par@ihlpl.UUCP (Rupsis) (07/10/85)
Matthew 7:6 Jesus says: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." What did Jesus mean? Who are the dogs and swine? What are the pearls? I would appreciate any light shed upon this subject. Paul Rupsis
kene@tekecs.UUCP (Ken Ewing) (07/13/85)
> Matthew 7:6 Jesus says: > > "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before > swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you > to pieces." > > What did Jesus mean? > Who are the dogs and swine? > What are the pearls? > > I would appreciate any light shed upon this subject. > > Paul Rupsis This is a passage that I struggled over for a long time. Normally, when investigating a passage, I do lots of research into commentaries and other study aids. However, with this particular passage, my understanding does not come from any documented source, but from my own reflection. Therefore, I claim no established authority, but just throw in my ideas to stimulate discussion. I take this passage more like a proverb than a parable, and one that applies universally (not just to religious connotations). To me, Jesus is telling us to be discerning about with whom we share the things that are personally precious to us. PEARLS is a poetic symbol for anything that is personally precious to you (you fill in the blanks: movies you enjoyed, hobbies, interests, friends, religious experiences....). DOGS and SWINE are symbols for those cynical and captious types of people who show no regard for the values and feelings of others, but rather seem bent on tearing down and ripping apart the things that those around them enjoy. If I were to paraphrase Jesus' words to show clearly what I mean, this is what I would say: "Be discerning about the people with whom you share. Do not share with people who have no appreciation for the value of what you have. If you do, they will tear apart what you have, and even attack you personally as well. " I often think of this passage while reading articles on the net. :-) I anticipate that some might think I am trying to say that people should be sheltered from criticism in general. I am not trying to say that, and I don't think Jesus is saying that either. There is a difference between those who call things into question in order to stimulate growth (i.e.; showing concern for the ones being criticized), and those who cynically tear down other people simply to argue, or to be arrogant, or to divert attention away from something that is threatening to them. Ken Ewing [decvax,ucbvax]!tektronix!tekecs!kene
bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) (07/15/85)
>From par@ihlpl.UUCP (Rupsis) Wed Jul 10 14:14:29 1985 >Message-ID: <209@ihlpl.UUCP> >Matthew 7:6 Jesus says: > >"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before > swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you > to pieces." > > What did Jesus mean? > Who are the dogs and swine? > What are the pearls? > >I would appreciate any light shed upon this subject. > > Paul Rupsis Some random thoughts. First, to state the obvious, the parallelism in the quote would seems to indicate that dogs are like hogs and pearls are like "what is holy." Also the Jewish audience would have noted that pigs are unclean animals in the dietary law. So it appears Jesus is talking about giving what is holy to entities (most likely persons but not necissarily) which are unholy. One suggestion I have read is that Jesus is simply advising us to use tact when discussing religion. Another interesting idea is that perhaps Jesus is sarcastically describing his relationship with the religious leaders of his day; he casts before them his words as holy pearls, but the leaders are pigs (unclean) who do not appreciate pearls (holiness) but instead turn on the speaker. If this is a correct interpretation, Jesus is using some rather biting sarcasm. The main problem with this idea is that one would expect such a remark to occur in the context of Jesus arguing with the Pharisees, yet it does not; in fact the context seems to shed very little light on the meaning here. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A balanced diet is important: one must | Tom Bennet @ U of MD Comp Sci Dept occasionally change pizza places. | ..!ihnp4!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!bennet
par@ihlpl.UUCP (Rupsis) (07/15/85)
> > Matthew 7:6 Jesus says: > > > > "Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before > > swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you > > to pieces." > > > > What did Jesus mean? > > Who are the dogs and swine? > > What are the pearls? > > > > I would appreciate any light shed upon this subject. > > > > Paul Rupsis > > > > I take this passage more like a proverb than a parable, and one that applies > universally (not just to religious connotations). To me, Jesus is telling > us to be discerning about with whom we share the things that are personally > precious to us. PEARLS is a poetic symbol for anything that is personally > precious to you (you fill in the blanks: movies you enjoyed, hobbies, > interests, friends, religious experiences....). DOGS and SWINE are symbols > for those cynical and captious types of people who show no regard for the > values