Pearls before swine.

JimiTime

'Do not give what is holy to dogs. neither cast your pearls before swine, that they may never trample on them and turn around and rip you open'. Mat 7.6

What does this scripture mean?

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

'Do not give what is holy to dogs. neither cast your pearls before swine, that they may never trample on them and turn around and rip you open'. Mat 7.6

What does this scripture mean?

I've always assumed that he meant us (as in sceptics/atheists/hostile unbelievers). Augustine was of that opinion, to a large extent.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ISAW

JimiTime wrote:

'Do not give what is holy to dogs. neither cast your pearls before swine, that they may never trample on them and turn around and rip you open'. Mat 7.6

What does this scripture mean?

Does it make sence to give items of value to those who are to ignorant to respect or value them?

JimiTime

ISAW wrote:

Does it make sence to give items of value to those who are too ignorant to respect or value them?

I know what you are saying, but I think ignorant is the wrong word.

Ignorant: lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned

The point of giving the good news is to give knowledge. If someone openly refutes it, then you've got a point. The reason I ask, is that I've seen much derision in relation to God on this forum. At what point is it pearls before swine?

maitri

JimiTime wrote:

'Do not give what is holy to dogs. neither cast your pearls before swine, that they may never trample on them and turn around and rip you open'. Mat 7.6

What does this scripture mean?

I choose to read it as an advice not to try to force one’s opinions on other people (even if the opinions are really nice and seem like pearls for ourselves), because in the end it’ll only make us disappointed and angry, actually to the extent that we see the other persons - who don’t seem to appreciate our "great wisdom" and "luminous insights" - as "pigs" and "hogs" Which is really not very constructive and also not true at all... and which may even annoy our discussion partners so much that they actually start to act that way ("rip us open", so to say).

BTW, the quote reminds me of the saying:

“Don't try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it irritates the pig.”:cool:

bonkey

At what point is it pearls before swine?

You seem to have already decided that :

JimiTime wrote:

You are just trying to coax me into giving you a straight answer, when it will serve no good purpose, for you are not accepting of God

JimiTime

bonkey wrote:

You seem to have already decided that :

I do believe its discretionary to ones wisdom yes, and quite truly you observe me in my limited wisdom invoking Christs advice on this occasion. This forum is somewhere that one can witness why this advice was given. I'd be interested to hear other christian comment on what they see it as meaning. Christs example, and that of the apostles, was to give the message. those who had their hearts opened, recieved, those who didn't, didn't. In the same way, by their example, it was not forced on people. Those who accepted, accepted. those who didn't, didn't. All we can do is be the best beacon for The way we can possibly be, and if those who were once un-receptive come back and are more open, testify the good news again to them. IMO, the key is not entering into a discussion that brings reproach on God, such as the thread you referred to that was basically challenging the faithful to debate an accusation calling God a 'sponsor of rape'. I find that alot of the faithful (myself included), can be a little over-zealous with the good news, the consequence can be that God s name is dragged through the mud. this is something that i want to avoid. I pray for the wisdom of discernment.

Zombrex

bonkey wrote:

You seem to have already decided that :

Er, am I the swine :eek:

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

I do believe its discretionary to ones wisdom yes, and quite truly you observe me in my limited wisdom invoking Christs advice on this occasion. This forum is somewhere that one can witness why this advice was given. I'd be interested to hear other christian comment on what they see it as meaning. Christs example, and that of the apostles, was to give the message. those who had their hearts opened, recieved, those who didn't, didn't. In the same way, by their example, it was not forced on people. Those who accepted, accepted. those who didn't, didn't. All we can do is be the best beacon for The way we can possibly be, and if those who were once un-receptive come back and are more open, testify the good news again to them. IMO, the key is not entering into a discussion that brings reproach on God, such as the thread you referred to that was basically challenging the faithful to debate an accusation calling God a 'sponsor of rape'. I find that alot of the faithful (myself included), can be a little over-zealous with the good news, the consequence can be that God s name is dragged through the mud. this is something that i want to avoid. I pray for the wisdom of discernment.

The problem is Jimi that it ends up coming across as something like this

Christian - Praise God, I am here to testify that God is love, God is peace, God is forgiveness. God will save you, free you. I have seen the light and now I wish to share with you the joy that God through Jesus has brought to me and the message that can save all of you.

