A Question for the Christians

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

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.

Tbf, I don't know many Christians IRL who would support Casey. Most of the ones I used to know were total pacifists who hated any type of confrontation. I couldn't personally chastise Casey because I've done exactly what he did. Sometimes you've just gotta kick someone's ass. I mean look at Libya.

[Balefont]

Tbf, I don't know many Christians IRL who would support Casey. Most of the ones I used to know were total pacifists who hated any type of confrontation. I couldn't personally chastise Casey because I've done exactly what he did. Sometimes you've just gotta kick someone's ass. I mean look at Libya.

:lol:

Yeah. The whole conundrum of religion confuddles me. Most people want to be good people most of the time. I just don't understand why some need to label or 'squish themselves' in order to try and identify with a larger group even if said larger group is not a "one size fits all". Maybe it's just the human condition?

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Its definitely the human condition, and its not just religion. Politics is full of it I'd say. Personally I think the internet (ie: wealth of free information) is slowly changing things however.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Yeah. The whole conundrum of religion confuddles me. Most people want to be good people most of the time. I just don't understand why some need to label or 'squish themselves' in order to try and identify with a larger group even if said larger group is not a "one size fits all". Maybe it's just the human condition?

Some people might actually believe in God(s), and even a specific one at that.

[Balefont]

Some people might actually believe in God(s), and even a specific one at that.

Which is fine. But again, your god may not be someone else's god.

ETA: and why would they have to be? What if my idea of a Christian god does not allow for any physical violence - even in self defense? Yet you believe yours would be okay with some exceptions. Do we believe in the same god or a different god?

[Shryke]

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.

If you want fundamental teachings from a Christian, Jesus actually sums it up in the Bible when asked to do so.

Two Rules: Love God and Love Your Neighbor

As for the original question, Tormund pretty much nailed it. The passage in question is basically about how following the letter of the law doesn't make you a good person and that only loving those who do good to you doesn't make you a good person either.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Which is fine. But again, your god may not be someone else's god.

ETA: and why would they have to be? What if my idea of a Christian god does not allow for any physical violence - even in self defense? Yet you believe yours would be okay with some exceptions. Do we believe in the same god or a different god?

The point being that you said...

Yeah. The whole conundrum of religion confuddles me. Most people want to be good people most of the time. I just don't understand why some need to label or 'squish themselves' in order to try and identify with a larger group even if said larger group is not a "one size fits all". Maybe it's just the human condition?

Which seems to indicate you feel that you don't understand why people would be part of a religion when they can be a good person without it (true). I pointed out that many are part of a religion because they believe in God, without any "this is required to be moral" complications.

[Balefont]

So, based on that, Coco, in conclusion, it is alright for a Christian to support one standing up for oneself even if it involves using physical violence and even though it is in direct conflict with the "turn the other cheek" teaching.

[Balefont]

The point being that you said...

Yeah. The whole conundrum of religion confuddles me. Most people want to be good people most of the time. I just don't understand why some need to label or 'squish themselves' in order to try and identify with a larger group even if said larger group is not a "one size fits all". Maybe it's just the human condition?

Which seems to indicate you feel that you don't understand why people would be part of a religion when they can be a good person without it (true). I pointed out that many are part of a religion because they believe in God, without any "this is required to be moral" complications.

Yes, I believe you can be a moral person without believing in a supreme being. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is how is believing in the Christian God tied to morals that can be interpreted in what appears to be a conflict to the actual teachings of the Son of God?

What I'm hearing it, "It's all open to interpretation."

And than I say, "Okay, then what's point of trying to identify or label oneself as X when you truly believe in X-3?" Maybe it's impractical because there would be so many variables to add or subtract from X that it would mean there would need to be as many religions as there are people with beliefs.

And how can we claim to believe in the same god when we interpret the beliefs under that god differently?

ETA: Thanks, Coco. That's some good shit right there.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

?

What I'm hearing it, "It's all open to interpretation."

I think it's more accurate to say that there are a range of interpretations that might be reasonable, but that still leaves a great many things that can reasonably be excluded. With respect to this incident, there is general agreement that bullying itself would be a violation of Christian doctrine. There is also general agreement that reflexive vengeance isn't "Christian" either. But the degree of tolerance we are expected to display is subject to reasonable debate.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Yes, I believe you can be a moral person without believing in a supreme being. What I'm trying to wrap my head around is how is believing in the Christian God tied to morals that can be interpreted in what appears to be a conflict to the actual teachings of the Son of God?

What I'm hearing it, "It's all open to interpretation."

And than I say, "Okay, then what's point of trying to identify or label oneself as X when you truly believe in X-3?" Maybe it's impractical because there would be so many variables to add or subtract from X that it would mean there would need to be as many religions as there are people with beliefs.

And how can we claim to believe in the same god when we interpret the beliefs under that god differently?

If your dad told you and your sibling "Don't mistreat each other" and you started doing nice things for your sibling, and your sibling avoided all contact with you to avoid mistreatment, has either misinterpreted your dad's instruction? Each has followed it precisely. One person is doing it better but both are doing it. Same dad, same words. How can you both claim to be your father's children?

[Lady Winter Rose]

Casey case.

Example:

I was bullied in primary school and first I made a scene. Then I was ignored that. Or at least I tried.

