Ministry reaches out to exotic dancers

[SingleCellOrganism]

I dunno, gluttony is a sin too. As long as John Hagee can weigh 435 pounds, Christian chicks ought to be able to give lapdances.

Comedy aside, that is just bad philosophy

If everyone says "I'm not changing until you change" we would be in a far worse place than we already are!

Personal growth should no be hampered by the sins of others.

 

[Goshin]

I don't think so. Everyone sins. His purpose was not to stop sin - an impossibility - but to show that you can have your sins forgiven. He was not trying to stop prostitute from doing what they did.

Bud, that is a common misconception, but it isn't Biblical. Just to hit on one of the basic flaws here, Jesus said to a woman caught in sin: "Go thy way, and sin no more."

If you dig deeper, you find that yes, human beings are not perfectible in this life, yes we will inevitably sin at times... but that doesn't mean we have a license to sin perpetually and without consequence. Anyone can fall to temptation at times, but to live in an ongoing state of sin, for an extended period of time, without apparent repentance or real efforts to change, is generally considered a sign that someone is still outside of God's grace.

If someone slaps you in the face and asks your forgiveness, you might grant it. But what if they said "I want you to forgive me, but I PLAN to smack you in the face again tomorrow... in fact I plan to slap you in the face every day forever and have no intention of ever ceasing from this behavior." Puts a different face on it, doesn't it?

Conversion and repentance both speak to a change of heart and mind, a re-direction of one's life. This does not include intentions to keep right on doing what you're doing, with no qualms of conscience and no desire or intent to change. "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." "Be not decieved, God is not mocked: whatever a man sow, that shall he also reap." The bible teaches that those who continue in certain sins indefinitely, and never change their ways, will not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

@Goshin - I couldn't agree more.

 

[reefedjib]

Ok, In my mind we're purely debating a book - not a real bit of history (just to put that out, here).

Given you recent post, I feel we are debating two things. First is the concept of forgiveness as it applies between humans. Second is the concept of forgiveness of sins as attributed to God.

I think people abuse the idea of forgiveness and twist it into that - but I don't think that's suppose to be the original intent behind forgiveness.

If someone's done something wrong and they ask for forgiveness a *crucial* part of that forgiveness being granted is that "I'll let it go - if you promise not to do it anymore"
Forgiveness isn't just beign excused *every* time you do something wrong - just so you can do it over and over.

I see your point and it's a good one. I think between people there is the understanding that you won't do it anymore.

However, with God and sin, we are incapable of not sinning. We do do it over and over again, even if we ask and receive forgiveness from God for sins up to then. We will commit more and will have to ask for forgiveness again.

This does seem to create the "get out of jail" card situation you mention, where you ask forgiveness so you can do it again. It seems to me that you are not truly regretful that you have sinned and so the request for forgiveness may not be sincere and you won't therefore be forgiven.

Christianity started with the first Christians: the prostitutes, fisherman, laborers, and the destitute. There was no overt morality being dictated and nor was your worth as a Christian being measured by human standards of morality. That came after the early church was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire and continued by the Anglican church of England. It is then that we see people being judgmental against the prostitutes. God loves the prostitutes as much as any other, like he forgave the thieves who shared the crucifixes with Christ.

So, can a prostitute be truly regretful of the sin she does, in order to be saved, yet continue to be a prostitute (out of necessity)?

 

[reefedjib]

Jesus' message was one of repentance through faith in Him. He never said "continue sinning, it's all good."

Jesus said to a woman caught in sin: "Go thy way, and sin no more."

digsbe and Goshin, thanks for setting me straight. I am not that familiar with the bible.

I do note that what Jesus said the the woman is: "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

I believe we started this part of the thread questioning whether it is right for Christians to condemn prostitutes. According to that, it is not. It is between God and the woman.

 

[Goshin]

Given you recent post, I feel we are debating two things. First is the concept of forgiveness as it applies between humans. Second is the concept of forgiveness of sins as attributed to God.



I see your point and it's a good one. I think between people there is the understanding that you won't do it anymore.

However, with God and sin, we are incapable of not sinning. We do do it over and over again, even if we ask and receive forgiveness from God for sins up to then. We will commit more and will have to ask for forgiveness again.

