Hit 'em back!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stylus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stylus

Guest
What do you think of the way self defense is taught today? There is no Christian ‘turn the other cheek’ but rather, the child is instructed when hit to hit the person back. The christian way would undoubtedly cause the child to appear as a coward and vulnerable victim. The modern way teaches him not to tolerate any abuse and I’ve heard more than one story of a child who hit back when he was hit and the bully left him alone from then on.

But which is better?
 
40.png
Stylus:
What do you think of the way self defense is taught today? There is no Christian ‘turn the other cheek’ but rather, the child is instructed when hit to hit the person back. The christian way would undoubtedly cause the child to appear as a coward and vulnerable victim. The modern way teaches him not to tolerate any abuse and I’ve heard more than one story of a child who hit back when he was hit and the bully left him alone from then on.

But which is better?
Bullying is not to be tollerated as it was in past decades. Bullys do not quit once they achieve dominace over their victim. My children are instructed to tell me, their teacher and even the police if nessessary if they are assaulted by a bully. It is not out of hatred, vengence or retaliation but the protection of the innocent that this is done. Domestic violence is not to be tollerated in this day and age as was the disfunctional thinking of decades past.
 
40.png
Stylus:
But which is better?
Stylus,

That is an excellent question and a problem that I have wrestled with for decades. Unfortunately I still don’t have a good answer. The best that I can come up with is that by dealing with a bully or an aggressor decisively you may get him to change his ways and thus perhaps save his soul.
  • Liberian
 
40.png
Stylus:
What do you think of the way self defense is taught today? There is no Christian ‘turn the other cheek’ but rather, the child is instructed when hit to hit the person back. The christian way would undoubtedly cause the child to appear as a coward and vulnerable victim. The modern way teaches him not to tolerate any abuse and I’ve heard more than one story of a child who hit back when he was hit and the bully left him alone from then on.

But which is better?
There is nothing immoral or un-Christian about self defense.

Unless the bully is hit back he will continue to abuse the child, possibly causing psychological damage. Children have even killed themselves because of bullying! Bullies pick on those who don’t stand up for themselves.
 
What Jesus was talking about was being personally insulted, not being personally assaulted. There’s a big difference. We don’t have to let someone beat us up–we can defend ourselves.

But, if someone is just being insulting or trying to pick a fight, we should let it go, for the sake of our humility and also to keep the situation from escalating into violence.

Aggressors ought to be restrained with as little harm to them as possible. Deadly force should only be used when there is no other way to keep someone from killing an innocent person, but we should never desire the death of another person–never.
 
40.png
Della:
What Jesus was talking about was being personally insulted, not being personally assaulted.
what i was taught was Jesus was talking about being “backhanded” by either authorities or “scoffers”, a very insulting and degrading practice. to be hit with the back of someone’s hand meant you were not “worthy” to recieve a strong blow.

what Jesus might have been saying was after being hit by the back of a hand and your face is turned by the blow, you “turn the other cheek”, basically saying “if you are going to hit me, hit me like a real man”. he makes not one mention of refraining form defending yourself. me does talk about not allowing yourself to be degraded as if you were subhuman.
 
This too is a toughie for me. My FIRST instinct is to say hit back. And this instinct is being sorely tested with my 6 y/o grand daughter and a classmate. SO far she has not hit back, as she says “God says that isn’t right” But I think she is being “put to the test” and pretty soon Zach is going to get what he has coming to him.
Kathy
 
40.png
Katie1723:
This too is a toughie for me. My FIRST instinct is to say hit back. And this instinct is being sorely tested with my 6 y/o grand daughter and a classmate. SO far she has not hit back, as she says “God says that isn’t right” But I think she is being “put to the test” and pretty soon Zach is going to get what he has coming to him.
Code:
                    Kathy
When my son was in 2nd grade, he was bullied by a 4th grader. This went on for two years. Finally, DS got his fill. He ran the length of the soccer field to get to the bully, then hit him. The bully never picked on DS again.

I don’t advocate violence, but, in this case, DS was right to fight back.
 
40.png
Stylus:
What do you think of the way self defense is taught today?
There are good martial arts schools and there are bad ones. In the one I was trained, we were not allowed to “free spar” until black belt level. Sometimes we were allowed at lower levels but only to teach us that we knew nothing.

“Hitting back” is only one tool in a very large toolbox. Another tool is noticing what is happening around you and avoiding situations of conflict completely.

