L
laylow
Guest
I’m not arguing that is was GOOD advise.
- Status
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Why would Jesus advise it then?
My point in this thread is that it is a strategy for determining the malevolence of the striker, i.e., if you are struck again after turning your cheek.
I am not suggesting there is one prescribed or necessary response following the second strike, but I am suggesting the second strike reveals something about the aggressor that would be good to know.
Jesus doesn’t say what to do if you are struck after turning your cheek, so the question is an open one.
L
laylow
Guest
Jesus was human, so his philosophy on this could have been faulty, or at least in my opinion.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Nope. Fully human and fully God. His philosophy on this was not faulty.
You would have to prove Jesus wasn’t God for your opinion to even be eligible to be considered definitive on the subject.
Or, you can show his philosophy was faulty, which you haven’t done either, so merely asserting your opinion gets us nowhere.
Last edited:
L
laylow
Guest
You would have to prove that he was both human and God, for your “his philosophy was not faulty” assertion. So as you can see, we aren’t going to get anywhere with this.
G
gregoryphealy
Guest
There’s an element of seeking to avoid private redress of grievances (or vigilanteism) for the sake of order. This stems from misuse of the “eye for an eye” law (that is, it applied to the magistrates only, though the Jews misappropriated it for themselves in private conduct). That’s why He says in the preceding verse “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’”. Then, He proceeds to correct their private abuse of that law.
I believe the verse in question ultimately says that, to the degree to which we can bare just suffering, we should endure and not retaliate to preserve peace between men. If no peace is to be had you need not endure. This is evidenced when Jesus responds to being smitten unjustly in John 18:22. So it would seem He’s striving to promote peace between His followers and those who would mistreat them, but He’s not asking for them to be crucified alongside Him. He’s speaking of more trivial matters (being slapped), not serious, life-threatening matters.
I believe the verse in question ultimately says that, to the degree to which we can bare just suffering, we should endure and not retaliate to preserve peace between men. If no peace is to be had you need not endure. This is evidenced when Jesus responds to being smitten unjustly in John 18:22. So it would seem He’s striving to promote peace between His followers and those who would mistreat them, but He’s not asking for them to be crucified alongside Him. He’s speaking of more trivial matters (being slapped), not serious, life-threatening matters.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I can get farther on this than you will, but this isn’t the thread for that.HarryStotle:
You would have to prove that he was both human and God, for your “his philosophy was not faulty” assertion. So as you can see, we aren’t going to get anywhere with this.
Basically, your position will be in continual retreat until the best you can do is merely express doubt. That doesn’t amount to making a case. It will amount to who can make a stronger, better reasoned, case.
Radical skepticism may appear to be a winning strategy, but it gets you nowhere when consistently applied.
K
KS_Housewife
Guest
Very interesting observations in Part Four concerning the “gag” intention on the part of those who tell others to “turn the other cheek” rather than speak out against wrongdoing, bad behavior, etc. I noticed an increase of the proscriptive habit creeping into general discourse about 20 years ago. I concluded that it was the work of ne’er-do-wells attempting to use people’s good will, natures, manners, and intentions against them to shut them up.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The term “proscriptive habit” is an interesting way of expressing the abuse.
This is why I think paying attention to what motivates those who prescribe “turn the other cheek” and how they themselves act – i.e., do they themselves follow their own prescription or do they merely prescribe it for others – is a “tell” to watch for.
The follow-up question, though, is what to do once their real motives have been revealed.
G
goout
Guest
Jesus personifies non-violent love, end of story.
If he didn’t there would be no crucifixion.
I’m not sure why that is hard to understand.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So the God of the Old Testament who did not personify “non-violent love” is not the same as the God of the New Testament, who apparently did? Is that your position?HarryStotle:
Jesus personifies non-violent love, end of story.
If he didn’t there would be no crucifixion.
I’m not sure why that is hard to understand.
The crucifixion was a very violent act, no? Why would human beings inflict such an unspeakable crime upon the personification of “non-violent love,” unless there is something more to our brokenness and failure to love?