and feelings of others, but rather seem bent on tearing down and > ripping apart the things that those around them enjoy. > I agree with your definition of who the DOGS and SWINE are, and I also agree with the statement that I shouldn't share what is precious to me with cynical people who will tear down what I enjoy. However, the only problem I see with this interpretation is that Jesus tells us that we should not give what is **holy** to the dogs. I don't see how personally precious things can be considered holy. I think there is a definite "religious" connotation BECAUSE of the word *holy*. That's because my definition of **holy** is those things/people that are set apart for God. Though nothing is specified, could the holy thing(s) that we are not to give to dogs be the Bible, or Christ? The holy thing(s) are probably synonomous with PEARLS and therefore may not be applicable to movies, interests, hobbies, etc. What other things and/or people would we consider holy? > > I often think of this passage while reading articles on the net. :-) > > > Ken Ewing > [decvax,ucbvax]!tektronix!tekecs!kene (For some strange reason I do too, which was my motivation for bringing this topic up for discussion.) Paul Rupsis
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/18/85)
> >Matthew 7:6 Jesus says: > >"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before > swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you > to pieces." > > What did Jesus mean? > Who are the dogs and swine? > What are the pearls? I've always had trouble ironing out this one, myself. I can only reason that "dogs" and "swine" represent those who have no desire to see value in things that may truly have value (pearls). The value of some things does not make them indestructible; especially to those bent on destroying them. To me a "pearl" connotes something that has great personal value (not just monetary) and to have it trampled upon incurs personal damage. One example of things like this is if, for instance, a Christian wanted to share some of the personal details of her conversion with another person. In doing this, some feel led to share some intimate details; baring old wounds to help the person relate to God's power to heal a broken life. One needs to be careful, if the person is bent against this testimony they may use the knowledge to hurt you by telling others (and not in the way you would tell it, if you thought it should be told at all). Even well-meaning people can tell your "testimony" to third parties, forgetting details you consider important and therefore giving the wrong impression of you (and it may be the only impression they get). For this reason, it's good not to identify another person's past life as an illustration to someone else (whether you mean well or not). A person's testimony is their own. They should have the most say over how it gets propagated. Another example might be not to waste your time reasoning with someone whose clear purpose is to twist your words and misrepresent what you say. (Maybe that's why Jesus would never talk to the media :-) ). In your dealings with people, you just get to know which ones are sincerely interested in what you think and those who just want to drag you through the mud no matter what you say. There are enough of the former type people around to make it senseless to waste time on the latter. Of course, as important as it is not to "cast pearls before swine", it is just as important (if not, more so) not to be the swine yourself. Paul Dubuc
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (07/22/85)
In article <988@cbsck.UUCP> pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > Another example might be not to waste your time reasoning with someone > whose clear purpose is to twist your words and misrepresent what you say. > (Maybe that's why Jesus would never talk to the media :-) ). In your dealings > with people, you just get to know which ones are sincerely interested in what > you think and those who just want to drag you through the mud no matter what > you say. There are enough of the former type people around to make it > senseless to waste time on the latter. Of course, as important as it is > not to "cast pearls before swine", it is just as important (if not, more so) > not to be the swine yourself. That's close to my interpretation. I view "pearls before swine" as a heuristic that can have many applications. Primarily, it is cautions against inefficient methods of spreading and maintaining beliefs. The commonest two applications are against skeptics. First because the time spent trying to convince a skeptic may more profitably be spent convincing the gullable. Second, because a skeptic may dissuade you from your belief. The implicit ad-hominem attack is very valuable in the latter case, where shaken belief needs to be shored up by anything, no matter how fallacious. Use of this phrase is often pretty good evidence of "swinehood", in my opinion. It shows how little you value the other person, or how unjustifiably dogmatic you are. That's why I continue to argue, even with the people in net.religion.christian. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
pmd@cbsck.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (07/30/85)
