you to be virtuous, be virtuous
34.   Watch out for false prophets, who are like wolves in sheep's clothing; you can recognize them by their actions
35.   Do not expect to make it into the Godly Hall of Fame (Kingdom of Heaven) by bragging about what good things you have done
36.   Anyone that does not do the above items is foolish
37.   Anyone that does do all the above items is wise
38.   The above items come from authority of God

...more to come...

[Gawen]

It must be said that the Sermon on the Mount produces numerous opportunities for the Way-of-the-Master ethical conundrum of "Do as I say, not as I do" and opportunities for excessive guilt tripping. A Christian might ask himself when he reads the Sermon:
"Have you ever ..."
... hated your enemies?
... fought back when attacked?
... called anyone insulting names?
... accused others of your faults?
... shown a lot of concern for your future?
... tried to accumulate wealth?
... tried to impress others with how pious you are?
... shown a fondness for King James English? *bad joke*
... expected to make it into Heaven by bragging about how good you are?
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
How s/he reconciles this willingness to reject Jesus's teachings in the SotM and still be a good Christian is beyond my understanding.

As far as the Law is concerned, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
They cite Jesus as saying that he comes to "fulfill" the Laws as meaning they do not need to follow them anymore. That's tantamount to saying "It's okay for us to jaywalk, officer. Our friend over there is using the crosswalk on our behalf so we don't have to." It is the same as having it both ways, recognizing the authority of the law while exempting oneself from having to follow it.

*Edited to add: Those of you who would like to read a good hashing of the Law (the fulfilling thereof) start here:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8055.0

[Gawen]

Now, the meat...

Biblical criticism raises objections from believers and unbelievers alike because there are too many possible interpretations of too many ambiguities, too many nuances, shadows, implications, allusions and subtleties. I have no choice at this time but to present orthodox views and common understandings (with and mostly) by direct literal observations that best reflect the text and that includes context. The King James Version (despite its flaws) is used because it is this version most used where I live.

Here, I start with...
The Beatitudes
Matthew 5:1-12 – Beginning with 1-4:
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
And he opened his mouth, and taught them,saying,
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
The first four beatitudes are also found in Luke 5: 20. Luke's version of the first beatitude is changed to "poor" only. Luke includes two other verses that are not in Matthew. Luke 6:24-25: But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

The two verses from Luke put in a different twist as they stress poverty as a virtue and wealth (not simply seeking wealth) as a vice. Regardless the first four (or six) verses deliver traits and conditions that the opposite views of them are undesirable. In essence, Jesus is saying, 'Do not despair or become hopeless or disheartened. No matter how horrid this life is, the next one will be better.'  However, the statements are simply assertions without justification serving to pacify the downtrodden, women and slaves; basically, those who are oppressed. A minor case could be made in the defense of those being occupied from an outside state, however, the Jews were allowed to govern themselves for the most part.

Although I stressed there is no theme to Jesus's morality or ethics, the verses do set common motives throughout, and these belie the very mundane nature of Jesus. Instead of offering useful advice how to live the one life we should be certain about, we are told to slough off this life because it is meaningless and focus instead on an unknown and unsubstantiated life to come. Is there no other reason, no worthy reason not to live this life to the fullest even if there IS an afterlife? It would seem to me that any divine and benevolent being which possessed the wisdom and compassion as attributes in its profile should realize this. We should expect much deeper insight into the human condition (after all, Jesus was human) and guided how to improve our life in addition to promises of an afterlife...but instead we get laconic dismissals of this life.

Beatitudes 5, 6 and 7
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

These three, in contrast to the first negative four are positive traits for instruction in how to live. They are the 'carrot' to the 'stick'. Being merciful, pure and a peacekeeper is a good thing and a reward unto itself. The 'stick' part of this is the inferred "You are not going to Heaven if you do not do these things" and we should expect much more from a wise and benevolent God. One of the contradictions I found comes later in Matthew 10:33: "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." This is hardly merciful.

