Where in that prayer or at the last supper does Jesus say, “you must eat bread every day”? There is no commandment here. If you are somehow comparing that to “Do not resist an evil person”, it fails miserably.
Read it again. It says “this is **how ** you should pray”, not “this is **what ** you should pray”. It is clear, to those who can read, that he is speaking of the manner of prayer, not the words themselves.
Like your lame “daily bread” argument, I see no commandment here. Give the kids Hawaiian Punch if it pleases you, Jesus cares not, so long as you tend to those who thirst.
I understand you perfectly.
Spiritual perfection is in the eye of the beholder, apparently. If this is true, then the term Christian is meaningless, as no two believers would share the same concept of perfection, or of the path to attain it. “Do your own thing” is a pretty wishy-washy basis for a religion.
I think “do not resist an evil person” as quoted by the OP is pretty clear. How do you reconcile this rather unequivocal statement with your conclusion about “minimum force necessary”?
I believe Jesus was a pacifist and advocated that for us. Nevermind his words and commandments, which to me were pretty definitive.
He let himself be crucified. Didn’t raise a finger in his own defense. Didn’t utter a word in rebuke against his persecutors and in fact, even pleaded with God to forgive them. You can not demonstrate a pacificist mindset any clearer than that.
Now there are two ways to interpret the purpose of Jesus’s crucifixion: 1) as the ultimate act of “saving” humanity by offering himself (God the Son) as a sacrifice to himself (God the Father), while allowing himself one last opportunity to perform a miracle to convince the doubters of his divinity, and 2) as a way for him to show humanity the way they should deal with enemies, in a way that his previous actions were held up as examples of what people should do.
IMHO, the take home message is #2 because it makes the most sense (I can think of no logic more tortuous than #1) and most importantly, is consistent with the theme carried throughout the gospels. If Jesus subjecting himself to crucifixion was a pragmatic decision taken only to save mankind from Hell, then why was it necessary to show that Jesus prayed for his tormentors while he was dying? I believe it was it show to that even in the face of evil, one should show compassion and submission. That wasn’t put in there for no reason.
But Jesus isn’t telling his followers how to look like a saint/martyr; he’s telling them to actually BE a saint/martyr. He isn’t claiming that his method will defuse the situation in any way. Not responding to violence is the godly choice, whether it makes your attacker look bad or not. If they don’t stop hitting you, the end result is the same. This is how martyrs die.
Jesus is trying to teach his followers spiritual lessons, not giving them pointers on how to make their opponents look like bullies. There is no guarantee of any earthly benefit from following his teachings. He says it himself: you’re going to be persecuted. You will be reviled and slandered. The payoff is strictly in how God judges your soul.
Contrariwise, a strategy that aims to make your enemies look bad and makes you appear like a saint/martyr to others seems like kind of missing the point.
In general, this thread has been very instructive for me. I used to think that Jesus made a huge mistake by not writing down his teachings himself. I’m beginning to understand why he didn’t bother wasting his time.
As a non-believer, it’s easy for me to say that Jesus advocated something that would be completely impractical and result in the world being a terrible place to live in-- ie, if all the Christians decided to be complete pacifists. I don’t for a minute think that that would convince all the non-Christians to convert to that faith and usher in the Age of Aquarius or something like that. If you are a believer, then you might be less inclined to think that Jesus’ method could be imperfect in that way. But then, if you are a believer you should have faith that it isn’t.
Faith isn’t my cup of tea, but if you’re going to profess to have it, then you ought to actually have it. Jesus’ message was pretty clearly one of pacifism. What happens to us on earth is of no consequence. If you’re family is martyred, then so much the better-- you’ll all be united in eternal happiness all that much sooner.
That’s the thing I don’t understand about most Christians. As the saying goes: Everyone wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die. Sorry, but you don’t get the former without the latter.
That’s not too far from my take on it, except that I’d say Jesus wants us to be neither passive nor aggressive.
If someone insults you, or injures you, or demands something from you, there are three sorts of responses you can make. The passive response is to be a doormat: just take what they’re dishing out, let them think of you as someone they can push around. Be a victim.
The aggressive approach is to fight back, return insult for insult, injury for injury.
The third alternative, and the one Jesus is advocating, is to offer to do/give/suffer more than you were demanded to. You thereby regain control of the situation and refuse to be a passive victim, without returning evil for evil.
