Turn the other cheek

  • Thread starter Thread starter ddarko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
KathleenElsie said:
The Swiss Guard protected the Pope with the force necessary to preserve his safety.
No place that I have seen have SK or any of the other posts say we should not forgive. It is our duty to forgive. It is not our duty to allow others to abuse us.
Click to expand...
The Swiss guard is AUTHORITY. And its two different points. Please stick to this thread here. It’s whether the OP theological exegesis is correct. And hopefully as you might have read, NO.

God Bless 🙂
 
Sir_Knight said:
Did he order the man releases so that he could come back and shoot him again?
Click to expand...
Ha? The point is, he didn’t execute him either or treat him like an enemy.

Please, stick to defending your Theological exegesis presented in the OP. This thread is not about the Pope or ‘find the word insanity’.

You are DERAILING this thread.

God Bless 🙂
 
KathleenElsie said:
The Swiss Guard protected the Pope with the force necessary to preserve his safety.
No place that I have seen have SK or any of the other posts say we should not forgive. It is our duty to forgive. It is not our duty to allow others to abuse us.
Click to expand...
Please read the reflection posted by Bookcat. And STICK TO THE THREAD TOPIC!!!

God Bless 🙂
 
Okay not “insane” as such, but rather an expression that essentially means that. However, I understand you said that within the context of a heated debate and probably didn’t mean that literally. And calling your, or rather a Monsignor’s view “outlandish” wasn’t prudent on my part. Let’s leave it at that: a fundamental disagreement on a controversial passage of Scriptures.
 
Sir_Knight said:
Don’t see the word “insane” anywhere, do you?
Click to expand...
Do you know that there are synonyms, and words that describe a phrase? Did I say you called me “Insane”? NO.

Learn to read and now stick to the thread. These petty arguments are childish.

God Bless 🙂
 
It’s clear that no one is learning anything here. I will pray that those who misuse Jesus’ words to justify aggression against others will have their heart and mind opened by the Holy Spirit.
 
Guy…

Lets “turn the other cheek” here…

and cease this back and forth.

and have reconciliation all around.

Thanks
 
ddarko said:
Ha? The point is, he didn’t execute him either or treat him like an enemy.
Click to expand...
He didn’t give him an opportunity to shoot him again as your explanation of turning the other cheek implies.
ddarko said:
Please, stick to defending your Theological exegesis presented in the OP.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I am doing.
ddarko said:
This thread is not about the Pope.
Click to expand...
Then why did YOU bring him into the discussion?
ddarko said:
You are DERAILING this thread.
Click to expand...
How? By addressing your comments.
 
momor said:
It’s clear that no one is learning anything here. I will pray that those who misuse Jesus’ words to justify aggression against others will have their heart and mind opened by the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Nobody is using Jesus’s words to justify aggression against others.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Turning the other cheek” has been portrayed as a passive and even submissive practice or strategy. Consider an alternative.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:38-39 (NIV)
*“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” *

An “eye for an eye” means countering violence with violence; as if this will resolve an issue. It won’t. Why wouldn’t the returned violence be returned again and again in turn? And so on ad infinitum? Yet this is the recipe preached in the Old Testament. How well did this work? It has worked well only for those with a vested interest in ever more violence (psychopaths) but not for the rest of us. So let’s look at a proposed alternative to violence.
Ever wonder why Jesus would specify the right cheek? It must have had significance for him to specifically mention it. Most people are right-handed and unless you are trained in the art of boxing it is usual to strike someone with your right hand. So** to strike someone on their right cheek with your right hand, you need to give them a ‘backhander’. This is the strike of choice for superiors when dealing with people they consider to be inferior to them and insubordinate to boot. So this is the situation Jesus was teaching on; how to deal with evil people in power.** When you turn the other cheek they cannot repeat the backhanded slap, they have to punch you if they want to continue. Problem is that they lose their superior position, their perceived legitimate chastisement, in the eyes of those watching brawling like common street thugs. Which is what they are; thugs in fine clothes.

Turning the other cheek is an act at once defiant and yet non-aggressive. It is in no way submissive. This action refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy or authority of the abusive power. It does not accept the authority of the attack.
Click to expand...
Kathleen I think this is pretty brilliant on Jesus’s behalf. Is it common knowledge about the Roman soldiers and the slapping?

It makes so much sense, yet reading it and taking it out of context, seems so simple.

If the Apostles were facing armed soldiers, what would be the biggest insult to them if they were slapped? Turn the other cheek. Brilliant. It’s basically saying, if the odds are stacked against you, outsmart them.

