GENIUS FORUMS

Steven Coyle wrote:Akin to imbibing small amounts of poisonous venom for the snake's wisdom.

Small amounts, Steven? Come on, now, be honest...

Yeah, guess it depends on the circumstance.

Leyla Shen wrote:[Edited to add additional verses in Matthew since Christians apparently don't know their own gospel!]

What exactly is the point you were making??? and what did you hope to gain from that?

Who is Anna?

amandaxxx

Elderwood asks:

"Who is Anna?"

Iolaus.

Leyla makes many points. Some she understands, some she does not. It may depend on astrology or bio-magnetism.

The fractured fairy enquired:

Leyla Shen wrote: [Edited to add additional verses in Matthew since Christians apparently don't know their own gospel!]

What exactly is the point you were making???

It’s an incredibly profound and abstruse doctrine. To understand it, you are required to go and sit upon the farthest mountain for 11 score and one (eleventy-one, that is) and meditate upon only it.

But, generous of God-given heart and spirit that I am, I’ll give you a clue: it means that I added additional verses from Matthew to my post because Christ believers don’t know their own gospel…

and what did you hope to gain from that?

Let me see---real Christians?

Alex Jacob wrote:Leyla makes many points. Some she understands, some she does not. It may depend on astrology or bio-magnetism.

Leyla has more points than a porcupine. It's the bio-magnetism thing. There must be some kind of occult meridian that goes right through Flippen-well.

BH,

I have heard it both ways, however. I am Bible-challenged, as I was brought up not to read Scripture and sometimes rely on memory without looking it up as I ought.

You probably have heard it both ways, because it might be a natural enough mistake to make. But I think it is out of character and he would not have said that. Consider:

"Good Rabbi, --"
"Why do you call me good? There is one who is good: the Father in heaven."

God alone is good. We are good because we partake of the goodness of God. To the extent we empty ourselves of ourselves.

Leyla,

When was the last time any of you willingly turned the other cheek embracing a second slapping after the first one? Anna...? I seem to recall you turning your back when I slapped you last!

I of course have no idea when that was or in what way I turned my back. Conversations with you tend to be fruitless, from what I witness. I treat you kindly.

In fact, Leyla, I turn to people my cheek who slap me right often. In the end, I win them all over. I don't respond in kind to their negativity. Not that I'm perfect - sometimes I shrink away for a while. But not for long.

Anna wrote:I of course have no idea when that was or in what way I turned my back.

Oh, I could be wrong, but I think you do---deep down.

Conversations with you tend to be fruitless, from what I witness. I treat you kindly.

Yes, by turning your back (even if keeping an eye over your shoulder). For the purpose of clarity, this is NOT a moral judgement of you but a judgement upon morality itself, just as is the chapter in question. It has nothing, aside from in a superficial sense, to do with kindness.

In fact, Leyla, I turn to people my cheek who slap me right often. In the end, I win them all over.

Really? Can you give me an example of a time you won someone over in such a manner and on what topic?

I don't respond in kind to their negativity.

Is there something inherently wrong with negativity, particularly given that God’s sun and rain do not discriminate between it and positivity?

Not that I'm perfect - sometimes I shrink away for a while.

And that’s the point: “Therefore thou be perfect…”

But not for long.

Consider yourself slapped the second time, then.

I knew you were still watching. :)

Leyla Shen wrote:Christians!!

Matthew 5
39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. 43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

When was the last time any of you willingly turned the other cheek embracing a second slapping after the first one? Anna...? I seem to recall you turning your back when I slapped you last! How very NT unChristian and OT Christian of you!

Genesis 17
1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect. 2And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

[Edited to add additional verses in Matthew since Christians apparently don't know their own gospel!]

I tend to enjoy most of your posts. I have a serious belly laugh at many of them, how unsagely of me.

You sure make it a point that others turn their cheek for you.

We each have our call.

Beingof1 wrote:We each have our call.