Non-believer - Yeah, thats great and all, but I had a read of your Bible and God seems to do quite a bit of nasty f**ked up stuff. Like in this part He gives over the women of a conquered tribe to be rap...

Christian - I'm going to stop you there. THere is no point in me telling you anything about that, for you to know the truth, the word, you must accept Jesus into your life. I have seen the light and now I am sharing that message with you.

Non-believer - Yeah, again that's great and all, but getting back to the raping and plundering that God commanded, I really don't see how that is a good thing and why I would want to follow a god like that....

Christian - All is revealed once you open your heart to Jesus, he is the light to guide you to God, to peace, love and joy. Seek the truth through Jesus and the truth will be revealed

Non-believer - Yeah but why would I want to start down the path towards a God that I find condoning and ordering acts of horrific barbarity?

Christian - You will find the truth once you accept Jesus into your life, once you accept the message, the word.

Non-believer - But I'm not just going to accept a god I find morally dubious

Christian - But you won't find Him that way once you know the truth

Non-believer - Ok, can you tell me the truth?

Christian - No, you must experience it for yourself, you must accept Jesus into your life and Jesus will guide you.

Non-believer - So, I should accept a god despite the fact that I find him to be seriously morally questionable because you assure me that once I do accept this god, it will be explained to me why he isn't morally questionable, despite the fact that you can't tell me right now why he isn't morally questionable, despite the glaring passages in the Bible describing rape and murder.

Christian - Er, yes.

Non-believer - I'll pass, thanks

Think of it as a case of really really bad PR on Gods part Jimi, on the one hand sending Jesus who is supposed to impress and convince people that God is the path to everlasting life, everlasting joy, and on the other hand sending the Old Testament which makes God out to be something out of a bad Conan the Barbarian movie.

When I was a teenager and thinking about all this stuff properly for the first time one of the reasons I rejected of idea of worshipping the Judeo/Christian God that Irish society was full of was I read the Bible. Not the fluffy children bible I had been given growing up by my Catholic father, but the proper Bible.

I read the passages about war, the passages about bloodshed, the passages about rape and slavery. And I read how God commanded that these things happen. And long before I rejected the concept of God out right and became an atheist, I rejected the idea of worshipping the god of the Old Testament.

I would not follow or worship a God that commands these things, even if he did exist. If that actually means I burn in hell for all eternity so be it, but at least I would keep my morality, I would keep my "soul" (for want of a better word)

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote:

The problem is Jimi that it ends up coming across as something like this

Christian - Praise God, I am here to testify that God is love, God is peace, God is forgiveness. God will save you, free you. I have seen the light and now I wish to share with you the joy that God through Jesus has brought to me and the message that can save all of you.

Non-believer - Yeah, thats great and all, but I had a read of your Bible and God seems to do quite a bit of nasty f**ked up stuff. Like in this part He gives over the women of a conquered tribe to be rap...

Christian - I'm going to stop you there. THere is no point in me telling you anything about that, for you to know the truth, the word, you must accept Jesus into your life. I have seen the light and now I am sharing that message with you.

Non-believer - Yeah, again that's great and all, but getting back to the raping and plundering that God commanded, I really don't see how that is a good thing and why I would want to follow a god like that....

Christian - All is revealed once you open your heart to Jesus, he is the light to guide you to God, to peace, love and joy. Seek the truth through Jesus and the truth will be revealed

Non-believer - Yeah but why would I want to start down the path towards a God that I find condoning and ordering acts of horrific barbarity?

Christian - You will find the truth once you accept Jesus into your life, once you accept the message, the word.

Non-believer - But I'm not just going to accept a god I find morally dubious

Christian - But you won't find Him that way once you know the truth

Non-believer - Ok, can you tell me the truth?

Christian - No, you must experience it for yourself, you must accept Jesus into your life and Jesus will guide you.

Non-believer - So, I should accept a god despite the fact that I find him to be seriously morally questionable because you assure me that once I do accept this god, it will be explained to me why he isn't morally questionable, despite the fact that you can't tell me right now why he isn't morally questionable, despite the glaring passages in the Bible describing rape and murder.

Christian - Er, yes.

Non-believer - I'll pass, thanks

Think of it as a case of really really bad PR on Gods part Jimi, on the one hand sending Jesus who is supposed to impress and convince people that God is the path to everlasting life, everlasting joy, and on the other hand sending the Old Testament which makes God out to be something out of a bad Conan the Barbarian movie.

