S
Shakuhachi
Guest
I think of Gandhi and MLK.
- Status
P
pianistclare
Guest
You posted all of those words from major theologians and you still believe Christ wants us to be doormats?
Or do you just want to talk about it?
Or do you just want to talk about it?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Where did you get the idea that I think Christ wants us to be doormats?
What I am arguing is precisely the opposite – he doesn’t want us to be doormats. And that anyone who interprets turn the other cheek as a call to being passive in the face of aggression is mistaken. That is my point.
I am suggesting that turn the other cheek is a technique for determining the intentions of aggressors and then to respond accordingly.
What I am arguing is precisely the opposite – he doesn’t want us to be doormats. And that anyone who interprets turn the other cheek as a call to being passive in the face of aggression is mistaken. That is my point.
I am suggesting that turn the other cheek is a technique for determining the intentions of aggressors and then to respond accordingly.
Last edited:
G
goodcatholic
Guest
I am neither running from this thread nor arguing with its creator.
I will turn the other cheek instead…
actually I enjoyed the (name removed by moderator)ut from the OP, thanks.
We should definitely learn that “turn the other cheek” does not mean “be a doormat for others”. Make that clear because I confused it for many years. What a waste!
I will turn the other cheek instead…
actually I enjoyed the (name removed by moderator)ut from the OP, thanks.
We should definitely learn that “turn the other cheek” does not mean “be a doormat for others”. Make that clear because I confused it for many years. What a waste!
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
When Jesus said to turn the other cheek at least in the context of you have heard it was said, an eye for an eye, I’ve believed it could mean that he was saying to oppose the state executing capital punishment.
Last edited:
G
goodcatholic
Guest
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
A
abucs
Guest
I think we should always be gracious and humble from a position of strength. As Catholics I think we have to take the words and actions of Jesus into account in the world that we live in.
I am interested further if you have references for the expressions by Jesus representing the intentions you propose. I would like to think you are correct.
I also, as I think did many Christians growing up in the last generations, take Jesus’ words to mean we had to be meek and deny ourselves. Looking at the new morality of political correctness it is amazing how we can confuse morality with our own religious and cultural detriment.
As a teacher of young children who were struggling to understand a sometimes aggressively brutal world (especially at their age) I became very conscious of the fact that you could only really teach that humility and meekness had to come from a position of spiritual strength otherwise it is tantamount of having kids abuse themselves. Of course the ‘meek Christian’ would associate Christianity with a lack of strength in their own lives and simply leave the church and forever react badly towards it.
I think in general in the west the church has not been militant enough to its own detriment with the resultant loss of millions of souls that were supposed to be in its care. As a teacher I don’t want to lose one to the idea that they are a doormat to others which leads inevitably to not fighting back when others attack their religion, their culture and even themselves. This leads to what is tantamount to a brainwashed position that believes themselves, their culture and their religion are a negative which must be changed in accordance with outside aggressors.
This is not the strength of the crucified Christ but a denial of Him!
I am interested further if you have references for the expressions by Jesus representing the intentions you propose. I would like to think you are correct.
I also, as I think did many Christians growing up in the last generations, take Jesus’ words to mean we had to be meek and deny ourselves. Looking at the new morality of political correctness it is amazing how we can confuse morality with our own religious and cultural detriment.
As a teacher of young children who were struggling to understand a sometimes aggressively brutal world (especially at their age) I became very conscious of the fact that you could only really teach that humility and meekness had to come from a position of spiritual strength otherwise it is tantamount of having kids abuse themselves. Of course the ‘meek Christian’ would associate Christianity with a lack of strength in their own lives and simply leave the church and forever react badly towards it.
I think in general in the west the church has not been militant enough to its own detriment with the resultant loss of millions of souls that were supposed to be in its care. As a teacher I don’t want to lose one to the idea that they are a doormat to others which leads inevitably to not fighting back when others attack their religion, their culture and even themselves. This leads to what is tantamount to a brainwashed position that believes themselves, their culture and their religion are a negative which must be changed in accordance with outside aggressors.
