A Question for the Christians

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

When one looks at the "turn the other cheek" passage in context, it refers to a whole lifestyle of compassion, generosity, and forgiveness. Luke 6:27-36

27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

You will notice he doesn't say it is wrong to expect repayment of a loan, defend yourself from violence, or seek recompense for theft. He merely says that to do otherwise is the mark of the godly. The ultimate example was given in the passage I referenced earlier, when he acknowledges his right to take revenge on those who are about to kill him, but refuses.

[Balefont]

When one looks at the "turn the other cheek" passage in context, it refers to a whole lifestyle of compassion, generosity, and forgiveness. Luke 6:27-36

You will notice he doesn't say it is wrong to expect repayment of a loan, defend yourself from violence, or seek recompense for theft. He merely says that to do otherwise is the mark of the godly. The ultimate example was given in the passage I referenced earlier, when he acknowledges his right to take revenge on those who are about to kill him, but refuses.

No, but

what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that.

(Thank you for providing these passages, BTW, they do help the discussion.)

[Prince of the North]

There are many statements about forgiveness, etc. in the bible along the same lines as "turn the other cheek". There are also many statements in seeming contradiction to those statements about forgiveness. The foremost I can think of off the top of my head is the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" statement. But there are more statements along those lines as well. I'm with everyone who says there is room for self-defense or defense of others even among those who don't necessarily want to be violent or to instigate violence. I think I also once heard that "the Lord helps those who help themselves" ;)

[Galactus]

Ken,

Jesus was doing a lot of cheek turning when he scourged the money changers in the temple. Turn the other cheek doesn't mean never defend yourself. As I said before it is an aspiration one that most fall far short from.

Err, the complete verse(s) are:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

—Luke

It's a pretty clear abjuration of justifiable self-defence. (Mind, Jesus wasn't a total pacifist, it's just that self-defence wasn't one of the reasons he considered OK)

[Balefont]

There are many statements about forgiveness, etc. in the bible along the same lines as "turn the other cheek". There are also many statements in seeming contradiction to those statements about forgiveness. The foremost I can think of off the top of my head is the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" statement.

Yeah, but, that's so Old Testament. I don't think anyone would defend that stuff these days. Plus, I'm talking 'bout Jesus not God.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Was Casey a Christian? If not, I don't really get the relevance tbh.

Like many others, I'm a bad Catholic. We've never really followed any of these rules. You can try, but noone ever succeeds fully. Just go to confession yo.

[S John]

I think its also at least somewhat relevant to point out that some (many?) Christian denominations no not believe in Biblical literalism.

[Galactus]

I think its also at least somewhat relevant to point out that some (many?) Christian denominations no not believe in Biblical literalism.

True, but this isn't exactly the most literal statement ever. Even the least literal tends to incorporate Jesus' moral teachings in some form.

[Balefont]

Was Casey a Christian? If not, I don't really get the relevance tbh.

The relevance, Mr. Snooty Pants, is that I often see a lot of people who claim to be Christian support what I was taught to be un-Christian ways and the bullying thread was one example from which I was observing this.

[Eponine]

If I were a Christian, I'd say that the difference between the moneychanger incident and turn the other cheek is that the moneychangers were directly sinning against god and violating the holiness of the religion rather than sinning against other people. Even if the godly person should not defend himself against wrongdoing directed toward himself, you can't compare that to the justice of god in defending his own holiness.

I think I also once heard that "the Lord helps those who help themselves"

But you didn't hear it from the Bible.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

No, but

(Thank you for providing these passages, BTW, they do help the discussion.)

Correct. In the whole speech (this is from a longer sermon), Jesus is kind of deconstructing the Mosaic Law, and rebuilding it as a lifestyle.

The Mosaic Law requires repayment of debt, punishment for theft, and justice for assault. Throughout history, the Israelites considered themselves to be holier and more pure than their pagan neighbors with their law being the source of that pride. Throughout the Old Testament you have stories of this or that king leading Israel away from the law with disastrous consequences, then this or that other king later rediscovering the law and leading Israel back to peace and prosperity.

Jesus comes along and starts saying that merely strict adherence to the law is insufficient for "God's chosen people", because they are merely following the letter of the law and not the spirit. He does not condemn the letter, but points to the spirit as the higher path.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think its also at least somewhat relevant to point out that some (many?) Christian denominations no not believe in Biblical literalism.

