Self-defense or turning the other cheek?

Author: IlDiavolo

Posts

Total: 47
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,278
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
So, what do you think a christian should do before an agression? Defend himself or turn the other cheek?

Do you really think there is any benefit from turning the other cheek? For the christians, please, don't try to make fancy interpretations about it because we all know what Jesus tried to say. In fact, the last time Jesus turned the other cheek, he ended up being nailed to the cross.

I would ask all the forum posters to discuss this topic using carefully your words because the intention of this thread is not to mock or have fun of Jesus but to draw conclusions from such a controversial subject.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Depends on the situation.

Especially online with trolls or even irl with certain bullies, it's sometimes smarter to let things slide so they go 'he/she is chill and reacts boring, let's bully another instead'.

At other times either because you want to be a protective hero or because this type of person will keep bullying/robbing/abusing you, it ends up time to fight back.

The exception to this is when it's very physical very fast. Then even though it's short term, it's acceptable to pick fight over flight.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 276
Posts: 8,051
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I think one should operate on a principle:

Do not cause pain to anyone.

If someone causes you pain, you can either apply punishment or forgiveness.

In life, I usually find rewards, verbal punishments, deenying things and forgiveness to be sufficient to handle most issues, because

1. All are legal and you dont need to beat anyone up and wont cause more problems than it solves

2. You can actually control people through rewards.

If you help/reward someone who harms you, you actually greatly improve your relationship with that person.

You just need to learn their interests and what is it that they want.

3. Verbal punishment often hurts more than a beating.

4. Denying something to a person actually motivates them to think about their actions

5. Forgiveness is easy and doesnt require effort.

I was never in a fight for my whole life, so I think I am using the right method given that I was even in prison and even survived there without having to attack anyone.

Of course, these are not simple tactics to use. One actually has to sense which option to use at a time and using only one of them is usually bad.

For example, if you just use verbal attacks all the time, you are just gonna make enemies.

If you just use forgiveness, you will become bully target.

If you just reward people, people will take a lot from you.

If you just deny things to people, they have no motivation or reward to actually cooperate with you.

Turning the other cheek is much more than just turning the other cheek.

It even worked well for Jesus, because he broke 100 laws in few days, and if he in addition to that didnt turn the other cheek, he would get nailed on day one.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
-->
@IlDiavolo
My understanding is that Roman's were told to smack the occupied people with the back of their right hand like an inferior but but by turning the cheek it forces a regular slap and makes them symbolically equal with their captors. It seems like he advocated for nonviolent resistance. 

If we take it to mean what most think it means though. Than turning the other cheek is a terrible policy and this can be demonstrated in game theory when the prisoners dilemma is made into a game and repeated over and over.

It appears that the revenge also needs to be balanced with forgiveness to match game theory. 
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,064
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
I find Wylted's claims to be highly suspect. I've seen many people try to twist scripture for their ends before and there is always this tension that is the absurdity of introducing heretofore unconsidered context and ignoring context within the text.

I've even done some twisting myself as a teach exercise (to show people what it looks like).


Even if the book contradicts itself, obviously came from a multitude of human writers with considerably different contexts and philosophies; there is a "best interpretation" and it compounds to absurdity of believing that an all powerful god is communicating through such a medium to then twist it further.


From the beginning Jesus admonitions and his behavior on the hill of olives has been interpreted by the vast majority of Christians as call to pacifism.

They were much closer to the context, if "turn your cheek" meant "entrap people into violence" we would know. Also, turn your cheek meaning don't retaliate; kill them with kindness fits in perfectly with healing the attacker's ear, telling Peter that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, telling people to respond to theft with charity, Romans 12:19.


In the old testament, the only time god apparently directs human beings to be violent to human beings (and meant it) is in the conquest of Israel. All other times he does the deed himself after giving opportunities to avert it.


The message is clear: be a pacifist, die with courage, you'll be laughing in paradise; and that is exactly the kind of person early Christians venerated as saints.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,357
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, what do you think a christian should do before an agression? Defend himself or turn the other cheek?