It isn’t clear to me that love is necessarily “non-violent,” in any pacifistic sense, nor that the evil within us is so easily resolved, i.e., by comfort, security and warm feelings.
The question is one of resolving the moral issue of malevolence and those who choose to do evil. Your perspective would seem to take a very “light” view regarding the nature of evil and our own role in propagating it.
If your position is that human beings can never possibly be evil in any irredeemable sense and therefore any evil done by humans is merely short-sightedness or by impulse and never the result of intent, then that changes what Jesus accomplished by his death and resurrection from something we as free agents need to respond to by unwavering autonomous assent (the Catholic position) to something merely done to us that requires no assent but merely comes about as God’s “plan.” Luther’s position of a white shroud covering a dunghill, perhaps?
G
goout
Guest
No that is Marcionism.goout:
So the God of the Old Testament who did not personify “non-violent love” is not the same as the God of the New Testament, who apparently did? Is that your position?HarryStotle:
Jesus personifies non-violent love, end of story.
If he didn’t there would be no crucifixion.
I’m not sure why that is hard to understand.
The bible is not God. The bible is revelation. Catholic methods of scripture interpretation are discussed non-stop here. Some reading in this department will help clear this up. Bp Robert Barron is a good source in this department. He’s all over youtube.
Because…sin?
Look at the crucifixion. Look at what really happened, not some theoretical gymnastics. Christ, the Son of God, with legions of his terrifying angels carrying swords of fire, could have vaporized his enemies.
Instead he is the paschal lamb.
Who said any of that? Straw man.
You are determined to philosophize away what is personified in the non-violent Christ.
The Good Friday readings may also help bring this home to you,.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Yes, I know.
Check the second post in this thread.
You haven’t really answered any questions, though.
You merely have tried to simplify the issue by using an all encompassing “non-violent love” as the “end of story.”
H
HarryStotle
Guest
After rereading this reply, it strikes me that what your first injunction implies is a kind of disjunction from reality. To act “independently” from what actually motivates others is to act ideologically and not from any sense of reality or any insight whatsoever into what actually moves that other person, as if they are a non-entity and their actual motives can just be ignored.
My response attempts to link one’s own behaviour to the actual motives of the other person.
Notice, I did not prescribe any particular response but merely that turning the other cheek can be used as a strategy to garner a better sense of the truth of the other person’s intention.
You are assuming that after gathering that insight, my prescription would be to respond “in kind.”
Notice I never explicitly said that, although you would be one step closer to knowing how to respond. The question, though, is how should you respond to continued incursion. It is interesting that no one has attempted to answer that question, except to imply that “non-violence” will continue to be the response.
However, and this is where at least part of the issue lies, what if the incursion is against your children, your family, other innocents or the community? Why would a response on their behalf differ from a response on our own behalf, once the motivations of the aggressor are clear?
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
I think it’s safe to say your questions have been answered by quite a few posts. A question that is answered but is repeated over and over becomes more than a question, it becomes an assertion.goout:
Yes, I know.
Check the second post in this thread.
You haven’t really answered any questions, though.
You merely have tried to simplify the issue by using an all encompassing “non-violent love” as the “end of story.”
The answer is simple. God is simple. Nothing wrong with simple. When simple is challenging, you shouldn’t reject it because you favor complexity.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Heck, it isn’t even clear to me that you have understood the question let alone it being answered “by quite a few posts.”
So based on that alone, it is becoming obvious that no answer will be forthcoming, except that I ought to anticipate a simple answer, whatever that turns out to be.
G
goout
Guest
Ok you’re right. We don’t understand your questions. They are just too complex for us.goout:
Heck, it isn’t even clear to me that you have understood the question let alone it being answered “by quite a few posts.”
So based on that alone, it is becoming obvious that no answer will be forthcoming, except that I ought to anticipate a simple answer, whatever that turns out to be.
Have a good Holy Week.
- Status