When I was a teenager and thinking about all this stuff properly for the first time one of the reasons I rejected of idea of worshipping the Judeo/Christian God that Irish society was full of was I read the Bible. Not the fluffy children bible I had been given growing up by my Catholic father, but the proper Bible.

I read the passages about war, the passages about bloodshed, the passages about rape and slavery. And I read how God commanded that these things happen. And long before I rejected the concept of God out right and became an atheist, I rejected the idea of worshipping the god of the Old Testament.

I would not follow or worship a God that commands these things, even if he did exist. If that actually means I burn in hell for all eternity so be it, but at least I would keep my morality, I would keep my "soul" (for want of a better word)

Fair enough. You've made your decision. Thats basically my point. to enter into discussion with you about God, when you have such a view is not wise, for the things you say are reproachful. This is why I invoke the question on this thread. What constitutes pearls before swine. Understanding that I have the complete opposite view to you, I must be weary of entering into a spiritual discussion with you for your motivation seems to be to trample on the 'pearls' jesus described. Obviously, you will not see what is given as 'pearls' and TBH, sometimes what I and others offer fall short of being 'pearls', but you can understand my stance i'm sure?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

When I was a teenager and thinking about all this stuff properly for the first time one of the reasons I rejected of idea of worshipping the Judeo/Christian God that Irish society was full of was I read the Bible. Not the fluffy children bible I had been given growing up by my Catholic father, but the proper Bible.

I read the passages about war, the passages about bloodshed, the passages about rape and slavery. And I read how God commanded that these things happen. And long before I rejected the concept of God out right and became an atheist, I rejected the idea of worshipping the god of the Old Testament.

I would not follow or worship a God that commands these things, even if he did exist. If that actually means I burn in hell for all eternity so be it, but at least I would keep my morality, I would keep my "soul" (for want of a better word)

Amen to that. The Bible is all that's necessary to make an atheist.

oink,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

but you can understand my stance i'm sure?

I can, unfortunately, and it is one of the issues I have with religion as a cultural and moral system.

The inability of religion to debate, explain or argue a point or position within the context of justification, to denounce or to defend an argument, or to even put forward an argument in the first place is why many, including myself, view religion as not simply an irrelevant phenomena, but a dangerous and damaging one to.

You say that I cannot understand without first accepting the basic premisses of the religion first. Put simply, that isn't good enough.

I would not go so far as to use Dawkins' "root of all evil" analogy, and within the confines of an internet chat room none of this discussion holds much importance in the grand scheme of things. But, again unfortunately, the positions being expressed here are similar to the positions expressed throughout history with regard to religion and religious following, in much more important circumstances. As such religion expressed in this manner is certainly a social system that I view with great concern, and one of the reasons I believe strongly in secularity in areas such as law and science.

ISAW

JimiTime wrote:

Fair enough. You've made your decision. Thats basically my point. to enter into discussion with you about God, when you have such a view is not wise, for the things you say are reproachful. This is why I invoke the question on this thread. What constitutes pearls before swine. Understanding that I have the complete opposite view to you, I must be weary of entering into a spiritual discussion with you for your motivation seems to be to trample on the 'pearls' jesus described. Obviously, you will not see what is given as 'pearls' and TBH, sometimes what I and others offer fall short of being 'pearls', but you can understand my stance i'm sure?

Two points. First aboput the preceeding dialogue between the Christian and the Unbeliever. This isnt a group about that! I also contribute to the Skeptics group. Noew that IS a group which specifically asks in "unbelievers" in science/"believers" in paranormal/pseudo science to come and either propose their psychic claims or attack science.

This isnt a group about attacking christianity (although it has mostly become that). It is about christians discussing their beliefs. The fact that athiests wade in a say "it is all bunkum2 may be tolerated but it isnt the point of the group.

In short, if you don't believe then don't get absorbed in your own self importance about that!

This leads me nicely on to my second point. The possession of religious knowledge being "pearls" and the ignorant and unbelieving being the "swine" . christ himself had BIG problems with scholars who used scripture to justify their position. He had more time for thse who lived a decent life. He pointed out that living "by the book" fell far short of being a decent person. One example is when a man camee to him and asked how he should live. when offered the self righteous "i follow all the commandments" smugness christ said. Okay then if that isnt enough give up everything you have and follow me! The guy was taken down a peg or two.

now opinions have been expressed about not following a god who wants people to kill each other and offer women over to be raped. Saying you will not follow such a God is in my opinion leading a Christian life. Any smug claim that someone who rejects this is not illuminated by God and cant understand "pearls of wisdom" falls short of the mark.