"before"?
Christian or not it would depends on how one conceives a/the imminate  the threat to be;  immediate serious risk of deathor serious physical harm?

 But if we are talking about Roman occupation of Judaea in 1st century AD then the whole  context changes dramatically.
When Jesus was speaking to his followers - mostly made up of  hot tempered Galilean cut throat Zealots that hated Rome, Romans and anything Roman.
It starts:  

Luke 6:20  Looking at his disciples, he said,

[ 8 or 9 "blessed art thou" sermon on the mount],

27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.

A lot can be drawn from this and of course a lot can be made of it,  but one does have to take into account the time and situation of 1st century occupied Judaea.

Even if one of them has received a smack in the mouth, Jesus is hardly going to command them to got out and murder every Roman they can get their hands on in full view of Romans and the Jewish authorities, is he?


WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I find Wylted's claims to be highly suspect. I've seen many people try to twist scripture for their ends before and there is always this tension that is the absurdity of introducing heretofore unconsidered context and ignoring context within the text.
I could be getting it wrong but somebody was comparing his statements to laws for Roman soldiers and said there was a law that they could only allow the occupied people to carry a coat 1 mile so that is why Jesus told the jews for them to carry it 2 miles and practically everything in th sermon on the mount saw Correlation with Roman laws that applied to soldiers. Here is some information of a similar nature


If what I am hearing of Roman law is true its a lot of coincidences and appears to be a call for Ghandi style resistance
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,064
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@WyIted
laws for Roman soldiers and said there was a law that they could only allow the occupied people to carry a coat 1 mile so that is why Jesus told the jews for them to carry it 2 miles and practically everything in th sermon on the mount saw Correlation with Roman laws that applied to soldiers.
... but as TIK would ask: Is that really the case?

Romans were pretty good at writing down laws, and if they didn't how does this guy know about this law (because it's not in the bible)?

I've never heard of it nor can I find an mention of original sources. The search engines all just lead back to this claim. I suspect this stuff about hitting with the back of the hand is also made up.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@IlDiavolo
I reread your original post.

I think all Christians should give up their lies for the truth.

That's not me trolling, it's what I believe.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,278
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
My understanding is that Roman's were told to smack the occupied people with the back of their right hand like an inferior but but by turning the cheek it forces a regular slap and makes them symbolically equal with their captors. It seems like he advocated for nonviolent resistance. 
This is an alternative interpretation which makes sense, but this is not how christians understand this teaching. To them, we shouldn't defend ourselves, let alone fight back.

It appears that the revenge also needs to be balanced with forgiveness to match game theory. 
Well, revenge is not what I meant to say but self-defense at the very least. I mean, if Jesus was to defend himself he could have got away from the roman soldiers, specially when he knew beforehand that he was wanted by the jewish priests. However, he didn't.

The only way to solve this stupidity from the bible is that Jesus didn't know that the roman soldiers were going to arrest him.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,278
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The message is clear: be a pacifist, die with courage, you'll be laughing in paradise; and that is exactly the kind of person early Christians venerated as saints.

I'm not against pacifism. In fact, this is one of the many virtues of Jesus and other spiritual gurus that have walked this planet.

Nevertheless, I think "turning the other cheek" goes further beyond. Jesus is telling you that you have to sacrifice yourself to make people understand that violence is wrong. I think this is unnecesary and to a certain extent it's fucking stupid. And I say it because Jesus surrendered to the jewish priests eventhough he knew he was innocent.

So, Jesus either didn't know he was going to be arrested or was really a moron because he could have gotten away to stay alive.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,278
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
"before"?
What is it? Is it wrong?

I'd be glad to be corrected.

Even if one of them has received a smack in the mouth, Jesus is hardly going to command them to got out and murder every Roman they can get their hands on in full view of Romans and the Jewish authorities, is he?
Well, yes. My argument here, though, is that this Jesus' teaching is in line with what he did later on, when he let the roman soldiers arrest him to be condemned to die in the cross. So, it seems this teaching is a bit over the top.

