It is one thing to strive to live up to the ideals exemplified by Christ, yet fail; it is quite another to claim that Christ’s example does not really apply to us.
Once again you’re taking it out of context. Now you’re also drawing conclusions about his meaning based on what you think he could have or should have said.
When he speaks of murder in verse 21 he goes on to talk about settling bad feelings before you offer a gift at the alter and going to court. He doesn’t address deadly violence at all.
In the eye for an eye section he speaks of being sued for a tunic and walking a mile. It sure seems like more average events than
“if a roman centurion wants to rape your wife and murder your children just let him, and don’t be mad either”
you’re suggesting he knew that was included. I think the suggestion is just the opposite. We see by his selection of subjects that he is referring to more mundane events.
I have not claimed that. I do think Christ’s example applies to us and spiritually speaking we should continue to strive for perfection. That eliminates the “good enough” attitude and the “we’re only human” justification.
I would maintain that as individuals we are not all required to do exactly the deeds JC did, such as being crucified, but we are required to strive to live our own individual lives close to his in spirit.
But what about his commandments? If a person stops you on the street and asks for your wallet, does Christ’s example demand that you give it to him, and your cell phone as well? Or is it enough to just love one another, without regard to the more demanding details?
It’s in the details that love is tested. Love isn’t just saying “Oh I love everyone”
It’s tested in how we deal with each person we encounter and interact with. It requires more thought and soul searching than obeying a set of rules. It isn’t easy. The things that really scare us, or anger us about others can be the things that reveal something to us about ourselves and the areas we should work on.
Those details don’t have to mean a very literal translation of every line pulled out of context no matter how plain it seems to someone else.
“Give to them that ask of thee” Is it an act of love to enable some able bodied person to sit on his ass and play video games? Is it being a good person to give away the rent money to someone who wants drugs? No and No. Following Jesus in spirit is more than blind obedience to someone’s interpretation of the NT. It’s seeking insight and understanding of that living spirit.
No, I’m drawing them based on what the scripture says he says. What he said was that you should not resist an evil person. This statement does not require some sort of rarified context; it’s a very clear, very unambiguous statement. If you think that Jesus was the sort to approve of violently resisting an evil person who was using violence, it’s incumbent on you to show evidence that he forgot the necessary disclaimer here. Which scriptural story do you believe shows his belief that it’s okay to resist an evil person when they’re using deadly violence?
Daniel
Oh, I agree it goes beyond just obeying the rules. But that does not obviate you from obeying them, nonetheless! You can’t simply say faith is more complex than commandments, then ignore the specific ones that you find inconvenient. If that is true, I can call myself a Christian, even though I do not believe there is a god, or that Jesus is his son. All I have to do is pick out the parts of his message that appeal to me, and hand wave the rest away as slavish interpretation of scripture.
So, can I have your wallet?
The context it is mentioned in , which is a part of discerning the meaning of any passage in any book, says nothing about extreme circumstances but clearly speaks of more mundane, non lethal, activity. You are pulling it out of that context to suit your own interpretation. Have at it.
The point that has been made repeatedly in this thread is that the words of Jesus that we have simply do not cover every situation in every detail. I would readily agree that Jesus teaches us to avoid violence and more importantly, avoid the feelings that breed violence. I do not agree that those few words pulled out of context clearly indicate we are not to defend ourselves or others under any circumstances.
So, are you now some official interpreter of the scriptures you don’t believe in? Thanks all the same. I believe I’ll do my own thinking, soul searching and interpreting.
No, that’s why I don’t presume to call myself a Christian.
But you do presume to tell me {not a Christian} and those that are Christians what the passages mean and whether or not we are following them strictly enough?
Well, I can read:
But, that part is probably not applicable to you, so just disregard it.
“Excuse me, Lord? The other disciples and I were wondering if you could maybe explain that commandment of yours one more time?”
“Sigh… look. Guys. It’s very simple. Don’t fight. Fighting is evil.”
“Yes, but under what circumstances would we be permitted to–?”
“You’re not getting it. Listen to me. There are NO ‘circumstances.’ Don’t be angry, don’t attack others; God doesn’t want you to. Ever.”
“Well, but surely if a really, REALLY evil person attacked us, we should–”
“No. Wrong. That is exactly what you should NOT do. What you SHOULD do is this: Be perfect. Trust in God. How many ways can I say this? DO NOT FIGHT EVIL PEOPLE.”
“… Lord, will you explain this parable?”
“It’s not a goddamn parable! It’s… Oy. Look. it’s a very, very simple concept. Are you listening to me? Are my lips moving? Good. YOU. Do. Not. Resist. Evil. People. Is every one of those words clear? Do you get it now?”
“Er… Lord? What if there were a really, really REALLY evil person–”
“Oh, for the–”
“No, wait! He’s REALLY REALLY evil, and he’s going to kill all the innocent people in the WORLD, and the only way to possibly stop him is to attack him. Can we resist him then?”