Looking at the context…
…one thing I notice is Jesus’s reason why you should act this way: so that “you may be sons of your Father in heaven.” There’s also an implication that God will reward you for returning good for evil. Which is an example of why I don’t think you can completely separate Jesus’s ethical teachings from his teachings on God, spiriuality, etc.
If I had to pick out the most fundamental summary of this part of Jesus’s teaching, it would be “Love your enemies.” I assume he means “love,” not in the sense of liking them or having warm fuzzy feelings towards them, but of wishing them well and wanting the best for them—the opposite of what might be our normal inclination, to wish the worst on them, to want them to suffer as much as possible. Exactly how to love one’s enemies depends on the situation. But it may involve some form of defending yourself or others, in hopes of preventing those enemies from continuing to do evil or of getting them to repent and reform. What is clear to me is that whatever you do should not be motivated by hatred or malice or wanting to get even.
It seems to me that the tactics of Martin Luther King, Jr. are one pretty good example of what Jesus had in mind as a response to evil.
Except, again, there’s that awkward “Do not resist an evil person” part to contend with.
Jesus is speaking directly to his followers about how to set their own souls in order. He’s telling them how they should behave. Yet there seems to be this tendency to interpret his instructions as if they are a guide on how to make friends and influence people. But “preventing enemies from doing evil” is explicitly forbidden. It couldn’t BE any more explicitly forbidden. What your enemies do or think doesn’t matter, because you are supposed to love them and pray for them just as you do for your friends. And yet somehow this gets turned around so that it’s more important for the Christian to police the souls of others rather than their own. We may have to defend ourselves… for the good of our enemies! It’s tough love! They’ll thank us for it later.
How is a Christian supposed to encourage their enemies to reform and repent, when they themselves set aside such basic tenets when they judge them inconvenient? After all, your enemy may also earnestly believe they are doing good; there are far more righteous zealots than there are unmotivated psychopaths, and I dare say the same was probably true in Jesus’ time. Even thieves and murderers may tell themselves they’re making the best of a bad situation-- I need to feed my family; these people are my blood enemies, etc.
So they think they’re doing good by fighting you, and you think you’re doing good by fighting them. Isn’t it possible that this is exactly the kind of spiritual trap Jesus was trying to keep his followers from falling into?
That being the case why do you suppose Jesus raised people from the dead?
A very strict interpretation of a phrase or two is not the way to go IMO. If we are to value all human life equally as creations of God regardless, of race, tribe, gender, etc. we still might be faced with a choice, however rare, that we must defend ourselves or our families or surrender to destruction.
It’s been pointed out that although Jesus did do that eventually he spoke of it as his destiny at an appointed time. It’s also been pointed out that mobs tried to seize him before and solders were sent to arrest him but he escaped. He didn’t surrender his life until he felt it was time.
Does that sound like a complete pacifist? Could that be called resisting evil men?
Check out this parable in Luke
Interesting parable for a hardcore pacifist isn’t it?
It’s beginning to seem completely stubborn and disingenuous to keep clinging to that phrase taken out of context and insist it can only be interpreted one way. Its ludicrous. If a fundamentalist does that sort of thing you’d say he was being intellectually dishonest to justify his ridiculous faith. Some groups handle snakes based on a few words taken out of context. The Church of Christ my brother used to attend thought playing instruments in church was a sin based on their selective interpretation. Now we have a group of non believers insisting in a very similar manner that their take on a passage or two allows no other possible interpretations.
In context he is speaking of the more common events
It may be your interpretation or opinion that this includes someone raping and murdering your wife, but to insist that it can’t legitimately be interpreted any other way is just goofy and a stubborn denial of how literature like the Bible is read.
{again, similar to the fundies you like to make fun of} This is especially true in light of the other scriptures already mentioned in the thread.
I didn’t see anyone present it that way.
Seriously,
I assume you think Jesus taught that we should help the poor rather than let them starve to death or die of exposure to the elements. Do you then think it’s only right that we let them be slaughtered because we are told not to resist evil men? Does that not seem like a contradiction to you? If I love the victim and the killer equally as a precious creation of God what are my realistic choices?
Much better to have a rule written in stone that you can point to and say, “See I’m following the commandment” rather than a soul searching effort to discern what is right in the specifics of the situation.
