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.
and that is why it is important to point out, for the purpose of remedying the ignorance (lack of knowledge, lack of information, lack of understanding) that the Old Testament is NOT the Torah. The Old Testament is a Christian book.
Christianity is NOT an accurate source for what Judaism teaches. The opening post demonstrates this.
.
ALL religions are the "precepts and doctrines of men" pretending to peek behind the veil of absolute ignorance that surrounds our existence. The Torah and the OT are versions of the same documents interpreted and translated (reinterpreted and retranslated) into "precepts and doctrines of men." Of course, the Christian interpretations cannot be used to explain the doctrines of Judaism. Aggressively defending the commonly misunderstood doctrines of Judaism from a very young woman with no nefarious agenda is beyond the pale. Innocence is its own defense.
Our inner self by nature is at peace and in joy. Violence is inherently abhorrent to us - to witness, endure, or to inflict because it leaves a deep impact of fear, guilt, and remorse on the inner self. Jesus's "turn the other cheek" was to turn us away from causing violence and thereby causing violence to our own inner self. It was not mere platitude.
It is an act of courage and strength to resist violence with non-violence. That this philosophical truth has worked is evidenced by Gandhi's Satyagraha to end the British Colonisation, Mandela in ending the apartheid in South Africa, and MLK in gaining civil rights for Black People.
Returning violence for violence is easy, but it leads only to destruction, not peace and prosperity. US actions of violence in dropping the nuclear bomb on civilians, napalm on the vietnamese, and the violation of Iraq with lies has returned in force of violence over our own borders. With all this how can eye for an eye ever be the better? It is not, it is madness.
Non-violence is the best in all situations. But as the world has not evolved to Jesus state, nor Buddha state, we will continue to inflict and endure violence until we learn better. I believe the world, the new generation, will evolve to resist violence to gain peace.
This is not about the Bible or Torah. All religions when examined carefully and spiritually advocate non-violence, peace and love and mercy.
Nice post QB. Thank you. A very relevant topic for a forum on Religion and Spirituality.
You are tremendously oversimplifying the American Civil Rights movement, as if only Martin Luther King was responsible for its success. He and his allies were one voice. And yes, a primarily non-violent voice. And look what it got him personally! On the other hand, there were other leaders such as Malcolm X, Bobby Seale, Huey Newton, Elaine Brown, Stokely Carmichael, and others who had a distinctly different approach that was hardly non-violent. And you are ignoring many events: Harlem riot of 1964, 1964 Rochester race riot, Dixmoor race riot of August 1964, 1964 Philadelphia race riot, Watts (Los Angeles) riots of August 1965, 1966 Chicago West Side riots, Hough riots of July 1966, Waukegan riot of 1966, 1966 Dayton race riot, Hunters Point social uprising of 1966, Benton Harbor riots of 1966, 1967 Atlanta riots and Boston riots, 1967 Buffalo riot, 1967 Cairo in Illinois riot, Cambridge riot of 1967, Cincinnati riot of 1967, 1967 Detroit riot, 1967 Milwaukee riot, 1967 Newark riots, 1967 New York City riot, 1967 Plainfield riots, 1967 Saginaw riot, Albina Riot of 1967, 1968 Washington D.C. riots, 1968 Chicago riots, Baltimore riot of 1968, 1968 Kansas City Missouri riot, 1968 Detroit riot, 1968 New York City riot, 1968 Pittsburgh riots, Cincinnati riot of 1968, Trenton New Jersey riots of 1968, Wilmington riot of 1968, 1968 Louisville riots. All of the various Black voices -- those that were peaceful and those that were strident -- had an important part in the success of the Civil Rights movement. You cannot honestly say "MLK in gaining civil rights for Black People"...he may have been a leading voice (particularly recognized by whites that were uncomfortable about change...and that's putting it mildly), but not the only voice.
Yes. and since that is a Christian-centric conflict, then it is not applicable to other paths. Since those two books named (the OT and the NT) are specific to Christianity only.
Except the eye for an eye rule is not religious, it is a legal construct, a form of retributive justice. It is in the OT because the ruling class of the early Jews was a theocracy ruled by hereditary high priests, but other civilizations also had systems of retributive justice.
Turning the other cheek is an extreme form of pacifism which is found in other cultures and beliefs. Mohism would be an example, and it's decline came about because of the unifying principles of the Qin reformation, including a conflicting retributive justice system.
The conflict is applicable to any path that promotes a principle of nonviolent resistance.
Except an eye for an eye is meant to stop a cycle of retribution. That is why we use a non-literal form today in our justice system, one does not literally take an eye, but either pays compensation or goes to jail.
I think people are confusing an eye for an eye with taking revenge, revenge is rarely taking an eye for an eye.
You are probably correct that eye-for-an-eye and revenge may be two different methods for seeking retribution. One method may be better for society than the other. However, both are not problem-solving approaches. Instead, they are punishments. That was how I interpreted that post.
