Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[mastahcheese]

Though I don't think it would help much for sexual assault

That would likely just extrapolate the situation.

[TheDarkStar]

Well, a less contextual interpretation would say yes, exactly. Except, not just let them shoot you and take your money, but to thank them for shooting you and maybe give them your bank access PIN, too.

Most people don't want to shoot you, even if they have a gun. Intimidate, yes. Murder (and face far harsher penalties if caught), no. You should be fine just giving them what they ask for (and maybe a bit more).

[BlindKitty]

As the thread slowed down a bit, I think I will try and chime in back into the discussion again. And as the problem of turning the other cheek is being discussed right now, I will try to concentrate on that, but there is one important thing that is a little more universal, regarding the literal/metaphorical reading of the Bible. Some people wonder why Bible is so open to interpretation, i.e. why God didn't give us more precise answers to all the questions; as far as I know, the answer is: so the Bible will remain universal over the time. Times change, and with times change people, but the Bible does not (aside from a single event, the coming of Christ, but that was sequel that was anticipated from the beginning), so it must be open enough to be understandable to people of all times, and relevant to people of all times. That's why 'thou shall not kill/murder' doesn't state 'you shall not take life of another person, unless as a punishment for capital crime, if such punishment is applicable in your country, which should only be when there is no possibility of achieving such ends with less drastic policy, like permanent isolation of criminal [...]'. Those things (this is the part of the current view on capital punishment of Roman Catholics, BTW) we have to come to ourselves, using other parts of the Book.

That being said, in case of mugging, you are viewing the stuff a little too narrow. If you are the only person that has anything to do with your money, and you have a job, it is perhaps the best course of action to give to the demands and give up your wallet with all the money; you only lose some of your earthly possessions, and this are not really important for you. But if you (example 1) have no job, and this is all the money you have, and without it you are going to starve for God knows how long, and might die due to undernourishment, it is much worse idea; 'thou shall not kill' also means that you should care for your own life and well-being. Perhaps you can just give him a handful of money, or even convince him that without it you are going to die? Other possibility (example 2) is if you have, say, wife and four kids waiting for some food you went out to buy, and no savings. Not only you will be hurt by the lack of money, but also other people, people who you are supposed to take care of. In this case, I would say it is perfectly acceptable to use any means necessary to stop the mugging, and deliver the food to the kids. Yet another possibility is that you believe stopping the criminal and handing him to the powers of justice stands a good chance of him turning better; in this case, it is completely acceptable to stop him, even hurting him somewhat, and turning him to the authorities, because you are helping a sinner find a way to God, which is perhaps of the very best things you can do on Earth. Because of the more joy being brought to Heaven due to one sinner that repents than 99 just that... well, are still just.

[Lord Shonus]

I've also read an analysis that "turning the other cheek" in the Roman era would be viewed as a combination of insult and bravado, the ancient equivalent of "did a fly just land on me?" Because any inital slap (the equivalent of throwing down a gauntlet in a later era) would be made with the stronger right hand, responding to it by presenting yourself to their weaker attack and insinuating that their first one was barely felt (maybe you'll do better with the other hand) would not only be a refusal to rise to their bait, but give them the impression that being slapped didn't bother them at all (not to mention all of the negative associations with the left hand in the regional culture that would make it even more pronounced.) In other words, it was a way to avoid a fight without appearing to be a coward (which only invites further attacks).

Don't know how accurate that was, but if it were so, it would put the passage in question in a much more consistent context.

[scrdest]

I've also read an analysis that "turning the other cheek" in the Roman era would be viewed as a combination of insult and bravado, the ancient equivalent of "did a fly just land on me?" Because any inital slap (the equivalent of throwing down a gauntlet in a later era) would be made with the stronger right hand, responding to it by presenting yourself to their weaker attack and insinuating that their first one was barely felt (maybe you'll do better with the other hand) would not only be a refusal to rise to their bait, but give them the impression that being slapped didn't bother them at all (not to mention all of the negative associations with the left hand in the regional culture that would make it even more pronounced.) In other words, it was a way to avoid a fight without appearing to be a coward (which only invites further attacks).

Don't know how accurate that was, but if it were so, it would put the passage in question in a much more consistent context.

There's also a third interpretation - you turn the other cheek ONCE. Then, presumably, you uppercut the sonuvabitch, because there's no way the second time was accidental - i.e. give people a chance.

[hops]

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... well, you can't get fooled again!"
- Wise quote from George W. Bush

[mastahcheese]

Now I'm imagining someone bother Jesus, and he politly turns and starts walking away.
Then the guy pesters him again and Jesus punches him into the Sun.

[TD1]

Confirmed: MaximumZero is Jesus.

[penguinofhonor]

I've also read an analysis that "turning the other cheek" in the Roman era would be viewed as a combination of insult and bravado, the ancient equivalent of "did a fly just land on me?" Because any inital slap (the equivalent of throwing down a gauntlet in a later era) would be made with the stronger right hand, responding to it by presenting yourself to their weaker attack and insinuating that their first one was barely felt (maybe you'll do better with the other hand) would not only be a refusal to rise to their bait, but give them the impression that being slapped didn't bother them at all (not to mention all of the negative associations with the left hand in the regional culture that would make it even more pronounced.) In other words, it was a way to avoid a fight without appearing to be a coward (which only invites further attacks).

Don't know how accurate that was, but if it were so, it would put the passage in question in a much more consistent context.

There's also a third interpretation - you turn the other cheek ONCE. Then, presumably, you uppercut the sonuvabitch, because there's no way the second time was accidental - i.e. give people a chance.

"Hey, you know how you'd normally let someone hit you once before you attacked back? You should let them do it one additional time." How does that interpretation not seem incredibly shallow? Pacifism and nonviolent resistance are ideals I can look up to. Making people wait slightly longer before normal full-blown retaliation is lazy - what's next? "If you want to follow me, give some of your money to charity but not so much that it stresses your budget. Also don't follow me, you can just stay where you are."

To me this interpetation just sounds like a way to change your behavior as little as possible while still being able to claim you're following the passage.

[timferius]

Confirmed: MaximumZero is Jesus.

Aww damn, was just about to post that too...

[scrdest]

@penguinofhonor

First off, what you're describing is what a ton of people do anyhow. And the fact that you like one interpretation doesn't mean another was intended.

Second, keep that in mind - in ancient times, 'eye for an eye' was a PROGRESSIVE law - because otherwise, people would burn down your house in revenge for you bumping into them or something.

[Leafsnail]

A lot of these interpretations don't actually make any sense if you read the whole section.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

How is this compatible with the "I'll give you one chance then you're dead!" interpretation?  I don't see why Jesus would secretly code a violent message into what very clearly looks like an advocation of pacifism.

[Graknorke]

A lot of these interpretations don't actually make any sense if you read the whole section.

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

How is this compatible with the "I'll give you one chance then you're dead!" interpretation?  I don't see why Jesus would secretly code a violent message into what very clearly looks like an advocation of pacifism.

Probably because of

Essentially, what you're doing is making your own moral decision, not because of the Bible. Then, as a nod to the Bible, you try to "make it better" by...housing a dangerous criminal who will likely rob you blind/kill you.

People don't much like the idea of having to be pacifist, so they'll try to justify not doing so.

[Leafsnail]

Indeed.  And therein lies my justification for saying people who say that homosexuality is a sin because of The Bible are homophobic: if they didn't want to be homophobic then they could just weasel their way out of that verse just like they do for all the other stuff they don't like.

[Orange Wizard]

The people who were going to do that already have.

There are actually some people who try to live by what's presented rather than twisting it around to suit themselves.