What is the future of Christianity?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, sasa, and welcome to CR!

Originally Posted by sasa

So what about if some one slaps at your face. I think then the teaching is not applicable. The best teaching in that instance will be that you are allowed to take the revenge but not a single point more, but it will be better for you if you forgive him if it does not cause an increase in the violence.

I think you are considering a traditional interpretation of that particular passage dealing with "turning the other cheek." If I may offer an alternative view:

My understanding is that this is a (mis)translation of an Aramaic "figure of speech," which is called an "idiom." Unfortunately, it does not translate well into English.

As I understand it, the idiom means something like; "Start (or begin) no hateful thing with your neighbor. If a hateful thing begins between you and your neighbor, you have the "right" to defend yourself."

This is obviously my paraphrase, and I can stand correction. But it has long troubled me that the tradtional way of understanding "turn the other cheek" is inconsistent with common sense. God's teachings are nothing if they are not common sense.

Christians are not doormats. Traditional teaching about "turn the other cheek" is in my view (politely) incorrect. I have other words I use to describe this being incorrect, but those words are not so polite.

For example, if a bully attacks you, are you going back the next day to let him attack you again? Are you going to willfully give yourself as a punching bag every day for the rest of your life? Are you "sinning" if you don't? Just give up everything; your life, your family, your possessions, all manner of substance that defines you and your life, because some bully says so? No, I don't think so. I really don't think that is what Jesus had in mind when He first taught this. Perhaps this concept is better understood as "do unto others what you would have done unto yourself," only in reverse. What if someone treats you in an ill manner? One way of dealing with it is to remove yourself from the situation, if possible. If you cannot leave the situation, or it is more prudent not to, then you have every "right" to defend yourself, your family, your livelihood, your possessions, your land and your country. This is how I understand Jesus' teaching of "turn the other cheek."

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by sasa

Absolutely, Love does heal all the wounds. But the teachings of Christ do not allow you to take revenge if it aggravates the violence.

Correct. So you disagree with the teaching because you want to be able to take revenge. That has nothing to do with the teaching only being applicable to a certain time. It has to do with the fact that you, Sasa, don't agree with it. Others, myself included, do agree with it and try to abide by it because it's true, regardless of who taught it. Nevertheless, they are still beautiful teachings and are applicable today as seen by people who still understand and try to follow them.

Revenge is an expected human response to the perception of being wronged. Revenge requires revenge. The wisdom of the teaching is that it perceives that love heals and revenge doesn't. That has not become "no longer true" just because we live in a more violent society. In fact, we live in a far less violent society than the Roman world in which this teaching was written. Indeed, the teaching was probably even less followed or acknowledged in the ancient world than they are today.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Just give up everything; your life, your family, your possessions, all manner of substance that defines you and your life, because some bully says so?

Juan,

Reading what you wrote here reminds me of something . . .

Interesting point about the alternative translation. I need to research it.

[sasa]

I don't disagree because I can not take revenge, but it is just not applicable in any society to let some one harm you even if you forgive him once or twice or so on and so forth.
I think any one, no matter which society or sect he belongs to will find the Islamic teachings the most beautiful of all, which allowes you take revenge (but not a single bit more), but promises for the rewards you are going to get if you forgive (if it does not results in increase in violence). These are no doubt the most beautiful teachings which tells you the importance of forgiveness but allows you take revenge if there is no other option.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

As I understand it, the idiom means something like; "Start (or begin) no hateful thing with your neighbor. If a hateful thing begins between you and your neighbor, you have the "right" to defend yourself."

Juan:

I will look into the translation issues when I get a chance, but looking at the passage in context, I don't think it could take the meaning you are suggesting here.

Originally Posted by Matthew 5

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Standing alone, the "striking of a cheek" might be an idiom for being "insulted" possibly. So that the passage could be construed along the lines of "sticks and stones." But the context seems to void that possibility.

Anyway, I'll see what I can figure out about the translation issues when I get home later today.

