It's the "turn the other cheek" thing, and forgiveness, that the rest of the world has used to manipulate and take advantage of Christians. I must admit that, even within Christian churches, the ambiguity is confusing.
Turn the other cheeks refers to insults. In the middle east during the times of the bible it was an insult to touch a man's cheek in certain circumstances. From the book customs in the lands and times of the bible by bishop K.C. pillai
The biblical right to self defense is clear in God's Word. We just don't war over insults.
Turning the other cheek was not necessarily an act of submission. Instead it may have been understood at the time to be an act of defiance against tyrrany, by standing up to it and facing it down:
"At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking backhand a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting 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. An 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, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality."
He also said this in context of either the Christian brethren, or related brother.
Should this be extended to all humanity?
That’s certainly the argument that the church puts out. If someone commits murder, then, we should forgive him and be sure that nothing happens. If someone rapes a child and steals all its mother’s money, we should forgive him and ensure that nothing happens. If these things are happening 18 times a month we should forgive him at least 490 times and ensure that nothing happens
Somehow, I suspect that this interpretation is not correct, as even secular law is often better than that.
Totally agree. The law as given makes no sense - unless you understand it as a code of conduct between TRIBESMEN - or between religious brothers. When you understand the idea of a social contract between people who are part of a small group/city/tribe/religious group then it makes a lot more sense. Bet when it is extended to the whole world/nonbelievers/bad hombres/etc. then it doesn't apply the same. I made another relevant comment in this threat you may like as well.
I mean I’d imagine the ambiguity and meekness in many Christian Churches now. Is partly the result of deliberate outside manipulation.
And partly the result of Christianity's rather bloody history leaving a bit of mark on Modern Christian Consciousness. Given we’ve hit a point where the majority of society finds Crusades, Forced Conversions, Interfaith feuds leading to the near annihilation of various Christian sects at Sword point by other Christians. Annihilation of various Cultures and Peoples in their totality. Etc. So on and so forth. To be not very acceptable behavior.
We’ve deluded ourselves into believing we’re far different then our Christian ancestors. More ‘Civilized’. Therefore we can’t lower ourselves to respond how they would have responded to various pressures and outside attacks.
Or else we’d need to acknowledge we’re far closer to the Superstitious Men and Women who were slaughtering their fellow Christians by the Thousands over difference of opinion. And subjecting people to heinous deaths over the mere whisper of Heresy or Witchcraft. Then our modern sensibilities are comfortable enough admitting to.
No true Believers have ever slaughtered anyone.
That would be the Catholicism gang.
That is totally different from the Gospel.
Nothing in the Gospel endorses wholesale slaughter of people.
It's the "turn the other cheek" thing, and forgiveness, that the rest of the world has used to manipulate and take advantage of Christians. I must admit that, even within Christian churches, the ambiguity is confusing.
Onward Christian soldiers...
...Marching as to war. With the Cross of Jesus going on before.
Turn the other cheeks refers to insults. In the middle east during the times of the bible it was an insult to touch a man's cheek in certain circumstances. From the book customs in the lands and times of the bible by bishop K.C. pillai
The biblical right to self defense is clear in God's Word. We just don't war over insults.
If the crusades hadn't happend a hoard of asiatics and arabs would of swept into europe. Imagine a mongrel hoard from ireland to persia
Add in that most think the crusades were offensive…while in fact they were defensive.
Isn't that happening today?
Yes it is.
Yea, I wonder who could be behind all these great replacement conspiracy realities.
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-jewish-case-for-open-borders
https://rac.org/issues/immigration-justice
https://hias.org/hias-eu/
https://jewishfed.org/supporting-immigrants
https://forward.com/news/179296/jews-unite-behind-push-for-immigration-reform/
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/editorials/ngos-and-migrants-337280
I could go on, but I would need to put a "not all jews" disclaimer on my post or JIDF will downvote every comment I make for the next week.
Actually the ONE behind all this is Satan.
Turning the other cheek was not necessarily an act of submission. Instead it may have been understood at the time to be an act of defiance against tyrrany, by standing up to it and facing it down:
"At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking backhand a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting 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. An 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, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality."
On the other comment I was actually just positing something to which I do not have an answer.
This one is much more solid.
https://communities.win/c/PrayerGarden/p/16c1ukSEFO/what-is-prayer-garden-/c
We are working to fix that :)
How many times should we apologize? Jesus said 70 times 7…. Not sure I see the problem?
”Forgive”, not “apologize”.
He also said this in context of either the Christian brethren, or related brother.
Should this be extended to all humanity?
That’s certainly the argument that the church puts out. If someone commits murder, then, we should forgive him and be sure that nothing happens. If someone rapes a child and steals all its mother’s money, we should forgive him and ensure that nothing happens. If these things are happening 18 times a month we should forgive him at least 490 times and ensure that nothing happens
Somehow, I suspect that this interpretation is not correct, as even secular law is often better than that.
Totally agree. The law as given makes no sense - unless you understand it as a code of conduct between TRIBESMEN - or between religious brothers. When you understand the idea of a social contract between people who are part of a small group/city/tribe/religious group then it makes a lot more sense. Bet when it is extended to the whole world/nonbelievers/bad hombres/etc. then it doesn't apply the same. I made another relevant comment in this threat you may like as well.
Whoever is doing the downvoting should explain their point.
I mean I’d imagine the ambiguity and meekness in many Christian Churches now. Is partly the result of deliberate outside manipulation.
And partly the result of Christianity's rather bloody history leaving a bit of mark on Modern Christian Consciousness. Given we’ve hit a point where the majority of society finds Crusades, Forced Conversions, Interfaith feuds leading to the near annihilation of various Christian sects at Sword point by other Christians. Annihilation of various Cultures and Peoples in their totality. Etc. So on and so forth. To be not very acceptable behavior.
We’ve deluded ourselves into believing we’re far different then our Christian ancestors. More ‘Civilized’. Therefore we can’t lower ourselves to respond how they would have responded to various pressures and outside attacks.
Or else we’d need to acknowledge we’re far closer to the Superstitious Men and Women who were slaughtering their fellow Christians by the Thousands over difference of opinion. And subjecting people to heinous deaths over the mere whisper of Heresy or Witchcraft. Then our modern sensibilities are comfortable enough admitting to.
No true Believers have ever slaughtered anyone. That would be the Catholicism gang. That is totally different from the Gospel. Nothing in the Gospel endorses wholesale slaughter of people.