techboy Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 The "status slaps" may be true, I've never heard that before, but the offering the cheek as an insult is not even remotely close to the text. Yeah, I had never heard that particular angle before either, and it doesn't really fit the text in any case. I suspect that something got garbled there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Yeah, I had never heard that particular angle before either, and it doesn't really fit the text in any case. I suspect that something got garbled there. Not to hijack the thread, but Techboy I would love to see a thread by you dedicated to the Pantera/Panthera story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Yeah, I had never heard that particular angle before either, and it doesn't really fit the text in any case. I suspect that something got garbled there. My thoughts too because no stretching of the text allows for that interpretation. "Jesus says love your enemies by insulting them"?? Wha? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 In historical context, it can be persuasively argued that Jesus is advocating non-violent but active resistance against oppression, and I find that very consistent with the literary context as well. Much more succinct and to my point. It is not an act of submission when he turned his cheek, IMO, as is most often claimed. ---------- Post added March-25th-2011 at 09:54 PM ---------- My thoughts too because no stretching of the text allows for that interpretation. "Jesus says love your enemies by insulting them"?? Wha? ASF. Unfortunately, I simply dismiss your replies due to your condecension and rude dismissall of opinions counter to yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Not to hijack the thread, but Techboy I would love to see a thread by you dedicated to the Pantera/Panthera story. I didn't start the thread, but I commented on the issue here. It was a short post (for me), because almost no scholar takes the idea seriously, and the one that I know of that does doesn't even argue that it's true, just that he finds the possibility intriguing (though he's happy to give interviews and write popular press works that imply more, of course... that sells well). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 ASF. Unfortunately, I simply dismiss your replies due to your condecension and rude dismissall of opinions counter to yours. It's not an opinion, it's fact, and while I fully affirm your right to your own opinion I do not affirm your right to your own facts, and the interpretation based on the cultural norm that you presented was just wrong with no factual basis in reality. If you dismiss my reply because it challenges your belief then that's your problem not mine, but it doesn't change the fact that you have your facts wrong. BTW, I don't find it condescending to tell someone that they are wrong, if you do again that's your deal not mine. Much more succinct and to my point. It is not an act of submission when he turned his cheek, IMO, as is most often claimed. The problem is that what he said is not to your point, in fact it is in opposition to your point. You claimed that the act of turning the cheek was the insult, it wasn't and isn't and never was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 That free will is a sticky subject.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 That free will is a sticky subject.... no it isn't. some people had no choice. as God sends them delusions, evil spirits and lying spirits. Others he has chosen from the begging to saved. I have found many fundys relishing the idea of certain people going to hell. I can pick out a few on this board who relish in that thought also. I am sure you can pick those out also Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Actually, in Jesus' culture, that depends on whether the person you are striking is an equal or a subordinate. See Marcus Borg's What Would Jesus Think of King's Protests?The upshot is that you'd use a backhand on someone of lower status, and an open hand or fist on someone of equal status, but you wouldn't use the left hand, so when you turn your cheek, you force your oppressor to treat you like an equal if he wants to hit you again. There's similar context behind the other two examples... Roman law allowed a soldier to force any citizen to carry gear for him one and only one mile, so going two creates an awkward situation for the soldier, and if you hand over your shirt too, a peasant ends up naked, and in that culture the shame is accrued to the viewer. In historical context, it can be persuasively argued that Jesus is advocating non-violent but active resistance against oppression, and I find that very consistent with the literary context as well. One has to look at all the verses on the subject Jesus also told his followers to pray for those presecuating you There is also verses like return evil for evil to no one Do not avensenge yourselves I will repay say The Lord Keep conquering the evil with good A slave of the lord does not need to fight but be gentle towards all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spec138 Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 Are we still blaming God for bad carreer decisions.He gives out giant brains and free will and he gets blamed for people going to hell? Its his fault people choose to live at the bottom of a volcano. Its his fault people choose to live below a levy or a mobile home in tornado alley? Come on people, if you just followed his crib notes of 10 this world would be spectacular. Came along this comic on reddit and it reminded me of this post so I thought I'd share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 It's not an opinion, it's fact, and while I fully affirm your right to your own opinion I do not affirm your right to your own facts, and the interpretation based on the cultural norm that you presented was just wrong with no factual basis in reality. If you dismiss my reply because it challenges your belief then that's your problem not mine, but it doesn't change the fact that you have your facts wrong. BTW, I don't find it condescending to tell someone that they are wrong, if you do again that's your deal not mine.The problem is that what he said is not to your point, in fact it is in opposition to your point. You claimed that the act of turning the cheek was the insult, it wasn't and isn't and never was. It isn't the simple act of attempting to correct an opinion that is condecending. It is the method that you choose. Dismissing an opinion as nonsense, whether incorrect or not, is counterproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grego Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 as an outsider looking in, i didnt see ASF's response as condescending, stevenaa. you see condescending posts around here, and i'm not sure that was in the ballpark. i think his response was more like a 'i've never heard that before, where are you getting that from, cuz it appears to contradict everything jesus said' kind of thing. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 It isn't the simple act of attempting to correct an opinion that is condecending. It is the method that you choose. Dismissing an opinion as nonsense, whether incorrect or not, is counterproductive. I'm sorry I offended seriously I am. For me if a statement is both wrong on historical fact and wrong on interpretation it is necessarily nonsense. Those for me are the two most important considerations in biblical interpretation; 1) historical context and 2) literary context. The position that you presented was wrong on both counts, I am sorry that I was harsh in my response, it has more to do with my current mental state right now than it did your statement, and you're right I could have responded to it more graciously. Please accept my apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 If were talking the omnipotent God, what you have, are and will do is already known to him as is your final destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted March 26, 2011 Share Posted March 26, 2011 If were talking the omnipotent God, what you have, are and will do is already known to him as is your final destination. Would that not be more an example of Omniscience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted March 27, 2011 Share Posted March 27, 2011 God is subtle but he is not malicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.