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.
Context . Slapstick . Humor.
Admittedly I don't find the above clip funny. But this is: [you tube]
Context? The scene shown with Sidney Poitier is from the film "In the Heat of the Night." That was not a comedy film. It was not a slapstick scene. And neither the film nor the scene in it were humor.
Monty Python and the Three Stooges are slapstick comedy. The racially charged violence in the Poitier film is not comedy.
It’s an astute use of a GIF showcasing a pivotal scene from a famous movie (so far as I know, Sidney Poitier was not harmed in the making of that production). truth_teller’s posts are usually deadly serious, so I can appreciate his invocation of some humor.
That’s all.
Again, I was not commenting on the spirit of the sentiment.
i don't see humor in truth teller's post or the film scene. i see it as a dangerous and deadly excuse, justification, applause and admiration for race-based violence. i see praising and invoking that as a way of inciting, perpetuating, and fanning the flames of further violence.
i don't see humor in truth teller's post or the film scene. i see it as a dangerous and deadly excuse, justification, applause and admiration for race-based violence. i see praising and invoking that as a way of inciting, perpetuating, and fanning the flames of further violence.
relevant then. relevant now.
If we ever have the pleasure of meeting in real life, I won’t take you to a comedy show. Deal?
In the meantime, I think we should try to steer things back on-topic. I did not mean for my one-off aside to cause a thread derail.
As a Christian eye for a eye does not apply Jesus specifically chose to speak about a eye for a eye in the sermon on the mount.
5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’
5:39 But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
5:40 If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.
5:41 Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
5:42 Give to him who asks you, and don’t turn away him who desires to borrow from you.”
Eye for a eye is a old Jewish law your not Jewish are you that does not apply to you as a Christian its the opposite.
Great response Tzaphkiel. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Christians make lousy Jews. Everything is filtered through a non-Jewish lens and background. Most Jews, on the other hand, don't try to read Christian scriptures, and don't act like they are authorities on them, which is honorable.
The original post seems set up to innocently ask a question, but then the OP gives preferential treatment and indicate which is "better" (maybe the smugness you were referring to), but then closes again as asking. An "end game" is showing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
(a) the premise is flawed. because "eye for an eye" in the Torah is not about revenge and violence, it is about financial restitution for injury inflicted. which by the way is a part of legal system in place today in courts of law in USA.
(b) taking revenge is prohibited in the Torah and is prohibited in Judaism. Now you know. It is ignorance (lack of knowledge, lack of information, lack of understanding) to claim otherwise.
(c) flawed premise invariably leads to flawed conclusion. the opening post is a glaring example of both.
(d) the tone of the flawed premise put forth in the opening post is smug and reeks of condescending superiority. It is simplistic and reductive. because let's face it. the opening post is a not even thinly veiled question asking which is better Torah or New Testament, which is better Crstnty or Judaism, which is better Crstnty or Islam ("beloved faultless" MLK; or "ineffective violent" Malcolm X)
may you one day be able to live a set of beliefs without (1) misunderstanding and mis-stating the beliefs of other religions and other holy books; and also without (2) looking down on others with holier-than-though posturing.
"what philosophy is best?"
it is best not to engage in "either or thinking" which is itself a cognitive distortion.
it is best not to engage in the smug superiority of denigrating other religions
it is best to seek to understand what another religion actually teaches.
it is best to remedy the ignorance demonstrated in the opening post and recognize that "what Torah teaches" is very, very different from "what your own upbringing and religious indoctrination has taught you to believe about what the Torah teaches"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
A racially-loaded situation might be more understandable for return violence, but that's not useful when we are talking in general terms. Or perhaps that was a ruse from the beginning. This thread apparently was meant to be slanted to gain "points" for one side, for all cases. Nice
I apologize:
(1) to anyone I upset
(2) If I misinterpreted the meanings of both turn the other cheek and eye for an eye
(3) if I came off "smug," which I did not mean to
I did not intend to "slant" the original post. In fact I found an interesting video with scientific data proving my philosophy to be less effective, gave a real world example where I didn't so well with my philosophy, and admitted I struggle to logically defend my philosophy...so I am surprised if I came off as slanted for my philosophy.
I stink.
I get an F for this thread. I am sorry.
I just wanted to hear different thoughts in different directions.
(2) If I misinterpreted the meanings of both turn the other cheek and eye for an eye
(3) if I came off "smug," which I did not mean to
I did not intend to "slant" the original post. In fact I found an interesting video with scientific data proving my philosophy to be less effective, gave a real world example where I didn't so well with my philosophy, and admitted I struggle to logically defend my philosophy...so I am surprised if I came off as slanted for my philosophy.
I stink.
I get an F for this thread. I am sorry.
I just wanted to hear different thoughts in different directions.
No, it's a very good thread and gets down to a very important conflict between the old and new testaments.
i don't see humor in truth teller's post or the film scene.
Neither do I. Not sure what it added to the conversation.
You can't take "turn the other cheek" in isolation, because it requires an acceptance of grace over legalism. If you believe that salvation comes through deeds, and not faith, you'll turn your attention to who did what, what needs to be done, what does the law say about who is right, what rituals must be externally expressed to prove your righteousness, and whether you believe what someone else did to be good or bad. This pits people against each other as it allows them to judge one another by what they do, not their spirit. So when we accept that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, we are accepting that we have grace through our faith in him, not because we give to charity, perform a good deed, or judge the behaviors of others. If you believe deeds are necessary for salvation, then you are starting to go down the slippery slope of an eye for an eye because you can justify it by placing a value judgment on others' actions and the need for a corrective response.
Both 'turn the other cheek' and 'an eye for an eye' are reactionary responses to when some feels they or someone else has been wronged.
The first one basically means ignore the situation and be a pacifist, and the second one means retaliate.
Neither address the problem.
So I'm going to say neither is best. Instead, get to the heart of how the situation occurred in the first place and teach everyone to find a way to accept each others differences and live with one another.
Otherwise it's just an endless cycle.
This is a good way to perceive the two reactions.
When people are given two options on how to react, it shouldn't be a surprise that it feels that we only have two options to take. Sometimes these methods work for some individuals because they are part of a social circle that has determined this is their role - 'to turn the other cheek' or to 'retaliate.'
But they don't address the problem and my personal preference is to be part of a support system that allows for exploration of the causes.
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.