He could have escaped because he seemingly knew the soldiers were going to arrest him overnight. It wouldn't have been the first time he ran away from his enemies. I think this is one more of the many contradictions in the bible.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,357
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
 if Jesus was to defend himself he could have got away from the roman soldiers, specially when he knew beforehand that he was wanted by the jewish priests. However, he didn't.

The only way to solve this stupidity from the bible is that Jesus didn't knew that the roman soldiers were going to arrest him.

I think he must have known he was wanted by the Jewish authorities, D. He'd kept a low profile from the day he came to the Jordan until his so called "triumphant" entry into Jerusalem.  His centre of operations was Bethany Galilee aka "the wilderness" from where his inner 12 were recruited. And there is the point that the bible tells us that "the Jews" had tried to kill him a few times for the crime of blasphemy. And also tell us that "the Jews" wanted both he and Lazarus dead.
Then we factor in the point that Jesus had followers/supporters inside the Jewish hierarchy i.e, at least two members of the council that would have tipped him off.

And of course there is the biblical supernatural element of Jesus' power for fkn mind reading telling Judas to " do what he must do"-  go give away his location of where he would be later that evening. 

But I find it interesting that the bible attempts to make this out as all a sole "Jewish" conspiracy enterprise and that the Romans and the Herodians hadn't ever heard of him until his arrest.  But this is simply utter bollocks. We only have to read the story of his arrest. 
  


 


IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,278
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
I was never in a fight for my whole life, so I think I am using the right method given that I was even in prison and even survived there without having to attack anyone.
I don't like the fights either, I think most of us don't, but I learnt that this world is full of mvthafvckas as those that you came across in jail.

Fortunately, I'm enough serious and strong to be challenged, this helped a lot. So I've never needed to kick anyone's ass. Maybe in certain occassions I had to push someone against the wall but never hurt anyone, that would make me feel bad.

All the same, the best way to avoid to lose your temper and as consequence hurt someone is to run away. But never, ever, "turn the other cheek".
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,366
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
So, what do you think a christian should do before an agression? Defend himself or turn the other cheek?

Do you really think there is any benefit from turning the other cheek? For the christians, please, don't try to make fancy interpretations about it because we all know what Jesus tried to say. In fact, the last time Jesus turned the other cheek, he ended up being nailed to the cross.

I would ask all the forum posters to discuss this topic using carefully your words because the intention of this thread is not to mock or have fun of Jesus but to draw conclusions from such a controversial subject.

It's a good question. 

I think there are a couple of things going on here. Firstly, the context was the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5:39.  Jesus had been going through the Commandments and fulfilling - or filling out the law. He was indicating that the literal letter of the law missed the point. You need to go deeper into the Spirit of the law. In the verses surrounding this one, Jesus refers to eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The original intent of that law was compensating the victim. But the Jews in Jesus time had taken the law and turned it into a system for revenge.  There is the question of proportionality. And it's still contained within most Common Law legal systems. 

I take the view that this is not talking about any situation but only where it its related to Christians being persecuted for being Christians. Hence, it doesn't rule out self-defence in the ordinary sense.  Self-defence is a legitimate defence and is explored quite thoroughly in the OT and even in the NT.  Yet, when people are persecuted for Jesus then there is a higher principle that is involved. And that is the gospel.  1 Corinthians 9 delves into that. 

It's a honour to be persecuted for Jesus. That's the truth of it. And if we get slapped once because we are Christians, then to be slapped twice is even better.  And it we get sued for our clothes since we are Christians, then losing two is even better. 

Another aspect of it is this. The ordinary two courses people have in any conflict is either to fight or to flee. Standing up to a bully, however is a third choice when you choose not to hit back. To turn your other cheek is actually a sign of power. And it gives you power when you do it. The bully might take advantage of it. But the fact that you forced him to do it - takes his power over you away. Of course, you might get beaten to a pulp. And I've seen it happen. But I've also seen the results of it -both for the bully and for those watching. There's a tremendous and courageous sense in standing up to a bully. 
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,357
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
Tradesecret wrote @ IlDiavolo I take the view that this [sermon on the mount] is not talking about any situation but only where it its related to Christians being persecuted for being Christians.
The words of the Reverend Tradesecret above are the words of a deluded Christian Pastor/Chaplain in hopeless denial.