In short if you DO believe then don't get abserved in your own self importance about that.

Puck

Just a point guys: Everyone's entitled to their opinion and all but this board would run a lot more friendly like if you could keep from calling other people "swine" (and your own opinions "pearls" for that matter). Whether it's true or not there is such a thing as tact.

ISAW

Puck wrote:

Just a point guys: Everyone's entitled to their opinion and all but this board would run a lot more friendly like if you could keep from calling other people "swine" (and your own opinions "pearls" for that matter). Whether it's true or not there is such a thing as tact.

are you suggesting christ meant "be tactful" Actually Christ didnt alwayds opt for the tactfull answer did he?

Puck

No he didn't but this is an internet discussion forum and we both know how they can get.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

are you suggesting christ meant "be tactful" Actually Christ didnt alwayds opt for the tactfull answer did he?

Jesus would prob have a site ban by now

JimiTime

ISAW wrote:

now opinions have been expressed about not following a god who wants people to kill each other and offer women over to be raped. Saying you will not follow such a God is in my opinion leading a Christian life. Any smug claim that someone who rejects this is not illuminated by God and cant understand "pearls of wisdom" falls short of the mark.

In short if you DO believe then don't get abserved in your own self importance about that.

Hi ISAW, I'm just wondering if this is directed at me or is it general advice? because if it is directed at me you have missed my point completely. I draw your attention back to an earlier comment I made, copied below, just in case you think I'm being haughty. I hope this clears up the motivation in invoking Christs advice.

'Christs example, and that of the apostles, was to give the message. those who had their hearts opened, recieved, those who didn't, didn't. In the same way, by their example, it was not forced on people. Those who accepted, accepted. those who didn't, didn't. All we can do is be the best beacon for The way we can possibly be, and if those who were once un-receptive come back and are more open, testify the good news again to them. IMO, the key is not entering into a discussion that brings reproach on God, such as the thread you referred to that was basically challenging the faithful to debate an accusation calling God a 'sponsor of rape'. I find that alot of the faithful (myself included), can be a little over-zealous with the good news, the consequence can be that God s name is dragged through the mud. this is something that i want to avoid. I pray for the wisdom of discernment.'

ISAW

JimiTime wrote:

Hi ISAW, I'm just wondering if this is directed at me or is it general advice? because if it is directed at me you have missed my point completely.

No not directed at you at all! It is a general point. I usually dont criticise people unless they seem to attack others (including me and/or groups which may not be present to defend the position e.g. the church; science; The GAA whoever - it is called being the "devil's advocate") or they make claims which they cant support.

... IMO, the key is not entering into a discussion that brings reproach on God, such as the thread you referred to that was basically challenging the faithful to debate an accusation calling God a 'sponsor of rape'.

this is the kernel of it. Shuld one get involved in such a discussion? to me it indicates some teological maturity in Christianity to enter such discussions. Look at the example of reactions in certain elemdents of Islam for example about cartoons and about whether one can discuss Mohammad marrying a six year old.

JimiTime

ISAW wrote:

No not directed at you at all! It is a general point. I usually dont criticise people unless they seem to attack others (including me and/or groups which may not be present to defend the position e.g. the church; science; The GAA whoever - it is called being the "devil's advocate") or they make claims which they cant support.

Grand, I was hoping that was so.
I'm not paranoid. Who said i'm paranoid. Did you say I'm paranoid:)

this is the kernel of it. Shuld one get involved in such a discussion? to me it indicates some teological maturity in Christianity to enter such discussions. Look at the example of reactions in certain elemdents of Islam for example about cartoons and about whether one can discuss Mohammad marrying a six year old.

I do understand what you are saying, which is why i would say its down to ones own discretion. I would not say 'don't answer questions like such and such'. I would more see it as discretionary to the individual. If I think that someone's motivation is to cast derision upon God, then I usually withdraw from the conversation, again, not with a haughty motivation of 'I've got pearls and you're a pig', but rather, understanding why Jesus gave that advice in the first place. He obviously saw that it would be possible to 'rip you open', even if you spoke the truth. To simplify it, I think he saw that the truth would not always stand up to the lie in this world. Your thoughts?