This does seem to create the "get out of jail" card situation you mention, where you ask forgiveness so you can do it again. It seems to me that you are not truly regretful that you have sinned and so the request for forgiveness may not be sincere and you won't therefore be forgiven.

Christianity started with the first Christians: the prostitutes, fisherman, laborers, and the destitute. There was no overt morality being dictated and nor was your worth as a Christian being measured by human standards of morality. That came after the early church was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire and continued by the Anglican church of England. It is then that we see people being judgmental against the prostitutes. God loves the prostitutes as much as any other, like he forgave the thieves who shared the crucifixes with Christ.

So, can a prostitute be truly regretful of the sin she does, in order to be saved, yet continue to be a prostitute (out of necessity)?

Granted that it is a complicated issue and not readily explained in a sound-bite; yet Biblically many sins were indeed condemned in the early church and it was expected that a convert would cease from them, specifically things like idolotry, adultery/fornication, drunkenness, etc... and it was plainly said in the bible "those who do such things have no place in the Kingdom of God." It goes on to say "Such were some of you, but you have been washed"... meaning that yes, there is forgiveness for these sins as for any other, but with repentence comes a responsibility to try to avoid sin as much as possible.

"Where sin abounds, Grace abounds much more... are we then to sin? Heaven forbid..." Clearly there is a biblical mandate to seek to avoid sin, even as the Bible acknowleges that we are not perfectable in this life.

For anyone who claims to have recieved Jesus' grace, I think it boils down to this: has there been change in your life? Are there things that you once did with glee that now trouble your conscience? Do you try to avoid sin? Has your life changed for the better? Yes, we all sin and fall short, but is the general direction of your life one of growing closer to God as the years pass?

To answer your bolded question, about the prostitute who repents but keeps on in her 'profession' out of necessity... I can't answer that. That is between her and God. But my own opinion would be that to continue in prostitution would greatly trouble her conscience and she would be seeking some way out, even at great cost and difficulty, if she has indeed recieved God's grace.

Okay, stripping might be a little more of a "gray area" than outright prostitution, but it is certainly immodest behavior that makes a business out of something that is supposed to be part of a sacred institution (marriage). It isn't something Christianity should put a stamp of "okeedokalee" on.

 

[SingleCellOrganism]

Given you recent post, I feel we are debating two things. First is the concept of forgiveness as it applies between humans. Second is the concept of forgiveness of sins as attributed to God.



I see your point and it's a good one. I think between people there is the understanding that you won't do it anymore.

However, with God and sin, we are incapable of not sinning. We do do it over and over again, even if we ask and receive forgiveness from God for sins up to then. We will commit more and will have to ask for forgiveness again.

This does seem to create the "get out of jail" card situation you mention, where you ask forgiveness so you can do it again. It seems to me that you are not truly regretful that you have sinned and so the request for forgiveness may not be sincere and you won't therefore be forgiven.

Christianity started with the first Christians: the prostitutes, fisherman, laborers, and the destitute. There was no overt morality being dictated and nor was your worth as a Christian being measured by human standards of morality. That came after the early church was adopted as the state religion of the Roman Empire and continued by the Anglican church of England. It is then that we see people being judgmental against the prostitutes. God loves the prostitutes as much as any other, like he forgave the thieves who shared the crucifixes with Christ.

So, can a prostitute be truly regretful of the sin she does, in order to be saved, yet continue to be a prostitute (out of necessity)?

No, because that would be "mocking God" and assuming you won't "reap what you sow".

If the prostitute is truly regretful, and has faith in God, she will stop turning tricks and have faith that God will provide. (either in this life or the next)

What necessity on earth is greater than the necessity to obey God? Sure, we all will have "sin" in our lives until years and years under God's kingdom flushes that tendency away (IMO), but willing and planned sin is what the christian philosophy is trying to get us to fight (again, IMO).

It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong his brother or take advantage of him. The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God, who gives you his Holy Spirit.

Rampant sexual immorality causes nations to fall by internal rot/apathy/jealousy/greed, so the gravity of "sexual sin" is especially great.

 

[reefedjib]

No, because that would be "mocking God" and assuming you won't "reap what you sow".

