jump to last post 1-50 of 51 discussions (496 posts)

When Turning the Other Cheek becomes a Being a Door Mat?

  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago

    We need to fight against what is bad for our lives/survival. We need to realize when to fight and when not to fight. When to yield and when to stand firm.
    There are times to stand firm. Those times are in defending one's life and way of life.

    This principle applies to Politics as well.

    What would Jesus say?

    Title edit: When Turning the Other Cheek Becomes Being a Door Mat.

    1. Michael-Milec profile image59
      Michael-Milecposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Not simple at all Kathryn; " What would Jesus do "-  leads to what He has said to His  listeners as we read of  His action (John 18:23) He did not slavishly follow the letter of it... instead He asked  a question " why did you strike me ?"  ( In practical sense, my opinion : You have my  other cheek, however if you won't stop there, you might face consequences...)
      Present days occurrences where evil are  beheading those without resisting, might lead to the extermination of human race as , at the  end evil will continue killing  each other... ( In some countries is already happening ).

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      It depends on the particulars I think Kathryn, to know what Jesus would do.  I think this is a good point, and my mind can't help but go to these forums, where I observe all kinds of unsavory tactics from people, lol.  Good question/point though! 

      I think a lot interpret Jesus' teachings as meaning we need to be doormats, when it wasn't the case necessarily.

    3. jacharless profile image82
      jacharlessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I stand corrected, but the text makes a reference to this "turning the other cheek" as 70 x 7 times per day; approximately 20.5 times per hour, every hour. Respectively, that is to be slapped in the face 490 times, daily without administering revenge in any manner. Y-ouch!

      But, is this the same as defending or protecting/preventing instances of said face-slapping? Is altruistic forgiveness truly the cure for every form of injustice?

      Considering solely numerics, the probability of stopping any injustice is definite. To use an analogy of, say, bullying -be it youth or military force, politics, etc- should a measurable percentage of people endure said face-slapping, as scheduled, the effect against the bully would be quite terrifying. As with any power or force it demands, even requires, a response in order to survive, to proliferate, to continue. Without fuel, the fire consumes itself and eventually suffocates. Defense without defending. It is not apathy, nor sympathy. More so immovability that cannot be shaken by circumstances.

    4. Onusonus profile image87
      Onusonusposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I am always amused at the notion that simply disagreeing with a nonbeliever means you have violated the "turn the other cheek" clause in the sermon on the mount. They always seem to think it's some kind of glaring hypocritical show stopper.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        I would be curious about a few things.

        In the OP, what implies that the question is how to interact with nonbelievers?
        If it did imply nonbelievers...why would one consider one's actions in a different light, depending on the belief structure of another individual? You state 'disagreeing with non-believers'. Would the question be answered differently if one was sure that all parties were believers? What evidence would we have that the Sermon on the Mount was only preached to Jews at the time? Without evidence, would it not make more sense to assume the lessons from that sermon be applied to all humans, across the board? Was there any clause offered during the sermon to negate responsibility for any actions toward anyone who didn't share a similar belief structure?

        What is a believer anyway? There are many different interpretations to each lesson in the Bible. Would a believer be only those who shared a common interpretation? Is there some percentage of agreement required in order to be considered a believer? I only ask because even those labeled believers argue as to who truly is a believer and who isn't.  So, it seems to me that any philosophy which implied 'non believers' should not be given the same level of consideration as a 'believer' is ill advised. Wouldn't that be a convenient way of   ignoring a principle belief; simply because it was inconvenient to act in accordance with it?

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
          oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Hi Emile, for whatever this is worth, when Onusonus said,

          "I am always amused at the notion that simply disagreeing with a nonbeliever means you have violated the "turn the other cheek" clause in the sermon on the mount. They always seem to think it's some kind of glaring hypocritical show stopper."

          I read it totally different than how you took it.  I took it that he experiences what he was talking about, as happening with nonbelievers, and not that he took the whole thread to be directed toward just nonbelievers. If so, you would be correct in asking, "why the mention of just nonbelievers?"  I was going to respond to that post, that it is my experience as well.  I haven't had many believers suggest I am being hypocritical when I disagree with them, by not turning the other cheek.  It seems to be a point worth mentioning above nonbelievers, for simply disagreeing with them at times.  I don't think that disagreeing with anyone, constitutes "not turning the other cheek," like is often suggested.  It turns out to be just more of an accusation.  They do try to magnify it into being some hypocritical show stopper, and somehow the other points being made have just been invalidated or something.  Thought it might shed light, and maybe not, lol.  Its just my experience.  It could be viewed as a type of logical fallacy.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Not until this thread have I ever heard anyone suggest that a valid interpretation of that is to not disagree with anyone. I have no idea how anyone could think it had to do with not disagreeing with someone. Unless, of course, you guys are in the habit of being slapped while disagreeing. I would certainly hope that if you find yourself in that situation you wouldn't stand around and wait for it to happen again.

            This could explain what I consider to be two faced behavior patterns by some religious folk. Smiling and agreeing with someone and then talking about them behind their back; because they appear to harbor some resentment that they were not willing to speak their mind when the opportunity was there. Being falsely 'nice' really isn't nice in the long run. It is my opinion that if you can't cheerfully embrace a philosophy you never really embraced it at all. The Sermon on the Mount had nothing to do with complaining that others don't get it. It was about getting it yourself. Complaining about 'non believers' ignores personal responsibility. Getting it and embracing it would alleviate the problem. What we all appear to do is get it and hope others embrace it so we don't have to or, at the least, embracing it ourselves won't be so darn difficult.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              I am not sure how you can know such things and why you say all you say there, but ok.

              You said, "I have no idea how anyone could think it had to do with not disagreeing with someone."  That was my thought too.  That is the point.  It doesn't.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                So, we agree on the fact that disagreements have nothing to do with that. That's good. However, it was the general idea of the post onusonus offered up which caused me to raise my eyebrows and ask for clarification. The fact that the term nonbeliever was inserted caught my eye because it takes a wonderful lesson and attempts to create loopholes. The fact that you offered a response which continued the use of the word nonbeliever and your experience implied to me that you, too, are of this mindset.

                I think my problem arises because I perceive it as showcasing the need to categorize and separate. I certainly hope, in every day life, some don't walk around, pointing around at people in their heads, judging them as 'believer' 'non believer'; yet I know they do. I've heard some self identified believers purport that anything is fair in spiritual warfare; whatever that is to them. Lying, cheating, unkind words etc. are OK, as long as it is not done to those they identify as a believer. Speaking ill of others is general considered OK, as long as those others are considered to be nonbelievers. This doesn't equate to forcing someone to 'turn the other cheek' due to a disagreement but it does equate to the need for others to find a way to 'turn the other cheek' due to the fact that they are put into the position to find a way to overlook insensitive behavior patterns purportedly justified because they have been given the label of non believer. I considered the post I responded to as being in this vein. Separate and label differently, so we can treat differently. Why would one attempt to do this? I am judging from the viewpoint of one who has accepted and embraced the given label of non believer, so will explain the thought process that led me to respond.

                This philosophy that the post I responded to appeared to showcase degrades quickly (as we see on this forum and in life) as self identified believers become judge and jury of those whose belief structure does not match their own. People become polarized. The term believer is used to rubber stamp any action or words by anyone who is considered a part of an ever narrowing group and damn the rest. Many who are easily identified as believers by those on the outside don't appear to warrant the courtesy afforded the label of believer by those who are considered by the group to be on the inside. So, the term believer appears to have nothing to do with a belief in God, or Christ. We are left to come to our own conclusions as to what the term entails. Conversely, those judged negatively by this ever narrowing group slowly offer an equally polarized reaction because they have begun to judge as they have been judged. Unfairly and negatively.

                All of humanity are believers. In something. Jesus is revered by an exceptionally large percentage of the population. God is respected by an even greater percentage of the population. Simply because few agree as to interpretation, nature or intent; there is no reason to negatively brand, or treat another human being differently. We can, of course, argue that it isn't negatively branding. It is just being honest. But that claim of honesty is only valid within that individual mind; propped up by the ever narrowing group. Which means it is a very, very fleeting definition of honesty. It becomes viewed as dishonesty as the words and actions are filtered through the eyes, minds and experiences of the greater population.

                I realize that you believe believers are labeled hypocritical because you think others are expecting them to turn the other cheek in foolish circumstances. I simply think that is untrue. I think those who label themselves believers are using a different measuring stick for their own words and actions and failing to recognize it.

                1. Castlepaloma profile image23
                  Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Agree

                2. mishpat profile image60
                  mishpatposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Distinctions and labels.  Isn't that a standard for all of mankind?  We use " " and ( ) and numerous other symbols in writing that are not evident in speech.  Then there are the are spoken labels of which the greatest is the hyphen.  "I'm an "xxx-xxx" by ethnicity.  My name last name is "xxx-xxx."  It seems it is all a great filing system.  Can't help but believe its some sort of political game or such to keep us at odds with each other.  Makes me furious at times, chuckle at other times.

                  But to the issue, believer and non-believer.  I am not in tune to what was said days ago though it would seem a distinction was made in labeling who should turn the other cheek.  Can we see it as it the Biblical concept that it is?  In doing so, there must be a separation of the two.

                  The non-believer, those that do not believe the Bible is not constrained by the words of the Bible.  Yet these folks would (many times properly) use the Bible to put "believers" in the place, verbally.  Most times one cannot be sure if this chastisement is an effort to clarify or be obtuse.

                  Likewise, there seems to be an expectation by believers (even though they should know better) that non-believers should adhere to the concepts of a Book they do not revere.  And this would be obtuse.

                  And, yet, there is a necessary distinction between the two when it comes to scriptural matters.  The believer is held to a higher plane.  Whereas the non-believer is constrained only by social laws and mores', the believers, in addition to being constrained by these two, must also answer to God for their actions.  This is not to say that all will one day answer to God, but we speak here on a corporeal plane.

                  "Turning the other cheek" is not a believer/non-believer issue, unless one is talking about things of the Bible.  Then it becomes a more narrow issue than laws and mores'.   Bottom line, sometimes one has to make the distinction in order to debate the point in the proper forum.  Here, the forum seems to want to be strictly "Religion" but it also include "Philosophy" by title.  Believers and non-believers alike are "in the house."  We know what the terms mean.  And we know what we are!

                3. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
                  MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Jesus showed violence, anger, impatience, and intolerance himself when he made a whip, and drove out the moneychangers, and when he cursed the fig tree.

                  “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; (John 2:15) (see also Matt 21:12, and Mark 11:15)

                  Jesus didn't like it when the fig tree had no figs, so he made it die, even though it was out of season.

                  "And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away".(Matthew 21:19)

                  He also said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
                  For I am come to set a man at variance (difference, disagreements)  against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law". (Matthew 10:34-35)

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    I'm not of the mindset that the Bible is the infallible word of God. I think it is important to remember that the Gospels were written by men. Their recollections of times long past in their lives. Flavored by their understanding, their beliefs and their desires for the direction the movement would take. If you take certain passages and attempt to convince yourself that was what he stood for, then it negates the greater value of his ministry. If we use perceived imperfections to justify our own less than exemplary behavior patterns, what good is served?

                4. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Its occurring to me we are still reading the original post from Onusonus very differently, because as I read your first paragraph there, we should all be agreeing at this point, not disagreeing.  I thought his point was that the disagreements have nothing to do with turning the other cheek like you say you and I agree here.     

                  I suppose its possible he inserted the word nonbeliever to create loopholes, but without knowing for sure, isn't that also a judgement onto him, when it could just be the "who", a descriptive factor of what he was told? Since we can't know that, I am left wondering what justifies such a judgement?

                  I can at least speak for myself, so let me try to clear up any thing I can.  You (Emile) say,
                  "I think my problem arises because I perceive it as showcasing the need to categorize and separate. I certainly hope, in every day life, some don't walk around, pointing around at people in their heads, judging them as 'believer' 'non believer'; yet I know they do."

                  Emile, but how do you know that?  Let me assure you, I don't walk around doing that, because for one, I can't know who is a believer or non believer anymore than anyone can.  Its not really pertinent to most things and not my business frankly.  I am not sure how someone could know what others are thinking in their heads as you describe there.  With respect, couldn't negative assumptions lead to a lot of faulty conclusions?  You can't have access to the knowledge you are speaking of in someone's head, right?  If peace and acceptance is a goal to be desired among us all, is assuming what people are thinking and judging of others in their heads going to aid in that?  Could it create the opposite, create division?  Logically, I think it could.

                  You share, "I've heard some self identified believers purport that anything is fair in spiritual warfare; whatever that is to them. Lying, cheating, unkind words etc. are OK, as long as it is not done to those they identify as a believer. Speaking ill of others is general considered OK, as long as those others are considered to be nonbelievers."

                  That is unfortunate that you have heard people do that, and I hate to hear it.  How awful, and how unlike Jesus that kind of treatment would be to others.  I certainly don't agree with it, and I hope  most would not.  Yikes.  And yes, if that is done to them, then THEY might want to implement the turning of the other cheek if they chose to not respond in like manner. I also don't agree with the idea that believers are to become judge and jury of those whose belief structures don't match their own.

                  You also said, "The term believer is used to rubber stamp any action or words by anyone who is considered a part of an ever narrowing group and damn the rest. Many who are easily identified as believers by those on the outside don't appear to warrant the courtesy afforded the label of believer by those who are considered by the group to be on the inside. So, the term believer appears to have nothing to do with a belief in God, or Christ. We are left to come to our own conclusions as to what the term entails."

                  For a person to think others don't deserve the courtesy afforded a believer, is horrible. I also think its bad to justify behaviors, and to return what we think is bad behavior in kind.  Which is the whole point.  So again, are we not all on the same page in terms of what is being labeled as wrong here?  We all agree at least in word, that what Jesus taught and did was worthy of duplicating, and that to do its opposite is not good.

                  You said, "I realize that you believe believers are labeled hypocritical because you think others are expecting them to turn the other cheek in foolish circumstances." 

                  No, I don't believe that actually.  I really was told what I was told, and it really did not make sense in the particular example that it happened in.

                  Your final thought, "I think those who label themselves believers are using a different measuring stick for their own words and actions and failing to recognize it,"  lumps anyone that would call themselves a believer, together.  I don't  know how such a statement could possibly be true or fair. To the people you DID describe in your post above, I don't doubt for one minute they are using a different measuring stick for themselves than they use for others.  We agree on that though.  Does the idea of people using a different measuring stick for others than themselves, apply to anyone here in this thread that can be fairly shown?

                  1. wilderness profile image96
                    wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    "I don't walk around doing that <judging as believer or non-believer>"

                    A side note here, but I do think an awful lot of people do do that.  We can usually spot an Amish person, for example, or a Muslim believer.  I grew up in a small sect and can identify them to this day with a high degree of precision.

                    A large percentage of believers wear religious jewelry, but how many non-believers would wear a cross?  Or a prayer necklace?  Let alone Catholic priest/nun garb?  How about a family, all dressed in suits/nice dresses, on Sunday morning?

                    Go to Craigslist and you will find post after post advertising something from a "Christian home" - they obviously find value in advertising their status and expect others to look for it.  Many of the scammers sending letters to your email do the same thing - they all seem to be "Christian" and for the same reason.

                    So, I think this is far more common than you might recognize.  Sad but true.

          2. faith-hope-love profile image80
            faith-hope-loveposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            I think that all of you better re-read the lessons that were taught by Jesus before continuing this discourse. Although he was sent to the lost sheep of Israel it is certain that his lessons were meant for all of humanity. It is also certain that his lessons were heard by more than just Jews.  The sermon on the mount was definitely meant for all.

    5. Writer Fox profile image80
      Writer Foxposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I guess Catholics don't have to "turn the other cheek" any more:
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … t-too.html

    6. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      The full quote of what Jesus is supposed to have said is:

      'You have heard that it was said, "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.'

      I don't think this is ambiguous, and I don't think it needs interpretation. In this passage Jesus is clearly telling people that they should apply the same scope in their application of love that 'the father in heaven' applies to who the sun shines on, and who gets rained on: 'He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.' Unless there is some other category of person that god uses that we are not aware of, there is no doubt about who Jesus is instructing people to love: everyone.

      I do not see how anyone could reasonably interpret this passage in any other way. There is nothing unclear about it. It's a simple instruction to love indiscriminately. And it's an instruction that historical evidence tells us that early Christians followed to the death. It also tells us that love and hate has everything to do with doing what's right in the face of evil. It says that the way to 'be perfect' when faced with enemies and persecutors is to love them and pray for them. And in fact that is exactly what Christians believe Jesus himself did in the last hours and minutes of his ministry.

      1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
        MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

        That would work, IF everyone did this, but when people hate, and are performing heinous acts of murder, praying without action is futile.
        God gave some people the means and the intelligence to defend and protect the weak, and at times it means war
        Your neighbor are those of your own home, community, state, and country

        Often God himself, sent his people to war, and no person can change God's orders or his commandments

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
          oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          You said to DonW,

          "That would work, IF everyone did this, but when people hate, and are performing heinous acts of murder, praying without action is futile.
          God gave some people the means and the intelligence to defend and protect the weak, and at times it means war
          Your neighbor are those of your own home, community, state, and country"

          What you said above seems very obvious to me.  Sometimes God might act on our prayers, but if we do ignore what he has given us as part of the aid in that, then we will reap the consequences.  Its like not taking a child to the doctor when gravely ill, or not lifting a finger to help get money in which to eat, and only praying about such things.  Those are not biblical ideas, and they are not a sign of a lack of trust in God.  The fact some might be trying to suggest absolute pacifism is more loving when dealing even with murdererous enemies is astounding to me.  Its a discussion I can't believe we are having.

      2. 0
        Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Couldn't agree more. Thanks for taking the time to post that.

