oh my the left pacifist will love this

[Universe Prince]

imo god communicates in ways that are purposefully ambiguous

Why do you think that, and why would that be a good thing?

[Plane]

" It has a sentence that goes, roughly, in translation, "If somebody slaps you on the face, turn the other cheek"."To me the message of "Turn the other cheek" is perfectly clear. 

well tee to me it is perfectly clear that when the below action is taken one does not turn the other cheek, one seeks justice which can many times equal punishment. if you, Lanya, and or js think that it means to turn the other cheek and continue to be slapped then I can certianly respect that opinion and not agree that is the message in the bible.
(just "turn the other cheek"? - i dont think so & dont think that is what the bible intends - but to each his own)

I don't agree with you on this one , there doesn't seem to be much reason to interpret the statement away from its simplcity.

When it is possible to forgive rather than retaliate it seems as if Jesus's advicce would be to choose forgiveness.

[Michael Tee]

I just don't believe that God would speak in riddles.  The Oracle of Delphi, maybe, but not God.  If God lays down certain rules and then punishes men and women heavily for disobeying them, the very least He could do would be to express the rules clearly and unambiguously for even the simplest of mortals to understand where the line was drawn.  Otherwise there would be an endless line of sinners waiting at the gates of hell, all bitching in unison, "How the hell was I supposed to know . . . ?" 

I think you equated God with some corrupt Southern Sheriff operating a speed trap for unsuspecting tourists in the darkest and deepest South.

[Christians4LessGvt]

"Why do you think that, and why would that be a good thing?"

be advised i am only speaking for myself
what works for me is only for me
i am not attempting to say "my path" should be your path or anyone elses
i am not attempting to say "my path" is superior in any way to yours
it's just for me
i am not trying to convert or convince
thats not my role nor my desire
lastly i don't pretend to have all the answers, but imo nobody does, they may pretend they do, or even think they do, good for them i say


"Why do you think that, and why would that be a good thing?"

because imo god is speaking to a wide audience
to an audience of many ages
to an audience of many maturity levels
to an audience of different cultures
to an audience of many different centuries
and to be honest i believe "the truth", "the way" is actually ambiguous


and btw, I HOPE HILLARY IS NOT LYING AND WOULD ATTACK IRAN

[Plane]

I just don't believe that God would speak in riddles.  The Oracle of Delphi, maybe, but not God.  If God lays down certain rules and then punishes men and women heavily for disobeying them, the very least He could do would be to express the rules clearly and unambiguously for even the simplest of mortals to understand where the line was drawn.  Otherwise there would be an endless line of sinners waiting at the gates of hell, all bitching in unison, "How the hell was I supposed to know . . . ?" 

I think you equated God with some corrupt Southern Sheriff operating a speed trap for unsuspecting tourists in the darkest and deepest South.

That is what parables are isn't it?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parables_of_Jesus


Mark 4:10-12, Matthew 13:10-17 and Luke 8:9-10 offer an explanation as to why Jesus would teach in parables. These verses say that whenever Jesus would go off by himself (away from the crowds of followers he attracted)[2] those close to him and the disciples would ask about the parables. He told them that they had been given the secret of the Kingdom of God (a concept commonly called the Messianic Secret,[3] but that outsiders did not have this secret, so everything to them is given in parables, never to be fully understood, otherwise they might find forgiveness, citing variations of Isaiah 6:9-10. Matthew 13:12 adds: "Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." It is a saying also found in the Gospel of Thomas 41 as well as Mark 4:25, Matthew 25:29 and Luke 8:18, and 19:26.

[_JS]

Let's read this verse in context, shall we?

This is part of the famous Sermon on the Mount (Sermon on the Plain in Luke).

First, let's look at Matthew 5:38-48 :

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
39 But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.
40 If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.
41 Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles.
42 Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? 
48 So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Now let's look at Luke 6:27-37

27 "But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.
29 To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic.
30 Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.
31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32 For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them.
33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same.
34 If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount.
35 But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.
36 Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful.
37 "Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.