My understanding of "reap what you sow" is slightly different. It is not in this life that you sow. It is in the next life. This is the Law of Karma. It is connected with reincarnation.

 

[digsbe]

digsbe and Goshin, thanks for setting me straight. I am not that familiar with the bible.

I do note that what Jesus said the the woman is: "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

I believe we started this part of the thread questioning whether it is right for Christians to condemn prostitutes. According to that, it is not. It is between God and the woman.

In regards to the condemnation thing. I believe that Jesus condemned the sin, but offered forgiveness to the sinner. The Bible says in many places that God hates sin, but that His desire is to have people repent of sin so that their sin would not be held against them on judgement day and that God and humanity could have relationship free from the sin that separates us. I believe that part of what Jesus did was to condemn sin, but to offer forgiveness and set people free. Here is one passage of scripture that I base that belief on.

Rom 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, [fn]
Rom 8:2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, [fn] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. [fn] And so he condemned sin in sinful man, [fn]

 

[reefedjib]

Okay, stripping might be a little more of a "gray area" than outright prostitution, but it is certainly immodest behavior that makes a business out of something that is supposed to be part of a sacred institution (marriage). It isn't something Christianity should put a stamp of "okeedokalee" on.

The other stuff you wrote makes sense. I am again faced with the situation whereby a Christian condemns another for sinning. I just don't think that is right. If a Christian wants to avoid participating in strip clubs and prostitution that's fine. But they should not be judgmental of other people.

 

[reefedjib]

In regards to the condemnation thing. I believe that Jesus condemned the sin, but offered forgiveness to the sinner. The Bible says in many places that God hates sin, but that His desire is to have people repent of sin so that their sin would not be held against them on judgement day and that God and humanity could have relationship free from the sin that separates us. I believe that part of what Jesus did was to condemn sin, but to offer forgiveness and set people free. Here is one passage of scripture that I base that belief on.

So God condemns the sin, forgives the sinner. People who are not without sin cannot condemn the sinner.

 

[Goshin]

So God condemns the sin, forgives the sinner. People who are not without sin cannot condemn the sinner.

This is another common misapprehension, the whole "judge not" thing.

If I observe someone's behavior and I "condemn" or "judge" them based on my own understanding or personal preferences, then I am committing the sin of being judgemental.

If, however, I point out to them that the BIBLE says "that is a sin", I am neither judging nor condemning... I am attempting to inform. If I decline to participate, and decline to put my stamp of approval on the behavior based on Biblical teachings against it, then again I am NOT judging or condemning... I'm being obedient to God's word.

Is there a verse in the bible that says "Thou shalt not attend or work at a strip club"? Not explicitly, no. Thus I said "somewhat of a grey area". However there is plenty of condemnation of sexual immorality of all sorts, and immodesty (which I would define as acting or dressing in a manner intended to inspire immoral desires) is among them. Therefore I think it is pretty safe to say that God does not approve of strip clubs or of being a stripper.

I say this not based on my own judgement or bias, but based on a knowlege of the Bible. I could go and dig around for scripture that relates to sins of sexual immorality and immodesty, and come back and cite chapter and verse... but I can tell you confidently right now that I would find a-plenty.

 

[Goshin]

digsbe and Goshin, thanks for setting me straight. I am not that familiar with the bible.

I do note that what Jesus said the the woman is: "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

I believe we started this part of the thread questioning whether it is right for Christians to condemn prostitutes. According to that, it is not. It is between God and the woman.

Hm, I'm backing up a bit here because I missed this one.

Okay, you're not that familiar with the bible, thanks for that admission. If that is so, I'm not quite sure why you're entering into a debate on what the Bible means with a pre-existing position, if you don't know enough Bible to base it on. No offense.


Now, what exactly do you mean by "condemn"? As in "whether it is right for Christians to condemn prostitutes." You conclude that it is not.

Condemn them to hell? No. No man has that power.

Condemn them to death? A judge in a country that has capital punishment for prostitution might, based on his laws, but I certainly won't.

Condemn them as in calling what they do wrong? Absolutely, yes. Why? Not because I judge it to be wrong, but because the Bible says it is.