Beatitudes 8 and 9
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

Secondary motives: expect persecution and martyrdom. Verily, believers are to rejoice in persecution and martyrdom. There is also an implied armour factor around these beliefs as well. This armour enables believers to compartmentalize their beliefs, keeping them safe from criticism and at the same time ensure their place in Heaven by keeping the beliefs through real or perceived criticism. It's like saying, "You can't critisise me or my beliefs and even if you do, I'm still going to Heaven". It's a bunch of woowoo and hardly wise, good, moral or ethical.  It stimulates division; it sets apart from those that believe and those that do not and discourages any cooperation with unbelievers. It provides no incentive for the Christian to seek out cooperation with non-believers. A believer must expect to be rejected or shunned and persecuted and any perceived persecution can only serve to reinforce the belief. It is a rather twisted moral code. Let's us rejoice!


The 4 woes of Luke 6:24-26:
Woe unto you:
•   that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.
•   that are full now! for ye shall hunger.
•   that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.
•   when all men shall speak well of you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.

Remember that your reward is in Heaven. In Heaven, if you are poor you become rich, if your belly is screaming for food now, you'll have it full in Heaven. If you mourn and weep for your condition now, in Heaven you will laugh and be happy. And by God, don't let anyone speak well of you here on Earth.

So ends the Beatitude portion of the Sermon on the Mount. The conditions described in Matthew's and Luke's Beatitudes are a disgusting morality. They are commandments from a benevolent God *heavy sarcasm* that when followed will gain your salvation and entrance into the Kingdom of God that lies right around that corner. It is not a morality or code of ethics I would subscribe to. It is, however, and unfortunately for Christians, a morality or code of ethics that will keep the vast majority of them out of Heaven...the same Christians who proclaim the United States a Christian nation, built on Christian values. Apparently, just not the values listed above.

Next up is the appalling metaphor/analogy of...*drum roll please*
Salt and Light
Matthew 5:13: Ye are the salt of the earth: but if salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
This statement is meaningless with the exception to those that are superstitious and/or ignorant. Salt does not lose its flavour. What Jesus says is the same as saying "You are water. If the water loses its wetness, how can it be made wet again?" It is no different when Jesus tells us to be 'born again'. It is extremely capricious to assume a wise, divine being made such an awful analogy. Mark 4:31 is a similar horrible analogy. One of three things is obvious; either...
1) The speaker and his audience lack knowledge of salt (and mustard seeds), or
2) The speaker is intentionally dishonest.
3) Whoever wrote this passage deems it necessary to say that those that do not believe are to be cast out and walked over. This does not sound very mericiful, meek or the actions of a persecuted person or martyr.
But the worst of it is, Jesus is saying that not to have him and/or god in their lives makes them worthless. I am beside myself with anger which makes me at a loss for words. Therefore, I will continue on with the light show...
Matthew 14-16: Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Jesus is advising believers to do their good works so that everyone may see them - and will contradict himself in Matthew 6. Go figure.

[Gawen]

The Dread Law

Those of you that have followed my rantings and wailing's, visualizing my gnashing of teeth know how I feel about this matter. The morality and ethics of Mosaic Law deserves its own chapter, thread...even a book. Here is the short version...

Matthew 5:17-20 is the "fulfill, jot and tittle" conundrum that Christians love to apologise for. Basically, Jewish (Mosaic) Law will not be changed until heaven and earth disappear and anyone who breaks any commandment and teaches others to do the same will be called least in heaven. This is significant.
1) It does not say that breaking the Law will send one to Hell.
2) What it does say is one who breaks the Law will be "least in Heaven"
2b)This flies in the face of doctrine regarding sin and hell. Jesus does however talk about avoiding hell in this very same sermon. Because he does so, it installs a mistaken inference - the belief to be in danger of hell - based on certain actions pertaining to the Law. It is a doctrinal contradiction – there is no resolution.
4) Jesus breaks several commandments (John 8:1-11, Mark 7:18-19 and John 2:4) and teaches others to do the same (Mark 2:27).
"Ahhh..." say the Apologist, as if they have a trump card to play, "Jesus is God and he can do whatever he wishes." (Well, the ethics of that statement and what it implies knows no bounds)
"BUT", says I, "your apology does not correct the contradiction!"

This is not a simple Master/grasshopper "Do as I say, not as I do" outline. It is an unequivocal contradiction. Jesus said he did not come to change the law and that no one should be teaching people to break it...and then he teaches people to break it...and THAT...represents a change in the law! What he actually does is expand the Law and that constitutes an alteration of it.

Can you see Jesus as the least in Heaven? The smallest...the least...in Heaven? Ironic, is it not?

[Gawen]

I feel so alone....

[Sandra Craft]

I feel so alone....

It's that lipstick you're wearing, it startles me.