Jesus was a Jew. There were no Christians in Israel/Judaea in Jesus' time. Jesus came "only to the lost sheep of Israel" not non-existent Christians.  Jesus believed he was King of the Jews. The wise men came to pay homage to "the king of the Jews".  The headboard on the cross read "king of the Jews".  Jesus  King of the Jews
lived his life as a Jewish man, honouring the Jewish Ten Commandments and teaching that he did not come to abolish Jewish law.  The BIBLE tells us that the "treasured and chosen people" of the earth were Jews and  as the BIBLE attests to with over 100 verses proclaiming "Israel my treasured and chosen people".

The word Christian appears nowhere in any of the four gospel's. 

Jesus would have been appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,444
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
We are endowed with fight or flight data, to which we might add some form of conceptual ideology.

Though history tells us, that over the centuries since the time of Jesus, Christians have never been particularly keen on the turn the other cheek option.

So I would suggest that innate survival systems still take precedence over conceptual add-ons.


Though, what specifically is a Christian?

Do you mean someone unwittingly baptised, who never attends church, and has never read the bible.

Or some devout fundamentalist bible basher.

Of course, it might be suggested that the former is just as likely to be a more passive character than the latter.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,366
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I think you are wrong. I think Christians have over the years demonstrated turning the other cheek. And this is historical fact that has been written down. Have you ever asked yourself why Constantine decided to turn the nation of Rome into a Christian nation? Why is it that after only 400 years or so, that the Roman Empire of over 50 million people were predominantly already Christian? That's a huge number. 

People were becoming Christians because of the way they treated each other.  So much so that they became the dominant force in the Roman Empire. Constantine was converted - perhaps -  but even if he wasn't - he saw the way the wind was blowing. It was extraordinary. 

And that's why he made the Roman Empire Christian. 

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,357
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Tradesecret wrote: absolute bollocks!  here>>.#18

 Long story short.
Constantine a ROMAN had a dilemma. He was outnumbered. Then suddenly he found a way out. It was the day before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge that he was inevitably going to lose that he claimed - so the legend goes- to have seen in a dream a magical sign in the sky. It was the sign of the cross emblazoned in GREEK WORDS!  It read Εν τούτῳ νίκα (In this sign, conquer, or variations of).  Well, that was it wasn't it, Vic.
All the Christians  decided to join forces with those that were  enemies that had been persecuting and murdering them just the day before. 

Constantine, it is said, didn't convert himself until he was on his death bed. 

Rome/ Romans had there own gods and the only way that Jesus /Christianity would be accepted into the Roman pantheon was to claim he was also a god.... which he wasn't.

Christians eh,  they will scrape any barrel as long as it further their false beliefs about "Jesus son of man born of woman".
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,278
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Tradesecret
I take the view that this is not talking about any situation but only where it its related to Christians being persecuted for being Christians
I guess you have Stephen blocked so I put his response below:

Jesus was a Jew. There were no Christians in Israel/Judaea in Jesus' time. Jesus came "only to the lost sheep of Israel" not non-existent Christians.  Jesus believed he was King of the Jews. The wise men came to pay homage to "the king of the Jews".  The headboard on the cross read "king of the Jews".  Jesus  King of the Jews
lived his life as a Jewish man, honouring the Jewish Ten Commandments and teaching that he did not come to abolish Jewish law.  The BIBLE tells us that the "treasured and chosen people" of the earth were Jews and  as the BIBLE attests to with over 100 verses proclaiming "Israel my treasured and chosen people".

The word Christian appears nowhere in any of the four gospel's. 

Jesus would have been appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name.
Considering Stephen's response, yours seems to be utterly misplaced.

