Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Turn the other cheek" was invented by the Romans and inserted into these documents called "Gospels" that were starting to circulate around the Mediterranean. There was much rebellion against the Romans especially by the Jews in Israel and Rome was trying to find a way to pacify those who were joining the new religion that followed this Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The Romans believed that if they could convince Jesus' followers to turn to peaceful means of protesting Rome's presence (Romans slap your cheek and you don't fight back, you take it without causing an uprising) this would go a long way to keeping peace in the Roman empire. "Turn the other cheek" was a purely political and practical solution to a big problem. It had nothing to do with being loving to your neighbor.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but this disagrees with you. Says it is not about losing more to the Romans over a petty dispute where they could kill you.
This argues that it is a way to make the oppressor Romans break the law.
Quote:
Wink interprets the succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount as a method for making the oppressor break the law. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions.[4] In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law, as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.[5]
I watched the video, but unfortunately in segments because of my 20 different roles in the domestic world. Ha. I don't think you are misinterpreting the video. I think the video, like any other religion or philosophy, simplifies the concepts. It is up to the intended target to work out the details.
I had the fortune to live in an environment where 'turn the other cheek' was applied very differently in two communities (but had the misfortune to live in the community where it led to a sort of dysfunction and took decades of my life to unlearn and relearn something else.)
Community A was mostly Southern Baptist and professional. Community B was mostly Catholic and working poor. For community A, 'turn the other cheek' would be applied at step #3. For community B, it would be applied at step #1 for the weaker person, and that person wouldn't have a chance to do the other steps. To be able to continue on with steps #2-4, you would need the support of a family/community where there is an expectation of cooperation. In other words, the person in community A was shown the ropes to build a network where both philosophies can be applied. For the weaker person in community B, they would just have to go along to be able to stay in the group and to receive the breadcrumbs thrown their way.
If there is a situation where a person appears to be applying 'turn the other cheek' at step #1 and they come out on top, that is because they were strong in a key area, such as goal setting, or they already built their network.
I can relate! Mother, wife, nanny to my boys...nanny to my husband... cook, maid, errand getter, take phone calls on the renter tennants, etc...
I'm not saying you are wrong, but this disagrees with you. Says it is not about losing more to the Romans over a petty dispute where they could kill you.
This argues that it is a way to make the oppressor Romans break the law.
This is pretty typical of how conservative type Christians explain away that saying. Out of context...situational... and so on.
There are other places where Jesus quotes OT verses such as "blessed are the peacemakers"..."meek shall inherit the earth" and places where he says to "be as little children" and references to being docile like sheep.
And of course those type of Christians will bring up the places where Jesus made more warlike comments.
And the back and forth will continue.
I don't think that the turn the other cheek thing has so much to do with Romans or pacifism so much as it is like a kid saying "that didn't hurt... hit me again" to show that they aren't intimidated or afraid.
This is pretty typical of how conservative type Christians explain away that saying. Out of context...situational... and so on.
There are other places where Jesus quotes OT verses such as "blessed are the peacemakers"..."meek shall inherit the earth" and places where he says to "be as little children" and references to being docile like sheep.
And of course those type of Christians will bring up the places where Jesus made more warlike comments.
And the back and forth will continue.
I don't think that the turn the other cheek thing has so much to do with Romans or pacifism so much as it is like a kid saying "that didn't hurt... hit me again" to show that they aren't intimidated or afraid.
So it all just depends on what's going on in your heart. A pacifist after being slapped would think, "I'm not going to fight him. I'm going to offer my other cheek to show him he can slap me as many times as he wants and it won't arouse me to anger." While a Simon bar Kochba would think defiantly, "Go ahead. Slap me as many times as you want. I'll show you good-for-nothings I can take anything you can dish out to me." Kochba is looking the person slapping him directly in the eyes and sneering at him while the Jesus type is meekly cowering and looking down at the ground.
I certainly oppose blind retribution and only support violence as a last-resort self-defense strategy. But I also don’t think reflexively turning the other cheek (however well-intentioned) is a viable solution.
I am far from an expert on Dr. King and Malcolm X, but I think you (unintentionally) do both of their philosophies a disservice, especially the latter’s. After making Hajj and interacting with Muslims of all colors at Mecca, Malcolm X began developing a far more nuanced philosophy on and approach to race relations. I don’t think he ever would have agreed with passive resistance, nor do I think he (or any other civil rights leader) was obliged to do so. But he was beginning to distance himself from the (palpably toxic, even if understandably enraged) Nation of Islam, which, sadly, is why he was assassinated.
What you might call forgiveness I call “letting go.” I view forgiveness as earned. I am generally open to people’s attempts to atone in good faith, but I will not “forgive” someone unless they have taken meaningful steps to amend for past wrongs. I do think that holding on to anger and hate is generally unhealthy and only ends up hurting you. Regardless of what someone may deserve in a cosmic sense, 99 times out of 100 you are cutting off your nose to spite your face and risking harm to yourself by attempting to take vengeance.