We do indeed, for We were All created.

amandaxxx

Leyla,

Anna wrote:I of course have no idea when that was or in what way I turned my back.

Oh, I could be wrong, but I think you do---deep down.

No, I don't. After all, there must have been several times we argued. I try to avoid it most of the time. I haven't paid your words a lot of mind because I find most of your engagements endless and circular and frustrating. You can call it turning my back if you like, but we all have only so much time and I feel like I can put it to better use than playing guessing games and changes of topic that turn conversations into labyrinths. I see little good will in your attitude, your posts rarely make sense to me, when people ask you to clarify you almost never do, as if nobody has anything better to do than pore over your cryptic remarks and try to deduce what you might have meant. I find it incredibly rude that when asked nicely, you refuse to clarify.

It has nothing, aside from in a superficial sense, to do with kindness.

Well I guess that, since I have just told you what I really think, I have been less kind than before.

Really? Can you give me an example of a time you won someone over in such a manner and on what topic?

It isn't about a topic. The work environment comes to mind. A lot of people find me strange at first. I don't seem to act quite like other people, and don't know the cues, especially here in the south, where people are less straightforward than a yankee like me, or a Californian, like me. In fact, most of my problems are with other Americans, I get along with pretty much any foreigner seamlessly.
So I often see that people have not treated me well. It's not as if they are nicer to each other! On the contrary, there are various people who cannot abide one another, I almost always get along fine with both, or there are people who rub many others the wrong way.
The secret to turning the cheek in this situation, is, that you always come back to them fresh, as if you had no history, no resistance, and you give them the benefit of the doubt time after time. I treat them with kindness, respect, and consideration, regardless of whether there have been difficult exchanges.

Is there something inherently wrong with negativity, particularly given that God’s sun and rain do not discriminate between it and positivity?

God may not care about the negativity, but most of us surely do. Is it better to live with backbiting, insults and anger?
But -- the whole point is that God sends his rain on the just and the unjust, and I give my good graces to the just and the unjust.
That doesn't mean I don't prefer positivity. It means I don't feed the negativity, while retaining respect and tolerance toward all souls.

Consider yourself slapped for the second time then.

What? Surely it is many more times than that!

I tend to enjoy most of your posts. I have a serious belly laugh at many of them, how unsagely of me.

I disagree wholeheartedly that its unsagely! Check this out, for instance:

Two Zen monks were walking down the road.
First monk says: "These pine trees are magnificent."
The second monk slaps him across the face.
First monk: "Why did you do that?"
"I'm a Zen monk so I can get away with all kinds of weird stuff like that."

From that, it's easy to see what is unsagely, if you're a Zen monk, that is. :)

Now, I wonder what you would make of this. I am almost completely convinced that Jesus was the world's first communist, and Marx the second coming.

Anna wrote:The secret to turning the cheek in this situation, is, that you always come back to them fresh, as if you had no history, no resistance, and you give them the benefit of the doubt time after time. I treat them with kindness, respect, and consideration, regardless of whether there have been difficult exchanges.

Wow. You really do think Christianity (and this whole cheek-slapping thing) is about masochism.

Thing with me is, I can't be bothered restating in voluminous detail what I consider is obvious.

That's the difference between us.

L: It has nothing, aside from in a superficial sense, to do with kindness.

A: Well I guess that, since I have just told you what I really think, I have been less kind than before.

I guess. But, Anna, my point was that the chapter has nothing to do with kindness, except in a superficial way. Do you mean the attempt, then, to engage me superficially?

Leyla,

But, Anna, my point was that the chapter has nothing to do with kindness, except in a superficial way.

Ah. Well, you see, I did not realize that your comment referred to the chapter in Matthew. I thought it referred to what I had said. Not that it made good sense that way, but that's what I'm working with.

I do think it has to do with kindness, but I can see why you might consider that aspect superficial. It goes deeper than kindness. It is the nature of God.

Do you mean the attempt, then, to engage me superficially?