It's a honour to be persecuted for Jesus. That's the truth of it. And if we get slapped once because we are Christians, then to be slapped twice is even better.  And it we get sued for our clothes since we are Christians, then losing two is even better. 
Contrary to all what you said here, Christianity hasn't been a peaceful religion throughout the history. Just to give an example: the Crusaders or the Inquisition were nothing but violent and deadly zealots.

Another aspect of it is this. The ordinary two courses people have in any conflict is either to fight or to flee. Standing up to a bully, however is a third choice when you choose not to hit back. To turn your other cheek is actually a sign of power. And it gives you power when you do it. The bully might take advantage of it. But the fact that you forced him to do it - takes his power over you away. Of course, you might get beaten to a pulp. And I've seen it happen. But I've also seen the results of it -both for the bully and for those watching. There's a tremendous and courageous sense in standing up to a bully. 
Every individual is free to react as he wishes. If a christian wants to be beaten to pulp or even to death (a very likely situation), that's his problem, but this is not going to stop me from saying how stupid, extremist and sectarian this behavior is.

On the other hand, you say you witnessed a happy ending in a fight with a buller, well, I have to tell you this doesn't happen all the time. There are also people dying in hands of bullers, unfortunately, so don't generalize. Self-defense is a completely natural reaction that everyone shouldn't refrain, otherwise our lives could be in danger.

Moreover, this stupid behavior is at odds with Jesus' commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself". So, how could it be possible to love yourself when you let someone else beat you?
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,357
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
I guess you have Stephen blocked

 Yes he has me on "permanent block" and promised that he wouldn't ever address me direct again and  I was so pleased.  But being the fkn contradictory hypocrite cowards that he is, he unblocks me now and again to enable himself to respond to something I have posted and then blocks me again so I cannot respond to the fkn clown direct.

I did predict at the time he blocked me that he would use this cowardly practice and it turns out that I was correct on more than one occasion. 


Considering Stephen's response, yours [Tradsecret] seems to be utterly misplaced.

Stand by for the BS story of the "new covenant". Which is also another  load of bollocks.
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,278
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stephen
 Yes he has me on "permanent block" and promised that he wouldn't ever address me direct again and  I was so pleased.  But being the fkn contradictory hypocrite cowards that he is, he unblocks me now and again to enable himself to respond to something I have posted and then blocks me again so I cannot respond to the fkn clown direct.

I did predict at the time he blocked me that he would use this cowardly practice and it turns out that I was correct on more than one occasion. 
ROFL!!

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,357
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
Contrary to all what you [Tradesecret] said here, Christianity hasn't been a peaceful religion throughout the history. Just to give an example: the Crusaders or the Inquisition were nothing but violent and deadly zealots.

That wasn't all. Christians slaughtered every living peaceful Cathar that ever existed as they did the  peaceful Albigensians .

As I said above. Jesus would say one thing in the earshot of the Roman and Jewish authorities while he was building an army of followers mostly made up of Galilean zealots and preaching something different in secret. 

If ever you have the inclination or the time, D. read this thread of mine. It proves what a bible dunce he is - and where he gave up and blocked me shortly after. You only have to read from where he joins the thread and our exchanges from then on Here>>


Or you can skip the parts where I have shown him for the bible dunce he is and start  where I asked the clown to name Jesus 12 disciples. HERE>

And he has  the brass neck to tell anyone that will listen that  I  "don't want to have a serious discussion about the scriptures". He's a natural born idiot, in every sense of the word.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
you can reply to people here while blocking them, without unblocking.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,366
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@IlDiavolo
I take the view that this is not talking about any situation but only where it its related to Christians being persecuted for being Christians
I guess you have Stephen blocked so I put his response below:
Yes, I have blocked Stephen. And will do so until he apologises being such a dunce and a liar.  Since doing so, my time on here has been much more pleasant. He doesn't have the integrity to do anything but speak as he does. 