That’s much more in line with Jewish philosophy, by the way. Irrespective of the Hebrew Bible’s adoption of the Code of Hammurabi, it’s very simplistic and can be borderline antisemitic (again, I don’t think that’s your intention) to distill Judaism to a religion of vengeance. First, there are many things Hashem is “permitted” to do that regular people cannot. And notwithstanding possibly, maybe, loosely reality-based but no doubt apocryphal stories of ancient Israelites swiftly dividing and conquering opposing tribes, Jews have long retired from such Crusades-style theological warfare games. Second, the meaning and application of this (and all other) biblical precepts has been subject to ongoing Talmudic scholarly study and debate.
Good post, appreciate you taking a deeper dive into these men's stances. I'm not sure if you're trying to imply the Nation of Islam killed Malcom X, your post kind of reads that way.
Recent testimony and evidence now points the blame at the FBI and/or CIA or at least they set the wheels in motion. Wasn't just Malcom they, took out other Black leaders during this time also. The Nation had nothing to do with his murder. I have to make this correction because people to this day believe Malcom was killed because of a argument with the Nation.
To the OP's point I believe context matters. Can't say there is anything wrong with defending oneself. Unfortunately what constitutes defense can be vague and plenty of conflicts have started by people claiming "they were merely defending themselves." To that end I try to practice the turn the other cheek, as I don't want anything corrupting my energy. I also understand how these things cycle causing more harm in the long run.
I do wish that the people championing peacefulness could get those in power to practice it as well. It seems far to often that the aggressor is allowed to be violent , while the victim has to forgive them.
Another example to illustrate is what is in the aggressor's heart. In formative years (4th to 9th grade) bullies liked to pick on me simply because I was the skinny kid and they could easily push me around. In some cases I would say to them "yea I know you could beat me up but it doesn't mean much or prove anything when you outweigh me by 50 pounds".
In some cases, the bully type will have enough awareness to realize I made a good point and maybe he should pick on somebody his own size. OTOH, sometimes you get the beaten down aggressor (most likely from a bad family situation / conscientiously challenged) who still want to beat on someone smaller than them because they can and know you won't fight back physically. In formative years I learned to avoid these type as best as possible. Fortunately they would usually move on to someone else since I didn't give them the desired response.
The positive was it made me keep a set of friends in formative years. In most situations the best thing is to (if you can) determine the motivation of the aggressor and if possible defuse, deflect or deny them the joy.
Perhaps the "turn the other cheek" is an example of the deny the aggressor joy tactic? Not necessarily to offer yourself up for more pain from the initiator but to deny them the pleasure of yielding/cowering /fear. More akin to "stand your ground".
In another context, sports is rife with examples of more psychological aggression at times to get inside the opponents head to throw them off their game. How an individual reacts to the aggression is telling as to what type of intestinal fortitude a player has. Some of the greats liked to create their own internal grudge / perceived slight to motivate themselves to another level. Or channel their aggression to heightened performance response.
Some of the everyday life examples: people cutting you off driving, cutting in front of you to grab something in store type things. These are not types of things I would even consider worth getting upset about. There are all manner of people wrapped up in their own desperate lives (and sometime mentally unstable heads) to make these types of behavior worthy of a response.
The other 'mindset' element is knowing when to pick your battles. This again gets to the context of a situation. Most instances as an adult I've defused or left an environment which I knew was not going to go well if I stayed.
I imagine I'm in the grocery store about to grab a gallon of milk, and someone pushes me aside and slaps me.
What would my reaction be?
Would my first instinct be to retaliate?
Or to try and understand, make peace, and reconcile with the disturbed fellow shopper.
In other words, should I re-pay pain for pain. Calculating in my mind the exact amount of retribution I should exact on the shopper, by judging the extent of the wrong.
Or, ignore my pain and embarrassment, to focus on what disturbs and pains my " neighbor".
This may be an extreme example, but it describes how I view Christ's intent for us.
Sacrificial Love, empathy, sympathy.
Not judgement, retribution, and enmity.
These are good questions. I do believe that while the universe might be able to objectively decide if the exact amount of retribution has been applied, humans don't have that ability. There is simply no way to make sure that eye-for-eye or tit-for-tat have been applied equally. What could easily happen is an escalation until somebody wins.
I also know that somebody pushing me aside and slapping me in the grocery store will more than likely happen in a location where people are known to do this. They either know me or have poor social skills - they think they know me. Either way, it takes skill and/or time to deal with people with poor social skills.
These are good questions. I do believe that while the universe might be able to objectively decide if the exact amount of retribution has been applied, humans don't have that ability. There is simply no way to make sure that eye-for-eye or tit-for-tat have been applied equally. What could easily happen is an escalation until somebody wins.
I also know that somebody pushing me aside and slapping me in the grocery store will more than likely happen in a location where people are known to do this. They either know me or have poor social skills - they think they know me. Either way, it takes skill and/or time to deal with people with poor social skills.
Good post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
cook, maid, errand getter, take phone calls on the renter tennants, etc...
