If I remember correctly (and I may not), Morihei Ueshiba called Aikido “the Art of Peace”.
I don’t think it’s safe to generalize Peter’s action on this particular night to all disciples throughout Jesus’ ministry. Doing so requires multiple assumptions at once (they carried weapons; they carried them openly; Jesus said nothing about them).
What we can assert without assuming unknowns is that he said “if someone strikes you, turn the other cheek.” And that he rebuked Peter for offering violence to the man in the garden. The idea that Jesus knew about, and condoned, his disciples going about armed, just isn’t supported by anything in the text, and is contra-indicated by the stuff that *is * in there.
Exactly. As I explained Jujitsu to a woman whose parents run an Aikido school, Jujitsu teaches the skills you need to place an aggressor in the position where either he stops or he hurts himself. It can be pretty funny, which isn’t a Christlike reaction, I suppose.
I’m glad nobody in this thread has brought up that [del]horseshit justification[/del] interpretation about forcing him to strike you with his off hand or open hand. What Jesus meant is right there on papyrus and any other interpretation is as forced as the crap about the Rapture.
I think the point to Jesus saying “turn the other cheek” was about what’s going on inside rather than outside. It is about the spirit being more important than physical body.
He also teaches in the Sermon on the Mount that even being angry is in danger of judgment, although he sure seemed angry at the money changers. I think the point was to teach people to look inward rather than to just follow superficial rules. To change how we saw our fellow man within so to cultivate peace and unity among men.
If we are non violent but still full of anger and resentment we aren’t really growing in spirit.
Quite a challenge. If you remember the Gandhi movie there’s a scene where he tells his audience that by bearing the blows and not striking back in anger the English will eventually see their own brutality and error. Later in the movie he comments “Why should we hate and punish someone for having the same human frailties we have” {paraphrased} So, non violence is presented as a tool for human growth.
There are consequences both physical and spiritual to our thoughts and emotions and the actions they lead to. We are free to act but we must bear the consequences. Can we defend ourselves or others without malice or revenge in our hearts? I think so, but it isn’t easy.
Something I’ve wondered about is comparing
with
In 1 Cor. 12 there’s a longer section on people being part of the same body. I think that was part of JCs message. We’re all part of the same body and if we harbor anger and resentment toward each other we poison the body.
“Whatever you do unto others you do unto me” might read “Whatever you do unto others you do to yourself” since we’re part of the same body.
However, we would cut off an infected hand rather than let it poison the body wouldn’t we? So, if a psychopath is out to kill me and I know if I don’t stop him he will kill others, am I defending the body by allowing myself to be killed, or by killing him? Am I defending the body if I allow some sicko to rape and kill because Jesus said turn the other cheek?
I think the point JC was making was that an eye for an eye is not the path to spiritual growth. We must resist malice, hatred and revenge. We must look deeper within ourselves and try to see and live our connection with others especially
when that connection is very hard to see and feel.
I don’t think it means we are never allowed to defend ourselves or others.
I see no scripture to support this conclusion. Is that your own thought, or something you are ascribing to Jesus?
If only it didn’t feel so good…
Well, how about the one I just quoted in the previous post?
How specific does it have to be?
Yeah, that’ll teach the bastard to mess with you 
This seems like a hugely labored interpretation. “If your right eye offend thee, pluck it out” is really a guideline for attacking others, and doesn’t proceed from Jesus’ comments on adultery in Matthew 5:27-28?
For that matter, if Jesus teaches that “we’re part of the same body,” how is adultery even possible? What’s the difference between your own spouse and somebody else’s? Was Jesus even talking about adultery, or about something else entirely?
It seems like these elaborate interpretations somehow always wind up making the Christian’s life more comfortable. “Turn the other cheek” really means, “it’s okay to fight back under certain circumstances.” “Give away all your money to the poor” doesn’t really apply to all Christians; neither should the camel-and-needle remark be understood as a condemnation of material wealth. Jesus may have walked passively to his own execution, but that doesn’t mean he wanted anyone else to follow his example. All that talk of loving and forgiving your enemies shouldn’t keep you from attacking them-- just do it with love, you know? You’re killing them for their own good. Jesus said so.
And they really, really hate having that pointed out.
AND when Jesus had finished teaching, he turned to his disciples and to the crowd, saying, Look, folks: these are just some suggestions to get you started; I want you to think outside the box.
I’m still trying to figure out why the cheesemakers are so blessed.
Stranger
You don’t know your scriptural exegesis very well; it obviously (from context) applies to *all * manufacturers of dairy products.
Good question. And in a puzzling passage, Jesus actually tells his disciples to carry swords:
I’m not sure what’s going on here, although I have heard explanations of this exchange that claim that Jesus was speaking figuratively and the typically obtuse disciples took him literally about having swords.
I’ve looked it up, and given that this was just before Jesus was arrested, it could be that he wanted them to carry swords just for the look of the thing; either because he thought they might not be arrested or attacked if they looked like they might fight back, or because not carrying swords would be a giveaway that they were followers of Jesus. Maybe.
Hitler was a Christian who focused on the story of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple as a warrior spirit of Jesus against Jews.
Ghandi had the spirit of Jesus correct. Peaceful demonstrations are an offshoot of it. We always believed non violent demonstrations would eventually show the state was brutal and a backlash would occur. I think much of Christian America enjoyed demonstrators getting beaten.
Snake handlers find a couple lines in the bible and make handling vipers a part of their ceremonies. They die . It is stupid.
You can read whatever you want into the bible. You can feed your preconceptions.
Jesus would not kill someone assaulting his family. It is wrong to do violence to another human being. It is a right you simply do not have. Once you say he would defend his family violently ,you have top ask ,would he defend his village ? Would he defend his country? Then all violence and war is excusable. You do not understand the message if you have to ask. No he would not.
Hmmm…okay, well, why are the Greeks going to inherit the Earth then, Big Nose?
Stranger
Seems like it’s a convenient, after-the-fact, addition to make it look like Jesus was prescient. That is, he knew Peter would cut the soldier’s ear off if he had a sword, and Jesus wanted to be able to demonstrate his ability to forgive. IOW, it was a set-up.
Yep, a literary device. The author of Luke needed to get a weapon into someone’s hands for the admonition and healing in the garden. It also gave him (the author) a hook for a fulfillment of (OT) scripture reference: “. . . and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
That Luke - now *there’s * a writer.
Listen, non-violence or no, I’ll thump you if you call me ‘Big Nose’ again.