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by sasa

I don't disagree because I can not take revenge, but it is just not applicable in any society to let some one harm you even if you forgive him once or twice or so on and so forth.
I think any one, no matter which society or sect he belongs to will find the Islamic teachings the most beautiful of all, which allowes you take revenge (but not a single bit more), but promises for the rewards you are going to get if you forgive (if it does not results in increase in violence). These are no doubt the most beautiful teachings which tells you the importance of forgiveness but allows you take revenge if there is no other option.

And what happens when you take "revenge"? Nobody (well, almost nobody) subjectively thinks that they are doing evil things. They always believe they are doing good things. So those who you perceived "wronged" you did not in their perception. Thus, your "revenge" for that perceived wrong will be taken in the mind of the revengee as a new wrong. And they will seek "revenge" for themselves. And you will see that as a new wrong for the same reason . .. and so on and so forth.

Unless you can make a case for being able to truthfully and completely morally justify yourself and judge the actions of you and others, revenge won't be justified by anything other than casual moral reasoning. That's my opinion, anyway. And that's why I perceive the truth in the teaching as applicable today.

[sasa]

Obviously, Islam doesn't instruct you to take law in your hands and start taking revenge. It orders you to the obey the laws of the government and do not take law in your own hands.

[Abogado del Diablo]

And BTW, I'd bet most professed "Christians" don't agree with the teaching either, depsite its reputed source. And on the flip side, I personally know musliims who read the Qu'ran to uphold peace, forgiveness and nonviolence rather than revenge.


Perhaps the teaching is in Islam and you aren't perceiving it in much the same way that the teaching is apparent in Christianity and few Christians perceive it? Who knows?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by sasa

Obviously, Islam doesn't instruct you to take law in your hands and start taking revenge. It orders you to the obey the laws of the government and do not take law in your own hands.

I never said anything about "taking the law into your own hands." There's a whole host of other issues implicated by that concept.

The issue is "forgiveness and love" for all wrongs and "non-resistance" to evil as a paradoxical "resistence" to evil. Or whether the human impulse for "revenge" should be given voice in a moral philosophy.

I agree with the former. Not because it was true 2,000 years ago. But because I find it's true today.

[KnightoftheRose]

What if some one literally punches you. Would you allow him to punch you on your other cheek as well.

Yes, I would.

But if someone struck anyone else, I would be more than willing to enter the fray...

So that makes it quite contradictory. On one instance, the self defence is allowed and on the other instance it is advised to offer your other cheek as well.

Its hardly contradictory. When someone strikes you, you are supposed to offer him your other cheek. When someone sues you, offer him your cloak as well. But when someone actively persecutes you and seeks your death (as many would in Christianity's early days), you have every right to defend yourself. And Jesus encouraged his followers to do so.

His teachings are not applicable now

You keep repeating this in your posts. Please stop. I find it offensive, and unworthy of interfaith discussion.

PS If his teaching aren't applicable these days, then why are so many people Christian?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!
Thank you for supplying the context:

Matthew 5
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, and it is not incorrect. Generosity, especially in forgiveness, is the correct course of action at all reasonable times. My point deals with unreasonable times. It is easy for a bully to see forgiveness as a weakness, and prey upon that weakness. It becomes a judgement call for the individual. Forgiveness is the better path when it is sufficient. Forgiveness is insufficient against one who preys on forgiveness as a weakness. It is said that Jesus taught to forgive 70 times 7. I agree with this when the wrong is unintentional or inadvertant. When the wrong is deliberate, which can be difficult to discern sometimes, forgiveness only aggravates the situation, creating inconsistencies that are hard to bring into line with the overall picture.

I once heard a saying I think is appropriate here:
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity."

In other words, forgiveness or "turning the other cheek," is appropriate in most circumstances. But in those instances when it is pretty obvious that the wrong being perpetrated is intentional and with forethought, the burden of the victim shifts. My view, anyway.

[juantoo3]

Reading what you wrote here reminds me of something . . .

OK, you've piqued my interest...what?

[Abogado del Diablo]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

OK, you've piqued my interest...what?