Now, here is Leviticus 24:15-20, to contrast the Law as the Pharisees were adhering to with strict legalism.

15 Tell the Israelites: Anyone who curses his God shall bear the penalty of his sin;
16 whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall be put to death. The whole community shall stone him; alien and native alike must be put to death for blaspheming the LORD'S name.
17 "Whoever takes the life of any human being shall be put to death;
18 whoever takes the life of an animal shall make restitution of another animal. A life for a life!
19 Anyone who inflicts an injury on his neighbor shall receive the same in return.
20 Limb for limb, eye for eye, tooth for tooth! The same injury that a man gives another shall be inflicted on him in return.

I'm not seeing the ambiguity in Christ's words. It is a very pacifist view and indeed difficult to live up to as it goes against a more violent nature. But look at His chastising of Peter for attacking the Roman soldier.

[Michael Tee]

It looks to me like the Jews are maybe a little fucked up but the Christians are fucked up even worse.  That "eye for an eye" stuff is too general - - sometimes it's deserved, sometimes you might be better off forgiving.  Depends on who the guy is.  But "turn the other cheek" - - that's REALLY fucked up.  It's like a recipe for suicide.

[Plane]

It looks to me like the Jews are maybe a little fucked up but the Christians are fucked up even worse.  That "eye for an eye" stuff is too general - - sometimes it's deserved, sometimes you might be better off forgiving.  Depends on who the guy is.  But "turn the other cheek" - - that's REALLY fucked up.  It's like a recipe for suicide.

An eye for an eye is a limit , so that no more than an eye is taken for an eye , the principal is to keep punishment in proportion wih crime.
An eye for an eye is a large advance over human nature which wants revenge to be bigger than the offense.

Ever see the "Untouchables" the one in which Shean Connery says that a response to gang violence must be an escalation?
 http://imdb.com/title/tt0094226/
http://allstarz.hollywood.com/~seanconnery/untouchables.htm

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/untouchables-trailer/3504754102


"If Capone puts one of ours in the hospital we put one of his in the mourge."

That is human nature , you can see it every day when you see every insult leading to a worse disrespect in return , where disrespect leads to assault and where assult leads to murder.


The Advice of Jesus is another advance again , when forgiveness is possible it should be preferred .

I notice that Jesus did not say that when someone stabbs a child that you need to offer another child to him as a second victim but  slap on the cheek can be adsorbed with small enough harm to allow the victim to forgive .

Jesus advises that some one who unrightously demands a dollar should be given two  , this is not easy advice to follow , but when I think of the killing that has happened over a small sum of tax or cheating it makes me think.

Jesus advises that when someone demands that you carry his pack a mile that you carry it two , this was a right given Roman Soldiers uner the law, that they could demand that their pack be carryed for a mile  , what do you think that second mile accomplishes?

Human nature makes us like the surface of a pond where an evil deed splashes not only where it actually happens but also causes a ripple that runs across the whole surface of the pond splashing every bank and reflecting to return to the center again , but even worse, on a pond the ripple doesn't grow taller as it runs in the way that evil deeds are amplified as they run across the face of a human society  .

The advice of Jesus needs to be pondered and uinderstood , it is oil poured on that water so that the effect of an evil deed becomes minimised and localised rather than growing and spreading.

[Amianthus]

Jesus advises that when someone demands that you carry his pack a mile that you carry it two , this was a right given Roman Soldiers uner the law that they could demand that their pack be carryed for a mile  , what do you think that second mile accomplishes?

It eliminates the responsibility of someone else carrying that pack for that mile - in other words, it's a generosity to someone you might or might not know. An anonymous gift, if you will.

[Plane]

Jesus advises that when someone demands that you carry his pack a mile that you carry it two , this was a right given Roman Soldiers uner the law that they could demand that their pack be carryed for a mile  , what do you think that second mile accomplishes?

It eliminates the responsibility of someone else carrying that pack for that mile - in other words, it's a generosity to someone you might or might not know. An anonymous gift, if you will.

Hmm.. that is so , but it isn't the thing I was thinking.

