I'll give you another way to look at it... to turn the other cheek after you've been backhanded is to force the other person to hit you like you're a man. to give him your robe after you give him your tunic is to leave yourself naked...in Hebrew culture, shame was on the person who witnessed you naked...not the naked person. and to go the extra mile is to do so of your own volition...because Roman soldiers could force you to walk the first mile by law. These weren't merely about pacifism...they were about making the other person think of what they're doing first...and offering them the opportunity to make it right.
I understand, and I'm not really part of any organized religion. I agree wholeheartedly with science, and believe in following it and it's research. I've never believed the purpose of religion or at least Christianity was to give people a bunch of rules they have to follow. I understand that people want a parental figure to tell them what to do, but I don't believe that's the purpose of it. Many may disagree with me, and that's fine.
Yes exactly what I meant stated much clearer when I mentioned making the other person aware of what they're doing by the things that Max mentioned.
I think I am missing something here. "Hit you like your a man" does not make sense to me. Why is dignity or self pride more important than self preservation or self defense? Self induced suffering is an act that Christians seem to look highly upon and nothing about that is virtuous and I would even go as far as calling it immoral. On nakedness, what type of morality is it when an innocent bystander who just happened to witness a naked man, be shamed or make them feel that they did some wrong? Imagine a culture adopting this as moral and making it a law. You will have a room full of people who are charged with "Witnessing indecent exposure" while the flasher is set free.
The idea is if someone is violent towards you, they are in the wrong. But by offering them the other cheek and showing that you can take their wrong, and won't back down, they will be forced to consider their actions. The person who initiated violence is often doing so for power. Turning the other cheek shows that his violence has no power over you. It forces him to face the wrongness of his actions, and deal with it on that level. It can change a person who has done wrong. The nakedness seems to have caught you up in the specifics. Whether it makes sense to us doesn't matter. It wasn't a case of God saying that's how it should be either. It was simply of how an example of love even in the face of wrong-doing could be more powerful. If we lived in a world where violence wasn't repaid with violence, it would be a better world.
Wonder how women and children who are victims of domestic violence have to say about this. I think you just made my point. You really don't care about the sensibility of a particular teaching because somehow anything that God or Jesus says is good. You are the one who brought up that example and I get caught up in specifics? What you trying to do is cherry pick the ones you feel are good and leave out the indecent ones. Every piece of the story needs to be considered in order to put context. How does shaming an innocent witness and example of love? In my book, that is called injustice.
I wonder if women and children tried to hit back at the abuser, if there problems would be solved? But that isn't the point of the teaching. That is a specific of their culture. The teaching wasn't about their particular culture right or wrong. It was to give an example that the people of the culture would understand. If you are focused on their culture and ignore the point of the lesson, then it doesn't really have anything to do with the actual teachings. I think the first thing we need to look at is the main idea and point of the lesson. I also disagree that it shames innocent people. I'm not trying to cherry pick anything. I'm trying to boil it down to the simplest message.
1. "hit you like a man" was having the other person be forced to treat you as an equal...not backhanding you like you're a servant. again, the point was to have the other person see you as a human being....as an equal. nothing self-induced about it when someone else chooses to hit you...and non-violence has proven to be a pretty effective strategy for changing hearts and winning larger "wars" instead of focusing on the immediate "battle." See MLK and Gandhi. 2. on the nakedness...it was cultural...he was addressing people relative to their own culture. that wasn't a morality thing in terms of a universal truth or something. i'm not advocating for or against that cultural particularlity.
Domestic violence options: - Let the attacker hit you a few more times, a few more occasions and eventually, they will learn their actions were wrong or - Stand up for yourself and let attacker know that you won't go down without a fight then call 911 (if you are still alive) Which would be more effective in solving this problem? What is the point of discussing this if in your own words, you said, it does not matter if it doesn't make sense? You point out that this was their culture. Where exactly did they get this moral code from? They took it from the same bible you are advocating that supposedly has an absolute authority on what is moral. You are not trying to boil it down to it's simplest message, you are spinning the message to make it mean whatever you want.