You are tremendously oversimplifying the American Civil Rights movement, as if only Martin Luther King was responsible for its success. He and his allies were one voice. And yes, a primarily non-violent voice. And look what it got him personally! .....
I dont deny any of the above and yes the civil rights movement was complex. However the OP took MLK as an example of non-violence and he is remembered and eulogized for his non-violent resistance to racism and denial of equal rights for his people. That he was killed for his efforts is not a reflection on him, but of his killers and the violence inflicted on him. Not only was MLK influenced by his religious belief, the Black Church has played a very important role in the lives Black People who turned to Jesus to help them regain their humanity and seek solace for the violence done to them.
Gandhi too was shot, but his life has left an important and inspirational legacy to the world. He too was inspired by Tolstoy's idea of non-violence.
Mandela is remembered for his effort, and for the Truth and Reconcilliation commission which helped heal the country, instead of death and destruction.
These are definitely two different paths - Vengeance and Destruction, and Truth and Reconcilliation. It is a choice.
I dont deny any of the above and yes the civil rights movement was complex. However the OP took MLK as an example of non-violence and he is remembered and eulogized for his non-violent resistance to racism and denial of equal rights for his people. That he was killed for his efforts is not a reflection on him, but of his killers and the violence inflicted on him. Not only was MLK influenced by his religious belief, the Black Church has played a very important role in the lives Black People who turned to Jesus to help them regain their humanity and seek solace for the violence done to them. Gandhi too was shot, but his life has left an important and inspirational legacy to the world. He too was inspired by Tolstoy's idea of non-violence. Mandela is remembered for his effort, and for the Truth and Reconciliation commission which helped heal the country, instead of death and destruction. These are definitely two different paths - Vengeance and Destruction, and Truth and Reconciliation. It is a choice.
so in post above the violence is blamed on the perpetrators of violence,
yet in earlier post in this same thread, the violence is blamed on those who brought it on themselves.
double standard much
in the same way it is a double standard for any religion or path to claim superiority, while out of the other side of their mouth claiming to be humble.
so in post above the violence is blamed on the perpetrators of violence, yet in earlier post in this same thread, the violence is blamed on those who brought it on themselves.
double standard much
in the same way it is a double standard for any religion to claim superiority.
Concerning the "turn the cheek" approach, it was less about pacifism and giving in. That's way too simplistic and missing the higher objectives.
It's more of a way of totally throwing off our earlier and more rough ways (you react primitively, I'll react primitively). In other words, a completely different approach that meets violence with something completely different. Instead of just emotion-for-emotion, it's emotion met with thought and rising to a higher level, and not simply doing what the dominant previous way was. And it goes further, such as not allowing speech and harsh words to rule us. You know, the whole "sticks and stones" stuff. Plus there's the Golden Rule, and striving to threat others as we would want to be treated. Maybe there is an 'offender' doing one thing, but we can show another way and set an example. Many philosophical, spiritual, and psychological schools point to "shocks" as needed to disrupt us from our usual mechanical and robotic ways. This is a good example.
And there's a lot more to the eye-for-eye stuff too, as Tzaphkiel has tried to point out.
and that is why it is important to point out, for the purpose of remedying the ignorance (lack of knowledge, lack of information, lack of understanding) that the Old Testament is NOT the Torah. The Old Testament is a Christian book.
Christianity is NOT an accurate source for what Judaism teaches. The opening post demonstrates this.
.
The Torah is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible with the Writings and the Prophets comprising the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
My impression is that you are distinguishing between the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament which you refer to as a Christian book. But the only real difference between the Hebrew Bible and the (Christian) Old Testament is in the arraignment of the books and in the fact that certain books such as Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are divided into two books in the Christian Old Testament - 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st and 2nd Kings, 1st and 2nd Chronicles. The actual textual content is basically the same between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament. It must be kept in mind that there were textual differences between the various versions of the Hebrew Bible itself which can be seen by comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls with the existing Masoretic text. And the LXX or Septuagint has some texts which were apparently translated from Hebrew texts which are no longer extant.
Any claim that the 'Christian' Old Testament drastically textually misrepresents the Hebrew Bible is fallacious.
The Torah is the first five books of the Hebrew Bible with the Writings and the Prophets comprising the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
My impression is that you are distinguishing between the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament which you refer to as a Christian book. But the only real difference between the Hebrew Bible and the (Christian) Old Testament is in the arraignment of the books and in the fact that certain books such as Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles are divided into two books in the Christian Old Testament - 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st and 2nd Kings, 1st and 2nd Chronicles. The actual textual content is basically the same between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament. It must be kept in mind that there were textual differences between the various versions of the Hebrew Bible itself which can be seen by comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls with the existing Masoretic text. And the LXX or Septuagint has some texts which were apparently translated from Hebrew texts which are no longer extant.
Any claim that the 'Christian' Old Testament drastically textually misrepresents the Hebrew Bible is fallacious.
But this is off topic for the thread.
* Hebrew Bible is referred to as the Tanakh by most Jewish people.
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.