It continued. We could argue that I showed my emotions, but they find funny my "unawareness" (sp.) of the whole situation.

They find other ways to enjoy situation. You don't need to give something to them (rage, emotional pain...). They will find other funny point where you would feel like crap. They will continued to laugh even if you don't show emotion. Turn other check is short-sighted.

After some time I get inside my head I stay inside. That made me unaware of some events around me. Sometime I didn't even noticed when I was mocked. That made them worse.

I solved situation by moving in next class. I have to, because I was senior and need to make a choice about my future job. I went in High School, I change environment.

About Jesus. Everybody in my town are CHRISTIANS. Or at least they THINK they MUST BE to be social acceptable. Religion in christian lands (Spain, Croatia, Poland) is matter of status. Like in muslimand lands. It's not part of what you think you are, it's part who thinks who you are. At least that's my opinion and in my town.

[Lady Winter Rose]

I think it's more accurate to say that there are a range of interpretations that might be reasonable, but that still leaves a great many things that can reasonably be excluded. With respect to this incident, there is general agreement that bullying itself would be a violation of Christian doctrine. There is also general agreement that reflexive vengeance isn't "Christian" either. But the degree of tolerance we are expected to display is subject to reasonable debate.

:agree:

[Balefont]

If your dad told you and your sibling "Don't mistreat each other" and you started doing nice things for your sibling, and your sibling avoided all contact with you to avoid mistreatment, has either misinterpreted your dad's instruction? Each has followed it precisely. One person is doing it better but both are doing it. Same dad, same words. How can you both claim to be your father's children?

Would not unprovoked avoidance be a mistreatment?

[Faelar006]

I think the context of the sermon on the mount can be best summed up in Matt. 5:17-20,

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

IMO, Jesus is pointing out the futility of trying to follow the law perfectly, since the law embodies so much more than the letter of the law. He expounds upon sections of the law, i.e. adultery, punishment, divorce, murder, etc.

To me, Jesus' entire schtick was basically that people are destined to fail and that the best we can do is to try. So, I'd agree that for a Christian, self-defense probably should be a sin, but it's kind of to be expected that we'll not live up to the turn the other cheek sentiment.

[Balefont]

I think the context of the sermon on the mount can be best summed up in Matt. 5:17-20, "17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

IMO, Jesus is pointing out the futility of trying to follow the law perfectly, since the law embodies so much more than the letter of the law. He expounds upon sections of the law, i.e. adultery, punishment, divorce, murder, etc.

To me, Jesus' entire schtick was basically that people are destined to fail and that the best we can do is to try. So, I'd agree that for a Christian, self-defense probably should be a sin,

Thank you.

but it's kind of to be expected that we'll not live up to the turn the other cheek sentiment.

I can't articulate why this bothers me but it does. It's like living in perpetual unworthiness. Using the parent analogy, what father would want this for his children?

[Shryke]

Thank you.

I can't articulate why this bothers me but it does. It's like living in perpetual unworthiness. Using the parent analogy, what father would want this for his children?

How is this any different from any other ideal we set for ourselves or for our country or whatever?

[Faelar006]

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I can't articulate why this bothers me but it does. It's like living in perpetual unworthiness. Using the parent analogy, what father would want this for his children?

Well, I'd argue that humans are perpetually unworthy, and that's coming from an agnostic, not a Christian. I just identify with the POV that Jesus espouses. If you think about it, how many times do you fail to live up to your own standards?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Would not unprovoked avoidance be a mistreatment?

I imagine that it's open to interpretation :thumbsup:

I can't articulate why this bothers me but it does. It's like living in perpetual unworthiness. Using the parent analogy, what father would want this for his children?

Who does live up to their own personal morality, whether it is religious or not? Do all parents treat their children with perfect respect, discipline and love? Do all children appropriately reciprocate? Of course not. To say that it makes them a bad christian/muslim/athiest/person is ridiculous. Everyone, everywhere constantly falls short of whatever moral code they are trying to live by. I don't get how not personally adhering to something invalidates it.

[Balefont]

How is this any different from any other ideal we set for ourselves or for our country or whatever?

Because we would be holding ourself accountable to ourself rather than to some other entity.

Well, I'd argue that humans are perpetually unworthy, and that's coming from an agnostic, not a Christian. I just identify with the POV that Jesus espouses. If you think about it, how many times do you fail to live up to your own standards?

Meh, 1) while I personally know I make mistakes from time to time, I guess I have an easier time forgiving myself and getting over it than I would if I felt I had to answer to a Higher Power. 2) I'm less likely to fail to live up to my own standards than ones I believe have been set forth by a Supreme Being.

Does that make sense?

Using the Casey example, I have no problem believing Casey's actions were right or proper and I have no internal conflicts with any faith that would disagree with my personal beliefs. Whereas, if we can agree that Jesus would believe violent acts of self defense are wrong no matter how much one tries to justify it, a Christian would have to choose between what they feel is right and their God. Which in turn would make me feel, if I were that Christian, like I have betrayed my God by supporting Casey's actions. And I just don't understand why someone would choose to live under this perpetual feeling of unworthiness.

And I really didn't understand how anyone could justify that this type of act is open to interpretation. I think I get it, a little, but I don't.