Jesus was a Jew. There were no Christians in Israel/Judaea in Jesus' time. Jesus came "only to the lost sheep of Israel" not non-existent Christians.  Jesus believed he was King of the Jews. The wise men came to pay homage to "the king of the Jews".  The headboard on the cross read "king of the Jews".  Jesus  King of the Jews
lived his life as a Jewish man, honouring the Jewish Ten Commandments and teaching that he did not come to abolish Jewish law.  The BIBLE tells us that the "treasured and chosen people" of the earth were Jews and  as the BIBLE attests to with over 100 verses proclaiming "Israel my treasured and chosen people".

The word Christian appears nowhere in any of the four gospel's. 

Jesus would have been appalled that a whole new religion had sprang up in his name.
Considering Stephen's response, yours seems to be utterly misplaced.
Not at all. Stephen's response is utterly wrong. Although Jesus was a Jew and although it is true that Christian became a term that was used much later and actually quite derogatory, the church was in existence as Matthew 18:17 indicates. Jesus did say in Matthew 15:24 that he had come for the lost sheep of Israel. Yet if you read the story he said this in - it was to a Gentile woman. And guess what, despite Stephen's protestations, Jesus healed this gentile's daughter. And in fact the story immediately after, he healed thousands of Gentiles and then fed at least 4000 of them with his miracle. The Gentile lady understood what Stephen doesn't. Not being one of the elect is not a reason to not seek mercy from God. And that of course was the entire message of Christ. If Stephen is right, then Jesus didn't even listen to his own words. 
And this is the same view as most commentators on the subject, I think little old Stephen can just suck it up. Jesus came to extend the kingdom - worldwide. Stephen on the other hand seems to be like Jonah. He doesn't want it to be more than the Jews. Arrogant and stupid. 

Pentecost was primarily Jews. But then the Spirit fell on the Gentiles. Peter's dream and vision revealed the difference Christ came by coming. 

It's a honour to be persecuted for Jesus. That's the truth of it. And if we get slapped once because we are Christians, then to be slapped twice is even better.  And it we get sued for our clothes since we are Christians, then losing two is even better. 
Contrary to all what you said here, Christianity hasn't been a peaceful religion throughout the history. Just to give an example: the Crusaders or the Inquisition were nothing but violent and deadly zealots.
Actually, I never said Christianity has always been a peaceful religion. I specifically referred to the time before Constantine. That was in my mind and the view of history as the greatest exponential growth of the church. And it occurred before it was made a state religion. From Constantine, Christianity changed. and became more influential politically. But it lost its way spiritually. I fully concede that when the State has used Christianity as a tool, it has almost almost used it in a manner which has caused harm.  Yet prior to that time, it was visibly the religion of love and peace. And the history books support this. 

Another aspect of it is this. The ordinary two courses people have in any conflict is either to fight or to flee. Standing up to a bully, however is a third choice when you choose not to hit back. To turn your other cheek is actually a sign of power. And it gives you power when you do it. The bully might take advantage of it. But the fact that you forced him to do it - takes his power over you away. Of course, you might get beaten to a pulp. And I've seen it happen. But I've also seen the results of it -both for the bully and for those watching. There's a tremendous and courageous sense in standing up to a bully. 
Every individual is free to react as he wishes. If a christian wants to be beaten to pulp or even to death (a very likely situation), that's his problem, but this is not going to stop me from saying how stupid, extremist and sectarian this behavior is.
Of course individuals are free to act as they please - within reason. I never said otherwise. I made a distinction between what the natural man does. Flee or fight and then what the person who has been given a third option has. I don't think Christians or anyone for that matter ought to be beaten to a pulp. Yet, for me, the gospel is the more important issue. If I am being persecuted or beaten up for being a Christian, I will gladly do so. If's it just because I am a fool or because someone does not like me, then I will fight. Self defence is a legitimate means of defending yourself. Running away is another. But if it's for being persecuted as a Christian, then neither of those two options are helpful. Hence turning the other cheek works. 