This is the quote:

Just give up everything; your life, your family, your possessions, all manner of substance that defines you and your life, because some bully says so?

Which "authority figure" told people they had to give up their life, their family and their possessions and lose everything that they think have in order to really have anything?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, sasa!

I don't disagree because I can not take revenge, but it is just not applicable in any society to let some one harm you even if you forgive him once or twice or so on and so forth.
I think any one, no matter which society or sect he belongs to will find the Islamic teachings the most beautiful of all, which allowes you take revenge (but not a single bit more), but promises for the rewards you are going to get if you forgive (if it does not results in increase in violence). These are no doubt the most beautiful teachings which tells you the importance of forgiveness but allows you take revenge if there is no other option.

I am thinking Jesus taught very much against revenge. Exact quotes escape me now, but it seems to me Jesus specifically named revenge and said it was not something to seek, to "leave it in the hands of God." I am not even speaking of revenge, I am speaking of (self-) defense.

Even if one speaks in terms of spiritual warfare, there is a physical component to it. At a national level, this translates to an army. At an individual level, this is all manner of self-defense; physical, mental and spiritual. This you do as a natural extension of your will to survive, your "survival instinct" that God gave every human living. You will defend what is precious and dear to you. Your physical includes your family and source of income (or "Providence" in some contexts). Your mental includes your morality, your education (including what you teach your children as a parent and what your parents taught you; which is your culture), your predisposition to question and reason. Your spiritual includes your personal connection and association with the Devine, what most of us call God. There are more things covered under these three, (physical, mental and spiritual,) but this gives a good overview of how I see this.

A simple wrong is easily overlooked, especially when it has no hurtful intention behind it. Accidents happen. Even among friends and loved ones. That is just how it is.

But if you are being attacked, that is something altogether different. It is not only your "right" as a believer in any faith I can think of, it is your duty to defend against those who would strip you of all (even any) that is dear to you. Culture and religion are parts of this. Not to defend against such attacks is in contradiction to the (I'll add, God given) law of survival.

Obviously, Islam doesn't instruct you to take law in your hands and start taking revenge. It orders you to the obey the laws of the government and do not take law in your own hands.

Likewise, Christianity teaches this, and as far as I know so does Judaism. The only exception being when the law of the land is in direct opposition to the law of God.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Originally Posted by Abogado

And BTW, I'd bet most professed "Christians" don't agree with the teaching either, depsite its reputed source. And on the flip side, I personally know musliims who read the Qu'ran to uphold peace, forgiveness and nonviolence rather than revenge.

Yeah, well, you know...

People are people. Every one of us has a different capacity. We each have our muscles, spiritual, mental and physical. We each have specific muscles we are capable of flexing. Some of us are pretty good physically, some not. Some of us flex pretty good mental muscles, some not. Some of us have well worked spiritual muscles, some not. Each combination is pretty much unique, and makes each of us a little different from each other (which I think is a great thing!). In the end, it is what each of us does to the best of our ability in accord with our capacity to hold to our understanding of our relation to our Heavenly Father Creator.

And at some point, do we need to realize the muscles we need to condition? If all we flex are our strong muscles, is it still "right" (different context) to let our lesser muscles atrophy?

Aspects of one level do not translate directly to another level. For example, medicine could be said to be the mental application of description of human anatomy and physiology. But the science cannot "be" the exact experience of the human body at a given moment. These are two different languages. Not even human languages, more like human to whip-'or-will. I think this is in line with what Vaj says about "the Tao that can be tao'ed, is not the Tao."

Spirit, in that meager little I have experienced, cannot be adequately described by mental means. Physical means I have yet to understand, but I have yet to experience anything I can honestly say is beyond doubt a direct recreation of spirit in physical form. Even in thinking of Love, I am thinking it is an expression, or translation so to speak, by physical (and mental) means of spiritual reality.

Which "authority figure" told people they had to give up their life, their family and their possessions and lose everything that they think have in order to really have anything?

Jesus. That passage did cross my mind when I wrote my part. And I did question myself. Which is why you see the later qualifiers, specifically the intent behind the wrong done.