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.
There are many different mindsets, two of the most famous are "turn the other cheek" we could call this New Testament or Jesus and "Eye for an eye" or Torah or Old Testament....
Which philosophy of those specific two are better?
Here are two pieces of evidence, one for each...
"Turn the other cheek" Evidence
MLK said always move forward, with love, never bitterness or hatred, and turn the other cheek and don't hit back if someone like Bull Connor or the Alabama State police hit you. He won sympathy for his cause of civil rights, because he himself was faultless at least with how he protested.
Malcom X was more eye for an eye, he was willing to promote violence against those violent towards him or his community and he is not seen as effective or beloved.
Saint Matthew reminds us and MLK to love your enemies as Jesus said, and MLK furthers this by saying: "I would rather die than hate my enemies." Love is greater than like. Had MLK responded to violence with violence that likely would have been the focus and he'd have won over fewer supporters.
I've often made so many friends and diffused so many situations with love and humility. Especially when I was working at a restaurant years ago. Why is restaurant so hard to spell!
"Eye for an eye" Evidence
Game theory in Prisoner's Dilemma suggests what is best is (1) Be nice, (2) don't be a push over so you retaliate to aggression, (3) be forgiving after retaliation so you don't get stuck in a doom loop, (4) be clear in your strategy so your opponent knows what to expect.
I feel a million years old today as my oldest turns 3 today....also named after Saint Matthew, because of his peace messages...but way back in high school we did a prisoner's dilemma and I did horrible, I was a pushover as I tried to always cooperate and people ran all over me. I basically had to flirt to get people to stop abusing me so much in this game, because turning the other cheek didn't work for me in this game and that seems to be what the experiments show. I was raised a pacifist and I admit I often have a hard time supporting the position logically, I'm not exactly smart and a smart pacifist could probably logically support it better, but it seems like a non-aggression principle is more logically sound than my pacifism, at least at times for me.
What philosophy is best? Is it based on situations?
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.
My understanding of lex talionis (eye for an eye) is that it was a legal code in which the punishment was not to exceed the crime. It was legal protection for the person who was accused of some crime. It was not promoting personal revenge on the part of the victim.
I do not agree with pacifism. Turning the other cheek, as I understand it, refers to not retaliating to insults. Not to letting someone physically harm you. In ancient Israel a back-handed slap on the cheek was considered an insult (if I remember correctly). A person has every right to defend and protect himself and others against those who would physically harm them.
Other great example of the differences and incompatibilities between the angry God and Jewish-exclusive covenant (of the OT), and the peaceful Jesus / covenant with all (of the NT). Impossible to be on the fence and try to have it both ways.
But as general approach for today, we'd have to ditch the cognitive-dissonant bible, and look at the circumstances and context of each situation. Be tough in tough situations, light in light situations, and blends of the two in other situations. The bible is becoming less and less of an asset over time, as people continue to use it in increasingly poor manner.
Other great example of the differences and incompatibilities between the angry God and Jewish-exclusive covenant (of the OT), and the peaceful Jesus / covenant with all (of the NT). Impossible to be on the fence and try to have it both ways.
And yet, Christians have time and again (to put it exceedingly lightly) done angry things in the name of their peaceful Jesus to those who say “thanks, but no thanks,” to Christianity—most often, though by no means exclusively, to the detriment of Jews.
And yet, Christians have time and again done angry things in the name of their peaceful Jesus to those who say “thanks, but no thanks,” to Christianity
Exactly, duh That's why I said the two approaches - perversely stuck together in the Bible - don't make sense and aren't compatible. That's why we see detrimental and conflicting behaviors. So-called "Christians" doing the exact opposite of what Jesus said, and even what a violent OT Jehovah would have been okay with.
But we need to get beyond the cognitive-dissonant bible, since this is posted in the generic forum. It's not the end-all, be-all.
140:8.4 (1579.6) Jesus had great difficulty in getting them to understand his personal practice of nonresistance. He absolutely refused to defend himself, and it appeared to the apostles that he would be pleased if they would pursue the same policy. He taught them not to resist evil, not to combat injustice or injury, but he did not teach passive tolerance of wrongdoing. And he made it plain on this afternoon that he approved of the social punishment of evildoers and criminals, and that the civil government must sometimes employ force for the maintenance of social order and in the execution of justice.