 

[reefedjib]

Okay, you're not that familiar with the bible, thanks for that admission. If that is so, I'm not quite sure why you're entering into a debate on what the Bible means with a pre-existing position, if you don't know enough Bible to base it on. No offense.

No offense taken. It comes from being trained as a physicist as an undergrad. I come up with a hypothesis and see if it holds water. This one didn't. The trick is to be brutally honest when it doesn't and revise your hypothesis to fit known facts.

This also comes from my feeling about what the church position ought to be. More on that in a few...

Now, what exactly do you mean by "condemn"? As in "whether it is right for Christians to condemn prostitutes." You conclude that it is not.

...

Condemn them as in calling what they do wrong? Absolutely, yes. Why? Not because I judge it to be wrong, but because the Bible says it is.

This is another common misapprehension, the whole "judge not" thing.

If I observe someone's behavior and I "condemn" or "judge" them based on my own understanding or personal preferences, then I am committing the sin of being judgemental.

If, however, I point out to them that the BIBLE says "that is a sin", I am neither judging nor condemning... I am attempting to inform. If I decline to participate, and decline to put my stamp of approval on the behavior based on Biblical teachings against it, then again I am NOT judging or condemning... I'm being obedient to God's word.

Is there a verse in the bible that says "Thou shalt not attend or work at a strip club"? Not explicitly, no. Thus I said "somewhat of a grey area". However there is plenty of condemnation of sexual immorality of all sorts, and immodesty (which I would define as acting or dressing in a manner intended to inspire immoral desires) is among them. Therefore I think it is pretty safe to say that God does not approve of strip clubs or of being a stripper.

I say this not based on my own judgement or bias, but based on a knowlege of the Bible. I could go and dig around for scripture that relates to sins of sexual immorality and immodesty, and come back and cite chapter and verse... but I can tell you confidently right now that I would find a-plenty.

I will try to put my thoughts in order. There is no need for you to dig up bible quotes. God forbid. Especially since it was written by the Catholic church and reflects their agenda. Different topic.

You have convinced me that continuing to be a prostitute, or stripper, after accepting Christ as your savior - a godly person, is wrong. It is intentionally sinning when you are supposed to be conscientious of the sin you do and attempt to minimize it.

When you say "If I decline to participate, and decline to put my stamp of approval on the behavior based on Biblical teachings against it, then again I am NOT judging or condemning... I'm being obedient to God's word.", I have no problem with that. You personally decide not to participate in the sin. Fine.

However, when you say "If, however, I point out to them that the BIBLE says "that is a sin", I am neither judging nor condemning... I am attempting to inform.", you are prosthelytizing. You are publicly abusing someone you feel is a sinner because of what the bible tells you. That is wrong. You need to keep you opinion to yourself and not use humiliation to spread your word. You are condemning them.

Lastly, you say "Condemn them as in calling what they do wrong? Absolutely, yes. Why? Not because I judge it to be wrong, but because the Bible says it is.". I think the bible tells us to not condemn. I pointed it out in the previous quote. It *is* judgmental and simply saying it is because the bible says so makes it not judgmental is complete bull****.

This is a part of Christianity which completely turns me off to ever becoming one. The uninspired and impertinent sermons, the lengthy Sunday schools, the formal attire, the condemnation, the anthropomorphic God, all turn me off.

 

[Goshin]

However, when you say "If, however, I point out to them that the BIBLE says "that is a sin", I am neither judging nor condemning... I am attempting to inform.", you are prosthelytizing. You are publicly abusing someone you feel is a sinner because of what the bible tells you. That is wrong. You need to keep you opinion to yourself and not use humiliation to spread your word. You are condemning them.

Hmm. Proselytizing? Possibly. Depends on whether the person I'm talking to is a professing Christian or not.
Publically abusing someone? Using humiliation? When did I say it would be in public, or that abuse or humiliation would be involved? I'm not a street preacher, or any other sort of preacher.

The fact is I rarely stick my nose into anyone's business uninvited. Now if they ASK what I think, I will be as tactful as I can, but honest: I will not call something good when I have biblical reason to believe that it isn't. If I develop a personal relationship with someone, and I see them on a self-destructive path, I will try to help them if they will let me... but I don't generally try to shove my beliefs on anyone who makes it clear they aren't intrested.