A response to Mike Huybensz: >> Another example might be not to waste your time reasoning with someone >> whose clear purpose is to twist your words and misrepresent what you say. >> (Maybe that's why Jesus would never talk to the media :-) ). In your >> dealings with people, you just get to know which ones are sincerely >> interested in what you think and those who just want to drag you through >> the mud no matter what you say. There are enough of the former type >> people around to make it senseless to waste time on the latter. Of >> course, as important as it is not to "cast pearls before swine", it is >> just as important (if not, more so) not to be the swine yourself. [Dubuc] > >That's close to my interpretation. > >I view "pearls before swine" as a heuristic that can have many applications. >Primarily, it is cautions against inefficient methods of spreading and >maintaining beliefs. > >The commonest two applications are against skeptics. First because the >time spent trying to convince a skeptic may more profitably be spent >convincing the gullable. Second, because a skeptic may dissuade you from >your belief. The implicit ad-hominem attack is very valuable in the latter >case, where shaken belief needs to be shored up by anything, no matter how >fallacious. Are you accusing me of one of these applications, Mike? If not, are you denying that my application is valid? Don't you think it's possible to use skepticism as a bullying tactic? I think it lends itself as easily to that purpose as it does to honest inquiry. >Use of this phrase is often pretty good evidence of "swinehood", in my >opinion. It shows how little you value the other person, or how >unjustifiably dogmatic you are. That's why I continue to argue, even >with the people in net.religion.christian. What about dogmatic skeptics? That's not a contradiction in terms, I think. People can be skeptical of ideas and not be hostile. Yet there are those skeptics who apply their skepticism in the same way you accuse some of applying the "pearls before swine" heuristic against skeptics. Not everyone who listens to something that a skeptic refuses is gullable. And skeptics are just as prone to ad hominem attacks a those they are skeptical of. Indeed, a skeptical position on any issue is not immune from being shored up with fallicious argument. I think for some skeptics the possibility of being convinced is just as scary as the possiblility of being dissuaded is for some believers. Failure to disuade can also be a threat to skeptics. This can be shored up by the skeptic with charges of closed-mindedness and the like. (And so the mud-slinging goes back and forth.) Those charges may be true. But the possibility always exists that the argument is bad; which is always harder to face when the argument defends our own position. I think believers and skeptics are equally vulnerable these kind of "mine is better" reflexes. Neither are exempt from "swinehood". The skeptic has the lighter burden than the apologist though, I think, no matter what the issue. It's easy to poke a few holes in something, maybe get carried away in doing so, and act as if that's the end of the matter (whoever gets the last word leaves with the impression that she is right). It's another thing to defend a consistent philosophy of life from the determined "hole pokers". Poking a few holes doesn't prove that the skeptic knows better or has the right explanation, but it often leaves that impression. If someone can make an idea look silly enough he can intimidate others into refusing to consider it for themselves. Even skeptics must believe *some things* themselves (were not talking about classical sceptism where nothing can be believed, are we?), and it is a human tendancy to be less critical of one's own ideas than they are of others. This is an attitude that is not inherent in any particular belief system, but is common to humanity. I don't think that use of the term "pearls before swine" *necessarily* counts as evidence of "swinehood". Mike uses the term in a roundabout way by saying that it often does. But to try to identify the attitude as being inherent in a particular belief (be it a particular religion atheism) comes much closer, I think. The biggest hump to get over is to realize that we are all prone to this kind of thing and to *actively* DO something about it. I think "swinehood" characterizes anyone who refuses to do this. The other side of the hump is to criticism as not necessarily destructive to your position (that's the common reflex). It often has a refining effect on it. Having said all this, let me take an opportunity to plug a book that seems very helpful in this area (I'm only about half way though my reading of it but I'm convinced of the book's value after examining the whole.): The Art of Thinking: A Guide to Critical and Creative Thought by, Vincent Ryan Ruggiero (1984, Harper & Row). It's a very well organized guide (geared for an intorductory college level course in sound thinking practices). It provides clear and useful principles for awareness, creativity, criticism and communication of ideas. There are some helpful exercises at the end of each chapter. I'm sure it will benefit anyone. Paul Dubuc