[Tank]

I feel so alone....

How do you think we feel? A bit like a survivor from Hiroshima sitting among the debris!

[Gawen]

I feel so alone....

It's that lipstick you're wearing, it startles me.

That was class!

[Gawen]

I feel so alone....

How do you think we feel? A bit like a survivor from Hiroshima sitting among the debris!

Aw jeeez, Tank....and I'm only half way through. But I'll give you a tip....don't relocate to Nagasaki....*winkin*

[Gawen]

The Thought Crimes Begineth

Matthew 5:21-22: Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Thought crime is the concept that a person's thoughts can be illegal or immoral. George Orwell is thought to be the originator of the term, but it goes much farther back than 1949. The Abrahamic religions give fine examples of thought crimes:

• Do not covet

• Do not lust (which is the same as covet, I reckon)

• Thinking of breaking a commandment

• Hatred is considered by some as a sin against thou shall not kill.

Jesus continues the thought crime concept of the Hebrew Bible by claiming that certain speech and thought is equivalent to murder and deserving the death penalty. However, we all know that line of thought is morally corrupt. Jesus may or may not have literally meant to put to death people guilty of thought crime, but this is a horrid and unsophisticated view, that represents a morality that constitutes a doctrine where those thought crimes should result in eternal torture. Heil! Big Brother!

The next time you see a Christian hating on someone, revisit unto them the death penalty was prescribed for thought crime as well as for murder, working on the Sabbath, being an unruly child and not believing in Jesus. The worst is that the punishment (eternal torture) does not fit the crime.

Notice - "thou fool" - Jesus states that whoever says that is in danger of "hell fire". Well, Jesus refers to people as fools on several occasions (Matthew 23:17, Matthew 23:19, Luke 11:40, Luke 24:25). Jesus is fond of the "Do as I say, not as I do" ethic.
This type of morality represents a wise and benevolent deity?


Reconciliation between Believers
Matthew 5:23-24: Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
It is fair advice.
However, as it stands, it stimulates believers to reconcile ONLY with other believers. Surely a divine being who supposedly claims he loves all people would go the extra mile and extend it to everyone...anyone. This bit here only provides another forced division between peoples of differing belief systems...an "us and (or vs.) them" mentality.

Lawsuits
Matthew 5:25-26: Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.
Somewhat of a contradiction can be made between this and the reconciliation bit above. This differs from the above in that the reconciliation is between brothers and this lawsuit one does not specify - therefore it does apply to anyone and not just a brother (believer) of the Lord? The ambiguity of this is borderless: Does it mean to say 'blood brothers'? Brothers as in all men? Brothers of a town/city/region/nation/state?

What it is saying to settle out of court; to deny your right to fight for your rights. On the other hand, Jesus infers you can start frivolous lawsuits as well. If Christians actually adhered to this, they would have been sued into extinction.

[Gawen]

Adultery
(Matt. 5: 27-28 is set up in two parts)
Part one
Matthew 5:27-28: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Jesus expands on the thought crime bullshit. And notice there is no distinction, no implication between married men and unmarried men looking at a woman lustfully. The Jewish age of accountability for boys was 13 plus one day (girls at 12 plus one day), so this would mean unmarried boys from the age of thirteen, with raging hormones, go to hell for "lusting" after a girl who is twelve years old plus one day or older.

Literally, though, ANY man that looks with lust at ANY woman is in danger of Hell fire. This is another one of those "Deny yourself" expunges of your humanity. Lust is a human trait that God made for us, right? Now he's saying don't do it. It's the same as saying, "When you're hungry, don't eat".

Oh, and notice how it seems to protect women when the Bible actually deems women lower than the worm. I do have a question, though: Why does God say that "Anyone who looks at a woman lustfully" implies that it's not a sin for a woman to lust after a man?

Sin as pertains to sex
Part two
Matthew 5:29-30: And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

At worst, this is just plain stupid. At best, it is just plain stupid. This again is the "deny yourself" advice. Never mind trying to understand yourself and others. You guys (married or not) out there, you now know that to look at any woman (including your wife) with lust in your eyes - remember, sex was for procreation. Well, you have a couple of choices to make. After that, if you're still thinking of getting at that poon in ways other than reproduction, you have one choice left. But first, let me waffle on a bit.

