"He offers no resistance" interpretation and application

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wm777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Wm777

Guest
I was just reading the thread on feminism here…

https://forums.catholic-questions.org/t/does-catholicism-contradict-feminism/564025/13

I dont agree that Catholicism contradicts feminism, but it seems like it can be the other way around… please let me know if I am wrong, but dont we hear of Jesus as “offering no resistance”, and Christ saying “to turn the other cheek” on our enemies…

God is love, and, as our Creator, He loved us first… Why is it so hard for peopple to understand that? If anything, it seems like… sometimes people get so frustrated with Jesus charitable nature… they just end up turning against him somehow…

I guess my question is if and how the “turn the other cheek” principle is relevant and applicable to hostile statements that tend to prevaricate the meaning of scripture…

It seems like some kind of apologetic argument is necessary here… yes?
 
Last edited:
Wm777 said:
I guess my question is if and how the “turn the other cheek” principle is relevant and applicable to hostile statements that tend to prevaricate the meaning of scripture…
Click to expand...
Perhaps on those types of threads it is best to respectfully agree to disagree?
 
Fauken said:
Can you elaborate on your post? I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Click to expand...
Apologetics is supposed to explain our faith to people, yes?

The basic idea of “God is Love”, “He offers no resistance”, and even “turning the other cheek” all suggest to me that there is no contradiction.

So, when you get a minority interest defeneding itself by an attack on the church, what could the person possibly mean by accusing the church of contradicting it?

It is possible to say “the whole (Catholicism = Universality) is greater than the part (minority interest)”, which is a correct statement; but, then, that is just the reality of anyone’s situation. And, it is the point at which we all must serve the universal church, not take a swipe at it.

But, even then, perhaps Christ’s idea of Holiness seems to shine forth here. In other words, even if a sinner took a shot at Jesus, He’d say “turn the other cheek”; or in other words, He wouldn’t resist. It would probably be like punching a big fluffy pillow. And, then, if they persevered and knocked hard enough, He’d probably (very kindly) give them what they were asking for.

That doesn’t mean that they would necessarily even like what they were asking for though… I dont know if all this makes much sense, but - if it does - maybe that is the problem?

It just seems to confuse everyone (and look (literally) pathetic) to hear of someone blaming God or the church… when we are actually the sinners, not the other way around…

I guess the only thing one can do is show them mercy - like Jesus would… in hopes they will realize the universality of the church’s merciful intention clearly enough to see the Truth… an apology is all that’s necessary… but just so long as they understand not all Catholics are against them…

Making any sense?

I dont know how else to say or express it, or even if it is making much sense at all… it just seems kind of weird to heard people railing against God and the universal church sometimes…
 
Last edited:
CRV said:
40.png
Wm777:
I guess my question is if and how the “turn the other cheek” principle is relevant and applicable to hostile statements that tend to prevaricate the meaning of scripture…
Click to expand...
Perhaps on those types of threads it is best to respectfully agree to disagree?
Click to expand...
Well, it’s possible, but I dont think that is 100% correct…

I guess, if you saw a snake crawling to one side, then it would make sense to walk in the other direction to protect yourself… But that would assume each player in the scene was an enemy of the other…

While the statement seems hostile towards Jesus and His church… I dont think the statement was accurate, so neither the person nor the church should go marginalized by what’s basically nothing more than a misconception or a rumor… especially when the statement was made by a professor (authority figure)…
 
Last edited:
Please do not take me wrong, but if that thread is open, why don t you post there?
 
graciew said:
Please do not take me wrong, but if that thread is open, why don t you post there?
Click to expand...
Because it isn’t a philosophical issue, or even a social justice issue…

There are three types of law… Divine, Natural and Human… In a sense, the author correctly had to place the initial question under apologetics->philosophy, but then that limits the manner in which it is addressed to natural and human thinking…

Yet the teacher’s statements are specifically clarified as null points with respect to God, especially when looked at in terms of Sacred Scripture and Divine Law…

My thought is, if the teacher had really known what she was saying, then she would have drawn support from Scripture and the church, instead of finding reason to persecute it according to lower forms of law…
 
Last edited:
Let me help as I see this thread.
You start by answering a question that belongs in a different thread.
Your link connects to an isolated post in that thread, also bringing in a poster to this thread unasked…
You are referring to a teacher but nothing of that appears to explain who she is and what she she says or anything. At least in this thread.
It really looks like a duplicate thread to me with a twist…
I don t know. I mean to help. I’d reframe it if I were you independently from the other thread.
But you can very well disregard what I suggest, because it still may be me who doesn t understand .
God bless you!
 
Last edited:
Because this is basically a different topic. The one this topic refers to is about the compatibility of feminism and Catholicism and this topic is about apologetics.
 
Whether you want to use apologetics or anything else, no one will get very far unless and until there can be agreement as to the meaning of terms.

For starters, we likely can agree that by Catholicism, we are meaning the Magisterium.
'However, definitions of the term “feminism” are all over the map.

For some, it is simply a pejorative term for what might be considered in other contexts to be a radical definition, including all sorts of issue at odds with the Magisterium, abortion being only one of them, and is often referred to as Modern Feminism.

Others might look to women who identify as part of Feminists For Life, founded in 1972.

