# Matthew 5: 38-40 and today's "Conservative Christians" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 7, 2013, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407 "2013-06-07T18:14:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/61 "2013-07-01T13:12:27Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > You’re forgetting the Preterist explanation- > > Within a generation of Jesus’ death, due to the Jerusalem Establishment’s continued persecution of His Church, Divine Judgement came upon Judea through Civil War and the Roman Siege. Josephus indeed records weird stuff in the skies, but also the Sun going dark, Moon turning to blood, & Stars falling is Old Covenant symbolic language for “the lights going out” on a society (used in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, etc.) The Temple was also desecrated starting in 62 A.D with the High Priest having Jesus’s nearest relative “James the Just, Brother of our Lord” murdered on the Temple grounds, and concluding in 70 AD with its destruction & Titus having his troops offer sacrifice to the Roman Standards on its grounds. Thus, the Old Covenant Aion came to an end, Christ was shown having ascended in the clouds & enthroned by Father God, and the Church released from its Judaic roots to extend His Message, and even His Reign, throughout the world. > > Btw, I’m a Christian Zionist who emphasizes moreso Genesis 12 & Romans 9-11 than Matthew 24, tho I can’t neglect Ezekiel 37-48 (which I think is first about the post-Babylonian Restoration, but resonates into the future). If I understand you correctly, it would mean that the stars would fall, the moon turn to blood, the sun no longer give it’s light would( in my opinion ) there would be no future, once the sun lost it’s light, the entire earth would no longer be able to sustain life! And it was a question of the Apostles as to the worlds end not just a covenant. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2013, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/62 "2013-07-01T13:14:44Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > The more time it’s taking for Jesus to get back, the more popular Preterism is becoming. If He doesn’t return (after all, He just might!) soon, it’ll be a more dominant interpretation - Btw, it has always been part of Church teaching, just not a majority view. Jesus is quoted as saying he would RETURN in his father’s glory with his angels while some of them standing there were still alive.. It didn’t happen ---
**Author:** ![Rucksinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/898d66/32.png) [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/63 "2013-07-02T01:04:04Z")
> [@gytalf2000](#): > > …… > “You have heard that it has been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue you at the law, and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. And whoever shall compel you to go a mile, go with him two. Give to him that asks you, and from him that would borrow of you turn not you away.” > … I took a religion class in college. The teacher gave us something to read about these verses that argued that these were passive-aggressive ways to counter these attacks. The argument went (from memory…. I’m sure someone will be able to find the actual text) that the “turn the other cheek” part forced them to use a closed fist for the second blow, instead of an open hand, something that forced them to treat you as a combatant instead of just someone who needed to be bitch-slapped. The second part had something to do with stripping naked to embarrass them. The third part would make them get in trouble, since the Romans had strict laws about how much they could force non-Romans to do, and 1 mile was the most they could force someone to haul their stuff. > [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > Yet the religious right seem to have no problem doing that with regard to anything else they read in the bible (homsexuality abortion etc.) so I doubt that that is their reasoning. There is nothing in the bible supporting the pro-life/anti-abortion position. Even the “eye for an eye….” verse makes it clear that the life of the fetus is worth some money, but not a life. > [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](#): > > …….Homosexual acts are condemned in the New Testament, so Christians generally don’t believe that they’re free to ignore those laws….. Not in the New Testament, they aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/64 "2013-07-02T12:30:10Z")
> [@Rucksinator](#): > > I took a religion class in college. The teacher gave us something to read about these verses that argued that these were passive-aggressive ways to counter these attacks. The argument went (from memory…. I’m sure someone will be able to find the actual text) that the “turn the other cheek” part forced them to use a closed fist for the second blow, instead of an open hand, something that forced them to treat you as a combatant instead of just someone who needed to be bitch-slapped. The second part had something to do with stripping naked to embarrass them. The third part would make them get in trouble, since the Romans had strict laws about how much they could force non-Romans to do, and 1 mile was the most they could force someone to haul their stuff. > There is nothing in the bible supporting the pro-life/anti-abortion position. Even the “eye for an eye….” verse makes it clear that the life of the fetus is worth some money, but not a life. > > Not in the New Testament, they aren’t. If memory serves me right I think Paul had some words like men doing bad things with men. I would have to read it once a gain to be certain. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/65 "2013-07-02T14:13:20Z")
The term “Peterist” makes me giggle. ---
**Author:** ![Rucksinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/898d66/32.png) [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/66 "2013-07-02T22:35:01Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > If memory serves me right I think Paul had some words like men doing bad things with men. I would have to read it once a gain to be certain. I believe you’re referring to a mistranslation of _malakos_ or _arsenokoites_. Google them and you’ll find plenty about it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/67 "2013-07-02T22:40:15Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > This is not true at all. There are ten commandments and only three are US laws. No one in the religous right is seeking to make it illegal to covet your neighbor’s wife or your neighbor’s ass, or your neigbor’s ass’s wife. I daresay some would (re-)criminalize adultery. ---
**Author:** ![Rucksinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/898d66/32.png) [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/68 "2013-07-02T22:49:08Z")
Here is a longwinded explanation of what I was talking about having read in a religion class about explanations for “Turn the other cheek, et al.” [http://www.cres.org/star/\_wink.htm](http://www.cres.org/star/_wink.htm) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2013, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/69 "2013-07-02T23:11:40Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > It is a parody of what we really believe to say that the religious right wants to impose their religion on others. No, it isn’t. At most, it is an unfairly broad brush. But there are many RRs – not all, perhaps – who do indeed want to impose. See [Dominionism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism) and [Christian Reconstructionism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_reconstructionism). Then again, there are probably still some deeply and traditionally religious Americans who simply avoid politics entirely, as an occasion of sin and a thing of this world. I’ve never read a Chick tract with even an implicit message of “Vote for X,” unless X be Jesus. But those religious conservatives who are politically engaged are not, by and large, very social-libertarian in their politics. The [Constitution Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_(United_States)) certainly is not. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/70 "2013-07-03T00:39:46Z")