“…You’re high right now, aren’t you, Thaddeus?”
And you will note that frat boys fill most of the seats of power, which they inherited from their frat-boy fathers. Praise Brian! His prophecy [del]has[/del] hath come true!
Yes, it says nothing about extreme evil. It just says “evil.” Are you thinking that Jesus forgot to explain that he thought really evil people were okay to resist? He mentions what you should do when you’re hit, or when someone takes shit from you. Yeah, he didn’t mention what you should do when a loved one is threatened, but I see no evidence that he considers this an exception to the rule.
Yes, you’ve made that point repeatedly, but you’ve not convinced me that it’s relevant. His words here don’t cover every situation in every detail, but they do cover what you should do re: resistance against an evil person. Not how long to simmer caramel, not what pants look good with a red shirt, but whether you should resist an evil person.
When a statement is made without qualifiers, it has no qualifiers.
The context in which he’s speaking does nothing to change this.
Daniel
It seems to me that Jesus did not provide any exceptions: do not fight back.
This goes against human nature, but is similar to what other “enlightened” people have been saying.
For example, Adyashanti says that we should learn to “allow everything to be exactly as it is”, that we should not wish for anything to be different about the world we live in.
This also goes against human nature, but it seems to make sense to the “enlightened”.
In any case, if someone is punching you, and you want to “allow everything to be exactly as it is”, I guess you should let him continue to punch you, i.e. don’t fight back, i.e. what Jesus was saying.
(Not sure if Adyashanti, and others, meant it that way, but that’s the conclusion I draw from what he says)
He instructed us to pray, “give us this day our daily bread.” and they had bread at the last supper. Should I take that to mean I have sinned if I don’t eat bread every day? He also says, “This then is how you should pray” Does that mean I should say a pray with similar content or do I have to say those exact words every time I pray? Can I add words or should I say only those words?
Oh and he said
“And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.”
so evidently giving disciples cold water is the key to getting into heaven. I wonder how cold it has to be? Is ice okay?
and
Now I’m really confused, because before he said take no bag or purse but now he says I should and evidently I should buy a sword. I’m thinking I should also wear sandals instead of reboks.
I’m sure you see my point. I find it interesting that those who don’t believe insist they know how certain passages have to be interpreted by those that do. There always seem to be a similar purpose.
I repeat, what I get out of the NT is that Jesus taught us to strive for spiritual perfection from within and that would be reflected in our actions toward others.
The minor point I’ve tried to make in this thread is that we have to think and use our judgment and be open in spirit to truly grasp what he said and have it reflect in our lives. It requires a thought process and a spiritual seeking beyond blind obedience to written words. {based on whose interpretation?}Jesus says “give to him that asks of thee” yet the disciples said
Since Jesus said the spirit would guide them into all truth how am I to reconcile these two?
So, while you insist that certain verses are completely clear and without exception, I simply don’t agree. I think we’ve exhausted the issue.
My brother went to college with the Jesuits and their take on “Turn the other cheek” was, to him, quite unexpected.
If someone slaps your cheek, he’s trying to goad you into a fight. By offering him the other cheek, you are denying him the fight that he wants. Picture a crowded schoolyard situation here. He figures that if he challenges you and you back down, you’ll look like a coward. But if you won’t fight him and he continues anyway, he’ll actually come off even worse. Hitting a coward is fine, but hitting a saint/martyr is problematic.
Christ didn’t want us to be doormats; he wanted us to be passive-aggressive. Awkward dichotomy solved.
Please read my response to Fear Itself I’m saying it requires a thought process and a spiritual inner search, rather than blind obedience to a few written words taken from context. Why is it that the same folks who would call the fundies foolish for interpreting passages too literally will also insist that other passages can only be interpreted literally?
Let’s not go off the deep end.
Obviously Jesus wants us to strive to be kind and forgiving, and not quick to anger or act out of spite and revenge. We apply those guidelines to the details of our individual situation as it arises.
I proposed a scenario that most people would never encounter. Faced with a choice of stopping some killer or allowing some innocent you would have to choose one. We are told to help the weak aren’t we? If I see a hungry person I’m supposed to feed them rather than let them starve. Should I then allow them to be slaughtered because of these words you’ve pulled out of context. It seem to me that with either choice I would be violating some commandment. If I value the killer and the intended victim equally as God’s children I still have to decide what to do.
Jesus said “give to them that ask of thee” so if my friend says " Can I have some money to buy heroin? I’m depressed and I’d like to overdose" I should just hand it over because that’s what Jesus said to do? I shouldn’t consider the specifics of the situation or add qualifiers? Comon!
The context indicates to me that he is referring to more mundane events and teaching, “strive towards this” To interpret it so literally that I would allow myself or others to be killed is not IMO obeying a commandment.
Obviously you disagree. OKay. I think we’ve beaten this horse enough.
Good point. I think Gandhi captured the essence of this too by insisting on justice without violence.