I’ve been in a situation where I turned the other cheek, for 8 hours, until I was cornered in a room with no way out. I defended myself when the punches started flying and the other guy was left on the floor.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
Kathleen I think this is pretty brilliant on Jesus’s behalf. Is it common knowledge about the Roman soldiers and the slapping?

It makes so much sense, yet reading it and taking it out of context, seems so simple.

If the Apostles were facing armed soldiers, what would be the biggest insult to them if they were slapped? Turn the other cheek. Brilliant. It’s basically saying, if the odds are stacked against you, outsmart them.

I’ve been in a situation where I turned the other cheek, for 8 hours, until I was cornered in a room with no way out. I defended myself when the punches started flying and the other guy was left on the floor.
Click to expand...
Oh for heaven’s sake! Read some Scripture commentary! Jesus wasn’t giving a lecture on how to outsmart and insult the Roman’s. He was preaching something far more revolutionary than that. The views put forth by some of you are completely inconsistent with who Jesus was and the message He came to preach. How can you have gotten it so backwards?
 
Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading especially by those who are unfamiliar with the culture and time period.
 
Sir_Knight said:
Jesus spoke in parables that were easily mis-interpreted by a quick or simplistic reading especially by those who are unfamiliar with the culture and time period.
Click to expand...
You seem to be the one totally out of touch with the culture at that time.

You said the back handed slap is for equals. That is FALSE. It is reserved for the lowest in the community. How can you be so oblivious to your errors?

You seem to be too overconfident about your exegesis. There were enough posts made on this thread that rejected your exegesis. Some even called it “Out-landish”. Then you offloaded the blame to some monsignor who taught you. For all we know, he could have been someone excommunicated from the church considering the nature of his theological views as you present them.

God Bless 🙂
 
KathleenElsie said:
Turning the other cheek” has been portrayed as a passive and even submissive practice or strategy. Consider an alternative.

Jesus said in Matthew 5:38-39 (NIV)
*“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” *

An “eye for an eye” means countering violence with violence; as if this will resolve an issue. It won’t. Why wouldn’t the returned violence be returned again and again in turn? And so on ad infinitum? Yet this is the recipe preached in the Old Testament. How well did this work? It has worked well only for those with a vested interest in ever more violence (psychopaths) but not for the rest of us. So let’s look at a proposed alternative to violence.
Ever wonder why Jesus would specify the right cheek? It must have had significance for him to specifically mention it. Most people are right-handed and unless you are trained in the art of boxing it is usual to strike someone with your right hand. So** to strike someone on their right cheek with your right hand, you need to give them a ‘backhander’. This is the strike of choice for superiors when dealing with people they consider to be inferior to them and insubordinate to boot. So this is the situation Jesus was teaching on; how to deal with evil people in power.** When you turn the other cheek they cannot repeat the backhanded slap, they have to punch you if they want to continue. Problem is that they lose their superior position, their perceived legitimate chastisement, in the eyes of those watching brawling like common street thugs. Which is what they are; thugs in fine clothes.

Turning the other cheek is an act at once defiant and yet non-aggressive. It is in no way submissive. This action refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy or authority of the abusive power. It does not accept the authority of the attack.
Click to expand...
Seriously Kathleen, are you talking about some kind of human mutants who only have one hand?

Because any person with TWO HANDS, can simply use the OTHER hand for a back-handed SLAP in the FACE. What are you going to say next? There was a cultural norm that you had to use the same hand as you started the assault with? 🤷

This is terrible logic. Do you even think before you write? It makes me want to cry. How can you people be so blind to these gross misinterpretations and errors?

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
Seriously Kathleen, are you talking about some kind of human mutants who only have one hand?

Because any person with TWO HANDS, can simply use the OTHER hand for a back-handed SLAP in the FACE.

This is terrible logic. How can you people be so blind to these gross misinterpretations and errors?

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
Actually, disregarding the obvious rudeness. Stand up and face someone, do a pretend slap across one side of the face and then tell them to turn the other cheek.

It is facing you which would require a punch, or for the other person to move to do another slap.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
Actually, disregarding the obvious rudeness. Stand up and face someone, do a pretend slap across one side of the face and then tell them to turn the other cheek.

It is facing you which would require a punch, or for the other person to move to do another slap.
Click to expand...
NO. One can use the OTHER HAND to give another SLAP. If you were close enough, I would have been happy to show you how.

I mean seriously, are we talking about one handed authority here?

God Bless 🙂
 
Btw, have you people EVER HEARD of something called Tradition? You interpret Scripture according to Tradition.

Please give me a SINGLE writing by a church father that interprets this passage the way you people do.

God Bless 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top