I would look into martial arts a little more closely before judging it. The school I went to was international: Japan Karate Association. Here was the kun we recited before every practice:

Seek perfection of character
Be faithful
Endeavour in all training
Be respectful
Refrain from violent behaviour
 
I have daughters and there is no way I will allow them to be raised without self defense. This include Tae Kwon Doe. I don’t advocate using that information and skills just randomly, but if they were being bullied, then they could use it if they felt it necessary. No one should go through life being bullied. I am also teaching my children that if they ever get phsyically hit, they have ever right to hit back out of defense, but they are to throw it so hard that it gets the bullies attention that they aren’t to be messed with. I have NEVER either been in or seen any childhood fight that only one punch was thrown by the bully and that was it… if the bully feels he/she can get some more hits in because their victim is trying to walk away without throwing a punch… they’ll do it. They’re cowards, remember? And if a child was to go tell an adult and then the bully gets into trouble… that bully will just wait until the child is alone and could possibly do something worse.

I was picked on alot when I was younger and I can tell you I sincerely felt diabolical HATE for my mother and father when all they would say when we told them of the bullies was “well, what did you do to deserve it?” Like we asked for gum to be thrown in our hair while sitting at the front of the bus, like we asked for being the only white family in a black neighborhood and the kids would pick on us and use racial slurs while physically pushing us around (and this was in the early 80’s too) and throwing our backpacks in huge dumpsters.

I distinctly remember my brother slamming another student into a wall because my brother endured MONTHS of this idiot picking on him, throwing things into my brothers tuba, snatching homework before class and ripping it up… provoking my brother. And finally, my brother had enough and slammed the kid into the wall and got up in his face and said “STOP.” My brother got suspended for a week and my father ridiculed my brother (oh yeah, it would look bad on my parents to have a child suspended.) My parents refused to listen to me and my friends when we tried to defend my brother. My brother had one adult advocate in the entire situation and that was a teacher that happened to see this entire situation so he was able to get my brothers suspention revoked and got the other kid suspended. That other kid did leave my brother alone but continued to pick on others… he eventually got expelled for violent behavior.

The human nature can only endure so much and now adays, that “bullying” can be treacherous. It was bad in my day but it’s gotten so much more worse now.
 
Assuming i evern had a child here in Florida, i would teach him that if he felt threatened, to respond with appropriate, even deadly force. we now have a new law that allows the use of Lethal force, and to stand our ground against attacks. the law is the law. that is what it is there for. children should learn to respect the law, and to know how to use it to their advantage.

i would not allow my child to be bullied, and would make sure they knew how to defend themselves with maiming, and lethal force. someone wants to bully a child? well then they have to live with the consequences under the Law. Period. so my kid breaks another kid’s jaw. big deal, and maybe they other child should have thought about terrorizing beforehand. and i would not punish a child for beign suspended for fighting to defend themselves.
 
Ah, yes. I am reminded of my own grade school days. I was a bookish and introspective child, who caused little trouble for anyone so long as they simply left me alone.

Human nature being what it is, however, there were those kids who just didn’t want to leave kids like me alone. They liked being bullies. For whatever reason, they just got a head trip out of being an irritating pain in the posterior.

Third grade. I was sitting in the corner of the school building off the main playground, reading a big coffee-table book. The bully decided it would be great fun to sit about ten feet away from me and chuck rocks at my face. I asked him three times to stop it. (All I wanted was to just read my book and be left alone.) But, of course, he wasn’t about to stop it; he encountered no resistance and stopping on his own would have spoiled all his fun, because it’s fun to pick on people who don’t hit back, and merely ask you politely to please stop.

(There’s a lesson there for all our current folk who think the best way to deal with militant Islamicists is to “dialogue” with them. Anyway.)

He kept getting closer, and he kept it up. Finally I got tired of it, and I closed the book, took it in both hands, and smacked him upside the head with it as hard as I could, and I kept hitting him over the head with it until they dragged me off. I ended up in the principal’s office (not the first time, and not the last.) They called my Dad, who worked at home (not the first time, and not the last), and told him what I’d done.

Dad listened very politely to the whole story, and then told the assistant principal, “I told him to do that.”

The A.P. said, “You told him to do what, sir?”

Dad said, “I told him that if somebody was picking on him and wouldn’t leave him alone, that he was to ask the kid to stop, and if it didn’t stop, then he was find the biggest weapon he could find to hand and attack—and continue to attack until the other kid ceases to pick on him.”

The dumbfounded A.P. stammered, “Well, sir, do you think that’s the proper way to teach your son how to deal with problems in the real world?”