      3. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        I agree with the verses also, and think they are not ambiguous, and don't think anyone would disagree with their straightforward, intended meaning from the writers, with all things considered in context.  I sum up my thoughts on all of this in my last post to you, on the points where you take them to the extremes matter.  (At the end.) 

        One very critical correction also on the above, is that when Jesus died on the cross (besides the "why"), is that that wasn't the last hours and minutes of his ministry.  It is the ministry and most important miracle of all that made all the prior parts of his ministry so critical.  The further (after death) ministry is what makes him worth listening to at all.  No other had accomplished what he had.  If you do care to answer the prior questions that I think would help make your case, with some new information about the suicide parts and how its good to allow people to kill others I will listen to that.  Other than that, I will likely only respond to particular examples that you could point to me, where you think I wouldn't apply the above verses in an actual made up example in our lives today.  I mean.  Because I think you have taken what I have said as somehow being contrary to scriptures, but have not used an example we can both relate to us today. 

        I frankly find the rest unfortunate, the underlying ideas that are being pushed onto people in an "ought to" fashion, by those that would disagree, without successfully making the case.  Even alarming (when talking about the end of people's lives. I say this because because of the only times any kind of "force" would be seen as necessary, to save innocent life at the hands of murderers, the biggest bullies of the world.  This isn't made sense of to me by people that would on another day take a more moral idea to be superior, if Christianity isn't in fact true.  The only thing that makes sense is that Jesus is absolutely real, and what he did and accomplished is in fact true, and all the other things he said.  There are so many ways to love indiscriminately, that don't involve laying down one's life simply because an enemy wants to extinguish it.

        The unsupported "morphing" of what is said in those verses, and what they supposedly must "mean" in the furthest examples of how they could work out (innocent life being lost to an enemy) isn't something I could ever support.  Trying to make it look like a Christian that disagrees with you on these extreme points of view is disagreeing with the scriptures above, isn't fair. Too much has to be ignored, and yet the what I see are the same errors keep on being brought up, as if they hadn't been explained prior.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          I think a primary difference comes when we attempt to understand who is doing what, to whom. Jesus did not show violence against his enemies. He allowed events to proceed, even though the text says he could have easily averted the actions and changed the outcome; in order to save his own life. He laid down his physical life, so that others might live in a spiritual way. However, stories show that when he encountered violence that endangered the life of another (the woman about to be stoned) he spoke up and showed that the violence was wrong. He didn't grab a sword and start lobbing off heads. He didn't step in until asked his opinion on the matter. I, honestly, don't know what that means to us. The woman in question had clearly broken long standing laws. The others were certainly acting within the parameters of what was expected of them; by their religious laws. One wonders what Jesus would have done had he not been asked his opinion.

          I think the example Jesus has given us implies that we should certainly stand for what we believe to be along the vein of putting the needs of others on the same level of importance as our own needs. I think laying down one's life to save another is easily seen as following his example. Even stepping in, when not asked an opinion, in order to argue for the goal of everyone treating their neighbors with the same level of consideration they would their loved ones could be seen as following within the spirit of his footsteps.

          I haven't followed your conversation, so I do not know where you stand on this issue. But, I have seen some here say that deadly force is acceptable when protecting innocent life. I don't see where this can be advocated through a study of the actions of Jesus. Certainly, putting oneself in harm's way to protect the innocent is justified. Being willing to use deadly force if that action results in someone threatening your life would be seen as justified; but a lot of the arguments here seem to imply that one should be willing to use deadly force as a first option when standing against what is perceived as evil. I see it as, again, an attempt to create loopholes when attempting to believe that one follows the example of Jesus. There is no agreed upon source which gives us reason to believe  he would have acted in this manner; or supported any such action.

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            So if someone is being mugged and beaten to death in a dark alley, by three thugs,  a Christian should not employ violence to save them? And to justify that belief, we should misapply one verse out of context of not "exchanging insult for insult" and not being a respecter of persons or races?  Not too much love for your neighbor there. I should love my neighbor as myself, unless there is a disclaimer of they are getting stabbed and I cannot harm the attacker - just aint a commandment. THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN IMPLIED.  And the belief, is,  that if someone uses violence to defend the innocent against evil or murder - it is a "first option strawman" loophole?  Wrong.   So you think Jesus disagrees with: "Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked?"  As far as agreed upon sources, I suspect it should go without saying. One would think anyhow.

            If someone is stabbing someone to death, hey turn the other cheek and do no violence.  That is not even rational. That is not supported in the Bible.  When people kill someones employees and their kid out of greed as in the parable of the wicked husbandman, Jesus erred in the metaphor? Ooops. Aint no Gandhi there.  His metaphor does not call for Justice, violent justice? Jesus in fact does. Jesus should have chose His words more wisely if He wanted to support the strawman version Jesus. When Moses defended that man and killed the Egyptian, did not God Himself, later choose Moses to deliver them all from that same type of injustice? Does Jesus disagree with the Bible,  that if someone breaks into your house at night and is incidentally killed by the homeowner, that they are not guilty? Would Jesus have told Abram, "hey don't form a rescue party and hurt no one when your relatives get kidnapped"? These men were all chosen by God and venerated in the New Testament.

            Why exactly are Jesus' disciples carrying swords and why does Jesus instruct them to buy more? What does an alleged absolute non-violent philosophy need of weapons? Let us continue to ignore that elephant on steroids and continue on. Because we HAVE to ignore that, don't we? Hello? We all  see.  Why are men lauded for their faith for waxing valiant in fight and turning enemies to flight? No answer? All these examples do not seem to fit well with the Jesus equals Gandhi, based on one verse out of context. Should we just read the dust jacket of the Bible or just the footnotes? Either/or? Maybe we should read it all from a pragmatic viewpoint as opposed to a myopic confirmation bias. The bible and the NT are not 2 verses. Jesus is not 2 cherry picked verses.  It is scripturally unsupported to believe that Jesus only espouses mercy without justice. Real time justice, real time mercy. Because there is no specific incidence in the NT to clarify certain things, does not mean we can infer things that are counter to all the Bible and Jesus says and does. It certainly does not infer that laying down and dying is the answer to defending the innocent against evil.

            1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
              MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

              I agree wholeheartedly with you.
              If we stand by and do nothing, it is the same as stabbing the person ourselves, we're just as guilty. It would be the same as justifying evil

              If someone was attacking any of us here, we would fight back in self defense, so if we truly love others we would have to defend them too.

              Self-defense here is defined as "protecting oneself from injury at the hand of others." Self-defense is not about taking vengeance. Self-defense is not about punishing criminals. Self-defense involves preserving one's own health and life when it is threatened by the actions of others. When we talk about using lethal force in self-defense, we're talking about using weapons to protect ourselves and others, even if the weapons used could kill the attacker. God is certainly not against it

              1. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Would someone "be a better Christian" if they threw themselves off of a bridge instead of physically defending some innocent person against an attacker?  "Not a good Christian" unless they and whoever else dies at the hands of evil?

                A conscience is not a weapon.

            2. 0
              Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              I understand a need to misinterpret my comments in this manner; but that is not what I said. I said Certainly, putting oneself in harm's way to protect the innocent is justified.  . One can put oneself in harm's way without first resorting to deadly force.


              I also said Being willing to use deadly force if that action results in someone threatening your life would be seen as justified

              You chose not to pay attention to much of what I said, so you could respond as you did. Violent words are often the catalyst. I doubt that you would be able to diffuse a potentially dangerous situation in a manner that would result in a nonviolent end with such an attitude.

              I get the gist of why you believe what you believe. I simply think violent behavior patterns beget violence in return.

              1. paradigmsearch profile image90
                paradigmsearchposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                See me other.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  I have to say that there are times I am not able to follow your responses. What does that mean?

              2. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Emile wrote: "a lot of the arguments here seem to imply that one should be willing to use deadly force as a first option"

                Can you prove that?

                When you say imply, you create a strawman. As I recall, no one has ever said: one should be willing to use deadly force as a first option. Also you are quoting your self out of context. I remember you saying this: "But, I have seen some here say that deadly force is acceptable when protecting innocent life. I don't see where this can be advocated through a study of the actions of Jesus."

                And so, I answered that. Love your enemy simply does not address, protecting innocent life by force if necessary. Further, those that are gunslingers, will probably die as gunslingers. Live by the sword.  It goes without saying. It does not create a tangent to an unequivocal philosophy of absolute nonviolence.  These are the two verses. There was also a claim that early Church fathers, of which two quote mined out of context, on a WordPress blog or Wikipedia article to support absolute nonviolence, were branded as heretics and one was not a Church father at all.  One quote, in context was about idolatry and dress, regarding military service, presumably military service in pagan armies. EDIT. (I believe one of them believed in reincarnation. Does a Christian gotta support absolute nonviolence and reincarnation because an alleged church father believed so? Nope)

                Regardless of an argument from authoritative heretics, in those two cases, other Church fathers such as Athanasius were conveniently excluded. But Lo, what of John The Baptist's response to soldiers on what to do? Did John, say "lay down your arms" or did John say: "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely and be content with your pay"? The latter I assure you. I could expound further on this but my personal library does not contain volumes of the opinions of Church fathers, nor would I consider a wordpress blog a definitive source, unless my goal is to spin a narrative I like best, which I refuse to do.

                I am choked with emotion that you say "my attitude" would not be conducive to resolving a life threatening situation in a manner that I speculate, here, places the concerns of a perpetrator over their victim, calls my faith into question or maximizes a hoped for nonviolent result. I feel it would be a little too late for the victim to weigh the moral implications of action or inaction. A living dog is better than a dead lion.   My understanding and opinions on scripture are not an attitude. They are just my opinions on scripture... and so.... a picture is worth a thousand words.

                https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/36/5b/a2/365ba2969a04b9b048f554a849a80c16.jpg

                That staff is not an accessory to his tunic. Myself, I would rather that shepherd could go "peacefully" along his way, "non violently" leading his flock from green pasture to clear brook.  That is my stance. But a good shepherd will do his duty and the wolves aint gonna like it.   That is also my stance.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  Yes, I can. I will admit that I took the public school approach of making a general statement and not naming the poster involved. Since you asked, it was you. You said 'For instance a cop or Christian might stumble across some rapists killing someone and he blasts them to kingdom come.... Nevertheless, to not use every force available, even deadly force, to stop evil in a hypothetical instance, is evil itself. '

                  You speak of deadly force first and foremost, then follow up with the statement 'every force, even deadly force'. It's interesting that you state violence as your first inclination.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    Here is the entire quote:

                    Love those that curse you, hate you, and pray for those that use you, and persecute you, does not equate to loving someone that is beheading someone and do nothing about it. I got to love their victim too.  For instance a cop or Christian might stumble across some rapists killing someone and he blasts them to kingdom come. There is no implied or assumed hatred or animosity in justified violence to stop perpetrators. Later on we can all cry about it and remember when the rapists were all nice 7 year old boys that would never have hurt a flea. Nevertheless, to not use every force available, even deadly force, to stop evil in a hypothetical instance, is evil itself.  Love and hate has nothing to do with doing what is right in that example.

                    It was a hypothetical instance, illustrating that reaction does not imply malevolence. 

                    I am not going to create a whole bunch of peripheral personal feelings, opinions and stances around a simplified non existent hypothetical situation. But, by not doing so, does not imply by default some unspoken stance.

                    In the hypothetical non existent situation, I would hope that the rapists were not killing and raping in the first place, because when they do, they assume responsibility to a reasonable justified response.


                    I am sure a police officer might say "freeze the police."  In Florida, there was a guy hopped up on bath salts that was eating the face of a homeless man. The cops shot him repeatedly until he stopped.  They probably did not know him from adam to either like him or dislike him, they just responded to the threat and saved the other guys life. The actual point being made once again that reaction does not imply "love or hate"

                    It is your assumption that, that some how means I advocate shoot first and and ask questions later. You want to read that into it.

                    In that real situation, whatever it takes to stop someone from eating someones face, to save that persons life without endangering yourself, getting eaten or attacked or killed or whatever is completely justified and it would be evil to not do so.   

                    If rapists are killing someone, should I go away and pray? Should I ponder the situation? If I create a simplified hypothetical situation, should I immediately repudiate any immediate ensuing violence? Ok

                    For instance a cop or Christian might stumble across some rapists killing someone and he blasts them to kingdom come...... but "first and foremost"  shout *police freeze*! Unless you are not a cop and then just shout * help * really loud and if that does not stop them and you have exhausted every possible means to diffuse the killing of someone as non violently as possible and assuming the victim has not bled to death by then, and assuming they haven't started killing you by then, then...  and only then can you use violence.

            3. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Much has been made of the swords. Again the whole passage says: 'He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.'

              With the whole passage we can see Jesus is talking about fulfilling the prophecy made in Isaiah 53:12:  'He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors'. So the prophecy is that he will be considered a transgressor (an outlaw or law breaker). The presence of weapons would justify Jesus being called an outlaw and be part of that prophecy 'reaching its fulfillment'.

              Clearly two swords would not be enough for 12 disciples to defend themselves. So saying 'that is enough' does not makes sense. If he is saying two swords is enough to fulfil the prophecy, then that does make sense. 'That is enough' could also mean 'enough of this'. If so then we can still see later that he tells Peter to put away his sword when he tries to use it. Jesus does not say 'put it away, now is not the right time' or 'put it away, but keep it for later', or even just 'put your sword away'. He specifically says 'all who draw the sword will die by the sword'. In other words violence only begets more violence. Clearly Jesus is not encouraging violence in either passage.

              Also, in the same chapter of Isaiah that Jesus quotes from it says:

              'By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
              Yet who of his generation protested?
              For he was cut off from the land of the living;
              for the transgression of my people he was punished.
              He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
              and with the rich in his death,
              though he had done no violence,
              nor was any deceit in his mouth.'

              So this passage of the gospel is most likely about the fulfillment of prophecy, not an incitement to violence. In addition, every contemporaneous Christian writer of the early church that I'm aware of supports that view and rejects the use of violence. Violence and war were simply not considered compatible with the teachings of Jesus by the early Christians.

              1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
                MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

                I've never looked at it that way (well I barely remembered it) so thank you. Interesting
                Jesus also said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34)

              2. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                " The presence of weapons would justify Jesus being called an outlaw "



                Although I must admit that carrying a purse could be an indication of an outlaw, the context is about Jesus fixing to be crucified amongst thieves and the rest of the gang could not follow. Buying a sword is not an incitement to violence, and keeping your own purse and money from thenceforth, are not prophecy rather an ad hoc rescue.

  2. lone77star profile image90
    lone77starposted 23 months ago

    Kathryn L Hill, a potent question. I sincerely wonder if you truly want the answer. I hope you do. Are you willing to give up your cherished beliefs for Truth? I am.

    I don't have Truth (with a capital "T"), but I've seen and experienced things that would rip the rug out from under your beliefs.

    If you think you are that beautiful body of yours, then we may as well stop the conversation right here. If you think this, you are living in a delusion and won't understand any proper answer.

    If you accept that we are spiritual beings who possess temporary vehicles called Homo sapiens bodies, then you might understand an answer.

    The more spiritual experiences you've had, the better your chances of understanding an answer. If you've had none, then stop reading now. None of the rest of this will make any sense.

    You're using physical logic. What you say makes perfect sense from a purely physical standpoint. But then you betray your bias by your title. You don't understand "turning the other cheek" at all.

    The objective of spirituality is to eliminate self-concerned (egoistic) separateness. Most people don't understand the true meaning of ego. They get all confused by western psychological mumbo-jumbo.

    The opposite of ego is Love. Most people don't understand True Love. They confuse it with self-concerned pleasure. True Love doesn't keep score. True Love is unconditionally generous and infinitely abundant. True Love is never self-concerned, but always outwardly concerned for the welfare of others.

    The First Law is to love others as if they were yourself -- even your enemies. This is in direct opposition to ego.

    When you turn the other cheek with love of the one striking you and with infinite, unconditional generosity, you rise above being a victim. Your body may be destroyed, but you are not hurt at all.

    Turning the other cheek is never masochistic, if done properly. It is empowerment of the infinite variety.

    Because people -- especially Americans -- are so self-concerned, they're jumping from the frying pan into the fire. A recent poll showed that an American majority approves of CIA torture. They're cowards and want the government to protect them. Their self-concern is making them vulnerable and easily manipulated. Soon, the government will be free of all Laws and can do whatever it wants whenever it wants and the scared citizens will be able to do nothing about it. Self-concern has led them to their own destruction. They've chosen tyranny and security. As Ben Franklin said, those who give up liberty for a little security will deserve neither. Turning the other cheek would've made citizens impervious to such manipulation and such vulnerability which has led to their enslavement.

    Now, America has become the land of the slave and the home of the coward. Self-concern (ego) has done this. The biggest egos on the block -- the psychopathic elite -- know how to play egos like a symphony.

    When you truly turn the other cheek -- with love, humility, generosity, wisdom, fearless confidence (faith) and perfect responsibility for the acts of others against you -- you rise to the level of creation. It was from this level that Jesus walked on the unsettled Sea of Galilee, easily negotiating the storm-tossed waves. It was from this level that Jesus calmed the storm immediately after joining his disciples on the boat. It was from this level that Jesus forgave those who crucified him as he stood dying on the cross.

    Fear is self-concern. Protection of your temporary vessel is understandable but makes you tiny in this huge universe of billions of galaxies, with billions of stars in each galaxy. With the attitude of turning the other cheek, you become larger than all the galaxies of the universe. Understand this and you will see the oxymoronic nature of your title.

    1. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Interesting and beautifully written. In my opinion this is the closest interpretation I have seen of authentic Christian teaching, based on the events described in the Gospel (including Jesus' own actions) and what we know of the behaviour of the earliest Christians, who would accepted persecution and death as a form of martyrdom. This can be linked to the Christian belief that spirit is eternal and the body only a temporary vessel as described in the comment above.