140:8.5 (1579.7) He never ceased to warn his disciples against the evil practice of retaliation; he made no allowance for revenge, the idea of getting even. He deplored the holding of grudges. He disallowed the idea of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book...ination-twelve
159:5.11 (1770.3) When Jesus instructed his apostles that they should, when one unjustly took away the coat, offer the other garment, he referred not so much to a literal second coat as to the idea of doing something positive to save the wrongdoer in the place of the olden advice to retaliate—“an eye for an eye” and so on. Jesus abhorred the idea either of retaliation or of becoming just a passive sufferer or victim of injustice. On this occasion he taught them the three ways of contending with, and resisting, evil:
159:5.12 (1770.4) 1. To return evil for evil—the positive but unrighteous method.
159:5.13 (1770.5) 2. To suffer evil without complaint and without resistance—the purely negative method.
159:5.14 (1770.6) 3. To return good for evil, to assert the will so as to become master of the situation, to overcome evil with good—the positive and righteous method.
There are many different mindsets, two of the most famous are "turn the other cheek" we could call this New Testament or Jesus and "Eye for an eye" or Torah or Old Testament....Which philosophy of those specific two are better?
(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.
Quote:
Here are two pieces of evidence, one for each..."Turn the other cheek" Evidence MLK said always move forward, with love, never bitterness or hatred, and turn the other cheek and don't hit back if someone like Bull Connor or the Alabama State police hit you. He won sympathy for his cause of civil rights, because he himself was faultless at least with how he protested. [youtube]
Malcom X was more eye for an eye, he was willing to promote violence against those violent towards him or his community and he is not seen as effective or beloved. [url] reminds us and MLK to love your enemies as Jesus said, and MLK furthers this by saying: "I would rather die than hate my enemies." Love is greater than like. Had MLK responded to violence with violence that likely would have been the focus and he'd have won over fewer supporters. I've often made so many friends and diffused so many situations with love and humility. Especially when I was working at a restaurant years ago. Why is restaurant so hard to spell!
"Eye for an eye" Evidence Game theory in Prisoner's Dilemma suggests what is best is (1) Be nice, (2) don't be a push over so you retaliate to aggression, (3) be forgiving after retaliation so you don't get stuck in a doom loop, (4) be clear in your strategy so your opponent knows what to expect. [youtube]
I feel a million years old today as my oldest turns 3 today....also named after Saint Matthew, because of his peace messages...but way back in high school we did a prisoner's dilemma and I did horrible, I was a pushover as I tried to always cooperate and people ran all over me. I basically had to flirt to get people to stop abusing me so much in this game, because turning the other cheek didn't work for me in this game and that seems to be what the experiments show. I was raised a pacifist and I admit I often have a hard time supporting the position logically, I'm not exactly smart and a smart pacifist could probably logically support it better, but it seems like a non-aggression principle is more logically sound than my pacifism, at least at times for me. What philosophy is best? Is it based on situations?
"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"
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.
(a) the premise is flawed. because "eye for an eye" in the Torah is not about revenge, 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.
Revenge is not mentioned in the OP, so you are arguing against your straw man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
(c) flawed premise invariably leads to flawed conclusion.
That is the fallacy fallacy, one can come to valid conclusions despite the premises being flawed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
the opening post is a glaring example of both.
No, that would be your post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
(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.
As usual, you are lecturing someone about something they did not argue. So again you have a flawed premise in a post that is smug and reeks of condescending superiority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
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.
Implying an agenda is smug and reeks of condescending superiority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
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.
Irony.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
"what philosophy is best?"
it is best not to engage in "either or thinking" which is itself a cognitive distortion.
As turn the other cheek does not usually work, "either or thinking" is the obvious way to think for rational people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
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"
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.
That's why I said the two approaches - perversely stuck together in the Bible - don't make sense and aren't compatible. That's why we see detrimental and conflicting behaviors. So-called "Christians" doing the exact opposite of what Jesus said, and even what a violent OT Jehovah would have been okay with.