See, there you go again. How was this a necessary remark? Do you suppose the answer is yes? Why always using daggers? Fighting bores me.

Iolaus wrote:Fighting bores me.

That is because it serves no higher purpose..

amandaxxx

Anna wrote:The secret to turning the cheek in this situation, is, that you always come back to them fresh, as if you had no history, no resistance, and you give them the benefit of the doubt time after time. I treat them with kindness, respect, and consideration, regardless of whether there have been difficult exchanges.

Wow. You really do think Christianity (and this whole cheek-slapping thing) is about masochism.

It has nothing of masochism in it, nor would I confine it to Christianity.

It's a really, really better way to live, and it makes sense in the paradigm I live in.

What's so great about your way? All I see is bickering, defensiveness and unresolved frustration.

My way uplifts and resolves, encouraging and allowing all, whether deserving or not, to partake of a better way. And, they always do.

Anna:

Fighting bores me.

Liar. You only get bored when you’re losing!

Let me show you a fresh example:

I wrote:

But, Anna, my point was that the chapter has nothing to do with kindness, except in a superficial way.

And you responded:

Part I: Ah. Well, you see, I did not realize that your comment referred to the chapter in Matthew.

This is very interesting, since all you had to do was to be honestly engaged without the intention to “fight.” Had you so been engaged, you would have seen the full context of that partial quote, which is as follows:

Yes, by turning your back (even if keeping an eye over your shoulder). For the purpose of clarity, this is NOT a moral judgement of you but a judgement upon morality itself, just as is the chapter in question. It has nothing, aside from in a superficial sense, to do with kindness.

Even if we ignore the entire rest of the discussion, which started (insofar as my part in it is concerned) with a full quote of certain verses in Matthew pertinent to the preceding conversation OF Matthew, are you seriously trying to peddle the idea that there wasn’t even the slightest hint this was about Matthew?

Part II: I thought it referred to what I had said. Not that it made good sense that way, but that's what I'm working with.

If it didn’t make good sense that way, what made you decide to work with it anyway, Anna? Go on, tell the truth… :)

Part III: I do think it has to do with kindness, but I can see why you might consider that aspect superficial.

That’s a start!

Part IV: It goes deeper than kindness. It is the nature of God.

Right. So why are we discussing kindness instead of the nature of God?

See, there you go again. How was this a necessary remark? Do you suppose the answer is yes? Why always using daggers?

A "necessary remark"? Do you ask the same of (the nature of) God in terms of necessity?

It was a rhetorical question that nicely followed from the preceding statement:

But, Anna, my point was that the chapter has nothing to do with kindness, except in a superficial way.

In other words, why are we discussing kindness instead of the nature of God, which we agree goes “much deeper”?

~

What's so great about your way? All I see is bickering, defensiveness and unresolved frustration.

That is a limitation of your own mental aptitude and has nothing to do with me, I'm afraid.

My way is the way of truth and light. Whether you think it kind, like it, or not!

In all your kindness here, I have seen not a single gram of truth. In fact, in all your glorious moral indignation, you have demonstrated nothing but a contempt for it for the prize of kindness.

My way uplifts and resolves, encouraging and allowing all, whether deserving or not, to partake of a better way. And, they always do.

And by better, clearly you mean "kinder." Again, what about Matthew and the deeper nature of God, eh---EH?

Leyla,

Liar. You only get bored when you’re losing!

I'm not aware of ever losing.

Fighting does not interest me, as shown by the fact that I almost never engage in it in any way. There's virtually none of it in my life.

Let me show you a fresh example:

I wrote:

But, Anna, my point was that the chapter has nothing to do with kindness, except in a superficial way.

And you responded:

Part I: Ah. Well, you see, I did not realize that your comment referred to the chapter in Matthew.