      Yet strangely, this seems to be the least favoured interpretation of this particular aspect of Christianity. Why is that? Isn't it a goal of every Christian to emulate Jesus. Did Jesus not surrender himself completely to persecution and eventually death ("he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword")? And is that obedient surrender not deemed by Christians to be Jesus' greatest triumph over evil? How could any Christian therefore not want to emulate that behaviour?

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Jesus didn't want to go through what he did, and questioned and prayed about it to his Father God.  His case, while in part example to his followers, was to exact a much more huge result.  That being, evil even in its hugest forms was conquered, and the thing that most enslaves mankind, their sins and its effect, could be eradicated for the soul that was sorry and repented and believes on Him.   Jesus wanted to do his Father's will, OVER what he wanted though.  He also spoke up for himself when being mocked at hit before it came to being put on the cross.  He asked them why they struck him?  For what reason?  This is to point out the injustice I think, in part.  He wasn't just quiet.

        No one, not Jesus nor the apostles just accepted it or welcomed it.  (For Jesus alone, what he was securing by being a perfect being that saved humanity from what brought death, it was overall a good thing.  Securing eternal life for mankind, no small thing, paid for with a big price.) Sure, it caused people to talk about it to this day, the great good that comes from such philosophies as those that side with Jesus.  A philosophy that if employed, would not result in what we are now seeing in this world.  It is a bright and shining light of GOOD vs EVIL being played out, so none could miss it.  And we see that you here, don't miss it either.  I do wonder about your personal belief and interpretation some of what you said. 

        Many think that Christianity isn't representative of reality in our world, or truth.  Therefore, we are then all on the same level on that point of view, and living with each other in a pluralistic world.  Freedom reigns, and living peaceably is a good thing.  The scenario or point of view you seem to be talking out of, is one in which Jesus was absolutely real and truth and reality followed.  It also speaks of a type or kind of time when Christians would not be able to appeal to any kind of help from anyone anywhere, and thus have to die a martyrs death.  IN THAT SENSE, yes such a horror would continue to back the truth of Jesus and what is going on behind the scenes in a far greater sense.  Because even the greatest evils like those we have seen these latest weeks, as cowardly as they are, cannot win over such goodness, love and light. 

        In the meantime, let us not forget about those that were martyred that are awaiting God to avenge them one day, the Bible speaks of them too.  Vengeance wasn't theirs to have, because it belongs to God, their maker, Himself.  He will not forget.  Still they wonder if they will be avenged, and God seems to be very patient, though not forgetting.  He is that merciful and gracious to all, to give those that don't know Him, the chance.  Now that is incredible love, mercy and grace.  Yet he is just.  Its seems to be a matter of time for those.  He is not too lenient, nor too harsh.  This is part of the beauty of the message he gives.

        You can't blame people for not wanting to live now in a free world, that was "bought" in America's case, by the blood sweat, tears and death of the forefathers.  Its so easy to be evil and take life, and end a family's line forever, like tyrants of the past have done and are doing now.  If such great evil ever took over that would bring back such barbarism, or bring the barbarism going on in the world now to "home", it would have to be dealt with, sure.   It would make the same cases in point it did long ago, yes.  It would be triumphing over evil, with a bullhorn, just like before.  So that people that reject the good, and embrace the evil, know full well what they are doing and why.  Anyway, I hope all people of all worldviews would fight hard, such an evil.  Its not explained by any other world view, like it is with Christianity.

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Sure, according to the Gospels Jesus didn't want to suffer and die, and he pointed out the injustice of it. So clearly his acceptance of suffering and death did not mean he wanted to suffer and die. But he never physically fought to save his own life. The only time (correct me if I'm wrong) he is said to have used physical force, was overturning the tables of the money changers in the temple. Even then it doesn't say he used force against people, it just says he "drove them out". And didn't he rebuke Peter for drawing his sword the night he was arrested with the words "those who live by the sword, die by the sword"?

          So doesn't the Gospel show that Jesus was an absolute pacifist, i.e. he refused to engage in violence against others, and doesn't that align perfectly with the teaching that, while people should not throw themselves into harms way like lemmings, death is not something to be feared because it's not the end of the human spiritual journey?

          And isn't it a Christian teaching that Jesus is the fulfilment of the Old Testament? So the teaching in Exodus to take an "eye for eye" was superseded by the teaching of Jesus: "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 anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."?

          So if it is the goal of every Christian to emulate Jesus, then why does emulating Jesus' pacifism (the rejection of violence) seem so unpopular among many Christians?

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
            oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            The actions of Jesus in not saving his own life, is why I wrote all that I did above.  It was because he knew what had to happen, to secure what he did for humanity.  This is not ever to be repeated by any human being ever.  In that sense, no one could use the "not fighting to save your life" in that sense, for anyone else.   Otherwise, what would be left would be people being bullied to death by those that want to, and they and Christianity would be wiped out. Not a goal of Jesus for his followers or God's goal for those that believe in him, that I have ever seen represented in scripture. 

            I can kind of sort of see your points, but its all based on your own interpretation and understanding, which if correct a lot of other things would have to "be the case," for the points you make to "follow through,"  (As I see it and understand it all to to be.)  So these are the reasons I say he wasn't welcoming the treatment, but then went ahead and did what he did. 

            Jesus did fear his human death to at least some great degree, and sweated blood because of it, (Or in part by it.)  His death was much more than any human death could be too, with the separation from his Father, etc, and being utterly innocent which none of us could ever compare to. He fled people that wanted to harm him at times.  His manner promoted peace, but since before his birth, God was helping direct his own parents in ways that protected him from would be killers.  This is a defense of sorts, though by God himself at times, and through dreams, angelic messengers, etc. There are evil humans to be feared, is the point.  The disciples did have swords, and while he didn't want Peter and the rest to try and stop the arrest, (partly because of what was coming and had to be) he didn't say that no one should ever have swords.  If people didn't have swords back then, then you might just have to die, succumb to the others that did have swords.  We see in history that if some didn't, they wouldn't have any posterity here left, nor maybe many to share the very words of God in this case.  There have always been some that want to annihilate such types.   

            Slapping on the cheek is one thing, protecting yourself from death another.  I think these are the distinctions that matter.  If it helps, we can speak of particular examples. Turning the cheek when someone slaps it, sheds light on what is going on, and doesn't promote more agitation or even violence.  Speaking of not fearing death implies we are no longer just talking about slapping the cheek as in the story. We are then speaking of passively accepting death by those that want to kill whoever they want to kill.  That is a grave evil, and if anyone were ever to suggest it, I would think that was rather odd.  Especially to those that would turn the other cheek to an insult, or just a slap from people that already don't care for them or what they are saying.  Those kind of people are peace promoters.  We need more people like that in this world, I think. 

            So to me, these ideas and my prior post help respond to the question.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Why is not wanting to suffer and die relevant to whether Jesus was a pacifist? Being a pacifist does not mean wanting to die. It means not committing violence.

              Show me a clear example where Jesus used violence against another person, because I can think of none. The only example where Jesus is said to have used physical force is turning over the tables in the temple. But it does not say violence was used against any person. It says he "drove them out", so that is not a clear example. Now tell me how many clear examples there are where Jesus refused to use violence (even in self-defense) and discouraged others from using violence?

              Which part of these words are unclear: "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 anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."  This is clearly a reference to a book in the Old Testament (Exodus). That passage of Exodus justifies using physical violence in retaliation for personal injury. But here is Jesus explicitly contrasting what is said as part of the Old Covenant with what he (representing the New Covenant) says. Hence "You have heard that it was said . . . But I tell you  . . ." then he tells you: "do not resist an evil person", but instead "turn the other cheek". If that does not relate to physical violence, do you think Jesus made a mistake in contrasting it with a passage about violence? Do you think Jesus (the mediator of the New Covenant) was unsure of the meaning of the passage in Exodus he was quoting?

              And did Jesus stop Peter  using his sword only because it was not the right time? He said "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword". Referring to all who draw the sword makes that a general statement doesn't it? And isn't it clear that it means all who use violence as a means of solving a problem, should expect violence to be used against them. In fact, hasn't that phrase become an idiom in the English language that means exactly that?

              Once again, why do Christians seem to bend over backwards to give convoluted re-interpretations of simple passages in the New Testament that clearly promote non-violence?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                Defending the country with violence is part of politics and worldly concerns and is an aspect of common sense.

                I believe the ideal of Non-Violence taught by both Jesus and Krishna serves to preserve the happiness of one's soul and inner connection to one's peace of mind.

                This type of non-violence requires self-mastery, self-discipline and inner strength.
                Defending one's country requires the same.

                Defending the country in war and practicing non-violence on an individual level are both spiritual endeavors.
                It is the intention that counts.

                TWISI

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  Well said, I agree.

              2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                I am often responding to what I sense you are suggesting.  I found it frankly....odd.  I have answered you twice now in great detail.  I know you may not like my answers, but they do explain what I think is a better, more logical and reasonable point of view in light of scripture, and reality including history.   

                I don't agree with how you have been framing your argument in the first place, and this is what I am answering in part.  So I am wondering if there is anything in particular that you disagree with, that I have actually said?

                It seems you want very much to make it appear like people are convoluting a simple message of Jesus.  I don't see you responding to my points, which is fine, and it seems we just really disagree. 
                It has been pointed out the extreme range you are really presenting, the example of turning the other cheek, vs going to ones death peacefully and without a fight. (Especially when not having the same mission Jesus did when the did the thing you are using an example.) I don't find actual teachings that end up with a same result as you.  If you want to think that what is taught throughout the scriptures and by example, means what you are suggesting, then that is fine.  If Christians throughout history had followed that idea though, I mean your (DonW's) interpretation, there would probably be no bible, no words of Jesus, and no Christ followers left on the planet.  Is that what God really wanted?  Then why the great commission of Jesus?  Why all the other teachings, as if they were to go on?  Thank God they didn't interpret it to mean what you do!  It makes far less sense to me is all. 

                A better question might be, why do you want so badly for such an interpretation as yours (to the point of death, not fearing it, and welcoming the next life) to be the case?  (If you do?  Going off of what I am seeing you write.) The obedient surrender you want them to have towards the actions of enemies?  This cause and effect would have a very poor result, and nullify the point of any of the other teachings of Jesus, ultimately.  So I am taking your views, and running with the possible reality of them, what that would look like say in today's world, or in history.

                Let me clarify something else. Outside of God's great love and merciful forgiving nature towards people that would be sorry for their crimes against him, I don't find him to be illogical.  His world, his creation, are all seeming to express his logic.  Its our own free will and stubborn ways that become very illogical at times.  You are asking me to agree with you on what I find to be illogical things.

                Jesus was fully aware that his message would cause division, but I think he knew why.  It isn't that his message was a non peaceful, or not a good message, it is that many people would find issue with it, because of what is in their hearts.  People that  might be at odds with the truth.  This is what causes division.  If all lived in the manner Jesus taught actually, no one WOULD ever need a sword.  His disciples seemed to need swords, he said his message would cause division, not only peace.  I am after the "why" of that comment from Jesus.  I think it is illuminated by other scripture, and prophecies.  And yes we have seen in history as an example that even people with swords, in an effort to protect themselves and their families, have often died by that sword.  So that isn't untrue, they did live and die often by the sword.  But many have been saved also. Our whole planet would look a LOT different if they hadn't fought and fought hard.  They would have died either way, but it need not be mass extinction to people that would take advantage of such. 

                True pacifists that often have a very narrow and shallow set of views, often are alive today because of others willingness to not live by their "pacifist only" ideas.  I think your encouragement to critically evaluate the scriptures however is always a good thing.  I think for Christians everywhere, God's spirit would be busy at work convicting them if it was a great idea say, to give up our national defense.  They might start voting and protesting accordingly.  In the meantime, many of these same Christians are using these very verses to help them be strong in the face of all kinds of various conflicts that aren't on the level of life vs death scenarios at all.  They are peace promoting ideas, and it helps in the long run, even if its hard and painful in the short run.

                1. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                  I neither like nor dislike your comments. I can only gauge them by how well I think they address the questions I have asked. I don't think you have given any specific answers to the specific questions asked, so I hope you can do that this time round.

                  I also recognise that Christians are a diverse bunch, and that you obviously cannot speak on behalf of all of Christianity. So I invite anyone who self-identifies as a Christian to contribute and answer these questions also.

                  For example, when Jesus says ". . . all who draw the sword will die by the sword". Why is that not clear? "All" means everyone. Using a sword is a violent action. So he is saying that everyone who uses violence will die by violence. So he is telling Peter to put his sword away, and discouraging the use of violence in general. With reference to the actual passage, which specific part of that reading do you disagree with, and why?

                  I asked whether the teachings of Jesus enhance/supercede the teachings of the Old Testament. No answer. So I assume my understanding is correct and that it does. So . . .

                  When Jesus says: "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 anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." An eye for an eye is a teaching in the old testament. It means that if someone injures you, then you should cause the same injury to them. That is what the Old Testament says. "But", Jesus says, I tell you . . . turn the other cheek. In other words, do not do what it says in the Old Testament with regard to personal injury, do what I tell you which is different. In fact it's the opposite of what the Old Testament says.

                  That mechanism of "you have heard it said . . . but I say . . ." is used throughout the chapter for contrasting what Mosaic law says with what Jesus says. It indicates to the reader that there is a difference. So it is clear that the author of Matthew is highlighting the difference between "eye for an eye" (Old Covenant) and "turn the other cheek" (New Covenant).

                  Again, with reference to the actual passage, which specific part of that reading do you disagree with, and why?

                  And finally, do you believe Jesus advocated the use of violence against other people?

                  I'm sorry you think these questions are "odd". I don't think they are. But if you have any specific questions you would like me to answer in return, I'd be more than happy to.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                    I did not say the questions are odd.  What you are suggesting is in how you ask, and your interpretations.  You will clearly see this, if you look back. (So that is a little twist there.) 

                    I have addressed why I don't think your point of view makes logical sense to assume the interpretation you do.  It seems you don't want to allow for people to realize you are using a rather unique interpretation.  It would also mean you think all Christians that have ever defended their own lives are acting in opposition to Jesus.  So we can't really be discussing this issue fairly, unless you are going to be a bit more fair in your dealing with the matters brought up.  So we get you repeating yourself, and me responding in a new way of explaining what I meant that you don't want to address, or can't.  I think the logical points I have made can't be addressed without perhaps abandoning the notions you have drawn in the first place, thus we aren't getting anywhere.   I have answered. 

                    Peter would have likely died that night, had he fought against the guard that came against them.  That isn't unclear.  Jesus calmed what could have started up that night, a huge fight, where Jesus would have likely been killed or led away anyway, with disciples laying around dead.  Why on this occasion do you think that Jesus only noticed Peter's sword in the first place, and commented on it?  Its not logical to take it all how you are taking it, is my point.  That is my answer.   I understand that you want Christians to be going against Jesus for also having "swords" if they do, but that if your own personal interpretation.  None of that is hard or unclear as you keep suggesting.  If it is for you, but isn't for others, then I don't know what to say more about that.

                    Yes, Jesus' teachings override the Old Testament when they differ, offering more grace and mercy than they often did, and we saw that in action. 

                    In my effort to spend the time I have to answer your questions, and seeing that you repeat them, It appears you aren't really reading my posts.  I don't think it applies to life and death extinction of a group of people that believe a certain way, or that some might just hate.  I think you are confusing the idea of people protecting their families and their own life, with an eye for an eye stuff, slapping the cheek kind of insulting or fighting in that sense. 

                    Why do you draw such grand conclusions that Jesus wasn't talking about? Slapping a cheek, to going to one's death at the hands of enemies? When Jesus went to his death, it would have had to be for the reason that he just didn't want to fight back, which I showed why that would be wrong thinking if that was all it was.   

                    This might all be a bit of "quote mining", rather than an attempt to reflect the overall general tone of Jesus' message, and in keeping with realistic ideas about the times and people. Jesus was against evil.  He wouldn't suddenly be promoting such ideas as you are promoting in which evil prevails against good and innocent people.  In those cases of life and death, those that die at the hands of others, would just be laughed at, no goodness prevails.  No message is sent on how to promote more peace.  No one would be drawn to the goodness of Jesus' teachings in that case. It would be a path to extinction for all who believed like that.  Where evil wins for taking cheap shots against people who don't even pretend to defend themselves.  This is the point I would like you to address, if you don't answer any of the others I have asked.  How much sense does that make?

                    So I don't disagree with your passages.  But your interpretations, and not just your interpretations, but how they make sense or don't in the real world if we let them play out.   That is a good test of the ideas you are suggesting.

              3. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                If our face is getting eaten by someone crazed out on bath salts should we offer them the other cheek?  Be a good Christian? Have faith? Love our enemy?  Lack of trust in God?  I trust in God to give me the courage and strength to  be as violent as it takes to save myself or anyone else in that position.  God says for me to have faith, He mentions nothing of being sadistic, stupid or a victim.  I do not think peoples consciences are so weak that they can be convinced or guilt tripped into believing unsubstantiated opinion.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  In certain situations you might want to negotiate, in others you might want to run for your life.
                  In others you have to use your martial arts skills, and if you need your gun, well, you need your gun.
                  Too bad if you are not carrying yours when the zombi apocalypse hits.

                  1. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    Yea, ya gotta be pragmatic. If you can run, or avoid violence, or can talk your way out of it, or whatever it takes, if you have to fight then do your best, especially if you have to fight to protect some innocent child or person..  Followers of Jesus or Christians are to live and tell the good news, they are not High Priests, that give their lives as a substitutionary atonement. They do not have the authority to do that.

    2. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I hope you don't mind me saying so, but I think the word you are looking for, instead of ego, is egocentric, or thinking only of oneself, without regard for the feelings or desires of others, which is being self-centered

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago

    What should we do about the terrorists?