This is not the strength of the crucified Christ but a denial of Him!
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Part 5. The Meek Shall Inherit the Earth
The problem with “turn the other cheek” is that it is very difficult to discriminate that injunction from weakness. I might claim that I am not engaging in undue aggression or am resisting evil, but perhaps I am merely being weak or cowardly. What is the real difference between those?A person could be lying or deceiving themselves when they claim to not be returning evil for evil or being a pacifist in the face of aggression, but perhaps they are merely being cowardly.
The beatitude “the meek shall inherit the earth” makes it seem like the weak and cowardly will ultimately benefit from their abject lack of virtue and passivity.
However, the translation of “the meek” was originally something like “he who has a sword, and knows how to use it, but keeps it sheathed will inherit the earth.” Or, “he who has the power to respond but acts justly.”
The original meaning of “meek” wasn’t “resist not evil,” but more like “set yourself up so that you could use overwhelming force if necessary, but don’t. Use minimal force, only.” The response to evil is thereby proportionate and will not cause feuds or aggression to spiral out of control because the justness and appropriateness of the response would be obvious to all just men.
All three injunctions – turn the other cheek, walk an extra mile and give your cloak – are ways of dismantling evil by subjecting it to its own effects, in their own wake. (See Post 3.) This would be similar to aikido, where the aikido master is merely redirecting the power of the aggressive strike back onto itself and not initiating aggression, at all.
When you are attacked there is a part of you that would like to transform itself into the ultimate predator and counterattack to defeat the enemy, especially if you were guaranteed the victory by your own power. It would be a testament to your power and, at the same time, better than weakness. However, keeping that power in control and proportionate to the attack by transmuting it into good, as far as possible, is the best alternative.
In Psalm 37:9, the idea of waiting for the Lord (who is perfect justice) expresses the objective of acting from justice rather than from power, anger or revenge.
Part 5. Continued…
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Using inordinate welfare programs to deal with poverty is like saying it is okay to use violence to solve a problem. The state is forcing individuals at the barrel of a gun to be more charitable – a shortcut to heaven that leads to hell.
This is particularly true when the State or those in political power use the plight of the poor to extend the power of the State or consolidate their own positions in the State by inordinate taxation or building an ever larger class of welfare dependents.
The meek shall inherit the earth is more like a justification for being good and just, not a command to be good. A tyrant – even a benevolent one – commands: “Do this, or else! Be good, or else!” But by clarifying what it takes to be good and to live a good life the beatitudes reveal what it means to be good in a way that attracts rather than compels.
What Jesus does in his life, and by enjoining us to live his way is to reveal what it means to be good in a compelling way as we embody the beatitudes in the way we live.
By wrestling with the difficult situations and moving beyond mere fight or flight responses to a more deliberately proactive response, the compelling nature of being good by living it out in response to aggression is experienced directly in their very own lives by those who fulfill the injunctions of the beatitudes.
(Cf. Jordan Peterson’s discussion of “the meek shall inherit the earth” here:
)
This is particularly true when the State or those in political power use the plight of the poor to extend the power of the State or consolidate their own positions in the State by inordinate taxation or building an ever larger class of welfare dependents.
The meek shall inherit the earth is more like a justification for being good and just, not a command to be good. A tyrant – even a benevolent one – commands: “Do this, or else! Be good, or else!” But by clarifying what it takes to be good and to live a good life the beatitudes reveal what it means to be good in a way that attracts rather than compels.
What Jesus does in his life, and by enjoining us to live his way is to reveal what it means to be good in a compelling way as we embody the beatitudes in the way we live.
By wrestling with the difficult situations and moving beyond mere fight or flight responses to a more deliberately proactive response, the compelling nature of being good by living it out in response to aggression is experienced directly in their very own lives by those who fulfill the injunctions of the beatitudes.
(Cf. Jordan Peterson’s discussion of “the meek shall inherit the earth” here:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I am not clear that Christ was “selfless” in any commonly understood sense of that word.
