[001]
johnnye
Current Version
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
* This is one of the stories told by [[TheBible Jesus]], telling someone that just got slapped on the right cheek to offer his slapper his left cheek, making this OlderThanFeudalism. The TropeNamer, obviously. Jesus then goes on to show us how to do it by saying \
to:
* This is one of the stories told by [[TheBible Jesus]], telling someone that just got slapped on the right cheek to offer his slapper his left cheek, making this OlderThanFeudalism. The TropeNamer, obviously. Jesus then goes on to show us how to do it by saying \\\"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do,\\\" as he was being [[spoiler: tortured and crucified. Nothing like begging your divine father to spare the ones who kill you. The ultimate DoomedMoralVictor]] of course.
** A better explanation of \\\"turn the other cheek\\\": if a man considered someone to be inferior, he\\\'d use the back of his hand if he decided to strike him, if he considered him equal, he\\\'d use his palm. Basically Jesus was saying that if someone gave you a backhander, turn the other cheek to force him to use his palm.
** There is also the interpretation that offering someone the chance to slap you again is a way of showing them that the original insult didn\\\'t work, and the slapper has failed in his attempt to embarrass the slappee. As this is usually the fastest way to take the wind out of a bully\\\'s sails, turning the other cheek is probably a much better idea than slapping back. Certain Christians interpret this as an endorsement of nonviolent resistance (i.e. civil disobedience).
** Another facet to this: In that period, the left hand was still looked upon as unclean, and one could only slap anyone, even the lowest of the low, using the right hand. Turning one\\\'s other cheek was essentially to \\\'\\\'\\\'dare\\\'\\\'\\\' them to slap you using the \\\'\\\'unclean\\\'\\\' hand, which, being unthinkable, left only one other option, to take it as a dare to backhand the victim, which arguably would be just as big of a shame tainting the aggressor if he \\\"accepted\\\" the unspoken dare. It was essentially a wordless taunt of \\\"go ahead and hit me again. Show everyone watching what a cruel monster you are.\\\" So in some regard it\\\'s simultaneously an endorsement of nonviolent resistance/civil disobedience \\\'\\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\'\\\' a display of being a BadassPacifist. \\\'\\\'\\\'Cool!\\\'\\\'\\\'
Considering one of these interpretations confidently states that backhanders were a mark of authority, and another states that it was a shameful thing to do, it looks an awful lot like people are pulling these explanations out from between their \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' other cheeks. When you take the quote in context (next to lines like \\\"if a man takes your coat, give him your cloak\\\" and \\\"if a man forces you to walk a mile, go two\\\"), it\\\'s pretty clear that it means ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin.
** A better explanation of \\\"turn the other cheek\\\": if a man considered someone to be inferior, he\\\'d use the back of his hand if he decided to strike him, if he considered him equal, he\\\'d use his palm. Basically Jesus was saying that if someone gave you a backhander, turn the other cheek to force him to use his palm.
** There is also the interpretation that offering someone the chance to slap you again is a way of showing them that the original insult didn\\\'t work, and the slapper has failed in his attempt to embarrass the slappee. As this is usually the fastest way to take the wind out of a bully\\\'s sails, turning the other cheek is probably a much better idea than slapping back. Certain Christians interpret this as an endorsement of nonviolent resistance (i.e. civil disobedience).
** Another facet to this: In that period, the left hand was still looked upon as unclean, and one could only slap anyone, even the lowest of the low, using the right hand. Turning one\\\'s other cheek was essentially to \\\'\\\'\\\'dare\\\'\\\'\\\' them to slap you using the \\\'\\\'unclean\\\'\\\' hand, which, being unthinkable, left only one other option, to take it as a dare to backhand the victim, which arguably would be just as big of a shame tainting the aggressor if he \\\"accepted\\\" the unspoken dare. It was essentially a wordless taunt of \\\"go ahead and hit me again. Show everyone watching what a cruel monster you are.\\\" So in some regard it\\\'s simultaneously an endorsement of nonviolent resistance/civil disobedience \\\'\\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\'\\\' a display of being a BadassPacifist. \\\'\\\'\\\'Cool!\\\'\\\'\\\'
Considering one of these interpretations confidently states that backhanders were a mark of authority, and another states that it was a shameful thing to do, it looks an awful lot like people are pulling these explanations out from between their \\\'\\\'other\\\'\\\' other cheeks. When you take the quote in context (next to lines like \\\"if a man takes your coat, give him your cloak\\\" and \\\"if a man forces you to walk a mile, go two\\\"), it\\\'s pretty clear that it means ExactlyWhatItSaysOnTheTin.