If the subject comes up and the question is "what do you think about _______?", then I'm going to give my opinion or beliefs on that subject just as everyone else is... and again, I'll try to be tactful but I'm going to be honest: I can't say "well, I guess that's okay" when by my sincere beliefs it isn't okay.

Lastly, you say "Condemn them as in calling what they do wrong? Absolutely, yes. Why? Not because I judge it to be wrong, but because the Bible says it is.". I think the bible tells us to not condemn. I pointed it out in the previous quote. It *is* judgmental and simply saying it is because the bible says so makes it not judgmental is complete bull****.

You "think the bible tells us to not condemn"... yet you admit you don't know much about the bible. Okay. I've been studying the Bible for a very long time... around forty years all total. What I told you is my honest understanding of what the bible says about "judgement". I was speaking in Biblical terms, not whether someone as an individual might feel something is "judgemental".

From the perspective of a Christian, it makes a great deal of difference whether one speaks against something based on personal bias, or based on solid teachings directly from the Bible.

A non-believer might not care one way or the other, but I'm speaking from the Christian perspective because I am one, and because that was the context of the discussion.

If you think that the Bible teaches that I must not tell someone the Bible says that what they are doing is wrong... surely I don't have to point out the illogic of that? That would be like declining to inform someone that the bridge is out, because I don't want to scare them.

But still, as I said... I don't go around yelling at people about sin. If someone asks... if a friend wants advice... if there's an intrest, yes. I don't force anyone to listen to my beliefs unless they're intrested or the subject is brought up in some sense.

This is a part of Christianity which completely turns me off to ever becoming one. The uninspired and impertinent sermons, the lengthy Sunday schools, the formal attire, the condemnation, the anthropomorphic God, all turn me off.

While I think you're overgeneralizing in several different ways, I have to ask: if that's your opinion of Christianity, then why did you even begin a discussion about what the Bible says about this and that? If you don't believe and have such a negative viewpoint of Christianity, why would you care what the Bible says?

Not to rant at you, but I seem to run into that a lot and it baffles me. People who don't believe and have never seriously studied the bible, yet they want to argue about what it says with someone who is a believer and has been studying it for decades ... I don't get it. I'm perfectly content to discuss it if you wish, but I don't understand why you're intrested at all if, when the discussion turns to things you don't agree with, you break off with some version of "well I don't believe the Bible and I don't like Christianity and I wouldn't ever want to be one anyway." So why the intrest in the first place? :shrug:

 

[reefedjib]

Hmm. Proselytizing? Possibly. Depends on whether the person I'm talking to is a professing Christian or not.
Publically abusing someone? Using humiliation? When did I say it would be in public, or that abuse or humiliation would be involved? I'm not a street preacher, or any other sort of preacher.

The fact is I rarely stick my nose into anyone's business uninvited. Now if they ASK what I think, I will be as tactful as I can, but honest: I will not call something good when I have biblical reason to believe that it isn't. If I develop a personal relationship with someone, and I see them on a self-destructive path, I will try to help them if they will let me... but I don't generally try to shove my beliefs on anyone who makes it clear they aren't intrested.

If the subject comes up and the question is "what do you think about _______?", then I'm going to give my opinion or beliefs on that subject just as everyone else is... and again, I'll try to be tactful but I'm going to be honest: I can't say "well, I guess that's okay" when by my sincere beliefs it isn't okay.

This I can respect. Moral opinion and guidance only if asked.

You "think the bible tells us to not condemn"... yet you admit you don't know much about the bible. Okay. I've been studying the Bible for a very long time... around forty years all total. What I told you is my honest understanding of what the bible says about "judgement". I was speaking in Biblical terms, not whether someone as an individual might feel something is "judgemental".

From the perspective of a Christian, it makes a great deal of difference whether one speaks against something based on personal bias, or based on solid teachings directly from the Bible.

A non-believer might not care one way or the other, but I'm speaking from the Christian perspective because I am one, and because that was the context of the discussion.