And the Old Man said, “You want to know about the real world? I was dealing with the real world before you were out of short pants, buddy-boy. The way you do it in the real world is you hit the Japanese with everything you got, and you continue to hit them until they either give up or they’re all dead, because that’s the only thing they understand. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have work to do.” And he hung up. (Not the first time, and not the last.)

Dad never quite made it all the way back from the Pacific. 😉

I was turned loose, and never heard anything about it again. I suppose they could have tried to punish me, but then they’d have had the Old Man to deal with, and they definitely didn’t want to deal with him. With three of his kids in their school, they’d dealt with him numerous times before, and always lost.
 
No, I don’t think it’s wrong to defend yourself. I’m a black belt in Taekwon-Do and obviously we are taught how to defend against an attack. However, it is always better to avoid a fight. Any person’s first reaction to danger should be to run.
 
When my first one was little I would always tell him to go to the teacher but now I know how that one works. You go to the teacher and nothing gets done and they get to punch you again. My son put up with it till 3 years ago at 12 years old he had enough. I had told him if he gets into a fight he better not had started it. The kid had tripped him and my son punched him. The principle gave them 3 day suspension and told me he knew my son and he knew only did it because of what the kid had done to him. My daughter this year had 2 boys that would come up and hit her in the arm or anywhere they could. She had enough one of them came up and punched her and she punched him as hard as she could and doubled him over. They havn’t bugged her again.
I see no reason in them being some one elses punching bag but they know they will be in trouble if they were the one who start it!
 
40.png
Wolseley:
Dad said, "I told him that if somebody was picking on him and wouldn’t leave him alone, that he was to ask the kid to stop, and if it didn’t stop, then he was find the biggest weapon he could find to hand and attack—and continue to attack until the other kid ceases to pick on him.
I agree that, if you’re going to use force to deal with a bully, you have to make sure he doesn’t get up. If he gets up, then he can continue hurting you. The point is to make him stop hurting you.
 
It has little to do with actually being hit, and alot more about the culture and status and customs of the people of that time, which have long been forgotten by us and also by a society that is not based on social status and public values.

Historical, figurative interpretation
Those interpreting this passage figuratively have cited historical and other factors in support. They note that 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. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the dicipliner 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. The other alternative would be to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. Further, it is argued, 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 Jewish Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

“When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not enter his house to take his pledge. You shall remain outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God.”
By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27:

“Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.”
Promoters of this nonviolent interpretation further argue that the succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount can similarly be seen as a method for making the oppressor break the law: commonly invoked Roman law allowed a Roman soldier to demand that citizens of occupied territories carry the soldier’s military gear for one mile, but prohibited the soldier from forcing an individual to go further than one mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions. In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.

[edit]
Righteous personal conduct interpretation
There is a third school of thought in regards to this passage. Jesus was not changing the meaning of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with “you have heard it said” which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to “it is written” which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to “turn the other cheek” would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance.

Some point out that Jesus said “he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one” from Luke 22:36 and the Old Testament laws regarding killing in self-defense to support this view. However, even Luke 22:36 could have been figurative as in Luke 22:38 the disciples point out that they have two swords among the twelve of them, to which Jesus replies “That is enough.” If Jesus meant his statement to be taken literally then twelve swords would have been required, not two.
 
my best self defense is my concealed carry weapon, and hundreds of hours of training and thousands of hours of live firing at the range. I don’t want to flame this into a martial arts debate, but the only self defense i learned and practice is boxing. I would only really trust boxing or Jeet Kune Do (bruce lee’s method of fighting)
defending innocence is a requirement, not an elective in the school of life. and defending by force works.
 
40.png
thechrismyster:
my best self defense is my concealed carry weapon, and hundreds of hours of training and thousands of hours of live firing at the range. I don’t want to flame this into a martial arts debate, but the only self defense i learned and practice is boxing. I would only really trust boxing or Jeet Kune Do (bruce lee’s method of fighting)
defending innocence is a requirement, not an elective in the school of life. and defending by force works.
The instructor in my hand-to-hand combat course in the Air Force told us, “The best scenario is that you never have to use what I’m training you to do here.”

One of the airmen jokingly asked, “Is that because you lack confidence in us, sir?”, and the instructor grinned, but then in all seriousness replied, “No—it’s because I’m teaching you hand-to-hand, and the ideal situation is that you never allow them to get close enough to you to have to use hand-to-hand. You take them out before they get that close.”
 
Just beware,if you tell the your children to hit back.Fighting is a ugly affair and not all martial arts schools are created equal.If the bully is bigger,stronger and mean as a rattlesnake,there is no shame in running and telling the adult in charge.This is the same advice I give my kids,whom I also teach kung fu.Fighting is the absolute last resort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top