> [@Rucksinator](#): > > Not in the New Testament, they aren’t. Yes, there are. Romans 1:26-27: > [@](#): > > 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 1 Cor 6:9-10: > [@](#): > > 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Tim 1:8-11: > [@](#): > > 8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. > [@Rucksinator](#): > > I believe you’re referring to a mistranslation of _malakos_ or _arsenokoites_. Google them and you’ll find plenty about it. Let’s talk about these. _Arsenokoites_ appears in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10. _Malakos_ appears in 1 Cor 6:9. So even if those words are mistranslated and don’t refer to homosexual acts – a claim of which I’m dubious – they don’t appear in Romans 1:26-27. So Christians are still left with that provision, which condemns homosexual acts. As I understand it (and please correct me if I’m wrong), the argument goes that _arsenokoites_ refers – not to “men who have sex with men” – but to pederasty, homosexual prostitution, or anal sex (depending on who is arguing for an alternate definition). However, Greek dictionaries and lexicons define _arsenkokoites_ to mean “homosexual sex.” It is thought to be a compound of “arsen” (meaning “male”) and koite (meaning “bed”), and literally means “one who goes to bed with a male.” As for _malakos_, the argument (and again, correct me if I’m wrong)is that it refers – not to “the effeminate” or “the homosexual” – but to the effeminate but not necessarily homosexual, or to temple boy prostitutes. I’m naturally inclined to agree with this interpretation, since it echoes my own gut instincts about Biblical prohibitions on homosexual acts: that they’re actually condemning practices associated with other, competing religions of the time. However, on an intellectual level, I have to admit that I find this definition unconvincing. Most scholars apparently agree. Standard Greek lexicons and dictionaries define “malakos” to mean “the passive partner in a male homosexual relationship.” So these aren’t generally understood to be mistranslations. There are competing theories, but the theories themselves are not generally accepted among the scholarly community (to say nothing of the Christian community). ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/71 "2013-07-03T12:44:05Z")
If one would take the NT literally one could say Jesus was gay, John called himself the Apostle that Jesus loved, In our day if one says; "Here is the man/woman I love one could think they are gay. ---
**Author:** ![Rucksinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/898d66/32.png) [@Rucksinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rucksinator)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2013, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/72 "2013-07-03T15:04:04Z")
Romans 1:26 - 27 seem to condemn homosexuality when taken out of context. Let’s look at the whole thing: > [@](#): > > 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. > > 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. > > 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Idolatry is the sin here. Changing their sexual orientation is the punishment. (Quite the creative punishment, you’d have to admit. Although God has a history of creative punishments.) With the proper context, it’s pretty clear that the men in vs. 27 were heterosexual until God flipped the switch on them. As far as malakos and arsenokoites, yeah, pretty much what **Age Quod Agis** said. We don’t really know what those words mean, and we could spend hours debating whether malakos means soft, weak, effeminite, or wanker. And we could spend hours going over the handful of other recorded uses of arsenokoites to try to glean some context. This has all been done before. I still maintain that simply translating both of these words as “homosexual” is incorrect and based on the culture at the time that these translations were made. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2013, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/73 "2013-07-05T12:10:28Z")
In truth they could not have known God, God is unknowable! The only evidence we have is the words of other human beings. One can say they believe God did or said something but it is in reality that it is their words not any God’s word. Everything written in history etc. also is the work of humans, and some of it is true some not. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2013, 11:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/74 "2013-07-12T11:17:19Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > You’re forgetting the Preterist explanation- > > Within a generation of Jesus’ death, due to the Jerusalem Establishment’s continued persecution of His Church, Divine Judgement came upon Judea through Civil War and the Roman Siege. Josephus indeed records weird stuff in the skies, but also the Sun going dark, Moon turning to blood, & Stars falling is Old Covenant symbolic language for “the lights going out” on a society (used in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, etc.) The Temple was also desecrated starting in 62 A.D with the High Priest having Jesus’s nearest relative “James the Just, Brother of our Lord” murdered on the Temple grounds, and concluding in 70 AD with its destruction & Titus having his troops offer sacrifice to the Roman Standards on its grounds. Thus, the Old Covenant Aion came to an end, Christ was shown having ascended in the clouds & enthroned by Father God, and the Church released from its Judaic roots to extend His Message, and even His Reign, throughout the world. > > Btw, I’m a Christian Zionist who emphasizes moreso Genesis 12 & Romans 9-11 than Matthew 24, tho I can’t neglect Ezekiel 37-48 (which I think is first about the post-Babylonian Restoration, but resonates into the future). Why didn’t Jesus return in his father’s glory while some of his listeners were still alive? It surely would have been recorded. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2013, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407/75 "2013-07-14T11:22:45Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Why didn’t Jesus return in his father’s glory while some of his listeners were still alive? It surely would have been recorded. According to Matthew, Jesus was answering as to when the world would end. Jesus is quoted as saying" that generation" would not pass away until all was accomplished". The stars are sort of in a state of constant falling, The sun did not lose it’s light the moon didn’t turn to blood etc. any more than a cloudy day now. I guess one can make of it as they wish. As I see it; it was an after thought of an answer when the generation hadn’t ended, and people questioned it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/matthew-5-38-40-and-todays-conservative-christians/660407.md?page=3)