    Perhaps it is a matter of "giving to Caesar what is Caesar's." Perhaps politics and religion is separate in regards to protecting one's country and the countries of others.


    How are we supposed to protect our country from invaders?
    What if we hadn't fought the British in the revolutionary war?
    What if we hadn't fought Hitler?

    1. kess profile image61
      kessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      If the we is a united collective then turning the other cheek is the way to go aways.

      But yet you are part of the we (collective) who does not  believe in turning the other cheek always.

      Get rid of the dilemma and you will see clearly.

    2. lone77star profile image90
      lone77starposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Terrorists? Do you mean the CIA and their black ops (Al Qaeda, ISIS, etc)?

      Or do you mean the Rockefellers and Rothschilds?

      Why not make more people aware of as much truth and facts as we can muster so that they don't react as self-concerned and fearful individuals might, but merely observe and turn the other cheek to such scare-mongering. That way, they won't jump from the frying pan into the fire.

      But ultimately, if we turn the other cheek, and love others as if they were ourselves, then everyone will be taken care of. This won't happen overnight, but it can happen eventually, if we each start now. If we take each of our egoistic desires and convert them one by one to altruistic and loving desires, then we can build a force of good and love for the world.

      Our physical bodies will die, but our continuity of consciousness can be established, if we are able to remove ego entirely.

    3. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      ________________________________
      The Jewish don't teach to turn the other cheek, not in the way the Western churches do.
      Most churches think it means to allow others to hurt you over and over without resistance

      Leviticus 19:18 says
      Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

      We are told to love our neighbor as much as we love ourselves
      If we allow someone to hurt us over and over, it'll be hard to love that person, and God knows this.
      What this means, is the same as Leviticus, if someone hurts you in any way (slapping is only an example), we are not to avenge ourselves, or hold a grudge against our people

      Love God with your whole heart, and soul, love your neighbor, and keep God's laws and commandments

  4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago

    What would an 80 year old say?

    1. kess profile image61
      kessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Same thing as the sixteen years old

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        I often wonder what someone of the previous generation would say to all of our musings. Thats what I mean. They had a lot of common sense which we do not tap into into very much any more. My generation rebelled against them so throughly and all they stood for. I wonder if we didn't go overboard.
        Wouldn't it be hilarious, (but enlightening in a revisited kind of a way,) if an 84 year old (or older) came on board here in the Forums?
        I can just see it now:

        "You do what you have to do when you have to do it! You send in the troops and you get the job done. You don't wait around like a crying scared infant. If you have to put troops on the borders to keep out the blankety-blank terrorsts, then put troops on the blankety blank-borders.  Whats wrong with you people? Never had to walk five miles to school and back again in the snow? Never had to entertain yourselves with books, board games and each other? Oh no! You want everything now / yesterday and for someone else to do it. Well, it takes hard work for whatever you want in this life and if you don't work hard for it you don't get it! if you want peace and prospertity well, then GET BUSY!"

        Yep. Thats what any one of them would say.
        and what would we say in response?

        " Yawn... make love, not war, gramps."

        1. Michael-Milec profile image59
          Michael-Milecposted 23 months ago in reply to this

          On what part are you serious?  A Question  " what would an 80..."or the answer "You do what..."
          How-about if you wait another five months  and one of us will reach the age when God  could use Moses ...

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

            Dear Michael Milec:
            You said,
            <" What would Jesus do "-  leads to what He has said to His  listeners as we read of  His action (John 18:23) He did not slavishly follow the letter of it... instead He asked  a question " why did you strike me ?"  ( In practical sense, my opinion :  You have my other cheek, however if you won't stop there,

            you might face consequences…")
             
            I would agree with this, but as far as I can see, this is not typical of today's thinking.
            (Maybe I am wrong.)


            I just think we need to secure our borders and we aren't...
            and no one seems to care. Perhaps because we have a "make love not war" type of attitude handed down from the hippie generation, (mine.) Of course, I do not like war either.. especially when waged for economic/(greed) reasons alone.

            However, I am for some type of positive action When Called For.

            I am really just trying to find out how we are going to deal with encroaching terrorism.
            By turning the other cheek with no consequences and as lone star wrote?
            <:" When you turn the other cheek with love of the one striking you and with infinite, unconditional generosity, you rise above being a victim."> Your body may be destroyed, but you are not hurt at all.

            This is true for an individual, because our spirits go on forever.. But, what about for a nation of people defending that nation for the sake of posterity?

            1. Michael-Milec profile image59
              Michael-Milecposted 23 months ago in reply to this

              Dear Kathryn L Hill, after reconsidering the topic including my contribution to it I have realized there isn't a ' quick fix'' to the issue. Difficulty begins when "we"  the readers miss the fact that Jesus is not speaking in chapters or verses but giving in this case a "blueprint "  to the " Repent, for the kingdom of heaven / God has drawn near ." (Matt. 5:3- 7:27 in translations' version ,  appears  as a ONE LONG SENTENCE, original Concordant Greek Text). Another difficulty lies in  not seeing that he is NOT speaking to "us" (nowadays or previously organized christians) , but in His Discourse specifically he addresses those who know their spiritual need; the mourners; the meek; those  who hunger and thirst  for what is right; those who show mercy; the pure in heart; the peace makers as well as those who are persecuted because they do what is right (Matt. 5:3-10) just to mention some . He has in mind a "New  chosen race, a royal priesthood, a dedicated nation, God's own purchased, special people, that you may set forth the wonderful deeds and display the virtues and perfections of him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light." These are in His perspective " Perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect, " 5:48. (Notice please a " family'" relationship, the God's family once we call Him " Our Father  in heaven..." Also somewhere in this public talk we hear Jesus saying " your Father , who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
              Now, in my humble opinion Jesus in full confidence it will happen talking to "His king of people"  - "" turn the other cheek...""  I would like to quote - almost entirely  the ' lone 77 star's' comments in this forum, so well explained and so well said in agreement with  the Master's  demand.
              Recalling my previous statement "what would Jesus do," (J.18:23)- not turning other cheek occurred to lead to more severe none resisting since His  suffering was ultimate way into the glorious life which in our case is at the stage of hope and belief ...
              ( Here I am learning something new what i have seen differently previously...)

    2. Michael-Milec profile image59
      Michael-Milecposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      The "age" doesn't  matter, our inner- spirit man is the same age forever; do not look at the body's beginning...

  5. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago

    *Take ACTION against wrong doers who would stop your path toward God. Try to help them, but in the end…
    Matthew18_____

    " If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.  But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church,
    ... treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

    * In devotng oneself to Spirit, one must take ACTION against one's family members:
    Matthew 10:34-38_______

    "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

    * Example of when Jesus took ACTION in defense of His Fathers house: Matthew 21 :12 ______

    "Then Jesus went into the Temple, threw out everyone who was selling and buying in the Temple, and overturned the moneychangers' tables and the chairs of those who sold doves."

    (Jesus cleansed the temple of the money-changers and sellers of merchandise because of His disgust at what they had made of God’s house of prayer and His zeal to purify it from the abuse of ungodly men. Judea was under the rule of the Romans, and the money in current use was Roman coin. However, the Jewish law required that every man should pay a tribute to the service of the sanctuary of “half a shekel” (Exodus 30:11-16), a Jewish coin. It became, therefore, a matter of convenience to have a place where the Roman coin could be exchanged for the Jewish half shekel. The money-changers provided this convenience, but would demand a small sum for the exchange. Because so many thousands came up to the great feasts, changing money was a very profitable business and one that resulted in fraud and oppression of the poor.)
    From: http://www.gotquestions.org/temple-clea … z3Mq7yfr2U

    TWISI

    PS Call to ACTION by Jesus: "The laborers are few but the harvest is abundant:"

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Never be a doormat. It just enables people to be crummy. By being a doormat you become a willing partner in the other person continuing to be doing something bad. So it is not helping them, only the opposite. Also people are more inclined to listen to a message from someone that is confident. There is a difference between patience, kindness, not returning evil for evil and being just a doormat. Where to draw the line is based on the individuals involved TWISI smile

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        I agree.

      2. lone77star profile image90
        lone77starposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        On a physical level, it makes perfect sense. If you want to remain a physical cog in the universe, continue with that. By your self-concern, you are contributing to the evil.

        When you truly turn the other cheek, you are rising above the ability to be a doormat. A doormat is physical and at effect. Turning the other cheek returns you to your spiritual nature superior to the entire physical universe.

        Big difference.

      3. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 23 months ago in reply to this

        Totally agree.  Helping or allowing (enabling really) others to be just crummy, isn't good for anyone, including the one being crummy.  There are some really evil people in the world, looking for anyone to just dump on.  Some don't even have consciences, so they will carry on hurting others.

    2. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I agree with you, and you have provided scripture to back up your beliefs
      I would like to add that first we have to value ourselves so that we will be able to mirror that love onto others, because we always mirror others, and they mirror us
      We are also told to take care of our own first (ourselves, family, country)
      “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” (1 Timothy 5:8)

      How many people saying that we have to love others more than ourselves, and never fight, or go to war, would take food from their own hungry children, and give it away to their neighbors, enemies, and strangers. If they did, they would be infidels, which is true according to 1 Timothy

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago

    I just heard someone say the biggest threat to this nation is from within. Gun shooting mentally ill people have caused more harm in this country than any terrorist or force from without. This person said the King of Saudi Arabia considers terrorism to be a Muslim problem and that the Muslims will have to become very aggressive in setting standards for their religion. I would agree. Is it possible?
    They need to get on this. Don't you think it will take more than turning the other cheek?

    Have you ever been in a situation where turning the other cheek was an especially bad idea?

    In martial arts one does not immediately engage in fighting a threatening person, one tries to walk away.

    My teenage son was harassed by a trio of up-to-no good types. He raised his arm, martial arts style, (he had just taken a couple of classes,) and the trio split immediately. One time I was on a public phone near the LA Coliseum. A couple of guys walked up to me and demanded money. When I told the operator to get the police, they turned around and quickly walked away. Another time, a guy, obviously high on some substance, walked up to my VW Bug, (I had just pulled into a parking spot,) opened my door and demanded my car as he grabbed the steering wheel. I kicked him away with my foot and reached for my cell phone in my purse. (I was determined he would not steal my car as it had been stolen a few times already…) I angrily told him I was calling the police. He left.

    Choices:
    1. Comply
    2. Ignore
    3. Run
    4. Fight
    5. Turn the other cheek...what does this phrase even mean? When would you use this tactic?

    Other situations demand the use of mace.

    1. kess profile image61
      kessposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Which of the 5 entertains a bit of concern for the other party?

      Which of the 5 entertain concern about that particular thing in question?

      Which of the two is most important?

      The question  is all about the state of the heart.

  7. bBerean profile image60
    bBereanposted 23 months ago

    Matthew 5:38-39  "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

    Jesus is speaking to people on an individual level, not telling a governing agency or government how to serve and protect it's people.  Neither is it telling someone to succumb to violence.  A slap on the cheek was given as an insult.  As usual, this is to be considered supplementally to all of scripture, and in context, being discerned through the Spirit.  For some more perspective perhaps consider:

    1 Peter 2:19-23  "For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:"

    A real time example would be here in the forums.  I sometimes have a hard time applying what these verses teach in that when people go beyond discussion and become antagonistic it is better to make sure your point is well articulated for those with ears to hear, but not bother engaging those who clearly never will.  Otherwise you just waste your time and detract from your point.  I find, and believe we are told here that it is better to step away, ("resist not evil"), allowing your adversary the last word they will demand anyway.  Presumably they have much more time than I for such concerns, and feel that last word declares their victory.  Rather than a believer worrying about defending their ego, they should be content if certain the intended pearl has been placed as a treasure to be found by those who seek it.

  8. 0
    Deborah Sextonposted 23 months ago

    The strongest instinct is survival, which is deeply instilled in us by natural instinct. I believe there are times we have to endure a lot, to help us grow…but..we aren’t suppose to, and we shouldn’t be doormats

    These are opposite each other,- everyone born will die, if you weep, one day you will laugh, we need peace, but war becomes necessary., and we shouldn't hold grudges against someone who helps us grow
    Ecclesiastes 3:1
    To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
    2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
    3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
    4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
    5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
    6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
    7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
    8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
    9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?
    10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
    11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
    12 I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 23 months ago

    Thanks for all your replies and musings. I love them all. I really do. Self-defense is a common sense issue. I sure we all have common sense.
    And love in our hearts.

    I have a feeling things are looking up for the New Year.
    smile

    1. Michael-Milec profile image59
      Michael-Milecposted 23 months ago in reply to this

      Hope and Faith will take us through with Charity in our hearts.
      " Glory to God in the heights of Heaven..."

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    ...at what point is turning the other cheek with love in your heart and all enabling evil?
    We must be able to discern when to turn the cheek and when not to.
    For instance,
    My neighbor allowed one person to rent a room attached to her garage, but the one person allowed two other adult family members, (a 40 yr. old daughter and a 19 yr. old granddaughter,) to move in.  Now, after three months, none of them are paying a cent for living there. Only the first month's rent was paid by the father, the original and only allowed occupant of the small guest room. They are refusing to move, pay or work for their keep. My neighbor cannot afford the increased utility bills.

    Turning the other cheek would be to allow them to stay. The law seems to be on their side. The sheriffs were called and since it is "now their home," (one of them is receiving mail there) the sheriffs could not ask them to leave. My neighbor was told she would have to get a lawyer and evict them, (which she cannot afford.)

    It would seem that to evict them would not be "turning the other cheek." However, in my mind, turning the other cheek, by allowing them to stay, would be to enable them to act upon their sense of entitlement which they seem to have. It also would allow them to indefinitely take advantage of the home owner who is in her late seventies.

    My neighbor, who is a Christian woman, will get a lawyer and evict them. Is this wrong, Lone77Star et al?

    What would be the truly loving and unselfish way to deal with this situation?
    Turning the other cheek?
    or being a door mat?

    PS She has tried to help them in many ways.  Still, they will not pay or leave.

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I don't have a comment on the turning the other cheek thing. Everyone interprets that differently. But, as to the squatters. In one of the apartments my dad owned there were some just like that. He finally just started removing things. He took the front door off first. Then had a sink removed. He probably would have had the toilet taken out if they hadn't moved by that time. For anyone who thinks he was evil, this was six months past the last time anyone had paid a dime in rent and by all appearances they were a bunch of druggies.

      Her situation might be easier. She owns the property. I'd turn off any breakers that serviced that part of the house first. Put up a few 'no parking' signs and have any cars towed they owned, anytime they parked them in her driveway or on her property. They can certainly lay some semblance of a claim to the floor space they occupy, but nothing else.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        - very helpful. Thank you.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
          oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          I thought those ideas were rather clever, and would help to get a more favorable response out of a very negative situation.  The people having to take action didn't bring it on themselves either, how frustrating.  Ingenious ideas, and a way to not get run over by those types of people.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            The law will not kick them out if they are recieving mail !!!!
            One must get a lawyer and evict them. It takes about three months to evict squatters. They know this and take advantage.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              That seems like a very unfair "loophole" for people such as these to be taking advantage of!  A landlords ability to make changes structurally or call for a tow truck when no parking signs have been put up (etc.), could make it very hard for a person to want to remain in a place.  I would worry though they might really retaliate, if these had escalated to that degree at that point though. Good grief.

              Edited, you answered my other question, and refreshed my memory, lol.
              Seems like a "thugs rule" kind of set up, lol.  I get so annoyed when law abiding and freedom loving people have to pay for others very poor choices.  "No good deed goes unpunished" seems to be at play here.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

                You got that right.

    2. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Does "turn the other cheek" mean you should tolerate injustice? Or does it mean not using violence against others, even in the face of injustice?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        Thank you:
        I would like to see this stated clearly:
        "Turn the other cheek" does not mean you should tolerate injustice.  It means not using violence against others, even in the face of injustice."

        What about hissing at others to let them know they have crossed a line?
        Just yesterday, I yelled at the nineteen year old because she got into it with me while I was with my neighbor.
        Should I feel bad for asking this girl in no uncertain terms with a very loud voice why she and her family are stiil in the room? Why they have not moved out!?
        She was videotaping me with her phone and at one point I pushed her arm away from my face.
        Then I turned from her and got in my neighbor's car.

        Am I a bad person because of this hissing / pushing?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          The one condemned to forever crawl on their bellies hiss, too.  Just sayin'... lol

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Exactly…
            but what ARE you sayin'?
            Snakes are allowed to protect themselves too!
            Especially now that they must crawl on their bellies.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        I think part of that depends on how one defines "violence" in that case.  In such a scenario, the person doing the maltreatment cannot be the one to define violence, because they have shown themselves to be too unfair as it is.  They would often be the first to scream "violence" or great injustice being done unto them, if you try to right such a situation, even with all they had done to harm others.  No fair measuring sticks seem to be allowed.  Thus, its put upon the freedom and law abiding citizens to not be run over by such types.  Unless the whole world is ready to just let such types rule over all, lol.  Then those types would likely quarrel with each other and it would just be mass chaos till extinguished the life out of each other.

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      Wow, how awful.  What a miserable situation.  People that take advantage to this great of a degree, of others, will always push the envelope.  Its like they find where a "line is drawn" and forever are tipping their foot across that line, or even just boldly skipping far across it.  I don't think anyone is served well in such a situation, and such people as these that won't pay or leave even after being helped, bring misery on freedom and law abiding citizens world over.  So its bad for the person being mistreated, and bad for the people doing the  mistreating.  Its far better to stop the "bad" in that situation, and doesn't seem to be a situation of turning the other cheek.  These types of mentalities would be running the whole world in such manner, if allowed.  What an awful world that would be, if ideas like that were allowed to just slide because of some people's insisted upon interpretations of scriptures of turning the other cheek.

