An insight of the six antithetical statements in Matthew 5 Essays

An insight of the six antithetical statements in Matthew 5 Essays An insight of the six antithetical statements in Matthew 5 Essay An insight of the six antithetical statements in Matthew 5 Essay An analysis of the six antithetical statements based on own perspective and a bit of sociological imagination. The statement about murder states that, in the past there are laws that do not tolerate murder. Murder is a crime and is punishable by the law. The last line, â€Å"but I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment†, implies that anyone who burden himself with anger is can also be punished but not necessarily punished, it tells us that among us people we should not fill our heart with anger and revenge. The vengeful heart is what the passage is trying to point out. The statement about adultery states that, there is an unwritten law that governs us not to commit adultery. A malicious look is already adultery since it releases once inhibitions just by looking into the woman. An act like this is normal but if you are a religious person, one can refrain from doing this. Like in Islam, men do not tolerate other men to look maliciously over a woman. By doing this, they would be punished and can be dismembered from the community. Though, it is not the gravest of sin but the point is, among its mediocrity, why people cannot refrain from doing this? There are many ways of interpreting this passages hence it would trigger an epiphany to those who do not adhere with God. A sociological explain could be is that, the passage tells us that the adherence of early people to the societal law is strong and the does not tolerate murder and adultery. Morality is also one of their concerns and also the woman empowerment since they do not want women to be treated lustfully and maliciously. In murder, there morality is also an issue, especially in euthanasia or mercy killing. It is a dilemma if the killer would be prosecuted since he only killed for the ease of the victim. Ethical issues are the one of the many concerns of euthanasia. It is still murder as we presume. The statement about divorce mainly explains that once bounded by the word of God, it can never be replaced by any other. And the partner that has been attached to a person can never be replaced so the person who will marry a divorced woman is committing adultery to his real husband though it was an intentional separation. To put it simply, the wife is still owned by her husband whatever happens. The statement about oaths simply implies that never swear of anything that we are not sure of doing. Never use the name of Lord or anything associated to his realm in vain. Let answers to a certain request are simple â€Å"yes† or â€Å"no†. With this, one is not using the name of God to give assurance to others. The statement simply tells us that we must mean what we say and not use the name of God and ourselves as well to give assurance to others. We are only borrowed from the love and mercy of God so we cannot even put our own lives at stake. The statement about â€Å"an eye for an eye† tells us about the evil that can be done to us should be reciprocated with kindness. The fact that we do good is doing him a favor to refrain from doing bad. He will be hesitant do bad, for he had experienced kindness from other people. Also sharing the blessings that we have is not a bad thing, as long as you can help others do it. The last statement about â€Å"love for enemies† implies that being non-discriminating to all. It tells us that we should love one another even if they are not believers like ours. With this, it will be an epitome of a harmonious relationship to all mankind and would define what really God the Father wanted for us. Those who will oppose my claims, could be liberal feminists and non-Christian adherents because I assumed while analyzing Matthew 5:27 that women are being discriminated against and that they need to be empowered to be out of their distressful life. Non-Christians would oppose me because they would point out that how monotheistic I viewed the passage since there are many religions and there are many possible ways of interpreting the passage through them. In divorce, the possible counter-argument is â€Å"why should there be divorce if is not accepted by God†, this is an inter-religion issue. Some religion may agree upon religion but as I have stated it is only forbidden the word of God. In oaths, I think no one will oppose me with this since all people wants to be assured of what people say not from betting his life or using the name of God in vain. In â€Å"an eye for an eye†, I think I will be opposed by the Arabs since they strongly believe in this. This is an ancien t rule called â€Å"hamurabi†. What you used to sin against other people will be taken away from you. For example, looking lustfully over a woman, they will take your eyes or theft then they will take your hands. They do not believe that kindness would be commensurate of the sins committed against them. Lastly, my claim in â€Å"love your enemies† could be refuted by other religion since my claim only revolved with God himself. In defense of my claims, I have stated a religion that has a great difference with Christianity, which is Islam, and supported my claims by stating one of their core beliefs. Liberal Feminists can also be refuted since there is material evidence in history that women have been subordinate to men. The fact that I have stated the arguments is to show how universal the passage it and is still applicable. The fact that my claims were only limited by the six statements, it is assumed that oppositions should consider looking into the context of the Christian religion before reacting to my claims.