This is very interesting, since all you had to do was to be honestly engaged without the intention to “fight.” Had you so been engaged, you would have seen the full context of that partial quote, which is as follows:

Yes, by turning your back (even if keeping an eye over your shoulder). For the purpose of clarity, this is NOT a moral judgement of you but a judgement upon morality itself, just as is the chapter in question. It has nothing, aside from in a superficial sense, to do with kindness.[/i]

Even if we ignore the entire rest of the discussion, which started (insofar as my part in it is concerned) with a full quote of certain verses in Matthew pertinent to the preceding conversation OF Matthew, are you seriously trying to peddle the idea that there wasn’t even the slightest hint this was about Matthew?

Look at all that effort Leyla, and all because I misread your statement, and you want to nitpick and nitpick, and accuse me of lying and losing. Yes, there seems to have been the hint with the use of the word chapter, but I just spend an inordinate amount of time trying to piece back the exchange in my mind as it happened, and I cannot.

It just isn't that important. Why do you find it important? I misunderstood you and you clarified. That's what people do. It's called communication.

Right. So why are we discussing kindness instead of the nature of God?

Rethinking this, I think that it is about kindness. What is the difference between unconditional love and kindness? Especially if it is unconditional kindness, as I practice and was speaking about?

A "necessary remark"? Do you ask the same of (the nature of) God in terms of necessity?

Discussing the nature of God seems a lot more fruitful and interesting than never getting any discussion off the ground due to endless bickering.
I found your remark unnecessary, which is a polite way of saying, fruitless bickering, lacking in real content or purpose.

But the point is, that you are calling kindness superficial, and I say it is not.

What's so great about your way? All I see is bickering, defensiveness and unresolved frustration.

That is a limitation of your own mental aptitude and has nothing to do with me, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid you are misinformed. Perhaps you can't step outside yourself and take a look at your discussions here.

My way is the way of truth and light.

Coulda fooled me!

In all your kindness here, I have seen not a single gram of truth.

We don't have similar views at all.

My way uplifts and resolves, encouraging and allowing all, whether deserving or not, to partake of a better way. And, they always do.

And by better, clearly you mean "kinder." Again, what about Matthew and the deeper nature of God, eh---EH?

My way is compatible with the teachings of Jesus in general, and also with the nature of God, who gives the same kindness unconditionally.

Anna:

Yes, there seems to have been the hint with the use of the word chapter, but I just spend an inordinate amount of time trying to piece back the exchange in my mind as it happened, and I cannot.

You should give this considerable thought, Anna, it's quite pertinent because:

Look at all that effort Leyla, and all because I misread your statement, and you want to nitpick and nitpick, and accuse me of lying and losing.

Yes, you lied in every accusation that followed your misreading. I didn’t say you were conscious of it.

There was no effort involved for me (quite the contrary, really, since I was interested in discussing the meaning of Matthew), and your pedantic fixation on the mundane is somewhat entertaining--but not at all surprising.

Here’s what happened, in a very simple format:

L: None of you get Matthew, e.g., Anna?
A: Moralise
L: But, the meaning of Matthew, arsehole
A: Moralise
L: But, but--Matthew and God!
A: You weren’t talking about that
L: Yes, I was--look
A: [admission] Moralise
L: But, Matthew…

I have an excellent memory, since I understand exactly my position and its relationship to those against which I present it, I understand when it has been addressed and when it has not--and I do not lose focus on that. (I also have exceptional keyboard skills.) I generally factor in “interpretational error,” which means I have often anticipated broader possibilities.

Sometimes, people surprise me. So far, you are not one of those people.

It just isn't that important. Why do you find it important? I misunderstood you and you clarified. That's what people do. It's called communication.

The point (which you continue to miss), Anna, was and is an actual discussion of Matthew, which you are still apparently not prepared to fully engage. Too much effort to look back at it, after getting so lost, I suppose?

Do you want to discuss Matthew, or do you want to nitpick?

Oh, yes, you do! …

Rethinking this, I think that it is about kindness. What is the difference between unconditional love and kindness? Especially if it is unconditional kindness, as I practice and was speaking about?