Wait...he wasn't giving the Sermon on the Mount to a group of people tormented by domestic abuse. He was giving it to a people occupied by a foreign empire. We can make guesses at what he'd say in a room full of battered wives.
I am not in the field of psychology so I am not in any position to agree or refute your statements about the effect on the aggressor. All I know is that there has been tons of domestic violence victims that have adopted this way of thinking to only see it reoccurring and the only time they resolved it is by reporting the agressor, not turning the other cheek. Nothing self induced? You are offering (a proactive stance) yourself to be hit again. I agree that non-violence had been used effectively and there is no argument there. I don't see how you can't look at this as a morality issue. According to that example, Jesus made a distinction or judgment on what is moral or not based on the actions or non action (witness). That is a moral stance. Since you mentioned cultural, would you consider us moral if we somehow provide free health insurance to our slaves back then since this was a culturally accepted practice?
Well, that's just what I was originally saying it can't do. The faith of a fundamentalist is not threatened by this evidence one jot. They don't have to get abstract to rationalize away the impact you think this evidence has. Everyone seems to know what my problem is. As the old-timers know and as I've alluded to a couple of times in this thread, I'm an atheist. But, I attend a conservative church and I know the doctrine. It is a pet peeve of mine that atheists think they know how Christians thinks and Christians think they know how atheists think, and they really don't understand each other at all. I can see all these misunderstandings, they're like ships passing in the night, so I try where I can to help people understand one another. That's why I came into this thread because I can see atheists mentally slapping themselves on the back and saying those Christians are so ignorant and whatnot, as if they have all the information Christians have and Christians don't have as much information as they have. The division is much deeper than information or intelligence or even acculturation. So, I'm not taking a position on the origins angle; I just want to let people know that so far as Christian faith goes, I don't think this stuff much matters. Where in the Bible does it tell you to be ashamed to see someone else naked?
1. Read my post right above this one...you're reading the Sermon in the Mount in the context of domestic abuse....i'm not seeing that. Nor do I see it in what the people who were calling him Messiah were expecting him to be talking about. These were an occupied people. They were treated as second-class citizens by their occupiers and their "religious leaders" bent over for it. That's the context of what Jesus is speaking. The earliest followers juxtaposed him to Caesar. I do not believe that Jesus intended for the Sermon on the Mount to be a how-to manual for the response to domestic abuse. 2. He didn't make any such distinction at all. He was talking about how the Roman soldier would view it....and the shame or embarassment associated with being around a naked person, whom you made naked because you took his clothes from him. Each one of those is addressed to the historical context of occupied people....do they have application today? Of course. Early Christians didn't call their faith, Christianity...they called it the Third Way....meant as something more than pacifism (because it sought redemption for the one who might cause harm) and an alternative to fighting fire with fire. I'm not asking you to adopt my faith.
As Max has said it wasn't delivered in the context of domestic abuse. But it isn't about just letting them beat you more times. It's about facing them and them facing the victim. There was nothing in that sermon that would indicate a victim can't seek help from the authorities, so calling 911 wouldn't be against the message either. Actually they didn't take their cultural traditions only from the bible. What doesn't make sense is ignoring the message of the story and arguing about the culture from thousands of years ago. What I've advocating is focusing on the message which does make sense. When you talk about the bible having an absolute authority on what is moral, it sounds like you're arguing that the bible is something I've said I don't believe it is. I don't believe it's purpose is to simply be a set of rules.
Or he's saying that it's easier to see the point of the main message when examining who it was addressed to, and what their situation was. The context can help make the intended message more clear.