I would say he was infinitely self-possessed.
He knew himself fully and acted fully in accordance with who he knew himself to be.
Even the holy name of God is I AM WHO AM.
That would indicate a true self or an authenticity of self.
The question would be how am I as a self, in the best sense of the word, to be and to act?
In the Gospels, many were possessed by demons, indicating that they were not in possession of their own selves, but, in fact, had been displaced by those demons.
I would suggest that our real task is to find our true self – who we were created to be by God himself.
What do you make of this passage:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I do think there is something about suffering injustice and not being able to do anything about it that puts us into a vulnerable position where we can truly empathize with the poor and downtrodden. Perhaps that is even a necessary experience.
That kind of eye-opening experience of complete helplessness in the face of evil aggression could go a long way to disabuse us of pride and arrogance, perhaps even of the will to power.
Perhaps I am beginning to see your point?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The quote from Matthew is as follows:
I think it would be a stretch to claim he was saying it to oppose state executions because he wasn’t speaking to anyone representing the state. He was speaking to ordinary people, the crowds that followed him.
Secondly, God specifically authorized “the State” to use the Law of Retaliation or Lex Talionis, where serious infractions occurred:
It is very much like a neutral version of the Golden Rule: Do onto others as you would have them do to you.
Otherwise stated as: Do unto others as they have done unto you.
I am not sure how the Law of Retaliation is in any way unjust. It is simply stating that justice demands debts be paid in kind and proportionate to the harm incurred. This is in no way unjust.
A
angelic06
Guest
I am glad somebody brought up the actual historical context of this, rather than the usual nonsense which some of us learned from childhood to be pacifist, accepting evil, to see everyone, even the perpetrator, “as Jesus”.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Put another way, the perpetrator of evil couldn’t be Jesus because Jesus wouldn’t perpetrate evil.
However, the question of how Jesus would treat a perpetrator in order to successfully lead him/her away from a proclivity to perpetrate evil is an open one.
We certainly do not want to harden people in their evil ways, but at the same time merely capitulating to evil intent doesn’t appear to be very helpful in dissuading those dabbling in evil to stop.
R
ratio1
Guest
Hey there is a huge difference between these two!
P
pianistclare
Guest
Sorry, I just don’t tend to respond well to these multiple 1000 word posts. I’ll ignore in the future.
Seems like lecturing, but have fun!
Bye!
Seems like lecturing, but have fun!
Bye!
L
littlebird
Guest
Are you Catholic ?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Okay, let’s explore that huge difference.HarryStotle:
Hey there is a huge difference between these two!
How are they hugely different?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
It isn’t clear to me what it means to be “Catholic.” Nor is it clear to me what you mean by that word.
There are supposed Catholics who claim to be but espouse all kinds of heterodox views. Are they still Catholic in your view?
Boil it down for me. What do you mean by “Catholic?”
G
goout
Guest
As Bp Barron says, they cultural key to this is the left hand/right cheek thing.
Jesus’ concern is the salvation of every soul. Turning the other cheek presents the aggressor with a sort of mirror into his evil, with the hope of that aggression being dissipated.
Obviously, non violence is never, ever, capitulation to evil.
Rather, it enters into it, to redeem it.
This is the heart of the Incarnation right here:
God, rather than fighting violence with violence, or giving in to a cowardly capitulation, simply enters into the evil, in Christ, to redeem it.
So, the focus of non-violence is not on the offense itself, but on the salvation of the person.
Jesus’ concern is the salvation of every soul. Turning the other cheek presents the aggressor with a sort of mirror into his evil, with the hope of that aggression being dissipated.
Obviously, non violence is never, ever, capitulation to evil.
Rather, it enters into it, to redeem it.
This is the heart of the Incarnation right here:
God, rather than fighting violence with violence, or giving in to a cowardly capitulation, simply enters into the evil, in Christ, to redeem it.
So, the focus of non-violence is not on the offense itself, but on the salvation of the person.
Last edited:
- Status