I never heard the whole shebang, I thought it was a reference to ignoring insults.
Fight smart, not fair.By turning the other cheek, you force them to hit you with their palm instead of their backhand, I think. Which at the time would be giving you more respect than they'd want.
But more generally, if you refuse to play the Cycle of Revenge, then your aggressor cannot justify their actions with "but they _______ to me!".
Do you highlight everything looking for secret messages?^ From Wikipedia
edited 31st Dec '10 7:20:37 AM by Pentadragon
I thought that that was the point. After all, Jesus didn't put up much of a fight.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.Pentadragon's right, that's the deeper meaning. And regarding the coat, there's a similar meaning. Robbing someone of their coat is fine (and nobody would do anything about it) but taking the undergarments is embarassing. That's going too far, and bystanders would step in to help. The undergarments, btw, were what slaves wore all the time. Allowing someone to leave you with just the undergarments meant letting them treat you like a slave again.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.![]()
That and getting the other person to recognize that what they are doing is wrong, and see that the victim is a human being just like them.
@ Pentadragon:
@ OP: If turning the other cheek promotes being an Extreme Doormat then why did the early Christians, who were around the times these documents and thus would have understood and followed their meaning, then why did they choose to die for their faith? To me that sounds like The Determinator, not Extreme Doormat.
edited 2nd Jan '11 11:46:51 PM by EldritchBlueRose
Has ADD, plays World of Tanks, thinks up crazy ideas like children making spaceships for Hitler. Occasionally writes them down.I'm confused. Dying without fighting back seems pretty doormat-y to me, if we choose to frame actions in that dichotomy.
[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.If it's worth reacting to, it's worth overreacting to.
"True story, I came when I read Scrye's story, and so did everyone within five miles." —OOZE@Scrye: spoken like a true Marine.
@OP: I never held to this, but I never dismissed it either. My compromise; I choose my battles. I don't go looking for trouble, but if a person attacks me they have by default accepted the idea that I might not like it and will respond in kind. ergo, if I do choose to respond violently, my attacker has only himself to blame. Whether or not I'd deem it "worth it" to do so is not a question I can answer hypothetically, as it'd totally depend on what was at stake.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~I always thought of it as a way of saying keep your pride in check, and a warning against Disproportionate Retribution
There's a difference between warning against Disproportionate Retribution and advising against any kind of retribution altogether.
What Pentadragon posted is what I've been informed by multiple biblical studies professors to be the intended scenario of that particular passage. Neo is going to choose to keep misinterpreting this passage as becoming a doormat, because there is no readily accessible analog for this practice in our contemporary world.
It goes beyond just having them strike you again, but making them strike you with their left hand — a hand that wasn't used for anything, because doing so marked you as a barbarian, a person of no class, akin to an animal, dirty. When they struck you with the back of their right hand, it was in order to establish their superiority to you, because striking with the backside of the right hand was something superiors did to their slaves.
By turning their faces to their attacker, it was a silent challenge to them, and a showing of defiance to their aggressor. It says:
1. Either you strike me with your right fist or your open right hand — thus showing the world that I am your equal, because only an equal opponent would be hit like that (and should also be noted that this would, by Judaic law allow the one being struck two different legal abilities: 1. The ability to defend themselves, because they were struck in such a way that the law would legally defend them as long as they returned retribution equally and 2. Would allow them to sue the original aggressor for any damages that were caused, since 'they started it'.)
and 2. If you strike me with your left hand, everyone will see you for the barbarian you are and you'll be dishonored before me and the people, thus showing that, in reality, you are just an animal lower than the "slave" you just struck.
Jesus, in teaching this also followed with saying, "If a man comes to you and demands that you carry his load for a mile, go with him two." This was common practice in those days, as the Roman occupation soldiers were allowed by their law to demand a Jew to carry their gear as far as a mile, and no more. The Jews, by carrying it two miles were saying that "In carrying it this extra mile, no one can say the first was forced upon me — if I chose to do it, there's no way that can be shown that you forced me to do it, maknig me your slave, and now I am your equal.".
Jesus' teachings were far from trying to casue the Jewish people to become doormats — it rather taught them to establish their own equality among those who would try to subjugate them, and then allow them to remember their own unfair treatment and offer those they demeaned the same equality that the Jews demanded.
So does that mean Jesus advocated asserting one's rights instead of pasting a "Kick Me" sign on the back?
EDIT: Corrections.
edited 8th Jan '11 6:19:22 AM by redrosary
The Southpaw has no brakes!Jesus, as far as my studies and research has told me, advocated defending your rights as an equal, and defending the rights of other being treated unequally — not what many here seem to espouse as "If I get mistreated, I'm returning the favor tenfold."
Jesus called for blessing your enemies and knowing that by doing so, you were heaping burning coals on their heads. Similar to the example of carrying the Roman's gear the extra mile. By doing so, you were showing yourself as an equal who was doing a kindness to a stranger, rather than a person of lesser worth being forced into serving someone with a false sense of lordship.
I'm not sure if I should point the obvious theoretical flaw in this reasoning... Or the many, many secondary, less obvious flaws in its practical applicability. It's very appealing, and feasible, to follow this policy when you are the strongest in a conflict. But, not only is it expensive and, perhaps, inefficient, it also breeds hatred and resentment. The problem with spending strength is that it can run out. And when it does...
Turning The Other Cheek, i.e. non-violent non-cooperation, moral judo, Japanese Strike, Golem Rebellion, call it what you will, is an intelligent, efficient, cheap way of defeating a certain type of enemy that values its legitimacy and moral high ground. It won't work against the Golden Horde, or Joshua's army. But... tell me, military tropers, if some your enemies (that is, the people the government told you to... defeat) decided to eschew all violent methods and started pulling pure Gandhi tactics on you (blocking the road in a sit-in on a vital supply road or railway, or just tray to walk at you in order to get at some location you were assigned to guard), what would you do?
'''YOU SEE THIS DOG I'M PETTING? THAT WAS COURAGE WOLF.Cute, isn't he?

->"But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 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. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back." —>- Luke 6:27-30
Is it just me or does this seem like a recipe for turning people into doormats? I mean, these specific suggestions are probably just examples to demonstrate the "bless those who curse you" perspective, but even thinking about the examples suggests that they reflect poorly on the general idea.
For one thing, if you just "turn the other cheek" when someone is hitting you in the face, and allow them to hit you further... that's only going to reward their aggression. You have given an unfair advantage to those who probably don't deserve one.
Okay, so you can say that if they're going to be just standing there and taking it in the name of the bible, that only hurts themselves, right? But what about whomever else the attacker hurts later on? By rewarding the attacker's behaviour, did they not also have a role in whomever else they attacked?
Again, this is just an analogy, but again, I'm talking within the realm of their analogy about why it reflects poorly on the idea it's used for. All it does is replace moderate gentleness with a ludicrous extreme of passiveness, and doesn't confront those in the wrong.
The way I see it, instead of "doing good for those who hate you" it would be better to focus your help on those we have more reason to believe deserve it. Good Is Not Nice, after all, and you don't need to be an overly passive doormat to be in the right.
edited 31st Dec '10 6:25:02 AM by neoYTPism