  netpilot had to actually go do work for his job last week and so the time span that covered an area of discussion (plus the nature of blog pages) is making the subject more quickly recede into web-history than we need it to right now. So I am reviving the topic here. I posted a link to urlLink La Shawn Barber's Corner and an article on a subject that ties into comments net has made many times here and elsewhere as to the relativity of the meanings of the lessons of Christianity in today's world. So I want to re-up the discussion for those who can't get enough of the religio-philo-socio-politico worldview thing.
Not that that kind of thing really matters - as it only defines every last one of us. But anyway... netpilot answered La Shawn's urlLink "Jesus Was A Liberal" article by saying... "Again, here are the points from the Sermon on the Mount which I mentioned in my previous post. " 'Blessed are the meek. Blessed are the peacemakers. Agree with your adversary quickly. Turn the other cheek. Give to him who asks you and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. Love your enemies. Judge not. ' "Let's take this more toward the Iraqi conflict and foreign policy instead of soup kitchens. That was my intention anyhow. "But even then, there is nothing spiritual about 'Give to him who asks you and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. ' In this instance, the woman who wrote the article is guilty of the same mistake made by Jesse.
She's picking and choosing the parts of his teachings that fit into her worldview. "But... the question I asked has not been addressed. Are these teachings still relevant and do they still apply to today's world? Are they still doable or are they naive? " I can't answer for La Shawn - and she wouldn't need that anyhow. Also the subject was well done and heavily attended at her blog, but I can give my take on an answer. Also I would prefer we stay to soup kitchens, but netpilot has taken it to the realm of foreign policy. So here we go. It should be noted that La Shawn and I, while Christians, have our own interpretations of things.
So I only answer net for myself when I say... We're also to give to Ceasar what is his and to God what is His. And whether or not we are talking about soup kitchens or foreign policy, Jesse's worldview or La Shawn's worldview, or for that matter netpilot's worldview, my contention is that the virtues expressed by Jesus in that sermon - and in His entire teachings - are the sources of inspiration and understandings directed toward the paradigms that order each individual's relation to all else.
But in that it may instruct policy MUST be another matter, for in a society that attempts to order and accomodate the various religions within the same borders as we do in America, we have to keep an eye out to the imposition of one set of teachings over another. And in any case if we found the truest expression of the Buddha there would be no borders, no power centers, no armies, and no more Buddhists either. But Islam's paradigm would swallow the sermon on the mount whole, as "fighting is proscribed for you" intones the notion that here we have a relgion and a version of God that admits to man's penchant for conflict. Islam attempts to temper that penchant by saying when a man cries for peace it is righteous to give peace, but if he fights - keep fighting him. Check your response here, my fellows - in my travels I studied the Qu-ran and was very close to conversion at one point. I'm not giving the standard American street-corner vitriol here. There is no "turn the other cheek" to offense in Islam once the intent of your opponent is clearly seen as your ruin.
There is only tempering response when the other guy cries "uncle. " In Christianity it may seem that gracefulness comes at the point of being attacked, while in Islam it comes when your enemy asks for you to have it. This is a huge chasm. And it does not take into account - at any time - the idea that there could possibly be people who are using the knowledge that you won't defend yourself in order to take what you have and what you are - because they didn't buy the lessons and/or you forgot that it is a metaphor .
The point of my silly comparison is as an answer to your question of the teaching's relevence to today's world. Are they? Yes they are - but to the degree they contain (or appear to contain) the seeds of one's own eventual destruction, then you have to ask - was that the intent of the lesson? If LaShawn decided to answer we'd be honored, but there are also a good many looks at this topic in what is covered at her site. urlLink MORE… 
