Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 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. But we can't agree on that, because Jesus didn't say it. To my reading of the issue (in context) he said that violent self defense is OK, but mercy and forgiveness are better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-ahrairah Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 If this was a rule that all Christians were expected to follow all the time there would be no Christians in the army, would there? Not all Christians are pacifists, by a long way. As I understand it, it is a very difficult instruction, intended to test your faith.First of all we need to draw a distinction between personal and state pacifism. With the scriptural record in both the old and new testaments firmly in favor of government-sponsored killing, I find the position of complete nonviolence in all cases to be totally untenable. The question which the commandment "turn the other cheek" draws us to is about purely personal conduct. Is self-defense for individuals acceptable? And I believe it is. The point is not that we ought to become punching bags for whatever nasty person may come by, but that we must never strike back simply because they struck us first. St. Paul writes this in his epistle to the Romans: "Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, 'Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord' ". There is no sin in preserving the body God gave you; there is no virtue in enduring pain for the sake of pain. We can take the counsel "resist not evil" to an extreme and decide we should not resist temptation, but that is madness. The opposite of "turn the other cheek" is not self-defense, but "an eye for an eye". Christians can and must defend themselves, but they must not seek revenge no matter how foul the crime done to them. I refuse to admit that an act can both be sin and also something to be passed over since it is "expected" of us. We are to seek peace, not as an absolute precept but "if possible, as much as lieth in us", because with all else considered it is preferable to violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 I imagine that it's open to interpretation :thumbsup: haha, how fortunate. (This is why I love debating with people about religion. ;) )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.Sorry, Tormund, that's not really what I'm getting at. What I'm asking is why would you say you adhere to something and yet that something is open to intepretation? What is it you are adhering to if it means there is no fixed point? I like what Coco had to say about the social construct of religion and how because it is a social construct, there is no fixed point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 So, there's a wrong answer, a right answer and a more right answer?Sounds like my law exams. How apropo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 So, there's a wrong answer, a right answer and a more right answer?Sounds like my law exams. How apropo. Which makes complete sense since Jesus was answering a question of law when he made the statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Because we would be holding ourself accountable to ourself rather than to some other entity.Do you never hold an ideal for an organization or another person or the like?The question applies to pretty much anything involving an ideal.It's like wishing for World Peace. I think we'd all like World Peace, but I doubt many of us are under the illusion that it's something that will actually happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Sorry, Tormund, that's not really what I'm getting at. What I'm asking is why would you say you adhere to something and yet that something is open to intepretation? What is it you are adhering to if it means there is no fixed point? I like what Coco had to say about the social construct of religion and how because it is a social construct, there is no fixed point.You are adhering to your own interpretation, while admitting that you might not be "right" about that interpretation or, alternatively, admitting that someone else could have a different one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 You are adhering to your own interpretation, while admitting that you might not be "right" about that interpretation or, alternatively, admitting that someone else could have a different one.Of course, and it's because of the conflicts I see - based on my interpreation - that leads me to question why and how others get around this. My right answer is not someone else's right answer but it doesn't make me less curious or interested in why other people believe what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I think the context of the sermon on the mount can be best summed up in Matt. 5:17-20, 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.Which is kind of one of the reasons for the entire sola fidei thing.EDIT: That said, I would argue that a person who *really* believed in Jesus and *really* accepted him as God and his teachings as gospel (haha) would not live a "normal" life: St. Francis was a true believer, I think, but I have a hard time seeing most self-proclaimed christians as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padreic Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The bible is not a set of rules laid down for eternity. This is not about interpreting it "literally", because literally, Jesus is NOT TALKING TO THE READER. Not taking this into account doesn't make your interpretation "literal", "closer to his actual words" but simply wrong. Instant fail.And since these stories are supposed to be non-fictional, and Jesus a real character with a clear intent to change the lives of the people around him, a "literal" interpretation will most likely in a complete misunderstanding of Jesus. He was talking actual people with a certain mindset and certain habits. He wanted these people to behave and think in a certain way, he said what would lead them in the right direction. In the case of cheek-turning, if there's one thing you needn't worry about, it is that people with enough power to defend their interests will sooner or later do so. Also, for every honest defense of another's interest, there are 5 cases of aggressively pursuing one's own interest in the name of a victim. This together with the fact that every exception weakens the impact of a rule explains why Jesus preached against every kind of violence. Just think of parents giving children simple rules like always looking left-right-left before crossing the street. If you keep following these rules "literally" when your 25 and living in England, your father would think you a fucking idiot.Oh, and btw: Neither "Thou shalt not kill" nor "eye for an eye..." mean what "literal" interpretation makes of it: The first was a rule meant for interaction between members of the