Nobody suggested we should jump at every opportunity to defend ourselves with force. There are lots of ways to show those who hate and seek to harm us or rob us that we value them as equal children of God. It doesn’t have to include holding still while they kill us.
Consider that the Bible most likely written by followers of Jesus and selected by a council of Christian leaders were probably in favor of number 1. That’s kinda how it’s presented isn’t it?
No matter how much you continue to deny it, the commandment itself is unfortunately quite clear. It’s not taken out of context. This isn’t some cryptic, offhand comment. It’s right in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is telling his followers exactly what God expects of them. If he had any other advice about how to deal with violence, this would be the place for it. He didn’t, because the rule is very simple and has no exceptions. It’s possibly the clearest thing he ever said.
By claiming otherwise, you’re saying that all the martyrs and pacifists throughout the history of Christianity, who gave up their lives rather than raise a hand to defend themselves and their loved ones, were simply wrong. You’re arguing that they foolishly took Jesus’ words out of context, and weren’t really following his teachings. You’re claiming that they didn’t understand his message as clearly as you do.
No, he isn’t. He’s giving examples, exactly like the Old Testament “eye for an eye” rule he’s responding to. Or do you really think that he was ONLY talking about minor annoyances like a slap to the face (but not a punch), a cloak with a coat (but no more), two miles for one (but not three)? That Jesus’ big message to his followers was to be mildly more tolerant of petty grievances, as long as they weren’t too important?
I don’t believe I’m the one disingenuously taking things out of context here. I guess you must also believe Jesus taught that only the hand and eye are capable of sinning? After all, those are the only parts of the body he tells his followers to cut off, right?
I honestly doubt that pointing out Jesus’ other teachings will make any difference at this point. However: Yes, it DOES include somebody raping and killing your wife. That’s because your purpose in life is not to protect your wife. Your purpose is to please God by being perfect. That means NO sinning. And according to Jesus, pleasing God is more important than protecting your wife. If you have to make a choice, you leave your wife behind.
–but wait, let me guess: this is also “taken out of context.”
Have I made fun of “fundies” here? I didn’t think I was singling anyone out.
The choice is to follow Jesus, or not. If you choose not to, then you may save people from being slaughtered, but you won’t be following Jesus by doing so and you shouldn’t claim to.
Do you expect that Jesus himself was so sheltered that he never witnessed violence? We have accounts of him healing the sick, ministering to the poor, feeding the hungry… so where are the accounts of him protecting others by violence? Who did Jesus ever save by fighting?
Some rules actually have no exceptions, though; and this appears to be one of them. At least as far as Jesus was concerned, there is no situation where resisting evil people with violence is the right answer. If you think that your own soul-searching effort to discern what is right can do a better job, then by all means have at it. Just be aware that you’re permitting yourself a luxury of choice that Jesus wouldn’t allow.
Well, then you’ll never have to martyr yourself as others have. Jesus, of course, held still while others killed him.
Indeed–how dare we continue not to submit before the awesome power of your argument? If we fail to admit that we are convinced by your argument, the only possible explanation must be dishonesty.
This is one of those irritating hypotheticals (if an atheist turned the other cheek, you’d dress up in a tutu and dance the macarena across the Golden Gate Bridge! I can play the game too); it’s also bizarre. I have never ever seen someone accuse a fundamentalist of being intellectually dishonest for interpreting a passage literally. I’ve seen them accused of being foolishly beholden to a book, of not understanding the power of metaphor, of ignoring the evidence of science, etc.–but I’ve never seen them accused of intellectual dishonesty for holding to a literal interpretation of a passage.
Note that none of the above charges make any sense when applied to someone that interprets a broad command broadly.
You still don’t have it quite right. First, the Amish and the Mennonites and the Quakers and a bunch of other groups are hardly nonbelievers; this is hardly an interpretation of Jesus’s words unique to atheists. Second, of course there are other interpretations of this passage. It would require denying reality to maintain otherwise. What I, and the Quakers and others claim, is that those other interpretations are much less supportable, that interpretations relying on such matters as regarding the following passage as limiting rather than illustrating the commandment are very likely to be missing the point of what Jesus meant.
And assuming that Jesus was an historical figure who actually gave the Sermon on the Mount, he certainly meant something by his words, and any given interpretation of what he meant is either correct or incorrect.