There you go. The fact that you mentioned 'believe' leads me to the conclusion that this YOUR opinion and is not a factual claim. Hence, we should be able to disagree. For the sake of discussion, I can give you the notion that this was for the oppressed people. What value does it have to the current American Christians since we are not occupied (except for wall street ) ? 2. He didn't make any such distinction at all. He was talking about how the Roman soldier would view it....and the shame or embarassment associated with being around a naked person, whom you made naked because you took his clothes from him. Each one of those is addressed to the historical context of occupied people....do they have application today? Of course. Now you are making a factual claim which from my understanding is incorrect. The early Christians (pre Constantine) were referred to as 'gnostics'. They all had different beliefs and interpretations of the teachings of Jesus. It is also a fact that there were a number of different sects that followed certain doctrines like the Gospel of Magdalene, Judas, Thomas, Mary, James, Matthew, Luke, Mark, etc. Depending on the sect (or cult) you subscribe to, your belief would have been different. To say that all Christians believed (during that time) that pacifism is their mantra is not quite accurate. This was the reason why Constantine had to mandate the ONE bible because everybody had their own thing going. He hand picked which gospels would be included and even that was ineffective as you can see that even during our time, Christians still have different beliefs. This is not about wanting or convincing somebody to adopt anybody's faith. This thread is a discussion about the origins of Christianity (which we somehow got sidetracked) and it's similarities with older religious beliefs and traditions.
I'm not saying that either. I'm saying things need to be read in context. I'm not suggesting that Jesus suggested that only in occupations should you be looking for peace. Ultimately, Jesus isn't the typical religious leader upon him a religion is built. He didn't sit down with tablets or write out his thoughts. He is quoted years later by people who wrote down what he said. Often the stories you read of him in the NT are empty of context because we don't understand the context of just how ridiculously cool it was that he was so gracious to the "woman at the well." Or just how offensive it would have been to the religious leaders of the day that he used a Samaritan in a story filled with temple authorities to demonstrate what it truly meant to love your neighbor. So we read through this stuff...and without the historical context we miss a lot of the meaning. Christians are just as guilty of that as anyone else.
I disagree and think you are speaking past me. I think this evidence, in the venue of discussion, kicks the pillars out from under imagined history. I do not think it converts fundamentalists. Those are two distinct claims. Stop trying to find the enlightened middle way, and demonstrate you are above the ruckus, long enough to see that difference. Science kicked the legs out from under the claim that the sun revolves around the earth, but not for those who refuse to acknowledge the evidence or even entertain being swayed. In the end, who cares what the geocentrists and fundamentalists cling to in the present? What matters is not the impact the evidence against geocentrism had centuries ago, but the impact it has now. If someone insists on geocentrism, then by definition, the evidence does not matter to that person. But overtime, the evidence will have its effect on society, just as it always has. Research into the historical origins of our religions is not about the now, but building a body of knowledge for the future. Sure cults will persist. But their influence will diminish, the cults will continue to liberalize as they always have, and humanity progresses. The "Christianity" practiced in a hundred years will be as different from the Christianity of today as today's Christianity is from the Christianity of the 1820s. There will be continuity but there will be change, too. But, the evidence will have had its impact in influencing further liberalization of the system. There is a reason we have to distinguish fundamentalists from other Christians. Don't worry that I am backslapping atheist looking down on ignorant Christians. That is the furthest form the truth as you can get: I grew up in a ministerial family and... eschewed my destiny to be a minister. I dont consider myself as thinking I know how Christians think. I just know how I and the people with whom I had contact thought as I lived it. I was immersed in the indoctrination and systems through my early 20s. And, as not just church goers but integral members of our sect, it wasn't just an every Sunday and holidays religious experience. Moreover, I still remember the mental gymnastics I used to mediate the conflict between systems of knowledge. I don't have to run on assumptions and theories. I know more about the good book than I ever wanted to know. I have always found it interesting how various, highly intelligent pastors dealt the historicity of their system. I always had fun sitting with them, in their offices, and listening to them discuss Q or hebrew customs and how that knowledge informed their biblical interpretation. The most intruiging comment I heard from one pastor was an acknowledgement of his system as born from Stone Age myth, but still sincerely believed, an underlying truth was being communicated by all attempts to understand god and the universe. It was the imperfection in humans that made the texts imperfect. He was willing to let go of fundamentalist practices, to see the bible as an outgrowth of history -- it's origins, to search for higher meaning. I happen to think that search would better progress without Stone Age baggage. Christians are no more ignorant than any other group of people on earth. That you enter the thread looking to validate your enlightened assumptions about atheists and backslapping is in and of itself hilarious. We are likely on similar pages, I just don't feel to need to establish any middle way enlightenment on the matter. In the end, I find it interesting to see people holding dear to the label of Christian while holding dear to core, sincere beliefs about living and death.