The Roman Soldier that had the right under the law to demand that you carry his duffel for a mile expects resentment and resistance , if you carry the pack even urther than his authority allowed him to demand you have exercised your freewill . If you then tell the Soldier that  it is for the sake of Christ his pack was carried a second mile the Soldier is indebted to Christ in a way , is this witness blatant or stubtle?

[Michael Tee]

<<I notice that Jesus did not say that when someone stabbs a child that you need to offer another child to him as a second victim but  slap on the cheek can be adsorbed with small enough harm to allow the victim to forgive .>>

Never thought of that angle before.  Thanks, plane.  Basically, Jesus was only talking about small stuff.  A slap in the face should be forgiven and your cheek is turned to demonstrate that even if he slapped you TWICE, you would still forgive him because you love him that much.

So what's that say about the guy who takes your eye?  That it's OK to beat the living shit out of him as long as you don't take more than an eye?  Jesus just leaves it up to the individual, subject to Old Testament limits?

Jesus seems to be an unpredictable god.  One time he talks in parables, one time he talks quite literally.  When he's talking about slaps in the face, it's quite literal - - what goes for a slap in the face doesn't necessarily go for a kick in the balls.  In that case, he's STILL a poor communicator, because if he's not delivering a general lesson here, he shouldn't stop at just a slap in the face, he should outline a whole catalogue of assaults and retributions:  this is what you do if he slaps your face, this is what you do if he kicks you in the nuts, etc.

IMHO, Jesus' spoke more broadly when he referred to the slap in the face - - it stood in for ALL assaults and ALL injuries.  Otherwise it was meaningless, it covered only one possible assault out of thousands, or if meant to indicate all trivial assaults, he was completely silent on how to deal with the non-trivial.

[Michael Tee]

<<It eliminates the responsibility of someone else carrying that pack for that mile - in other words, it's a generosity to someone you might or might not know. An anonymous gift, if you will.>>

That can't be right.  What if the unknown beneficiary were a shirker and a malingerer, someone who never carried his own load because he falsely claimed to have a bad back?  Why would Jesus want the shirker to have someone else do his labour any more than he'd want the lazy, shiftless poor to collect welfare?

[Amianthus]

Wikipedia has a good discussion about this topic, here's a section:

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 discipliner 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 a slap with the open hand as a challenge or 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. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single 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. As a side effect this may also afforded the early followers a longer time to missionary to the soldier and or cause the soldier not to seek followers of Jesus to carry his equipment in the future so as not to be bothered with their proselitizing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_the_other_cheek

[Amianthus]

That can't be right.  What if the unknown beneficiary were a shirker and a malingerer, someone who never carried his own load because he falsely claimed to have a bad back?  Why would Jesus want the shirker to have someone else do his labour any more than he'd want the lazy, shiftless poor to collect welfare?

Last time I checked, Jesus claimed that you should give freely to anyone who asks.

[_JS]

I think it was a far more radical call.

Notice Christ's actions as well as his words. Did he bring down holy justice upon the Romans? Upon the Jews? Even upon Judas?

No.

The Apostles could have. We know that from their eagerness to destroy the Samaritan village that would not welcome Him (due to the route they were taking to Jerusalem, and the religious hatred between the Jews and Samaritans). Yet, Christ prevents it then and again at the Passion.

Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.

That doesn't say to tell them "get a job." It doesn't say "teach a man to fish..." does it?

For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit (is) that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.

It is easy to love those who love you. It is easy to think only about your family, your country, your religion, your race, your people. Anyone can do that, right? Anyone can be nice to people who are nice to them, right?

What kind of call would that be? Jesus Christ calls us to mediocrity?

Peter, Paul, and the others would never have been persecuted if the message was to love the people who love you. If the message was that your nation, your people come first - I'm sure Paul would have gotten along well.

So yes, I think that the entire Sermon is radical. It does not strike me as pragmatic at all. If you read Acts, you'll see that the Apostles did not live a pragmatic lifestyle after heeding Christ's call, either.