Others might not even consider pro life/pro abortion in defining the term, and rather consider other issues as the main identifier(s).

And if you decide to choose either the radical definition (a la Gloria Steinem) or the definition of feminism as per Feminists For Life, unless you make it clear as to which you are referring, the discussion is likely to wander back and forth between the two and effectively go nowhere.

So you might want to start over, and define your terms.
 
If you turn your cheek to a scripture, forgive me but you may be insane.

If someone provoked you in private my advice is to go away.

If in public it depends,
When a principle is publicly question you may ask for justice (the cheek),
 
To turn the other cheek is a choice. No law should compell anyone who is slapped to turn the other cheek.

Jesus said “I choose to lay down My Life, no one take life from Me”… Jesus knew the consequence of his ministry will be His crucifixion, and He made that choice.

Mercy is purely favor. It has to come from free choice.
 
Last edited:
graciew said:
I don t know. I mean to help. I’d reframe it if I were you independently from the other thread.
Click to expand...
That’s what I did.

I liked everything you said, btw, but why did I do all that…?

The first thread was well-placed on a human “philosophical” level, but what about scripture?
Philosophy, Theology and Scriptural Apologetics are all very different. As a Philosophy Major, alumni '93, I can assure you a lot of philosophy has absolutely nothing to do with the church, scripture, or a defense of scripture.

As a philosophical topic, the referent thread may have succeeded, so I simply re-framed it here (with some teaks) in a scriptural sense.

While my post was actually a correct take on the matter, especially here in this entire site, notice how it got less attention… even drawing criticism…

One would think, on a site devoted to Catholic Apologetics (CAF) people would have come out in droves citing scriptural references to God’s mercy, forgiveness, charity, and so on… taking any chance they could get to support the church and scripture…

But thats not exactly what happened…

People, including Catholics, mostly stuck with the language and placement based upon the false notions of the first thread… addressing the problem at the teacher’s level, and speaking in human terms… when the correct placement of the matter - i.e. the thing being persecuted - was actually the mystical body of Christ…That’s not the church’s fault, but the fault of people who spread confusion about the church and scripture.

Imagine the massive impact of such confusion and its cause, which is another reason why I wanted to reframe the post here in terms of scripture… companies use these framing strategies to market, so, when it’s an attack on the church, the impact on us is both significant and material… yet what do we do? how do we respond? And how often do we fall into the fowler’s snare and not side with scripture or the church?

(more)
 
Last edited:
As for the difficulty in discussing or comprehending the matter here in this forum…

To cite scripture or reference the church is always to fight with a double-edged sword, and God is the one who actually owns the sword… so anyone wielding the sword, including me, must be careful with it because it can easily fall back upon the one speaking to it. Hence, zeal for His house consumes a soul.

But that isn’t what the teacher did. She made made a direct attack on the church. After rejecting the church’s teachings on a false premise - she basically slandered us in turn…

I am actually a feminist, btw - look at my profile pic, which should say a lot… but fighting with the church is foolish… It’s like fighting God, who owns the double-edged sword… The prof doesn’t own anything not already given to her by God, who lovingly created Her first - and, then, without Him she’s defenseless…

It’s worth making a note about disruptive cause-marketing, spins, or twists… noting, Jesus was a disruptor, too.

Most (not all) minority causes will often attempt to disrupt universal causes in the interest of garnering attention. But they also defeat themselves in turn when they are not for it. They can also harm Christ’s church in so doing.

When Jesus took His passion so far as the Sanhedrin and then the Praetorium, He remained mostly silent, and (of the few times when he did speak) He’d say something like “You say so…”

So, when there is an attack on the church, sometimes the only way to handle the matter is simply to mirror what the persecutor does, except in a different way - in terms of God - in order to show the persecutor their error. I very much did this in re-posting the matter here to discuss God’s take on the matter.

So - whether it is to cast one’s net over the other side, turn the other cheek, or carry the cross - disruption, reframing or whatever you want to call it happens… but let the truth come out, and let it work for the good of everyone… and let it be known the church’s position is ultimately one of mercy and charity… because that is the essence of God…

To speak against it, or even to speak to it - …? Anyone, even me, best be careful…

Because one isn’t just spinning a marketing “twist” here…

It’s simply witnessing to Truth.

Again, I’m a feminist (and a guy). But the fact is, that teacher simply didn’t know what she was saying… and persecuted the church because of it… this is the forum intended to defend scripture in light of the issue that was raised… my intention is, was and will remain here to call attention to a scriptural basis for the church’s defense against such attacks on it…

Totus Tuus!
Ad Jesu Per Mariam,

wm
 
Last edited:
John 10
15 …And I lay down my life for the sheep.
16 I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.
17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life in order to take it up again.
18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.”
19 Again the Jews were divided because of these words.
20 Many of them were saying, “He has a demon and is out of his mind. Why listen to him?”
21 Others were saying, “These are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

Mercy has to come from free choice. And yes, the church should continue to teach mercy. But the secular law should not compell a person who is slapped to offer the other cheek. Such a law does not teach mercy. It create injustice instead.

I am sure Jesus mentioned the fact that it was His free choice to lay down His Life in John10:18, in order to show that no law is capable to enforce mercy
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top