jefferiah Posted August 23, 2007 Report Posted August 23, 2007 Actually no. There is no fundamental difference here. Turn the other cheek isn't new to christianity. Jesus did not invent the concept, he mined the Jewish old testament for the source.Lamentations 3:30 Lev. 19:18 Excellent job, M. Dancer. Quote "Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish - too much handling will spoil it." Lao Tzu
jefferiah Posted August 23, 2007 Report Posted August 23, 2007 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.' "But I say unto you, 'Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and them which despitefully use you, persecute you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.' For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." I think modern society and Christians themselves are quite far from perfecting this one. Quote "Governing a great nation is like cooking a small fish - too much handling will spoil it." Lao Tzu
Bonam Posted August 23, 2007 Report Posted August 23, 2007 That's cause it's unrealistic and suicidal to try to follow that one ;p The whole turning the other cheek and loving thy enemy thing is counterproductive. You could have a whole society that followed it, all very peaceful, cultured, prosperous, etc, and then some other society, a more aggressive one, would come along and destroy you. And now, instead of having a peaceful, cultured, prosperous society which defended itself still around, you'll have the ruins of a pacifist civilization and a bunch of barbarians ruling everything. The "righteous" have to defend themselves, or there will quickly be no righteous left. Not every conflict can be resolved through words. Quote
M.Dancer Posted August 24, 2007 Report Posted August 24, 2007 That's cause it's unrealistic and suicidal to try to follow that one ;p The whole turning the other cheek and loving thy enemy thing is counterproductive. You could have a whole society that followed it, all very peaceful, cultured, prosperous, etc, and then some other society, a more aggressive one, would come along and destroy you. And now, instead of having a peaceful, cultured, prosperous society which defended itself still around, you'll have the ruins of a pacifist civilization and a bunch of barbarians ruling everything.The "righteous" have to defend themselves, or there will quickly be no righteous left. Not every conflict can be resolved through words. Without getting into a discourse on religion, I would say that the Jesus knows perfectly well that it is impossible to be "righteous".....just as later apostleswould right that The Law would condemn every man (because it is impossible to follow every tiny law...) christ's mishna is also impossible....who in their right mind could possibly not commit the sin of adultery, even in their mind, (Gosh! she was gorgeous, her ass was round and her breats swayed to the beat.....) So that in the end, they say, we are justified by faith and acts..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
jbg Posted August 24, 2007 Author Report Posted August 24, 2007 More to the point, JBG don't you find politicians hard to swallow? Martin Hartwell (link, go to Post 5) would have found them quite easy to swallow, literally. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Bonam Posted August 24, 2007 Report Posted August 24, 2007 I would say that the Jesus knows perfectly well that it is impossible to be "righteous" My point is not that it is impossible, but rather that even if it were possible, it is undesireable. The Christian standards for righteousness, as exemplified in the idea of turning the other cheek, are self-destructive. Turning the other cheek was good advice to a peasant wanting to avoid further punishment from their lord. It's not good advice to today's society. Much like many other aspects of religious codes of behaviour, it was applicable and perhaps reasonable at the time and place of its origination, but is now obsolete and outdated. Quote
Bonam Posted August 24, 2007 Report Posted August 24, 2007 (edited) oops double post Edited August 24, 2007 by Bonam Quote
M.Dancer Posted August 24, 2007 Report Posted August 24, 2007 My point is not that it is impossible, but rather that even if it were possible, it is undesireable. The Christian standards for righteousness, as exemplified in the idea of turning the other cheek, are self-destructive. Turning the other cheek was good advice to a peasant wanting to avoid further punishment from their lord. It's not good advice to today's society. Much like many other aspects of religious codes of behaviour, it was applicable and perhaps reasonable at the time and place of its origination, but is now obsolete and outdated. I understand what you are trying to say, that to live as christ would be dangerous to your health.....and that was also my point. If you were so inclined, you would forfeit your life rather than sin. I think in Christ dayand age is was also rather over the top, given that blood feudsas well as rebellion and insurection were just about traditional Jewish pastimes..... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
jbg Posted August 26, 2007 Author Report Posted August 26, 2007 I understand what you are trying to say, that to live as christ would be dangerous to your health.....and that was also my point. If you were so inclined, you would forfeit your life rather than sin. I think in Christ dayand age is was also rather over the top, given that blood feudsas well as rebellion and insurection were just about traditional Jewish pastimes..... But Judaism and Christianity have, as a practical matter, evolved in such a way as to reduce the role and scope of violence drastically. Who in a million years would build a World Trade Center in a strife-torn Arab country? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
CLRV Posted August 26, 2007 Report Posted August 26, 2007 Who in a million years would build a World Trade Center in a strife-torn Arab country? That was a quick million years, wasn't it? Quote
jbg Posted August 27, 2007 Author Report Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) That was a quick million years, wasn't it?One isolated building, to be built in futuro vs. a whole dynamic city that exists now (of course ex- the Trade Center as a result of their demolition work). Edited August 27, 2007 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
CLRV Posted August 27, 2007 Report Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) In futuro? Is that latin for 5 years ago? Kingdom Centre was completed in 2002. At 992 ft high, it is only the 35th tallest building. It is certainly not the tallest one in the Islamic world. The nation of Dubai boasts Emirates Tower Two, Burj al Arab Hotel, Rose Tower and Emirates Tower One; the 29th, 22nd, 17th and 12th tallest buildings on earth respectively. It's quite a skyline. Edited August 27, 2007 by CLRV Quote
jbg Posted August 27, 2007 Author Report Posted August 27, 2007 In futuro? Is that latin for 5 years ago? Kingdom Centre was completed in 2002. At 992 ft high, it is only the 35th tallest building. It is certainly not the tallest one in the Islamic world. The nation of Dubai boasts Emirates Tower Two, Burj al Arab Hotel, Rose Tower and Emirates Tower One; the 29th, 22nd, 17th and 12th tallest buildings on earth respectively. It's quite a skyline. The caption of that picture was in the future tense. Sorry. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.