If you think that the Bible teaches that I must not tell someone the Bible says that what they are doing is wrong... surely I don't have to point out the illogic of that? That would be like declining to inform someone that the bridge is out, because I don't want to scare them.

But still, as I said... I don't go around yelling at people about sin. If someone asks... if a friend wants advice... if there's an intrest, yes. I don't force anyone to listen to my beliefs unless they're intrested or the subject is brought up in some sense.

Surely you realize that not all Christians as as respectful about sharing their moral opinions. To cite one visible example, many pro-lifers tend to be a bit pushy about placing their beliefs upon others.

While I think you're overgeneralizing in several different ways, I have to ask: if that's your opinion of Christianity, then why did you even begin a discussion about what the Bible says about this and that? If you don't believe and have such a negative viewpoint of Christianity, why would you care what the Bible says?

Not to rant at you, but I seem to run into that a lot and it baffles me. People who don't believe and have never seriously studied the bible, yet they want to argue about what it says with someone who is a believer and has been studying it for decades ... I don't get it. I'm perfectly content to discuss it if you wish, but I don't understand why you're intrested at all if, when the discussion turns to things you don't agree with, you break off with some version of "well I don't believe the Bible and I don't like Christianity and I wouldn't ever want to be one anyway." So why the intrest in the first place? :shrug:

Well a lot of that is from personal experience and not all churches would necessarily exhibit those features. I went to an Episcopal Church growing up; it was hell.

I do think that there is a difference between how a particular church or particular group of Christians may act versus what the teachings of Christ are. Not that I am super familiar with them, obviously, but I find them interesting as a moral code and how they result in piety that is in God's interest. I believe in God from the Hindu perspective and I read a book about the Sermon on the Mount from their perspective. Pretty interesting stuff.

Lastly, I thought it would be an interesting discussion, unlike so many discussions here at DP. It has been. I learned new things.

 

[Goshin]

This I can respect. Moral opinion and guidance only if asked.




Surely you realize that not all Christians as as respectful about sharing their moral opinions. To cite one visible example, many pro-lifers tend to be a bit pushy about placing their beliefs upon others.

Yes, I know some of my co-religionists are pushy and loud. I find those sorts to be an embarassment; I don't think their methods are effective in persuading people to take an intrest in Christ, and I think some of them just like to stir ****.

But they really aren't the average Christian. I mean, ask any evangelical pastor how hard it is to get members to actually show up for visitation night. :mrgreen: Apathy is more of a problem in most churches than zealotry, to be painfully honest. The zealots just get noticed because they are loud.

Now, in all fairness, the abortion thing is something of a special case. If you believe that an unborn is a human person, then you believe that abortion is an act that prematurely ends an innocent human life. Since aborted babies can't speak for themselves, those who believe as above feel compelled to speak out on their behalf. If you believe abortion is simply a medical proceedure, you might find it difficult to understand that pro-lifers believe that an abortion clinic is literally killing babies. When you look at it that way, you might find yourself amazed that they are able to show any restraint in their opposition to it.

Well a lot of that is from personal experience and not all churches would necessarily exhibit those features. I went to an Episcopal Church growing up; it was hell.

Not an expert on Episcopalian denomination, other than the basics. Been to a couple of Episcopal churches, they didn't seem so bad, but churches vary a lot on an individual basis.

I do think that there is a difference between how a particular church or particular group of Christians may act versus what the teachings of Christ are.

I absolutely agree. Christ was perfect; we his followers are most definitely not. The difference is that some of us know that and admit it. :mrgreen:

Not that I am super familiar with them, obviously, but I find them interesting as a moral code and how they result in piety that is in God's interest. I believe in God from the Hindu perspective and I read a book about the Sermon on the Mount from their perspective. Pretty interesting stuff.

Lastly, I thought it would be an interesting discussion, unlike so many discussions here at DP. It has been. I learned new things.

I'll bet the Hindu perspective about the SOTM would be facinating; I'd be intrested in reading about that.

Ok then, we cool.

 

[reefedjib]

I'll bet the Hindu perspective about the SOTM would be facinating; I'd be intrested in reading about that.

The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta ISBN 0-87481-050-7

http://www.amazon.com/Sermon-Mount-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279165041&sr=1-1