  11. mishpat profile image60
    mishpatposted 22 months ago

    Noted, once again, an incorrect statement in regards to the Bible.  Read it again, you will find Jesus, a carpenter probably of some strength, literally, that's literally, picked up and threw folks out of the Temple, Mat 21:12; Mk 11:15.

    Note, Jesus told his disciples to buy a sword for the coming times, Luke 22:36.

    Note, Jesus did not tell Peter he was wrong to have a sword when he swatted the ear of Malchus.  He only implied it wasn't the time to use it, John 18:10-11.

    Note, back to the OP, this "turning the other cheek" has to do with either a verbal or a physical attack upon a believer who is "giving out the Gospel."  Context, Mat 5.

    What would Jesus Do?  Don't be unctuous.  Who knows!   Isaiah 55:8

  12. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
    MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago

    Why do people think that turning the other cheek means offering your face to be slapped again? I don’t think it means to let others walk all over us.
    I heard a very smart, and spiritual person once say that it refers to “responding to insult without avenging oneself”

    He said "that means if someone yells at you, no yelling back"  If they hit you no hitting back, but you are to walk away in every situation.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      I agree with you, and person you are quoting.  I think most people generally view the idea of turning the other cheek in the manner you spoke of there.  It makes the most logical sense, is more reasonable in light of all things I think.

  13. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 22 months ago

    Some seek the Kingdom of God or Jesus. Some in actuality are seeking a cupcake with sprinkles. There is a difference.

  14. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 22 months ago

    I believe that Jesus was an avatar and is a guru for many.
    He is an example of how to behave.
    When he said I bring a sword, he meant he brought the sword of truth. He indicated one is free to pursue a spiritual life/truth even when family members do not agree.
    He indicated that one can listen to God Himself, over family members.

    Clearly, a doormat would just yield to the influence of family members and let them walk all over him or her.

    TWISI

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I don't see how Jesus could be seen as a doormat either.

  15. mishpat profile image60
    mishpatposted 22 months ago

    We may depend on secular history for a lot of things, including certain info regarding "religions."  But what we know of God is in and from the Bible.  So how does one believe in God without believing the Bible to be infallible?  On what does one base their expectation of Heaven?  Good intentions and personal opinions are addressed in this Book, and not in a good light.

    And I should add that Jesus had no "flaws."

    1. 0
      Emile Rposted 22 months ago in reply to this

      'Flaws' are in the eye of the beholder. One person may see them where another does not. Stating that Jesus had no flaws, in my opinion, is the first step in understanding that flaws are a matter of perception. To be able to see none in one sets the stage to learn how to understand they don't really exist in others.

      What we know of God is not only from the Bible. There are many sources which speak of a one god and the term God is all encompassing; meaning that all interpretations of that word are equally of value and combined describe that force. You must realize that all who profess a belief in God do not profess a belief in heaven. This does not negate their understanding of God or the universe. It simply means they have come to different conclusions as to what eternity may entail; or may not.

      A question that  'So how does one believe in God without believing the Bible to be infallible?' is not taking all belief structures into account.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        But there's a problem with this. 

        If I google "Emile" I find 5 million results, ranging from movies to thousands of people.  The word is not limited to a single individual.

        Similarly, the word "God" is not limited to just one entity but to dozens or hundreds, all different.  The bible, therefore, is the only real source (outside of personal opinions) of information of the god referenced in Christianity.  Other sources are speaking of a different god even though using the same word and (very generally) the same characteristics.  It is egocentric in the extreme to decide that all gods of all peoples are actually the one "true" god that I worship.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          As an individual who can be seen with the naked eye, touched with the hand, heard when I speak....I think your comparison is poorly thought.
          Claiming that the term god is not limited to one entity is interesting. Can you prove that? If not, it is an opinion. As is mine. The Bible is not the only source of information available when attempting to understand what the term god might apply to. Stating that it is, is a little bit of western arrogance.

          I don't see it as arrogant to assume all people are seeking the same source. I see it as accepting that we are all different and take different roads in the journey. All roads being of equal value because we seek to arrive at the same point.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, we seek to arrive at the same point, but it becomes arrogant to decide that we have all arrived at that point. 

            If I decide to go to a beach, and do so, it likely won't be the same beach that you arrive at.  I'm happy there, you're happy at yours, but they are not the same.  Mine has rocks, cliffs and tide pools while yours has a seemingly endless expanse of sand.  They are very different.

            Likewise, the gods traveled towards are very different.  One person finds a collection of gods, all different and with differing characteristics.  You find a single one with all the attributes you want in a god.  Just as you say, claiming that Shiva and his hundreds of cohorts is actually just one entity - the same one you worship - is western arrogance and there is no perceptible reason (that I can find) for such a claim.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 22 months ago in reply to this

              Really? Who said we had all arrived at the same point? I do remember saying we were all on similar roads. Seeking the same source.



              I don't think the analogy is accurate. Although, I do believe that the final destination could appear different depending on who is looking. We could all be seeking the same beach, arrive at the same beach, yet view it in such different manners that were each of us to describe the beach a listener could come to the conclusion that we were not standing together.




              Everyone is seeking answers. Their understanding of the answers may lead them to believe one thing as opposed to the other; but that is not the fault of the answer. That is the problem with the person interpreting the data they are collecting.

              The fact that you can find no perceptible reason for such a claim does not negate the validity of the claim. Nor does my belief make it valid. It is simply my opinion. I don't know that it matters to me if you share it or not. If there were one perfect answer then I personally think we would all know it by now.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Edited:  I tend to agree with you if I am understanding what you are saying.  If relativism is being talked about, then I don't see how it logically works out in the details.  Its an ideal view and there is no denying that, but unfortunately as I understand it, not plausible.  (I had said pluralism before, but meant relativism.)

        2. mishpat profile image60
          mishpatposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Interesting thoughts ...

      2. mishpat profile image60
        mishpatposted 22 months ago in reply to this

        One might say the Bible is fallible because they do not chose to be directed by it.  Yet, no one has ever pointed out an item in the Bible that was in error. 

        One might say Jesus had flaws but then not really as it is "in the eye of the beholder."  So what might be His flaws?  Possibly His thought process and emoted actions are above common understanding? 

        What is the value of a book that is not dependable? 
        What is the value of a god with flaws? 

        "Philosophy" and all its spin offs are nothing more that the words and wishes of man.  And philosophy has the same value as a book of fiction or an unreliable friend.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          You're right in that the bible is never in error...as long as one is willing to endlessly change the words and/or the meaning of the words to match reality.

          But that does not mean it is worthless or of no value, just that the philosophical truths it espouses must change and evolve with the ever evolving philosophy and ethics of the reader.  It is unfortunate that we too often feel that the "historical" sections of the book must also be spun and twisted in order that the philosophy and ethics be of any use.  Like any other fictional tale, those philosophies do not need a solid foundation of absolute truth to be useful; the "moral of the story" can be and is a good guide for living whether from the bible or the brothers Grimm.

        2. 0
          Emile Rposted 22 months ago in reply to this

          Wow.

          1. Castlepaloma profile image23
            Castlepalomaposted 22 months ago in reply to this

            Yes, another good book of metaphors tales.

          2. mishpat profile image60
            mishpatposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Wow... hhmm.  Okay, I'll take as "you've seen the light".  I hate to think that was biting sarcasm.  You don't seem the type, and I my fragile emotions might not be able to bear it otherwise.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Well, your emotional stability is always at the forefront of my thoughts. smile

              To be honest, I thought you were the hubber monkeyshine responding again, at first. I was really scratching my head at the comments. Then I realized someone else had chimed in and it all began to  make sense.

              1. mishpat profile image60
                mishpatposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Now you did it.  "Someone else.... made sense."  I'm feeling used and unappreciated.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  No. Don't feel used and abused. I didn't say the other hubber made sense. It was just they came off as an agnostic, atheist or spiritual person and then it appeared I was responding to a Bible believer. I was simply confused. Not an unusual state for me. smile

  16. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
    MonkeyShine75posted 22 months ago

    I sort of feel there is a God too, even though I'm not religious, and I don't go to church, I have a bible that my aunt bought me when I was ten years old, and my mom had just died.
    I've read a bit of it, but I've never thought of it as infallible
    When we have these such discussions I go to this bible online (Bible Gateway)
    https://www.biblegateway.com/

  17. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
    MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago

    Here are a few contradictions I found to be in the Bible

    The angel told Joseph. Mt.1:20.
    The angel told Mary. Lk.1:28.

    There were 28 generations from David to Jesus. Mt.1:17.
    There were 43 generations from David to Jesus. Lk.3:23-31.

    Jacob was Joseph’s father. Mt.1:16.
    Heli was Joseph’s father. Lk.3:23.

    He was to be called Emmanuel. Mt.1:23.
    He was called Jesus. Mt.1:25.

    Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old. Mt.2:13-16. (Note: Jesus’ cousin, John, was also under 2 and survived without having to flee.)
    Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals. No slaughter of infants is mentioned! Lk.2:21-39.

    Jesus was tempted during the 40 days in the wilderness. Mk.1:13.
    Jesus was tempted after the 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:2,3.

    My opinion only:
    Because Jesus had flaws he could not be God. God is limitless
    A God with flaws can't be an all encompassing God, and God has no flaws and is very valuable

    1. mishpat profile image60
      mishpatposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I see no contradictions in these comparative verses.  (Since I don’t know how to use that “green box” insert to separate them, I’ll address them in the numerical order they appear.)

      The angel(s) - appeared at different times in different locations.

      Generations and lineage - Matthew (a Hebrew) splits the time frames of the “lineage” of Joseph into 3 parts which he calls Generations.  Luke (a Gentile) gives the lineage of Mary.  Regarding the generations as written in Matthew, there has never been agreement by theologists of Judaism or Christianity as to what format was used in Matthew used, and there are several, but none disagree with the correctness of the time frames as divided by the names.  It is apparent to me that he is splitting the “generations” by pre-kingship of Judah, kingship of Judah, and post kingship of Judah, this last leading to the new “kingly line” headed by Jesus.  Suffice to say, there is no error here as the information is correct, but not clear.  It remains a mystery which is not the same as an error.

      I think the above answers the next question also about the “fathers” issue.

      Jesus name was Jesus.  Emmanuel, meaning “God with us,” is referencing a quote/verse from the Old Testament, Isaiah 7:14.  This is fulfilled (to an extent/foreshadow) in the “Triumphal Entry” accounts of Matthew, Mark and John, and fully in Revelation (in the future) 21.

      Nazareth, where Mary lived, is some 80-100 miles north of Bethlehem.  She went into the hill country to visit her cousin the mother of John, Luke 1:39.  We don’t know where Elisabeth lived but it was apparently not far from Mary and not Bethlehem where the slaughter took place.  John, later, did most of his work just southeast of Nazareth.  And he was at least 6 months older which could have protected him also.

      Mary went to the Temple 8 days after the birth.  The wise men showed up about 2 years later.

      I see no conflict in the statements about the temptations.  They were on going with a culminating temptation.

      It is good to see folks study on their own and not just accept the comments of others as correct.

      I would be curious to know what flaws you think Jesus had or how the above relates to these flaws.

      Thanks for the input.  I hope this helped.  You taxed my old brain and caused me to go back to a long time ago and review some old studies, some from the times before I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior.  It was greatly appreciated.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Why can't a god have flaws?  Every single living entity we've ever encountered has flaws; why not a god as well?

      It does seem as though the popular response is to declare that only a god can assess and determine what a "flaw" is, and therefore does it in such a way that the god has none.  But surely by human standards, every god we've ever created has had flaws; all it takes is time enough for mankind to evolve/develop morally and those flaws become quite apparent.

      1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
        MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

        It says we were made in the image of God, so he must have flaws since we do
        Why not, he says he's jealous, and most people see jealousy as a flaw in a relationship

      2. mishpat profile image60
        mishpatposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        You assume that mankind is capable of evolving and developing morally.  History shows, and is now being repeated in America, as among other declining countries, they are not.  When civilizations (or cultures which ever fits your vocab) begin to decline, the item that begins and spurs the decline is the lack of morality.

  18. mishpat profile image60
    mishpatposted 21 months ago

    If God were flawed then man would have a right to manufacture their own gods.  They would be similar to the Greek and Roman gods, myths of course.  If God were flawed then the world would be without hope and the present degradation would continue to devolve as rats in a sewer, left alone would turn on themselves and devour each other literally, as science has shown.

    However, the humanist, those who chose to make a better way by doing as they please, does conceive of a god with flaws, one they can blame when things go wrong but need not thank when things seem good.

    What value is there to a god with flaws?  Can you count on him in times of trouble?  Can you expect he or she will deliver as promised?  One might as well talk to a tree or rock.

    Fortunately, my God has no flaws.  And I know my future.

  19. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 21 months ago

    How does a Christian reconcile "love your enemies" in the light of a tendentious premise of total non-violence or pacifism.

    First the contextomy is resolved by the previous statement in Mathew : You have heard that it is said to love your neighbor and hate your enemy.  Jesus, related another story of a man that was attacked by robbers and was injured and priests and others just walked on by, but a Samaritan stopped and gave aid. That gives credence to a practice of only helping your own people, race or neighbor, ie loving your neighbor but hating your enemy. In further context it is clear that Jesus was trying to change the personal lives, by the stated examples,  of those around Him regarding harsh and often personally used vengeance. Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth etc. The point being to not be too quick to extract their own justice in their personal lives and to abandoned practices that were not scripturally supported.  The OT testament supports "love your neighbor",  but the practice of ignoring someone in need because they are not your neighbor or race or hating your enemy, was not supported by Jesus' clarification.

    Love those that curse you, hate you, and pray for those that use you, and persecute you, does not equate to loving someone that is beheading someone and do nothing about it. I got to love their victim too.  For instance a cop or Christian might stumble across some rapists killing someone and he blasts them to kingdom come. There is no implied or assumed hatred or animosity in justified violence to stop perpetrators. Later on we can all cry about it and remember when the rapists were all nice 7 year old boys that would never have hurt a flea. Nevertheless, to not use every force available, even deadly force, to stop evil in a hypothetical instance, is evil itself.  Love and hate has nothing to do with doing what is right in that example.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I heard there were certain Christians who planned to kill Hitler. The plans were discovered and the planners killed.

      What if we had not fought the British on our soil?
      To what extent would they have allowed us our freedom?
      Any?
      I doubt it.
      What if another force comes trying to take our land for their own?
      Do you think the majority of Americans would allow such an event?
      No.
      Would they be willing to do all they could to fight off such a force?
      Yes.
      Would they be justified in God's eyes?
      Yes.

      TWISI

      1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
        MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

        I agree, and for those who are religious, even the bible says that sometimes we have to go to war
        Ecclesiastes 3:8
        A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

        From Bible Gateway
        https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s … ersion=KJV

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          True.  But, we have to make sure the war is justified and not just for the sake of greed for oil or overly ambitious conquest, forcing others to believe and behave as we do…etc.
          Naturally.
          I agree with your response to Don.
          Thank you.

          1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
            MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

            No, I agree, but war to protect people from being raped, and murdered is necessary and we can't just wait and say let God defend them. I think that faith requires actions, and deeds.
            Some aren't looking at it logically. And I am pretty sure that some of those saying we need to be peaceful at all cost, would themselves attack anyone who disagrees with their premise, and aren't really peaceful at all (even though they may think they are)

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Yes, God works through us. Spirit works through us.

  20. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago

    What if the North had not lifted a finger against the South? Would we be the unified nation without slavery that we are today?
    Would we?

    "November 6, 1860 - Abraham Lincoln, who had declared "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free..." is elected president, the first Republican, receiving 180 of 303 possible electoral votes and 40 percent of the popular vote."

    December 20, 1860 - South Carolina secedes from the Union. Followed within two months by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas."
    http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar/

  21. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 21 months ago

    satan once asked Jesus to throw Himself off of a pinnacle, to His death. Jesus once said if anyone asks you to go a mile, go with him for two. But Jesus did not throw Himself off the pinnacle or even two pinnacles and later instructed His people to buy swords.

    Make no mistake. If you are a Christian and some evil person is doing harm or killing someone and you fail to warn or aid the victim, with as much violence that may be necessary, or whatever you can personally muster,  if that is what is required, reasonably, then you will have to answer to God for that inaction.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Sometimes violence is not actually necessary. Ghandi accomplished much through non-violent protests etc. In this way, he freed India from the tyranny of Britain!
      Praying for world peace is powerful and I believe if we all prayed intensely, amazing things would happen.
      When all else fails, a bomb might have to be dropped... in a show of determination and powerful resistance to injustice and tyranny in the spirit of self protection.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image23
        Castlepalomaposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Ghandi, my hero.

  22. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
    MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago

    The Bible clearly teaches that we must preserve life--our own lives and the lives of other people. 1 Corinthians 6:19 teaches that our bodies are not our own. Rather, our bodies belong to God. Our bodies are His property and so we are not permitted to treat or destroy them as we please:

    19 Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own;  20 for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body. (1Cor 6:19-20 ASV)

    Not only are we to take care of our bodies and the life contained. We have an obligation to preserve the body and life of other people. Psalm 82:4 even says we have  an obligation to protect those who are in danger:

    Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.


    Proverbs 24:11, which indicates we have a duty to preserve the lives of those who are harming themselves:

    Proverbs 24:11 Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter.

  23. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
    MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago

    If we go by the bible
    Psalm 82:4 Rescue the weak and needy; Deliver them out of the hand of the wicked.