According to Matthew, it’s all in the slap of a cheek. The commandment, somewhat paraphrased, is “resist ye not evil; instead, whoever smacketh you on the right cheek, turn to him the left also to be smacketh’d.” The reasoning behind this is that to be your father’s child is to understand that he makes no moral distinction between you and the evil ones, “makething the sun to rise and rain to fall upon both of ye of the light and ye of the darkness”

So, we have this commandment not to make such distinctions as “good and evil” in order to “be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect”---does perfect, then, mean “kind” given that He causes both good and evil to survive in the world? This appears to be your interpretation, and I do not understand how you arrive at it.

Discussing the nature of God seems a lot more fruitful and interesting than never getting any discussion off the ground due to endless bickering.

Sure. Can you do it, despite being slapped in the face over and over again?

More later.

Leyla Shen wrote:Sure. Can you do it, despite being slapped in the face over and over again?

More later.

But this is your method of discussion in a nutshell, Leyla - to slap the other person in the face again and again unless and until they repeat after you...

You clearly do not understand the meaning of "turn the other cheek." If you did, if you could do more than read things literally without gaining any deeper insight, you'd know that it is a method of winning. It's otherwise known as "rope a dope." I have used that very method to beat far superior chess players, who also had no clue as to what I was doing.

Sigh. What to do, what to do?

Sure. Can you do it, despite being slapped in the face over and over again?

Yes, you lied in every accusation that followed your misreading. I didn’t say you were conscious of it.

You say I turned my back, which is so, and for the reasons of the above two statements. I do not recall whatever particular instance you have in mind, it is more the general trend that conversation with you is futile and negative.

Why would you want to be the face slapper, and why do you think you have done so when in reality you've only shown how deeply embedded you are in your personal little reality with no window?
And why would I bother to engage with someone who repeatedly accuses me of lying? Did you know that language is an imperfect medium, and that misunderstandings frequently occur without the need to postulate lying and so forth?

I can only assume, Leyla, that you are a liar, or you would not assume others do it so readily. And further, that it is not something you are conscious of. The main deception you are perpetrating against yourself, is the notion that you ever listen, or intend to listen and take in what someone else has to say. That simply isn't the game you are playing.
+++++++++++++

According to Matthew, it’s all in the slap of a cheek. The commandment, somewhat paraphrased, is “resist ye not evil; instead, whoever smacketh you on the right cheek, turn to him the left also to be smacketh’d.” The reasoning behind this is that to be your father’s child is to understand that he makes no moral distinction between you and the evil ones, “makething the sun to rise and rain to fall upon both of ye of the light and ye of the darkness”

So, we have this commandment not to make such distinctions as “good and evil” in order to “be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect”---does perfect, then, mean “kind” given that He causes both good and evil to survive in the world? This appears to be your interpretation, and I do not understand how you arrive at it.

The purpose of not resisting evil is to transform the evil into good, and to not engage the negativity at its own level, thus perpetuating it. To break the cycle. It isn't true that we should not make the distinction, because if there were no distinction, Jesus could not have said, "God sends his rain on the just and the unjust."

There are levels where the distinction is appropriate, and there is a level where it is not. Ultimately, we have all been evil and will all return to God. The spirit of every person is identical and pure. Knowing that, we can refrain from judging and treat all people the same, because they are all the same, they are all equally deserving (if not in that moment, then in the ultimate moment outside of linear time)and because we ourselves would like to be treated with forgiveness.

This means that the moral distinction is both real and not real. We easily see the level where its real, but not the level where it isn't. Thus the lesson.

Sigh. What to do, what to do?

Well, Jee, who am I to judge the cross ye Christians have to bear?

I hope you don't mind if I skip the first part of your post. It severely lacks anything even remotely self-creative. Can't come up with any ideas of your own? You should count yourself lucky. The Hitchens v. Hitchens debate is much better material, yet, for this brief moment, I turn my attention to you instead.