community. It is, basically, a very normal law against murder. Sadly, it does not forbid either the death penalty or war. It doesn't even apply to the murder of members outside of the community - which is why the christian community could, for a long time, see it as a service to god to kill muslims.As for the "eye for an eye..." This clearly was a rule meant to limit excessive bloodshet, especially amok-running bloodfeuds. "Ok, there's a lot of retaliation, this is hurting the community and harming innocents. There's no chance in hell we can stop that. What can we do to limit the harm?" The answer: A very simple and intuitively plausible rule as to what extent of retaliation is acceptable. Nowadays, you can savely forget it. We now have (somewhat) effective third-party law enforcement so that a) there's no need for persoanl revenge and B) community can force people not to take revenge. Therefore, the fact that rule dealt with doesn't exist in the US of the 21st century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Turn the other cheek is meant to be an individual response to a situation whereon justice can be achieved through the application of laws through social institutions. i.e. arrest, trial, conviction, application of the appropriate punishment according to the law.In a failed society where the social instititutions cannot protect individuals from persecution and oppression (or they don't exist), there is no recourse to justice. How then can turn the other cheek in isolation advance the higher principle of justice? It cannot. In the absence of the requisite social institutions justice can only be achieved one individual to another.Context is everything, and when you take a single religious teaching and remove it from it's broader context its meaning and purpose become distorted and mis-applied.There is another religious teaching that says (paraphrasing) under certain conditions the unlawful becomes necessary, and the forbidden is the right course of action.In the case of bullying, if bullying isn't nipped in the bud (either by the parents or by the social institiutions (the school)) when it first starts being manifest and the bullying keeps escalating then this is an example of a failed society. Where the victim has no recourse to the proper authorities to seek justice and freedom from oppression. In that situation turn the other cheek is manifestly unjust and the "unlawful" (not turning the other cheek) becomes necessary.It's the failed society that is at the root of this issue, not the actions of the bully or the bullied that are symptomatic of the failed society. Because in a just society situations don't get out of hand like this. Stop focussing on the symptoms and start focussing on the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 lamentations 3:30 adds a bit of context:Let him give his cheek to him that smiteth him, let him be filled full with reproach. i.e., offering the cheek is not complete submission to an attacker. and this nice bit from the wikipedia reads the text in question as an incitement to class warfare:A literal interpretation of the passages, in which the command refers specifically to a manual strike against the side of a person's face, can be supported by reference to historical and other factors.[1] At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[2] If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[3] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. By handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Hebrew Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13.and, of course, the best line in the greek scripture is stolen from tolkien's description of olorin's arrival in middle earth:I have come to set the world on fire, and how I wish it were already burning.this is no pacifist. this is jesus in his fuck-you-up mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C S Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 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. I think it's close to universal among Christians that God gives absolute forgiveness to the truly repentant. I can't say the same for myself. I sometimes find myself feeling shame for stupid things I did years ago that have had no long term impact on my life and that no one else likely remembers. I'm sure this varies from person to person, though. 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.It seems to me that standards should be determined by rightness(whether personal or divine)rather than by what is achieveable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Balefont,Are you in Law School? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nas! Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Nice work drawing them all into this thread, Bale. Now, release the lions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fan Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 What I'm hearing is, "It's all open to interpretation." What could be more perfect, the ability to do anything, affix a divine seal of approval and loudly proclaim your exceptional piety over those who denounce your actions?I am ever so thankful to not need rely on a millenia-old, near-infinitely mistranslated story to know how to act toward my fellow human traveler. Accordingly, I am ever wary of those who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 Balefont,Are you in Law School?NOOOOO! :) Sorry, Scot, no. I had to take several law classes as part of my degree program. I've been wrestling with the notion of going to law school just so that I can get some of the tax lawyers I deal with to take me seriously right off the bat rather than have to beat them into submission. But, no, I'm not cut out for becoming a lawyer.Nice work drawing them all into this thread, Bale. Now, release the lions!hahahahaOkay, here's a little personal story of a time in my life when I wasn't religious (age 15) but I decided, for several months, to really try and adhere to Jesus' teachings as to how to treat and interact with my fellow man just because I wanted to see if it worked. I had friends who would get so frustrated with me. Called me a doormat (but I really wasn't getting walked all over - I'd do my best to avoid being put in that position) said I was "too nice" (yeah, well, compared to them maybe). I focus heavily on being kind and forgiving. And I gotta say, that was one of, if not the most enlightening and peaceful times of my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Go all St. Francis yo. Talk with the birds and give away your stuff and shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 Go all St. Francis yo. Talk with the birds and give away your stuff and shit.You won't take my PS3 from me while I still breathe. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 You won't take my PS3 from me while I still breathe. Ever.Bah, PC's are so superior :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.