    Proverbs indicates we have a duty to save the lives of people who are harming themselves, and or being harmed by someone else

    Proverbs 24:11 KJV
    1 If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;

    Nothing is more clear to me

    In the bible even when Jesus spoke of being angry with someone, he said if it is without a cause, and according to Jesus, only then is it wrong
    If someone is being harmed we have cause to harm them back if needed. Read what it says

    Matthew 5:22
    But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I don't understand how anyone can reconcile the view they hold in light of these simple verses, common sense and doing what is best, in a given situation. If someone is brutally murdering someone, I am pretty sure that singing kumbaya is not going to deter them.

      1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
        MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

        I agree, and it goes on further to say that God knows that you didn't help and you'll get back what you did or did not do to help the person

        "If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain;
        If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works"? (Proverbs 24 11, 12)

        The word forbear means to politely or patiently restrain an impulse to do something, according to the dictionary
        How else but with force can you stop a killer? Taking the time to ask questions will get the other person killed for sure

  24. paradigmsearch profile image90
    paradigmsearchposted 21 months ago

    Not my plan. I was x.

  25. paradigmsearch profile image90
    paradigmsearchposted 21 months ago

    Hi.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Yikes! yikes  not ready.

  26. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago

    <"Yes pacifist actions can be useful!  They ought to be desired first and foremost.  I don't think absolute pacifism is always the best answer.  It has been shown in examples how it just allows for evil to thrive against the good'>

    Think of Joan of Arc. I think she pretty much saved France by riding a horse wearing armor and donning a lance or sword of some type.

    " ( c. 1412–31), French national heroine; known as the Maid of Orleans; French name Jeanne d'Arc. She led the French armies against the English in the Hundred Years War, relieving besieged Orleans in 1429 and ensuring that Charles VII could be crowned in Reims." W

    Maybe this an acceptable ending for pacifists:
    Captured by the Burgundians in 1430, she was handed over to the English, convicted of heresy, and burned at the stake." W

    FYI link
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_VII_of_France

  27. oceansnsunsets profile image87
    oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago

    I think it is a category error or mistake to use Jesus' example in laying down his life, as a means to defend the idea of absolute pacifism for Christians facing a murderer. Here is why I say this.

    Jesus going peacefully to his death was not because  he was showing how Christians should likewise peacefully lay down their lives in going to their own deaths.  (Handing yourself over to the ones that would murder you.)  It wasn't a way to give in to evil for HIM, to let evil overcome HIM (Jesus.)  It was part of his greater effort to combat the greatest evil and its effects on the world.  We, by peacefully laying down our lives at the hands of murderers aren't securing salvation for all people of all time, for the rest of eternity.  (Which is what Jesus' reasoning was, the driving force.)  We also couldn't resurrect ourselves after 3 days, which would further the cause and fight against the greatest wrongs. (Nevermind being here 40 more days with people, then the ascension to heaven.)

    The very fact that Jesus laid his life down when he could call on an army of angels to defend him, WAS a show of incredible strength on his part.  Yet that wouldn't have achieved the goal he was after in defeating evil.  He was defending our lives, fighting for humanity, in the manner that could get it done.  For us to try and copy it in the ways some have suggested, wouldn't be defeating evil, but fighting FOR or with evil.  (Which would be opposing Jesus, as I see it.)

    1. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I would remark, that Jesus had authority to lay down His life and authority to take it up again. And the reason for that mission.  The thief or the wolf, wants to steal or to kill. The wolf wants to kill sheep with impunity. The wolf wants to kill with impunity. We know what the wolf wants.  It would be an antithesis, for the aforementioned mission, of life and life abundantly only to facilitate or sanction, death by wolf, with impunity.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        I suppose the lion and the lamb won't be laying together in any scenario you are imagining.

    2. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

      Jesus also said he did everything to fulfill the prophecies about himself, thus obedience to God. You're right evil did not overtake Jesus, because he gave of his life freely.

      In an everyday occurrence, if someone kills another person as we stand by and watch without trying to help we are allowing evil to overtake that person

      I found this in Luke 10
      The Samaritans were enemies of the Jews, but Jesus used them to show that we are even suppose to help our enemies.
      If we see someone being hurt, I think God would want us to help

      Matt Perman said:
      "Pacifism is harmful, and to let someone murder when it is in your power to stop them is completely contrary to our moral sentiments. If a Hitler is on the move and seeking to bind the world in tyranny and destroy entire ethnic groups (or a single person) , (this also includes anyone who murders, not just Hitler)  it would seem very clearly wrong not to oppose him with force (which sometimes is the only effective method). It is true that war itself is harmful and tragic; but pacifism would result in even more harm to the world because it would give wicked people virtually free reign. We of course must be open to letting the Bible transform our moral sentiments, but this observation should at least cause us to pause and reflect more deeply before concluding that Jesus is intending to teach pacifism".

      And I agree with Matt

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Monkeyshine, You bring up some very fair points, and I agree.  I agree with Matt Perman also.  Thank you for sharing it.  It seems logical and reasonable.

  28. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
    MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago

    In John 18:36 it acknowledges the right to fight here in our earthly kingdom
    Jesus says: "My kingdom is not of this world. IF my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

    When Jesus says that if his kingdom were of this world his servants would be fighting, he implies that it is right for kingdoms of this world to fight when the cause is just and circumstances require it. As Christians, you are citizens of "two kingdoms"--our country on earth, and the Kingdom to come Jesus shows us that it is never right to fight for the sake of his spiritual kingdom, but that it is right to fight on behalf of earthly kingdoms (when necessary to counter evil and destruction).

    1. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      'My servants would be fighting. Not 'I would be fighting'. And I see no suggestion that Jesus condones that behaviour. He is saying it as a neutral statement of fact. There is no value judgement either way. The statement could just as easily be read to mean 'my servants [foolish as they are] would be fighting'. But the point of this statement is not to comment on violence or the foolishness of his servants. Jesus is trying to explain to Pilot that his kingdom is not of this world, by describing what would be happening if it was. A comment on the virtue (or not) of violence is not what is intended, so is not explicitly or implicitly made.

      It could also be argued that the reference to only his servants fighting further implies a pacifist Jesus. Kings fought to defend their kingdoms (or at least armored up, pranced around a bit and called it fighting). But even as king of a hypothetical worldly kingdom, Jesus does not say that he himself would be fighting. But he is realistic and knows what people are like (a foreshadowing of Peter later?) so simply says 'my servants would be fighting'. There is no hint of support in that statement though.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

      I would agree, and this seems like it would make sense, and "go without saying."  There is a lot implied (and logically so) in the scriptures you shared.

      To let evil have free reign would make an imperfect world really awful.  One has to wonder at the suggestion of the opposite, to not ever use any force which might include violence against the greatest kinds of evil, which if left unanswered, would be wreaking more havoc than it already has.  If we had let it be the case all along, then we may not even be here to be discussing it.

      1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
        MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

        I agree

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          The question at hand is more along the lines of....did Jesus stand up against what is currently being defined as evil? Did he fight against what is currently being defined as evil in order for it not to have free reign? Did he use force against these things being defined as the kinds of evil?

          We can argue until the cows come home about what we should and shouldn't do. The question is, what did Jesus do? None of that.  So, whatever we may believe to be the right course of action we can't fairly say that it is what Jesus would do, or want if it is not in line with what he actually did.

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
            oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            I think the question at hand is what Don is suggesting, that only the early Christians (and in particular the ones he gave in his examples)  have the authentic model of what he thinks Jesus did and taught.  Therefore, its suggesting all since that would not be absolute pacifists, are not copying the behavior.  We aren't talking about then, but now, so it makes sense we are talking in light of current evil.  If you are still agreeing with him some, I don't mind one bit.  I am just giving my thoughts in return, and whatever anyone wants to believe, is what they believe.

            I personally stand by what I have said, and don't think laying down one's life at the hands of those that simply want to take it is following Jesus.  I explained why in detail, though I don't think it needs any explaining.

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              I'm not a pacifist. I am like you. Stand firmly for what is right, no matter what action that entails and no matter the cost. However. The evils of today are no different from the evils of yesterday, or tomorrow. As a matter of fact, I think what happened to Jesus was the most horrible thing imaginable. That was evil. State sponsored. Yet, he didn't argue these points you are presenting. Why is that, do you think?

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Edited:  Well, I would point you to my posts, which I explain all of that in great detail.  I will reexplain it here again.   It wasn't because Jesus was an absolute pacifist.  Jesus in doing what he did and because of who he was, was fighting the greatest evil, on behalf of all humanity, for all of time.  He was literally giving salvation to all in what he did.  The effects of sin was conquered that day.  He willingly laid down his life, not because someone just wanted to take it.  He did it for all the reasons laid out in the gospels!  This is something that even if we emulated, could never copy.  No human will ever be a perfect Son of God sacrifice for all of humanity.  This WAS how he fought evil. (And I might add, only part one.  He is not done, and he is not dead.)  I am keeping in context of this reality, which I think is true.  How later books in the bible address his coming after all have had a chance to know about the truth, is anything but a pacifist Jesus.  (Also not a model for us today to follow, lol, that will be God's wrath being poured out, and things will be way worse than they are now.  As of today, the recent news I heard was 21 people being burned alive today, after the multiple beheadings at one time yesterday?  I could be off in my numbers, but its pretty bad and seeming to get worse.  This is just one segment of the evil, and every country has their own set of evil.)

                Even if someone were confused today and thought that their laying down their life could be the means of forgiveness for all of humankind's sins of all time, it would not be the case.  What WOULD be the case, is that that person would be dying at the hands of an evil person.  As we see, we aren't lacking for people that simply want to take life. 

                So Jesus did not argue the points I am to DonW, for these reasons.  Why would Jesus argue my points, to accomplish the mission he did, when he actually laid down his life?  Don is putting into question the actions of Christians after the 3rd century on, when they began to formally fight against what they perceived evils until this day.  Some were probably justified, some were probably not.  I don't believe in abusing scripture to exact evils onto people either.  Many have done that. 

                I can easily see how many today would love to see Christians have this point of view however, the one DonW holds.  It would allow evil to have some real free reign over freedom loving people's everywhere.

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  I will leave you to your beliefs. I will add a quote from Thomas Jefferson.

                  The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory.

                  I find this to be so true, about so many things. We want to believe we are good and we want others to believe this also. We look to the example of a person who is good. We can't emulate those behavior patterns, so we may find ourselves attempting to justify our beliefs and actions by explaining that this 'good' person is really like us, no matter how much it may appear otherwise. We search the rest of the scriptures, ignoring the example of this good person, in order to support our theory even if our justification runs at direct odds with the example of the life of that good person.

                  The truth is, we do the best we can, but we should be honest enough to know that the best we can is not the best that can be. Pacifism is the closest we could ever come to 'Love your neighbor'. When practiced in its perfect form, it could never include violence. We pick and chose our neighbors. Let's simply be honest about it.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    We each have to decide, and I am doing my best like everyone else is.  If the ideas I express are perceived to be simply beliefs or imagination in light of all the facts and reasoning I give to back them up, then that is totally ok with me. 

                    To be clear, I have not been speaking against simple pacifism in this whole thread.  Only absolute pacifism.  If there is anything outright dishonest, or ignoring any scriptures, or attempting to justify as you share there,  if  you see in my words I type, please address it in the particulars so I will know what you mean exactly. Thanks.  Otherwise, all your comments there seem directed at something I might have said in my own posts, but also could appear to be thrown out there randomly for others comments.

                    If you disagree with me that Christians shouldn't be absolute pacifists to the point of laying down their lives willingly to anyone that wants to take it, then that is fine.  That is my stance in this greater discussion.  I don't think you do think that though.

  29. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 21 months ago

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/CastingoutMoneyChangers.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/The_capture_of_Christ_mg_1674.jpg


    Maybe, Jesus and the early Christians were absolute pacifists, give or take a few swords and whips.  It was just an human ear after all, hardly a flesh wound.

  30. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 21 months ago

    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/images/stories/large/2010/02/03/CHINA-C.jpg

    Absolute pacifism is good, "in principle" and if you are surrounded by people that look like Agent Smith from the Matrix.

    http://tibet.net/security/

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago

      <<< whispering to oceansnsunsets. I think Don W and others would prefer to have Jesus out of the way. What better reason other than this: "Jesus promotes pacifism and it doesn't make sense!" ???  I am sensing a strong atheistic push... disguised somewhat, but strong. What do you think?>>>

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        How in the world could you come to that conclusion? Were we all to emulate that man the world would be paradise. It appears to me that some might have already shoved him over a cliff to ensure his example doesn't cause any angst.

        I wish someone could explain to me how the term pacifist has come to be like a four letter word.  It doesn't mean what you guys appear to think it does.

        We all have to do what we believe to be right. But, I will say I don't see why some will use the name of Jesus in order to justify what they think is right, when that 'right' can include physical violence toward other human beings. This was not his example, not his mandate. I could see everyone saying 'It's too difficult to follow his example in the world we live in'. That would make sense.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Are you sure it would be a paradise?  I seem to remember the man entering the bank and leaving carnage behind him, simply because he found the perfectly legal and accepted practices there inappropriate in his mind.

          Isn't that what ISIS is doing as well?

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            I don't remember any stories of Jesus beheading 32 people simply because they weren't Jewish. So, I don't think a comparison to ISIS is appropriate.

            If we loved our neighbors as ourselves and they did likewise....I don't see the downside here.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              While the actions and results are quite different, the underlying thought and reasoning seems much the same.  "Do as I think you should or else!", and people being what they are, ISIS can be (and currently is) the result. 

              On the whole, Jesus led an exemplary life with but the one (reported) incident, but it it does make one wonder...

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Of course, without any more information than the blurb available; I can see why one would wonder. I don't. I don't see his actions as violent, so much so as one of frustration. I see it as a solitary moment of reaction in a life that was defined by action. Being momentarily frustrated does not equate to being two steps away from violence. I honestly don't see the correlation between anything Jesus did and ISIS. 

                I don't see ISIS as acting. I see them as reacting.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  Not violent?  Overturning tables and bodily throwing people out isn't violent?  I'd disagree.

                  Of course it was frustration, but that doesn't mean non-violent.  And a "solitary moment"...we have no means of knowing if it was or not.  Just reports from people with an axe to grind; people that were very highly unlikely to report anything negative (his actions sound reasonable until we actually look at what was done and why).  Jesus could have lived a life of such actions (not that I believe it) and we would never know without reports from those in opposition; reports we don't have available.

                  As far as acting/reacting; ISIS is, and just as you indicate Jesus did, too.   He reacted to his own frustration and anger, just as ISIS does.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    It was an example of eradicating evil… as we must do. Perhaps we need to eradicate ISIS… however it can be done…  If it is a US created entity.. which I have heard... we need to get on the Govt. about it.  Praying for the truth is a good start in my mind…
                    TWISI

                    1. PhoenixV profile image79
                      PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      When the examples range from an extreme version of Gandhi to a kinda like ISIS, then we know there is no intellectually honest search for the truth.

                    2. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      Eradicating evil...with you defining what evil is.  I dare say ISIS will not agree with your definition.  They already have God's word - your prayers to your god are thus meaningless.

                  2. 0
                    Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    We can agree that tables were overturned. I think you are simply interpreting in line with what you want to believe by stating that people were 'bodily' thrown out. I don't think the text states that; nor do I think it implies it, unless it is what someone is hoping to find. It's usually best not to expand anything with personal opinion. I think, since there is no indication in any other sections of the gospels that Jesus was prone to physical violence that a different interpretation is more accurate. One that he brandished the whip, without the intent to lay open flesh with it. But I can see why one might think otherwise.

                    I do believe that if Jesus had been a violent malcontent we would have some evidence in the writings. But, that is simply opinion also.

                    Comparing him to ISIS leaves all of us open to an even closer comparison. I suppose if you can accept that you are one step away from beheading people then I should accept that you think others are also.
                    Unless, you are going to argue the point that you have never reacted in anger, or frustration. To which I'd need an exceptionally large amount of proof to believe it.

                    1. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      Do you really think his disciples would have reported bad things that Jesus did, all while holding him up as the perfect being?  Your choice, of course, but I would have to disagree and there are no other reports of his existence, let alone his actions.

                      But I do not compare Jesus to ISIS - simply point out that hoping all people would act out of frustration and anger is where we already are.  That and greed, of course, with Jesus not showing that trait that we know of.

                    2. PhoenixV profile image79
                      PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      If those are the qualifiers. What is good for the goose I guess.

                  3. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    Jesus cleansed the temple because He felt they were swindling poor people and widows. His actions were in response to injustice. Jesus did not stage a "sit in" nor did He "fast" in protest. I do not think that appealing to Romans or the priests, would have done much good, nor would any Christian say that Jesus did not have the authority. They would look at it like a one man police raid on fraudulent practices, with no jail time and no one reportedly injured.

                    ISIS acts like atheist dictators and states sponsored atheism like Enver Hoxha and others. You know, where they actually kill thousands of people.

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      Furthermore, it was God's temple of Peace and Bliss; the one place to offer holy reverence to the Creator, our God of love and perfection… and to find Heaven WITHIN.

                      TWISI

                    2. 0
                      Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      Just like Christians when they are in complete control. So, if ISIS is like atheists and atheists are like Christians, then we agree all groups aren't Christ like. I thought we'd never agree.

                    3. wilderness profile image96
                      wildernessposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      That's what I said, isn't it?  Jesus, in his opinion found something wrong and took violent action to correct it.  What he thought wrong was (I presume) a legal and accepted practice but he didn't like it and so "corrected" it.

                      Which, if you ask ISIS, is exactly what they are doing.  They find more wrong, and worse wrong, but it still a matter of wrongness in their opinion.  And that of their god, of course.