There is one body part in particular that might tempt you to sin, and it is NOT what you would expect). But in those days and in some circles of this time it would be vulgar to mention 'penis'  and 'testicles' here, although it is quite proper to mention 'foreskin' (because it is used in the bible)...*heavy sarcasm again*, so I will therefore go with what Jesus speaks of---the eye and hand. We now know verses 29-30 are ridiculous on several levels. A hand cannot "cause you to sin", neither does an eye or your penis - your brain causes "sin" and I would argue that point as well some other time. Therefore, gouging your eye out or cutting your hand off or lopping off Maximus Johnson may be useless for some.

If you have a problem with "sexual sin" and you are going to amputate something to solve it, you would need to cut out your heart, since that is the organ where all "sin" originates, as was believed in ancient times. But Jr. seems to really mean it when he speaks of making one a eunuch for the kingdom of Heaven's sake. Jesus's moral high ground is to cut off your jewels in the best case so you wouldn't have lust in your eyes while around women. Of course, one can imagine an omniscient being to know these things are just idiotic, but this is one case where Jesus sounds ignorant and moronic and rather emotional instead of thoughtful, moral or ethical. One, however, can be thankful women do not come under the eunuch rule.

[Gawen]

Divorce
Matthew 5:31-32: It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Well, everyone is totally fracked in this bad advice that includes sexism. This addresses men divorcing their wives; not the other way around; females are considered inferior - equal to property. What this is trying to say is married couples should stay together no matter how awful the marriage becomes. Suffer is the key word here and that includes the children of the marriage as well or so it seems. Some Christians would say it is meant for couples to work it out, but that is based on an ingenuous or callow view of reality which ignores that people change and that some marriages were not good to begin with. A really sad part to this is the man who marries a divorced woman goes to hell.

On the other hand, this piece of moral wisdom from God says that if you really want out of a marriage, go cheat!

And it's another violation of the Law Jesus commits.

[Gawen]

Oaths
Matthew 5:33-37: Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
This is primarily good advice, but it does have drawbacks (see below). Unfortunately for Christians, most do not to live up to it...and you know what that means. Such is their happiness to be sworn in on a Bible that they proclaim this loud and clear. They are more than happy to pledge allegiance to the Bible and God in the form of creeds, to the American flag and for some, a Christian flag.

It is recorded in Acts 18:18 that Paul swore an oath. Since most Christians (I know of) are not really Christian, but Paulinian, still, I can hardly fault Paul, after all, it's not the only thing about Jesus' life and ministry that he doesn't seem to be aware of. Apparently, neither do most Christians.

This wonderful piece of moral wisdom borrows from and contradicts Deuteronomy 23:21-23 where one is to avoid vows or 'swearing' so that one is not obliged to follow through on it. The loving, wise, to be feared and glorious God/Man/Father/Son/Ghost is quite ambiguous here, as one may take this two different ways. Either "let your oaths be none" or "let everything you say be an oath." Either way the effect is contractual oaths are devalued by their overuse, or ignored and never used.

However, the underlying theme of honesty is a good one. Unfortunately, getting rid of contractual oaths is legal suicide.

[Gawen]

This next one is a really good one!

Become the victim – for Christ's sake – abuse is your friend
Matthew 5:38-39: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
After saying he didn't come to change the law, he changes it...again. Getting rid of the "eye for an eye" mindset was a really good move, but to replace it with equal stupidity is...well, you fill in the blank _________.

This is not advice. Jesus TELLS believers to not defend themselves to protect their rights and lives. Unfortunately for unbelievers, Christians do not adhere to this astonishing piece of Godly morality for they are in danger of Hell Fire. Fortunately for Christians in day to day life, they are quick to dismiss this verse.

Matthew 5:40-41: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
This should have been included in the Lawsuits section, but Jesus must have had an afterthought and set up an addendum.
Bad advice. There's no good reason, even the thought of going to Heaven, to set yourself up as a willingly abused victim. Where indeed is the wisdom in this? A wise and loving god, I would think, would have taught people how to build a society that would not encourage victimization. Why is it the ancient Israelites could not think it?

Matthew 5:42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Must I really have to say anything about this?


I must.


Since there is no distinction of who does the asking, it is not just a charitable contribution after all. Therefore, ask every Christian you meet for 2% of their income. When they look at you as if you are insane or shout a curse at you, remind them of Matt 5:42, Matt 6:19 and if the Christian has more money than you – Luke 18:22.

*winkin with a grin*