The problem also is that if you take it literally, it says turning the other cheek if you get hit in the cheek. It doesn't say anything about being punched in the nose, kicked, etc. Or what you're supposed to do if you turn the cheek and then get whacked again. So pure literalism doesn't get you there either. You've got to look at the context, other things he taught, and try to come up with a consistent explanation.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

The relevance, Mr. Snooty Pants, is that I often see a lot of people who claim to be Christian support what I was taught to be un-Christian ways and the bullying thread was one example from which I was observing this.

Not all Christians follow the bible to the letter.

I guess you could call them hypocrites though. We're all human however. Just seems an odd direction for this discussion to take.

[Prince of the North]

Yeah, but, that's so Old Testament. I don't think anyone would defend that stuff these days. Plus, I'm talking 'bout Jesus not God.

Oh, I agree with you but my point is that practically anything in the bible is contradicted somewhere else - especially when comparing the Old and New Testaments. If we're only talking about Jesus's teachings irrespective of God's (which is very difficult, imho) then, yes, he didn't seem to be down with violence except in some pretty specific circumstances ;)

[Prince of the North]

But you didn't hear it from the Bible.

Didn't say I did but I still wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment :thumbsup:

[Balefont]

Oh, I agree with you but my point is that practically anything in the bible is contradicted somewhere else - especially when comparing the Old and New Testaments. If we're only talking about Jesus's teachings irrespective of God's (which is very difficult, imho) then, yes, he didn't seem to be down with violence except in some pretty specific circumstances ;)

soooo, uh, what's the point of using the Bible as a reference?

And, yeah, sorry SNAY but it's not an odd direction for a discussion like this to take. I'd say it's sort of an obvious direction.

Why attempt or lay claim to adhere to a set of teachings when there's always an out? I don't think Christianity was intended to be a "Choose your own religion" or "Build your own faith". Not to say that there is anything wrong with building your own faith/moral code. I just don't understand why/how people can then call themselves Christian or the like. Why would you want to while knowing that you do not fully intend to live up to its ideals in the first place?

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

soooo, uh, what's the point of using the Bible as a reference?

And, yeah, sorry SNAY but it's not an odd direction for a discussion like this to take. I'd say it's sort of an obvious direction.

Why attempt or lay claim to adhere to a set of teachings when there's always an out? I don't think Christianity was intended to be a "Choose your own religion" or "Build your own faith". Not to say that there is anything wrong with building your own faith/moral code. I just don't understand why/how people can then call themselves Christian or the like. Why would you want to while knowing that you do not fully intend to live up to its ideals in the first place?

Because the bible is quite clearly not a set of direct rules for living in the 21st century. Its a set of teachings which are open to interpretation. There have been dozens of essays and books written on things Jesus has said, tons of debate over it all. Is there any wonder its not as simple as 'read x do x?' People interpret language differently, and always have. Any Christian with a brain realises this and allows room for manouvre. Jesus was talking to people in the 1st century AD, not 21st century fantasy book fans on an internet forum. Therefore we have to interpret things differently.

At least thats my viewpoint. By all means call it hypocritical.

[MinDonner]

Even as a vehement atheist I'm finding this thread a bit too much of a smug gotcha. You might as well say "Well Jesus said to sell all your possessions so if you own stuff how can you be a Christian?"

[Balefont]

Because the bible is quite clearly not a set of direct rules for living in the 21st century. Its a set of teachings which are open to interpretation. There have been dozens of essays and books written on things Jesus has said, tons of debate over it all. Is there any wonder its not as simple as 'read x do x?' People interpret language differently, and always have. Any Christian with a brain realises this and allows room for manouvre. Jesus was talking to people in the 1st century AD, not 21st century fantasy book fans on an internet forum. Therefore we have to interpret things differently.

At least thats my viewpoint. By all means call it hypocritical.

I completely understand.

However, I intentionally chose a teaching which, at least on the surface and a few layers below, appeared pretty cut and dry. Like I said, I don't ever remember learning in school that fighting back against a bully was acceptable and in accordance with Jesus' teachings. Iit may just be my own shortcoming in the fact that I didn't grasp the lesson in the way it was meant to be applied. I just figured after hearing it and discussing it in school for 8 years I understood what was meant by it.

[Balefont]

Even as a vehement atheist I'm finding this thread a bit too much of a smug gotcha. You might as well say "Well Jesus said to sell all your possessions so if you own stuff how can you be a Christian?"

Fair enough, Min.

I always saw Christianity as harboring some very basic, fundamental teachings that were held at its core and am always a bit surprised when I hear and see Christians clearly advocating for things that go against these core teachings.

Believe what you want but I don't think people should call themselves Christian when they know they intend to bend things to fit their own purview of how things should be. I think it's more honest to say that you try to follow the teachings of Christ. But maybe that's truly what a Christian is - one who tries.