You do realize that the expression “written in stone” is an allusion to the Biblical commandments, right? And that Jesus saw himself very much a part of that tradition? Mocking folks for following a rule written in stone seems to be pretty far afield from the tradition in which Jesus worked.
Indeed, nobody has suggested this; nor has anyone suggested that anyone has suggested this. That’s a totally irrelevant point.
Well thanks for clearing that up. Manner of prayer seems a little vague to me. Does he mean standing or kneeling? Eyes closed or open? I also noticed you left out the part about taking a purse and buying a sword. Did that look too much like a commandment? Can I still buy a sword? Gosh I hope so.
Kidding aside, I honestly see the difference you point out between a commandment and something more general. Acknowledging that it’s still correct to consider the context surrounding the phrase, who Jesus is talking to, and the culture he was in. That’s all part of a reasonable discernment.
Okay, but how can you be certain your interpretation is correct?Did you have to think and reason to come to that conclusion? Isn’t Hawaiian Punch bad for you?
Finally…[sniff} …someone does
Lots of believers don’t share the same concept of perfection and it’s safe to say we’re far from perfect. Fortunately we have a connection with the only authority.
It is the spirit that discerns spiritual growth and sincerity. It is the only path to attain it and we all share the same one, regardless of what label we put on it. I haven’t proposed or supported any sort of “Do Your Own Thing” religion.
I’ll accept that you see it that way but I, otoh, don’t see how it’s reasonable to say it isn’t taken out of context. I’ve quoted the text that follows it several times which IMO indicate that his comment was about more mundane dealings in day to day life rather than the “in every conceivable situation” that’s being added.
bolding mine; but that friend can’t be anything but what you are inferring onto the words. I confess that I am inferring that there may be extreme exceptions but that’s my larger point. The Bible requires interpretation. The Amish may see it one way while Sargent York saw it another. It’s up to you or I to say one or the other is absolutely wrong because it just isn’t crystal clear.
Wow, You’re reading a whole lot into my posts that isn’t there at all. I’m saying two sincere people both Christians or not can interpret it differently and neither has to be absolutely wrong. I’m saying what action is required to “love your enemy” may vary according to the specific details of the situation at hand.
Do you honestly think if I were a Christian teacher at Columbine then I should let a crazed student murder others because of these few words Jesus said? Would that be an act of love for my fellow man? Please answer.
I’m saying the teaching isn’t complete, final, and absolute.
In the Sermon on the Mount he’s pointing in the direction of love and forgiveness and expanding the guidelines of the law his audience was used to. It’s up to the individuals then to discover what love requires of them depending on the situation. What I’ve been saying is that in an extreme situation love might require that we defend ourselves or others.
I retract any suggestions of dishonesty. I’ll leave it at stubborn.
I agree, if you have to make that choice about serving God’s purpose. I don’t agree that it clearly serves God’s purpose to allow someone to rape and murder my wife. Perhaps by knocking a guy in the head I’ve reduced his charges from rape and murder to B&E. Haven’t I then done him a good turn. Later I can go visit him in prison and tell him I forgive him and try to help him turn his life around.
Instead you say Jesus commands me to let this man rape and murder my wife. That doesn’t strike me as an expression of love for the attacker or my wife.
I think I’ll wait for an opinion from a better authority on what Jesus meant.
No you haven’t here. Have you in other threads? I was speaking of nonbelievers in general who seem to enjoy that sport. If it doesn’t apply to you then I retract it. I should have chosen my words more carefully.
According to you. Again, I’ll wait for input from a higher authority.
There have already been several quotes. Jesus escaped other mobs before his crucifixion. Did that require resisting evil men? Jesus made a whip and drove the money changers from the temple. Could that be called resisting evil men? Jesus told his disciples to buy swords. Can you explain why an absolute pacifist would do that?
Obviously that’s not how I read it.
Actually that would be , that your interpretation of what Jesus said wouldn’t allow.
I can live with that.
except for those times he escaped the mobs.
I think you understand that I’m not arguing we should use violence to defend ourselves at every turn. It is clear that Jesus taught us to avoid anger, malice, revenge, ideas of superiority and separation, that lead to violence and conflict.
In an extreme situation I’ll trust my own discernment over your interpretation and let a better authority tell me if I’m wrong.
It’s the absolutism of the approach to a couple of verses that surprises me in this thread. I would expect that from dogmatic believers. Not from you folks.
