By all accounts, Paul was born in Tarsus and did most of his preaching in the cities of Asia Minor and Greece, and most of his letters are on practical subjects.How is he a “whacked-out desert hippie”?
I’m not arguing your interpretation of the message(s) of peace put forth by Jesus but logic dictates that evil cannot be given free reign. To say that we cannot protect ourselves (by force) negates any idea of social justice. The concept of forgiving someone for bringing harm upon others is not in contradiction with punishment and incarceration. I’ll admit to rust in my religious instruction but I don’ t remember Jesus advocating the release of all prisoners.
I also don’t get the last line in your statement above. Why would a Christian society want to expose an aggressor to a general state of approval? I’m all confused.
Well I’ll be damned . . . I wonder where else I’ve used that word in *exactly * the wrong way? :smack:
OK, OK, a *pseudo-*whacked-out desert hippie. You know, like Charles Manson, only with more preaching and less bloody death.
Hey, I had to look it up, at least you knew it existed. I just want a spell check that catches me when I swap “your” for “you’re”.
Heck, nobody said non-violence was going to be *easy * . . .
In all seriousness, I think the trouble we as a society have with this teaching is in our tendency to generalize it. In this set of normative statements, Jesus was talking to us as individuals rather than corporately. He didn’t have anything to say about the right and responsibility of society to protect itself against violent offenders, and you’re right in saying that he didn’t advocate the release of all prisoners. He was focused on what you, or I, should do when faced with aggression.
So, if I were attacked, *and * I were a good enough Christian to “turn the other cheek” (whatever that may mean in today’s context), it wouldn’t preclude me from swearing out a complaint against my attacker. If I were a really good Christian, I may even be able to forgive my attacker, and visit him in prison - where the civil authorities would have correctly incarcerated him for breaking the law agains assault. Only I can forgive him for his offense against me, and only society can forgive him for his offense against the law. Jesus was talking directly to me; I guess he figured society would figure out its own way.
In a perfect world, everyone would follow Jesus’ teaching, and there would never be a need to turn the other cheek (and society, composed of nothing but peaceful people, would have turned out okay). In the present world, the fellow who does turn the other cheek would appear to be playing a sucker’s game. That’s what makes really following Jesus’ teaching so hard. (And it’s this difficulty that earns such an individual the approbation of others (I may be slow, but I *can * learn)).
So, he was a whacked out desert hippie except for the whacked out part, the desert part, and the hippie part? Also, I don’t think Paul heard messages in Beatles songs. He would have been freaked out learning he was dead, though.
As Nietzche said: “There was only ever one Christian, and he died on the cross.”
To me, and this would be my opinion, the overall message of Jesus is “love thy neighbor”. Or simply, “to love”. That would be the forest. Trying to devine meaning (literal interpretation) in every sentence would be the trees.
I could be wrong but wasn’t Jesus a Jew?
Are Christians then not supposed to emulate the examples set by Jesus in the gospels, just because they are inconvenient with logic and modern ideals of social justice?
Very eloquently put and I agree, following the message of Jesus can be very hard.
I think you misread what I said or I stated it poorly. There is nothing illogical about the message of love nor is it in conflict with ideals of social justice.
Perhaps I was confused when you said evil cannot be given free reign. It is clear he said we are not to resist evil people. How do you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory positions?
I’ve never tried to reconcile anything in the Bible. If you’ve read what I’ve posted I make a point of viewing the Bible as a series of multiple translations of individual writings which were never directly dictated by Jesus.
Nowhere in the Bible did Jesus advocated the release of prisoners. I think Genghis Bob’s views in post 46 were well written and worth a re-read.
Which dodges the question about resisting an evil person who commits violence against you. Whether thay are released from prison is irrelevant; can you resist a violent person and be a good Christian?
Yes, the only way you have prisoners is if you resist violent people.
The whole prisoner argument is silly. Resisting violence does not necessarily lead to imprisonment. If somebody smacks me and I smack him until he is unconscious, I can walk away without taking him prisoner. Can a good Christian do that?
If you are going to pick and choose which parts of the “message of peace” apply to you, how does that make you a Christian?
The prison example is a function of logic. Prison, for the purpose of discussion, is a place where bad people are incarcerated. For a prison to exist there is a requirement that evil be resisted. You’re trying to alter a simple line of logic in an effort to redirect the discussion.
Also, as I’ve stated, I view the Bible as a simple message of love. I’m not picking and choosing anything beyond that.
Not at all. Prison does not logically proceed from resisting violence.