As for the rest of it, I have to say, Anna, I’m not at all interested in being treated with human forgiveness. What need have I for it? In a vernacular you might more easily understand, which ties in nicely with what I consider the only real value Matthew could have: “Blessed is he who is not offended.” One who is not offended does not turn the other cheek out of some misguided notion of kindness, or some desire to be treated with forgiveness. He can only ever “Be [ye] therefore perfect…” In fact, the exact reason you castigated brokenhead, with a “good heavens” (or some such thing) for emphasis, for his initial misquote is because of the sheer and non-human (being of God Himself) loftiness of such a perfection--you weren’t even willing to grant such a claim to it by Jesus himself.

Jesus did not “make the distinction” because it should be made. He merely referred to one extant; one, apparently, immutably human and, therefore, ungodly. The perfection of “the father in heaven” (“the ultimate arbiter of the fate of all men”) is such that his sun and rain doesn’t discriminate on the basis of just and unjust, kind and mean, good and evil. For this reason, you are commanded not to do so in the only way a sheep can. You are commanded to turn the other cheek and, by doing so, to discipline yourself to hold all men in some semblance of the very sight of God Himself.

So, how do you explain reaching such a conclusion on the matter of God Himself as you have?

You’re right about one thing, I think, and that is:

[The religious] easily see the level where [good and evil are] real, but not the level where [they aren‘t]. Thus the lesson.

For as long as you continue to bleat on about kindness, in what way have you learned this lesson?

Reminds me of daybrown, who on one occasion, proclaimed to be possessed of stoic qualities even as he always went out of his way to always and only thank those who were civil in their discussions with him. Never once did he thank me for being the arsehole he rightly deserved!

Liar.

Leyla,

“Blessed is he who is not offended.” One who is not offended does not turn the other cheek out of some misguided notion of kindness, or some desire to be treated with forgiveness. He can only ever “Be [ye] therefore perfect…”

I think I would agree with this, but not because kindness or forgiveness are lacking. For she who is not offended, forgiveness is not an issue.
Also, I see here a common error - the religious assume that they can follow the commands because they have been commanded. Like as if the command were to wash the floors on Fridays. One can do that. But these commands are ideals to be pondered and worked toward, and one only fulfills them when the inner being and its perception alters such that this becomes one's natural reaction.

He can only ever “Be [ye] therefore perfect…” In fact, the exact reason you castigated brokenhead, with a “good heavens” (or some such thing) for emphasis, for his initial misquote is because of the sheer and non-human (being of God Himself) loftiness of such a perfection--you weren’t even willing to grant such a claim to it by Jesus himself.

Your sentence isn't quite clear here. I do not think that Jesus is the son of God, and I do not believe in the Trinity. I am a monotheist. I doubt that Jesus believed in it either. I did not grant it to Jesus because he did not grant it to himself. It was he who said, "Why do you call me good? There is one who is good - the Father in heaven."
But it doesn't mean he wasn't good - it means that he was good to the extent he emptied himself (all ego) and let the good of God pour through him. But he gave the credit where it belongs: the Source.

Jesus did not “make the distinction” because it should be made. He merely referred to one extant; one, apparently, immutably human and, therefore, ungodly.

Not sure what you mean here.

The perfection of “the father in heaven” (“the ultimate arbiter of the fate of all men”) is such that his sun and rain doesn’t discriminate on the basis of just and unjust, kind and mean, good and evil. For this reason, you are commanded not to do so in the only way a sheep can. You are commanded to turn the other cheek and, by doing so, to discipline yourself to hold all men in some semblance of the very sight of God Himself.

Well, the sheep can't do it and this is the same misunderstanding I mentioned above. I see that you see the difference. Trying to do it as a command doesn't work, as evidence man's inhumanity to man, not one whit better among the Christian nations, perhaps even worse.

So, how do you explain reaching such a conclusion on the matter of God Himself as you have?

Which conclusion? It isn't clear.