Author Topic: oh my the left pacifist will love this  (Read 5861 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: oh my the left pacifist will love this
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2007, 01:44:11 PM »
<<Last time I checked, Jesus claimed that you should give freely to anyone who asks.>>

You were responding seriously to my sarcasm and rhetorical question.  Or was that your OEM sense of humour kicking in?

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: oh my the left pacifist will love this
« Reply #46 on: October 17, 2007, 01:51:17 PM »
<<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.


Decideing at what point triviality ends is a subjective and individual decision , Jesus points the way to perfection but where does he demand perfection?

I have acepted insult and minor harm without retaliation but I hardly aspire to perfection.

Jesus and his deciples allowed themselves to be killed , as if that were trivial.  I don't know yet how far in that direction I could go.


Consider what the alternative philosophy leads to , if there is going to be massive retaliation for every offence the amplifacation of every evil ends only with the death of the participants.
Common sense guides mature persons to accept small damage and refuse to pass it on , if they like peace.

.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: oh my the left pacifist will love this
« Reply #47 on: October 17, 2007, 01:54:31 PM »
You were responding seriously to my sarcasm and rhetorical question.  Or was that your OEM sense of humour kicking in?

Don't understand the concept of a "straight man" in humour?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: oh my the left pacifist will love this
« Reply #48 on: October 17, 2007, 02:00:15 PM »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<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?


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

You were responding seriously to my sarcasm and rhetorical question.  Or was that your OEM sense of humour kicking in?


Why not ask it seriously? Would Jesus ak us to feed the shiftless? Would he have means testing on bestwing blessings on the wealthy?