                      That I personally would eradicate ISIS from the world and would invite Jesus into my home does not change the fact that both did what they did (and do) from a personal sense of outrage.  Nor does it change that such action is at the root of much of what is wrong in the world today; people trying to force others into the mold they like to see.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
            oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            That description seems to be a strawman.  As the bible relays the story, in Matthew 21,

            "12And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 13He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”"

            Or in more detail in John's relaying of this account:  Gospel of John, chapter 2

            "13The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. 15And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. 16And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” 17His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

            18So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” 19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple,c and will you raise it up in three days?” 21But he was speaking about the temple of his body. 22When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken."

            Or Luke 19:

            "45 And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold, 46 saying to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.”

            47 And he was teaching daily in the temple. The chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people were seeking to destroy him, 48 but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people were hanging on his words."

            Or Gospel of Mark chapter 11 says:

            "15 And they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. 16 And he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. 17 And he was teaching them and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” 18 And the chief priests and the scribes heard it and were seeking a way to destroy him, for they feared him, because all the crowd was astonished at his teaching. 19 And when evening came they[b] went out of the city."

            So nowhere in any of the accounts can I see a parallel to how it was described in the above post, in a bank, or have carnage, and then asked how it could be different from ISIS?  This is how straw men arguments seemingly work, but why they do not.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        I don't have much time at the moment, but you could be right, and bear in mind, he is pushing absolute pacifism, not just pacifism, which is very extreme in my opinion.  I don't know anyone that supports this view.  I know of some groups that would LOVE for Christians to have this view though.  I don't want any Christian to feel shamed or like they are "unauthentic" for not being absolute pacifists because of such arguments,

        The view I hold that DonW keeps responding to is that Christians should be able to defend against a murderer of innocents, whether self or others.  I find this unbelievable.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          +1

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            There were Christians that were actively serving in the military prior to Constantine. Later, some would be considered martyrs. Some were killed because they would not worship Roman gods or deities or because they would not persecute other Christians. Some even held high ranks.

            It is amazing that there were Christians in the Roman armies, because, being in the Roman military, would be exactly like joining the enemy's side, considering they killed Christians. Nevertheless, they indeed were in military positions. Thus, it is no surprise that some thought it was contradictory to Christianity, in regards to idolatry, as well as other reasons, seeing there was no such thing as a "christian army to join" ie. by default they would be joining another religion's armed forces or at least an army that had their own non-christian beliefs.

            Just as Jesus marveled at the centurions faith, just as John the Baptist, told the soldiers to be content with their pay, just as the fact that Peter was carrying a weapon and using it, not at the beginning of Christ's ministry, mind us,  but at the last, should speak for itself.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Yes, at the last when opposition was mounting...

              1. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                If Peter was carrying a sword and using it, early on in Jesus' ministry, one could argue that, later on that carrying a weapon was not supported. On the contrary, we can speculate that at least some of the Disciples, carried weapons, throughout Jesus ministry, right on up to the very last. A religious movement that was allegedly absolute pacifistic, would not be carrying weapons, the entire time of the ministry, and then using them in what they believed was a defense of Jesus' life or liberty. It cannot be argued reasonably, that Jesus was unaware that they carried weapons and the possibility of their potential use.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Thank you for sharing about how Christians served in the military before Constantine, and why some would not that were for reasons other than absolute pacifist thinking. 

              And yes, that the disciples carried swords is not a point that can be just casually dismissed.  It has to be answered by anyone holding that they had an absolute pacifist way of believing and thinking that ought to be emulated.   The cutting off and then healing of the centurions ear, was not because the disciples shouldn't have had swords.  It wasn't to clean the fish they caught, nor were they for walking sticks.  It was because Jesus had to be taken away, and eventually killed for a once in a lifetime event.  That was why he laid his life down in the manner he did and said he didn't have to do that.  It is abundantly clear.  The early Christians that fought for their lives or in the military weren't having to act against their consciences to do so.

    2. Debi K Baughman profile image60
      Debi K Baughmanposted 21 months ago

      I would say that the move from turning the other cheek to becoming a door mat is when the one throwing that first slap or punch takes you up on it every time you offer the other cheek.

      1. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
        MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Deleted

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Yes. Let's all find a new hubber and make them feel that they won't be liked for the most superficial of reasons. Could you help me find a sprite?

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        I'll say!

    3. MonkeyShine75 profile image81
      MonkeyShine75posted 21 months ago

      This comes from
      theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/11/buddhism-bin-laden-death-dalai-lama
      (just add the www.)

      "We must be careful to understand what "nonviolence" means. Under the right conditions, it could include killing a terrorist.

      “The following story is analogous to a terrorist situation. It is known throughout northern Buddhism. Communists even used it to rouse Chinese Buddhists to fight in Korea. The Buddha, in a past life as a ship's captain named Super Compassionate, discovered a criminal on board who intended to kill the 500 passengers. If he told the passengers, they would panic and become killers themselves, as happened on a Southwest Airlines flight in 2000. With no other way out, he compassionately stabbed the criminal to death. Captain Compassionate saved the passengers not only from murder, but from becoming murderers themselves. Unlike him, they would have killed in rage and suffered hell. He saved the criminal from becoming a mass murderer and even worse suffering. He himself generated vast karmic merit by acting with compassion.”

      1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Thank you for sharing this Monkeyshine.  How interesting.  And to think that some would call that "violence" against another, and yet they do, though it doesn't make sense.   The truth is we don't live with a bunch of pacifists and some general petty thieves or something in this world.  We are dealing with terrorists, and compassion for the innocent in such cases takes prominence over the desires of the killers.

    4. oceansnsunsets profile image87
      oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago

      In doing some more research into Luke 22 and verse 38 in particular, I found this.  It was the first commentator I came across.  From Barnes Commentary

      "Luke 22:38
      "And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough."

      Are two swords - The Galileans, it is said, often went armed. The Essenes did so also. The reason was that the country was full of robbers and wild beasts, and it was necessary to carry, in their travels, some means of defense. It seems that the disciples followed the customs of the country, and had with them some means of defense, though they had but two swords among the twelve.

      It is enough - It is difficult to understand this. Some suppose that it is spoken "ironically;" as if he had said, "You are bravely armed indeed, with two swords among twelve men, and to meet such a host!" Others, that he meant to reprove them for understanding him "literally," as if he meant that they were then to procure swords for "immediate" battle. As if he had said, "This is absurd, or a perversion of my meaning. I did not intend this, but merely to foretell you of impending dangers after my death." It is to be observed that he did not say "the two swords are enough," but "it is enough;" perhaps meaning simply, enough has been said. Other matters press on, and you will yet understand what I mean."

      It makes sense the disciples carried swords like others in that day to protect from robbers and wild beasts.  I imagine this was the case in much of the world, for logical and practical reasons.  No least of which would be for self defense, which is not an absolute pacifist approach when your life is in danger.  I thought this commentator thought the ideas through carefully.  Unless justifiable reasons are given that show there are other reasons these men would act against the customs of the day for self defense, then I think the way the text reads makes the most sense.  There have been no responses in this thread with reasoning or evidence given as of yet, to the rebuttals filled with reasons why an absolute pacifist approach while carrying swords makes no  sense.  Jesus knew they had swords, and if one takes it to mean just two which may not be valid, but even if you do take it to be that way, then what were those swords for? It begins to seem the belief is seemed to be elevated above what the reason, logic and facts warrant. An absolute pacifist would let robbers rob and even kill you, and have no need for swords.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        I think one problem is that you insist on the term 'absolute pacifism'. I suppose it could be a matter of your definition. To me, absolute pacifism is a moral stance against using violence as a way to settle disputes.  You seem to define it as standing in the middle of the road in order to allow yourself to be hit by a car; if the motorist so chooses.

        Pacifism isn't about allowing violence to happen. It is about being proactive. Creating an acceptable alternative to violence. Showing the way to an acceptable alternative; through example. Pacifism has been the greatest force of change in our world on many occasions. It is not choosing to sit on your hands and allow bad things to happen. It is much more powerful than any gun.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
          oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          In this particular conversation, DonW and PhoenixV and I and some others have been discussing not pacifism, but absolute pacifism, so that could create some problems in understanding if anyone has missed that.  It is the stance I am arguing against, and the one that DonW is arguing the early Christians had, and that was following Jesus' example.  I disagree.  So hopefully that helps shed some light on what is going on here.

          This is why comments about just general pacifism, which I have praised and said many times, is not addressing the problem DonW is defending that the early Christians had.  In this context however, it turns out to be a different argument, so that is more likely the problem.  Absolute pacifism isn't more powerful than any gun, in the instances we are speaking about.  Its just sure death, and letting evil win. 

          The example of standing in the middle of the road and being hit by a car is an idea that neither pacifism nor absolute pacifism addresses.  My stance has been made clear, and DonW opposes as you see he keeps on responding to it.

          I am not opposed to having a discussion however, about general pacifism if you want to have it.  I do notice that is what you keep on bringing up in this discussion.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Well, I agree with Don that all evidence supports the notion that the early Christians were strong pacifists. I consider Jesus to be a strong pacifist by his words and actions. I don't know that Don has supported absolute pacifism. He has simply pointed out what the historical records point to. By my understanding of his statements. I get the impression that his statements ruffle feathers because it is assumed he is saying those who don't support that stance aren't authentic Christians. I wouldn't assume that; although I would assume those who deviate from that stance aren't 'following in the footsteps of Jesus'. But, that shouldn't offend. Who does?

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Emile, when you said, "Well, I agree with Don that all evidence supports the notion that the early Christians were strong pacifists." You are not expressing the point of view that he has been defending.  I know that you say my posts are too long (and I gather you then don't read them nor all of Don's which seems clear from some responses), but I have answered all the points in detail that you continue to bring up, including this same one of clearly understanding what DonW and I are defending and discussing.

              This idea of wanting to oppose a view that is against absolute pacifism, but using terminology that is only about pacifism, (even strong pacifism) means we are not discussing the same things.  I am for pacifism.  I am not for absolute pacifism.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                I do read Don's posts. I find his view highly informed and well stated, with no meandering.

                I use the term strong pacifism as a courtesy to you since I think your definition of absolute pacifism goes above and beyond the definition of absolute pacifism as I would define it. However, I think it is fair to say that many early Christians whose fate is documented in the Acts of the Apostles would fit the definition as you use it.

                No one can prove every Christian was a pacifist at that time. Which, by my understanding, appears to be your reasoning for arguing the point. Don is simply pointing out that pacifism was the understanding of those who were respected as leaders by the early Christians.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  If you are arguing against my points, you would have to think the Jesus, the disciples and early Christians were absolute pacifists. 

                  You haven't completely encapsulated my defense, but that is one point that does defend it.  That there were obviously people that would fight for their lives, or defend their loved ones, yes, even with force.  I have the easy side to defend here, and am still completely baffled that others seem to keep opposing it.  In stating my view, I am not necessarily claiming to point out OTHER'S views, simply restating my own, so people realize that when they are arguing with  me that they are arguing against my view.  Which would be arguing for absolute pacifism.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    I think the evidence is clear that Jesus was an absolute pacifist. It's mind boggling that anyone would believe otherwise. As I stated previously. The actions of the disciples cannot be used until after the ascension of Christ. Until the resurrection they were simply following a teacher. When he was crucified, they assumed it was over. I would think, even after the ascension they were still attempting to fully understand. Their subsequent actions are what should be used to judge how they perceived the meaning.

                    I believe the apostles were martyred. If you can show they went down physically fighting, then that might substantiate your argument, in my eyes.

                    I realize you are baffled. Possibly, because you are attempting to add to the meaning if the term?

                    1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      We can agree to disagree.  I wondered earlier about if you had read Don's posts, because he would have clarified his own position throughout, if you had, on absolute pacifism.  I am glad you call it absolute pacifism in your post there, because that is more in line with what we have been talking about.  You do now have a verse from Matthew that clears it up where Jesus is speaking on an example of a thief breaking in.

                      I know you said the actions of the disciples can't be used until later, but you haven't given any justification, which would have to include that Jesus would have corrected them as he often did if needed.  He never told them to get rid of their swords, and spoke of the future when he would be gone.  They were going to need them, maybe more than they already had needed them in the past.  It was part of their culture.  We don't see any advice to allow evil to just overtake them, or instruction to get rid of swords.

                      As to the fighting against the powers over you when you are being martyred, this is just another example of how something has been discussed in great detail previously.  I will restate it in short form here.  If you are taken and overpowered and imprisoned, you are past the point of fighting back.  If you are being crucified upside down like Peter, how do you fight back?  If you are being stoned to death like Stephen, how do you fight back?  (I only have a case if Stephen threw the rocks back?)  What about the Christians thrown to the lions?  How do you fight back?  That is the great terror and evil with which we are talking about having the chance to avoid.   You have to actually be using examples in which a Christian has the chance to fight back, to make the case for absolute pacifism. 

                      Jesus was a unique case, and not a pacifist in laying down his own life.  Jesus' mission was unique, he was fighting the greatest evil of all time for all people in conquering sin and its effects on humanity.  You can't fairly use his own admission of laying down of his life as a means for other believers to do likewise.  It doesn't make sense, for in the case of anyone else, its just evil playing out, and not saving all of humanity from death.  It is allowing evil to win, to just allow someone to take your life that wants to.

            2. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Emile claimed: "all evidence supports the notion that the early Christians were strong pacifists"

              You mean other than Saint Peter, Saint Eustace, Saint Gregory, Saint Agathius, Saint Adrian, Saint Demetrius, Saint George, Saint Typasius, Saint Gereon , Saint Florian and all the ones serving in the military?


              Emile wrote: " I don't know that Don has supported absolute pacifism."


              Don claimed: Jesus was an absolute pacifist

              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/127544? … ost2705338

              Don claimed:  Jesus advocated absolute non-violence

              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/127544? … ost2705829

              Don claimed:  the early Christian church advocated absolute pacifism.

              http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/127544? … ost2706526



              --------------------------------------------------

              Where was the early Christian church located? List the wars Jesus non-violently protested. 

              ..And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple..

              ...and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers...

              Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

              Jesus did not want Peter to interfere with His mission. Absolute pacifists do not do these things, if reality and truth have any meaning.

    5. bBerean profile image60
      bBereanposted 21 months ago

      Matthew 24:43 "But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up."
      ~Jesus

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        That doesn't imply violence would be his solution. Unless, violence is the only solution you can think of.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          So instead of concluding the obvious or making a logical inference, you suggest an ad hominem?

          Here is the cross reference.

          If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            An ad hominem? I can think of quite a few solutions which don't include violence. Just because that would be your first option of choice doesn't make it the right one.

            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              That is a strawman and an ad hominem. Neither bBerean or anyone else has said how they would react. We just posted scriptural support. Jesus did not advocate lawlessness.   Let us hear your solutions to someone breaking in your house at night, instead of falsely claiming everyone else would only react violently as the first option.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Well, it would depend on my perception of why they were there. If it were for material things, isviolence appropriate? Would you hurt a human being to defend an inanimate object?  Would you risk your life in defense of it?

                If the intent for the break in were solely bodily harm to me or a loved one I would have no choice but defense.

                1. PhoenixV profile image79
                  PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  So you would quiz them on their intent?

                2. bBerean profile image60
                  bBereanposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  The quote says "thief."

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    You are trying and convicting. What motivates? If I steal bread because my children are starving am I thief or are you a miser? Whose is the greater crime?

                    I'm not saying there aren't violent people in the world. But, violence should be a last resort and only for valid reasons. I don't think harming someone for attempting to steal a stereo.counts as a valid reason. You would be putting an inanimate object above a life. How warped is that?

                    1. bBerean profile image60
                      bBereanposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      You presume to know the intent of the thief.  By definition, it is someone whose primary motivation is stealing.  How far they would go to accomplish that is unknown.  Defending the house is justified.  Using it as an example means it was a "no brainer" that someone would defend their home, it was a given.

            2. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Besides ad hominem , can you give rebuttal to:


              If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;

        2. bBerean profile image60
          bBereanposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          "Would not have suffered his house to be broken up" puts no restriction on actions taken to accomplish the stated goal.  No "if" involved.  Thwarting home invaders is pretty much synonymous with at least a show of force and threat of violence.  Pretty hard to imagine thieves who are so bold as to break into a house, saying, "Oh my, what was I thinking?  So sorry", and leaving unless under the threat of overwhelming force.  If they don't like their odds of being harmed or captured, they will flee.

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Exactly,  if someone is bold enough to break into someone house with occupants, I am pretty sure that a peace symbol bumper sticker on the VW parked out front is not going to deter them.

            An estimated 3.7 million household
            burglaries occurred each year on
            average from 2003 to 2007. In about
            28% of these burglaries, a household member
            was present during the burglary. In 7% of all
            household burglaries, a household member
            experienced some form of violent victimization.

            http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf

          2. 0
            Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            I'm reminded of the priest in Le Miserable. I wonder how the story would have played out if he'd simply resorted to violence.

            1. bBerean profile image60
              bBereanposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Jesus quote is clearly stated as though the homeowner's resistance would be such an obvious and correct response to invasion that He chose it to illustrate another point.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                So the priest's actions, in your mind, weren't Christ like. I find that interesting. Christ would have been more supportive of a strong whack on the head? Perhaps scourged with a bull whip?

                I am consistently flabbergasted for what passes as Christian thinking.

                1. bBerean profile image60
                  bBereanposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  Explain away the quote then.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    I believe i already have. You apparently don't like it.

                    1. bBerean profile image60
                      bBereanposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      You certainly have not.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              There is an ongoing assumption that its violent to not allow others to commit violence against others.  Its not "resorting to violence."  To answer you, there would be no story very likely, as it counts on the thief getting away then getting rehabilitated. 

              The thing is, that isn't what DonW has been saying early Christians were mimicking, but rather Jesus and his teachings.  So it doesn't fit in this argument.  If the argument was, "Are Christians authentic in being absolute pacifists  like is observed by the priest in Victor Hugo's novel?"  Well then it would be applicable or helpful.