On the other hand, you say you witnessed a happy ending in a fight with a buller, well, I have to tell you this doesn't happen all the time. There are also people dying in hands of bullers, unfortunately, so don't generalize. Self-defense is a completely natural reaction that everyone shouldn't refrain, otherwise our lives could be in danger.
Again. I never said it does happen all the time.  It's not meant to be a magic bullet. Look at Stephen. And the Brother. They are two class A bullies. It doesn't matter whether I block them or engage with them. They just continue to try and attack. Of course they deny it. Just like they deny that they have ever said anything unpleasant. Yet the proof is there. 


Moreover, this stupid behavior is at odds with Jesus' commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself". So, how could it be possible to love yourself when you let someone else beat you?
I disagree. Jesus knows that everyone already loves themselves.  Paul said - no one has ever hated himself.  Now I appreciate that some people kill themselves because they apparently loathe themselves so much. I think that's possible - but probably feel it is more a matter of pride than anything else. They feel guilty. Or they feel resentment. It's possible that some people have such mental health issues that they deceive their own worth.  But the biggest thing that people have in this world is a view of themselves that is more than it ought. How this is expressed of course differs.  I could give some concrete examples, but Mr bully Steve will just say I made it up.   The fact is Jesus said, if you want to live, you need to die. Matthew 1624 and following. He spoke about a radical - upside down way of living. Deny yourself. That's the opposite of pride. Take up your cross and follow Jesus.  Jesus plan to save the world - was so radical his disciples and most people in the history of the world can't fathom it.  It was to suffer, then die, and then rise from the dead.  

Pride has always been the issue. To love yourself - means in my view at least - to love God and to keep his commandments.  It doesn't mean to hold yourself up in some kind of warm fuzzy feeling manner. It means having an honest look at yourself. Not just believe whatever the tv tells you. Yes, we are unique, And we have talents and gifts. But not having them doesn't mean we don't love ourselves.  

But hey thanks for you response. 


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,444
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
People were people, are people Trade.

Christian is just a largely ignored label.

Applying the  label doesn't change human behaviour overnight.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,444
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Reinterpreting history and the thoughts of 50 million anonymous persons is easy.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,357
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RationalMadman
you can reply to people here while blocking them, without unblocking.

Nope.  He @-ed me. To do that the coward has to unblock me. I have raised this cowardly practice with moderation and they confirmed it.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 569
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Stephen
nope he doesn't, if the other person hasn't blocked you and you block them, you can @ them without unblocking them.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,357
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
Tradesecret wrote @  IlDiavolo,  in Matthew 15:24 that he had come for the lost sheep of Israel.,

 See what the snide Reverend did with that verse, D. he left out the word "only".  Pick a bible , D. Any bible.


 NIV
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

 NLV
Then Jesus said to the woman, “I was sent only to help God’s lost sheep—the people of Israel.”

ESV
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

KJV
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
 
Keep in mind the times, the situation and where in particular this incident had taken place, He was a wanted man.  He had no choice but to "heal" the daughter. He desperately needed to shut her up. Tyre and Sidon were heavily occupied by the Romans. She was shouting his name  all over the place in hostile occupied territory. - "My Lord son of David"!

Jesus tried to ignore her at first and the disciples asked him should they get rid of her "send her away".  even when the woman made a show by kneeling and begging him, he insulted the woman instead saying "It is not right to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs."


I have explained this story to that bible bashing Pastor /Chaplain cretin a few times. 



The Faith of a Canaanite Woman
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.

"demon possessed" could mean just about anything in those days. Upsetting the status quo, defying your parents, swearing, being drunk or simply being a "gentile".
John the Baptist who, according to Jesus was the " greatest prophet that ever lived " was said to be demon possessed.

That bible cretin Reverend Tradsecret has never studied the bible. By his own admission he told this forum that is all  thathe "doesn't have an agenda" and that all ever does is "take what he's been told and passes it on"<< Those are his own fkn words!!!.. 

"doesn't have an agenda" he says,  he must be the only ordained man of the cloth that forgot what he was commissioned  to do by his lord Jesus.


Matthew 28:16-20
The Great Commission
16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”