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Thank you for sharing another point, that shows that Jesus isn't an absolute pacifist.  One can't expect a thief to be put off by a simple wagging of the finger, or fasting and praying, or asking him to politely leave. 

        Thanks to Jesus for sharing some practical views that make logical sense in the face of others committing violence.  I imagine that owner of the house, if the thief didn't leave after trying a pacifist approach, may have relied on his sword that many in that culture and day carried for exactly that purpose or for reacting to wild beasts. I have to side with reason and logic and Jesus on this one.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          You see violence where other options exist. Does that bear witness to Jesus's frame of mind, or yours?

          1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
            oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            All I said was that he had a sword.  You can use that to scare someone off.  I am referring to the fact that they had swords in that day.  Please defend your point of view that Jesus only could mean absolute pacifism by that verse with a thief breaking in. (Absolute pacifism, the view you have clarified in the last post I responded to, and attempting to refute the points of others, being against absolute pacifism.)

            I gave other examples too, please respond to those.  They were things like wagging of the finger at the thief, asking him to politely leave, or do you suggest they phone emergency, like 911 in the US?  What practical way do you propose in which all win in the case of others committing violence against others?  Short of using anything but absolute pacifism. 

            Please defend your view, that Jesus meant that absolute pacifism can defend against a thief that means to cause harm.  If you can not, can you lay off the put downs?  Its easy to do that, while not making ones  case, and making others look like they aren't making theirs.  Otherwise, it appears to be petty and just fighting and disagreeing for the sake of it.  Looking forward to how you would deal with an intruder in your home in that day.  I have not stated how I would deal with it, but am not making the claims that you have. Thank you.

    6. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 21 months ago

      The Bible Says - If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed..

      fatal

      : causing death

      defender

      : a person who defends someone or something

      not guilty

      :innocent

      The Bible

      : the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments.

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Yes. Not the example of Christ. Search out other options. It's always easier.

    7. bBerean profile image60
      bBereanposted 21 months ago

      Confusion regarding Jesus is inevitable for those who do not know He is God, or understand or believe why He came or what He did.  In willingly taking the humiliation and aggression, to the point of death, that He did not deserve, those who believe He was merely a man setting an example would obviously see Him as the ultimate pacifist.  Clearing the confusion in this thread would require bringing them to the correct understanding of Christ, and this is an unlikely starting point for that, so the disagreement will go unresolved here.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Yes, it will go unresolved. I agree bBerean.  Jesus is a man who had Spirit foremost in his mind and being and came to deliver us from the illusion of the material world on so many levels and in so may ways, we cannot fathom.
        To label him this or that or whatever is futile. smile

      2. 0
        Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        lol lol

        Way to go bberean. The example of Christ isn't good enough for Christians, I see. Honestly, that's been clear for some time. It's just fun to watch those who can't defend their thoughts and actions when faced with the example Christ left for us fall back on comments such as that.

        Jesus didn't do anything remotely like what you are attempting to argue. Why is that, do you think? Just because he was in human form? Now that he's in God form he's a monster? Why wouldn't he show his true nature when he had the opportunity?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Laugh away… But at the final curtain call, you'll wish you had worked a little harder to read the Bible and absorb the messages directly without prejudice, with openness, with reverence and respect.  And ask yourself…would we all be enjoying this world and our lives if Jesus had not died for us?????
          It is something to contemplate if you ask me.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Actually Kathryn I have read the Bible. I appear to have more respect for the man and his message. I see it, understand it, know how difficult it is to truly live it. Not like some Christians who pervert the man into a more palatable image.

            Perhaps, at the final curtain, you will find that putting your wants above the needs of others didn't really pan out the way you hoped it would.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              ...unless you see that fulfilling the needs of others makes them happy. and their happiness makes you happy. 

              What is the actual difficulty in the discussion according to you, Emile?

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              How do you figure you have more respect for Jesus and his message than the others here you are disagreeing with?  Is it because they don't believe in absolute pacifism?  If so, can you explain why not believing in absolute pacifism means you don't respect Jesusthe message of Jesus? 

              Then you said people here are perverting the man into a more palatable image.  How can you say that, and can you defend that statement which I find completely untrue?  How has Kathryn put her wants and needs above others by simply sharing her views here?

              Absolute pacifism doesn't mean to put your wants and needs above others.  Unless you mean it would be a good thing to let a terrorist that has a want or a need to kill her, and she puts her "want or need to stay alive" over their "wanting her dead."  My example may sound bold, yet its the only thing being defended here, can you defend in an example how  she has put her wants and needs over others?

          2. Debi K Baughman profile image60
            Debi K Baughmanposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            There really is no historcal evidence that Jesus actually existed as a living man. Our minds are powerful and to learn the concepts as taught in scripture about the teachings of Jesus through threat of hell if we do not believe is enough to give humans a strong will to believe thus bringing about the changes that you may be speaking of when you ask if we would even have the world that we have to today if Jesus had not died for the sins of the world.
            I have been trying to determine exactly what are the privileges  that you yourself see when you ask that question.  In your opinion how did the death of Jesus create the world that people enjoy today?

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
          oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          If you read what Jesus said in the gospels about how he was laying down his own life, when he could call on angels to rescue him, as well as learn what the reason was including his resurrection, you would see why he did it just the way he did.  Its a fulfillment of his whole mission. 

          As we see, it still gets our attention to this day.  He wasn't letting evil win though in that case.  He was doing the greatest conquering of evil ever witnessed in all of humanity's history.  If we laid down our life in like manner every time someone might want to take it, we WOULD be letting evil win, not conquering it like Jesus did.  I think these particulars matter, or they do to me anyway.  I hope they will to others that might want to see it.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Thinking out loud:
            And he did it with non-violence. He turned the other cheek. He did not fight for his life.
            Can we be like that???
                           should we be like that????
            Do we have that particular mission?
            If the terrorists behead one of our own, would we allow it and say,
            Wow, I forgive you!

            1. bBerean profile image60
              bBereanposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Who was a "man after God's own heart?"
              Whose throne will Jesus rule from?
              What was that man's role, and what would be done under his leadership? 
              If pacifism is the answer, how does one reconcile that?

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              Part of why Jesus took the assault he did, especially being perfect and undeserving, was to take on the punishment of all sin of all time, onto himself, for us.  It was for what he would accomplish, as painful as it was in more ways than we often recognize.  (Separation from His Father, which is why He cried  about being forsaken....  It was agonizing for Him.)  Yes, he conquered all he did without having to commit any violence, but crushed violence, sin and death with one blow in doing so.  He knew and predicted his own resurrection, which was seen as pure blasphemy to the religious leaders of the day. 

              We can't be exactly like that I don't think in actuality, because of who he was and what he accomplished, but we can always try our best to emulate him in any manner we can that is in line with the overall message and context of the gospels..  I believe it is to be our goal.  Using the term turning the other cheek, is used in a different sense in the scriptures but yes, he took the offense, all the offense in fact. 

              I think Jesus was overall Kingdom minded, and spoke of life both here and now and then eternal life as well.  Whatever causes the most people to see and be a part of that Kingdom, and not have to perish for their own sins, the better.  So if we are dead at the hands of murderers, its hard to share the good news, and we can accomplish more being alive.

              In the very sad state of affairs some find themselves in however, captured or imprisoned like American Pastor Saeed Abedini, we can do our best in that scenario with God's help, grace and mercy.  I think some have impact even in those scenarios, and I need to pray more for those like him who are being imprisoned and persecuted throughout the world.  I find that at that point, we can appeal to our government for help to get release hopefully, but as for fighting, how do you fight once in that state? (Our government hasn't seemed to do much for him to this point, after all these years, and his wife and children miss him dearly, a very sad story.)  You can still fight the good fight through prayer, and remembering you are not alone and that God will be glorified in all things.  So this is why I think the particulars matter and can be discussed.

              As for beheading one of our own, I would say no, to never "allow" it if it can be avoided.  Yet if it can't be avoided, of course choosing good over evil, like saying "I forgive you!" is in order.  I think at that point, forgiving  still is one way to show that good is even more powerful than that kind of dark evil.  Good trumps evil always.  Even when all manner of appearances show otherwise.  Evil is allowed for a time.  Those are tough questions, but good ones.

          2. 0
            Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            I suppose he laid down his life so that you could ignore the example of it. Very strange, indeed.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              The example!!!! There is more than example going on, for gosh sakes!


                                              He had a MISSION from GOD!

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Well, God could have thought of a myriad number of ways to accomplish that. Walking among us, leading by example, why was that included; do you think? Oh. Wait. I forgot. We are ignoring the example of Christ. Carry on.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              When I share why Jesus' example was a particular and unique case, why do you say, "I suppose he laid down his life so that you could ignore the example of it."  I thought it was a good thing to take the time to explain it again since you have missed so many posts.

              Can you please stop just accusing people of doing what they are not doing, or at least show how I am ignoring Jesus' example?  I don't believe I have to die at the hands of a murderer, just lay down and take it.  That is my stance.  Please show how this is ignoring Jesus' example.  Thank you.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Well, I think we can all agree that even God wouldn't expect anyone to lay down and die at the hands of a murderer. It would be insane to expect anyone to do that willingly. Yet, I also consider it a ridiculous argument because no one would expect another human being to do that.  If it is your understanding that the only way I would think anyone could follow the example of Jesus is to allow themselves to be crucified then you are ignoring his entire ministry in order to believe such as that.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  If you agree with us that even God wouldn't expect such things, then why be so against those in this discussion that you might actually agree with?  It is Don'W's argument that the authentic early Christians based on evidence from some quotes he found of the early Church fathers, did just that.  He believes it was the stance of the early church and wondered at the change since Constantine. 

                  So only you know the answer why you took Don's side against what I think is probably more reflective of your actual views.   I hope you understand more now?  I hope you can recant at least some of your remarks, now that you might understand more?

      3. oceansnsunsets profile image87
        oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        I hear you, but even if they don't agree, many here will understand what he said his mission was.  Many have read the New Testament.  They understand the greater point of how Jesus went to the cross and why.  I believe that even as a unbeliever, they could see how this isn't meant to be attempted to mimic, because no one else COULD be the savior of the world, even in that context.  I don't know that it requires complete belief to get why its not the same, nor meant to be an example.

        So I think Jesus' one time example could be used as an excuse to try and shame Christians or allude to them as possibly unauthentic Christians  for not copying what wouldn't make sense to in the first place.

        1. bBerean profile image60
          bBereanposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          Emile's response makes my case: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2711031

        2. bBerean profile image60
          bBereanposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          I agree it remains worthwhile for others who might be reading and have "ears to hear", I was just speaking about those who you have been discussing this with and others of like mind.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Ears to hear. Ears to hear attempts to justify violence. I'm sure there are plenty of ears interested in that argument. It doesn't make it a good one, or worthy of listening to. It may be simply an attempt to find a way to sleep better at night.

      4. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        I think you are on to something, in that Jesus is just someone with some philosophies, not even that,  a caricature. A caricature to make an argument. Jesus is not the Son of God, he is a lampoon to find fault with those that actually believe.

        1. 0
          Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          So, we should all simply pretend that Jesus was what you guys are attempting to make him out to be? The image of you? I don't see an upside to that.

          1. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            " what you guys " and " image of you " are contradictory in that "all of us guys cannot just be one of us.  I assume, Us guys believe that Jesus is the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose from the dead. Jesus is our personal Savior. What is Jesus to you?

            1. 0
              Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              No. You guys would be all those arguing that Jesus expects you to kill someone for stealing. All who are advocating violence as a first solution when faced with violence. Basically, everyone ignoring everything the man stood for.

              What he is to anyone isn't the point. Do you think just because you claim to believe he is the son of God you can ignore his ministry? Does this make any sense at all?

              Know yourself. Know what motivates you. Know why the law exists; what it's intent was. You all sound like lawyers. Yes this, but it really means this. Because you perceive a lowest common denominator and you have to figure out a way to protect yourself against that contingency. It isn't reacting to a message of love. It is creating a safety zone inside fear. Fear of your fellow man. Is that loving your neighbor?

              If you trace every action back to the action that preceded it (that which it is reacting to) don't you think you can find some point where love would have made a difference? Where violence could have been averted had the action it reacted to been love? You argue for justification for violence. But, it is violence that beget violence in the first place. Wrongs which propel wrong into a farther reaching spiral.

              1. PhoenixV profile image79
                PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Isn't it?  Although I cannot speak for all of us, although I assume it is very similar,  but to me Jesus is the Son of God, who died for my sins and was resurrected. Jesus is my personal Savior. What is Jesus to you?

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  Again. Please explain why calling him your savior allows you to completely ignore his ministry? If Jesus is the son of God, who died for your sins.....how can you ignore him?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    - what would Jesus do?

                    1. bBerean profile image60
                      bBereanposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      Actually, what would Jesus have us do?  He knows we aren't dying for the sins of humanity, and we aren't God.

                  2. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    Jesus is my Savior. Jesus is the Son of God, to me. You are making the claim (usually with various strawmen) that I completely ignore His ministry. You claim that I ignore Him.  You have yet to establish who Jesus is. Who is Jesus to you?

              2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                How should we stop crazy Jihadists who believe in beheading people for exceedingly un-just reasons?
                How would an absolute pacifist?  If it would work, I am all for it.
                What would Ghandi do?

                1. 0
                  Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  I don't know whether you noticed this from reading the gospels but Jesus didn't suggest that governments be pacifistic. I don't remember him saying anything about the government; beyond a comment on taxes.

                  You are mixing apples and oranges. I understand why you are. It does appear to bolster your argument but since it has nothing to do with the example Jesus set I'm not sure where you are hoping to go with this.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    It really has everything to do with my original question.
                    We really are discussing broad topics and politics!
                    Oceansnsunsets wrote: <"In the very sad state of affairs some find themselves in however, captured or imprisoned like American Pastor Saeed Abedini, we can do our best in that scenario with God's help, grace and mercy.  I think some have impact even in those scenarios, and I need to pray more for those like him who are being imprisoned and persecuted throughout the world.  I find that at that point, we can appeal to our government for help to get release hopefully, but as for fighting, how do you fight once in that state? (Our government hasn't seemed to do much for him to this point, after all these years, and his wife and children miss him dearly, a very sad story.)">

                    This was an excellent example of issues that must be dealt with in the scheme of this question.

                    1. 0
                      Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      Government exists to protect the people of that nation. They will enter into conflicts. What a government will do, to protect an entire nation, has nothing to do with what an individual should do when attempting to determine what is right and wrong. Governments create laws which are, by nature, the lowest minimum standard of conduct allowed for their citizens. I would certainly hope none of us were contemplating the minimum standards of conduct as acceptable behavior patterns.

                  2. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    I don't personally know any governments. Do you mean people like presidents, governors, military personal, police officers, or people like that? I cannot be an absolute pacifist, while they put their lives on the line for me. A pacifist, so long as their hands don't get dirty?

                    ---
                    Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desires revenge but being afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defense for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a society of men and women.”

                    Mahatma Gandhi

                    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      +1

                    2. 0
                      Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      Mahatma Gandhi was a pacifist. I'm surprised you quote him.

                      I'l let you in on a little secret. I'm the first to step up to the plate in defense of anyone I consider is being wronged. I'll go nose to nose with a bully faster than anyone I know. However, I have never thrown a punch, pulled a gun or slapped another human being. I will speak my peace. Listen to those who speak also. And, I attempt to find the right solution which takes into account the needs of all. I am not well liked by people who hope to have majority rule shoved into the noses of the minority. I am not well liked by those who believe their wants supersede the needs of others; or those who think their wants should take priority over the wants of others. Everyone has the right to a fair shake with fair treatment.

                      Those we chose to accept a position such as a policeman are upholding our nations laws. I honestly wish you and those who are arguing these ridiculous arguments would stop. Did Jesus comment on policeman? Governors? Presidents? Military personnel?.I will say that if policeman, governors, presidents and military personnel would stop and think 'What would Jesus do' before they acted we might see a better world. I would prefer they not stop and think 'What would Jesus have us do" because then we'd have a whole mess on our hands; what with people just making it up as they go without bothering to look at the example of Jesus.

    8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
      Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago

      He came to literally save mankind from evil. Do we have that mission?
      No, we have the challenge to bring heaven to earth, the best way we know how. Until we have the love which Christ has for all mankind, we are limited. and God knows it.  He accepts us where we are. What? should we also be mastering levitation and advanced healing techniques in order to earn heaven?
      TWISI

      1. 0
        Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

        Funny, that. You're chastising me when my argument hinges on the love of fellow man; not thinking of ways to conk them over the head.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
          oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

          I haven't seen Kathryn or anyone here trying to think of ways to conk people over the head.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

            Let me rephrase. I'm not advocating ways to justify violence.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
              oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

              I don't see anyone here trying to justify violence.  I have seen that when people talk of defending their lives, it is called violence.  I see it here again. This is a cheap shot against people that are simply speaking of defending innocent life.  I have not seen a case made for what you say there.   It seems just another form of illogical retort.  I think if your view truly holds the merits you say it does, this tactic wouldn't need to be employed.

              1. 0
                Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                Are you not arguing against pacifism? What does pacifism advocate?

                Not cheap shots. You can't mount an argument and then deny it was mounted. That's dishonest.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                  We are fighting for power. Power to eradicate evil.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                    Well, if the power you seek is violence (which the arguments tend to imply) I hope none of you find it. Because that's simply the same thing in someone else's hands. But, it's still the same thing.

                    1. oceansnsunsets profile image87
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      I haven't seen anyone seeking violence in these discussions.  When will this end? 

                      I have seen some talk of the right to defend against violence done to them (particularly to death, by murder.)  Its like the truth doesn't matter.

                    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                      Kathryn L Hillposted 21 months ago in reply to this

                      This is very illogical thinking. Was the power in Hitler's hands the same as in our Government's hands in fighting World War II?

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image87