 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 02:11 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Yeah. I already gave my thoughts on the deliberate rejection of God's words. It occurs among all Christians. Paul deals with the agony of this failure to abide by "instructions" (he calls it the Law) in the sixth and seventh chapter of Romans, if you care to take a look. He specifically deals with his own struggles to overcome the sin of coveting.
Yes, Paul talks about having the desire to do what is good, but the inability to carry it out.
But with respect to several of those Sermon of the Mount teachings, I don't see in most Christians even the desire to follow them. Do you have the desire not to resist criminals? Do you have the desire to give up all your possessions?
How could you see anyone's desires? You'd have to crawl inside their hearts and minds to know what those are. My Mother in law's professor once said it's impossible to judge anyone unless you've been in their skin from birth until now. You can't possibly know what a person is going through, thinking or feeling or the influences in their lives that make them the way they are. For instance, did you know that John and i almost always give to those who ask before i said it? How can you know anything? What specifically does each Christian give and what are their "desires?"
Believe me, I can tell the difference between a weakness of the flesh and a deliberate rejection of a code of morality.
When I smoke a cigarette, that's a weakness of the flesh. I want to quit, but it's very hard. When I pirate a CD, that's a deliberate rejection of a code of morality. I've been told it's wrong, but I don't believe it.
So, yeah, looking at a sexy girl: weakness of the flesh. I get it. But acquiring property and building wealth - that's absolutely deliberate. That's saying: Jesus, I hear you, but you're wrong.
Jesus blessed people with wealth. When i lived in a one bedroom, tiny apartment with a hole in the wall and crappy plumbing etc., etc., etc., i was a millionaire compared to the kids in Rwanda who didn't have a computer, carpet, other rooms, television, electrical appliances. I was just above poverty level and someone might've felt very sorry for me. But the kids in Rwanda would've been extremely impressed with my home. I had CARPET!
I don't think everyone is called to do exactly the same thing. What does the person who aquires the wealth DO with it?
____________________
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
----♥♥-♥♥----
-----♥♥♥-----
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
|
Buttons
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Sat Jan 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 502 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 02:19 am |
|
ToniLoryn wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: Yeah. I already gave my thoughts on the deliberate rejection of God's words. It occurs among all Christians. Paul deals with the agony of this failure to abide by "instructions" (he calls it the Law) in the sixth and seventh chapter of Romans, if you care to take a look. He specifically deals with his own struggles to overcome the sin of coveting.
Yes, Paul talks about having the desire to do what is good, but the inability to carry it out.
But with respect to several of those Sermon of the Mount teachings, I don't see in most Christians even the desire to follow them. Do you have the desire not to resist criminals? Do you have the desire to give up all your possessions?
How could you see anyone's desires? You'd have to crawl inside their hearts and minds to know what those are. My Mother in law's professor once said it's impossible to judge anyone unless you've been in their skin from birth until now. You can't possibly know what a person is going through, thinking or feeling or the influences in their lives that make them the way they are. For instance, did you know that John and i almost always give to those who ask before i said it? How can you know anything? What specifically does each Christian give and what are their "desires?"
Believe me, I can tell the difference between a weakness of the flesh and a deliberate rejection of a code of morality.
When I smoke a cigarette, that's a weakness of the flesh. I want to quit, but it's very hard. When I pirate a CD, that's a deliberate rejection of a code of morality. I've been told it's wrong, but I don't believe it.
So, yeah, looking at a sexy girl: weakness of the flesh. I get it. But acquiring property and building wealth - that's absolutely deliberate. That's saying: Jesus, I hear you, but you're wrong.
Jesus blessed people with wealth. When i lived in a one bedroom, tiny apartment with a hole in the wall and crappy plumbing etc., etc., etc., i was a millionaire compared to the kids in Rwanda who didn't have a computer, carpet, other rooms, television, electrical appliances. I was just above poverty level and someone might've felt very sorry for me. But the kids in Rwanda would've been extremely impressed with my home. I had CARPET!
I don't think everyone is called to do exactly the same thing. What does the person who aquires the wealth DO with it?
I know! I know! Hoard it away for themselves to worship and then leave it to their kids to worship after them? Oh Holy Mammon! LOL
Just kidding, they use it for selfish reasons and donate a percentage to charity so they can offset their taxable income and have more for themselves 
|
stiggywiggy
Stiggywiggy
| Joined: | Wed Aug 6th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3415 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 03:12 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote:
So let me see if I'm hearing you, here.
If I wrote you a letter that said, "Dear Stiggy: I intend to sue you for the deed to your house, citing emotional damages as a result of your ceaseless stiggying. Very Truly Yours, Hyperbole"
...then you think the morally correct response would be: "Dear Hyperbole: Enclosed please find the deed to my house, as well as the title to my car, in case you want that too"? ...but you're too weak to write that letter?
No. My house is not mine alone. My shirt is. Clothing and shelter are necessities, not luxuries. My house is mine and my family's. If someone asks me for shelter in my house, yeah, I would feel it my moral obligation to provide it. If they ask for corrupt mammon, like equity in a home, nah. They can take a hike.
Because, personally, I think it's an absolutely morally incorrect response to do that. The morally correct response is: "Dear Hyperbole: Fuck you." That's not weakness. That's doing the right thing.
OK. If you insist. You want a property deed? Fuck you. You want shelter from the elements for as long as I can provide it? Come on down.
Thing is, I really suspect most Christians think that, too. And it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that you're one of them.
Would it surprise you to learn that I don't give a shit about your moral evaluation of me? Last edited on Tue Jan 13th, 2009 03:13 am by stiggywiggy
____________________
What about guys who have signatures? Pretentious pricks!
|
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 04:07 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: I chose three because i wouldn't take my shirt off because it would be pornographic. I'd also be scared of the guy and i'd run from him. If my husband were with me, he'd give his shirt instead or knock the guy out, depending on his demeanor. If he seemed like a lunatic who was going to hurt us or if he was just a desperate man who needed a shirt.
Seems like Jesus is saying that doesn't matter: if he's a desperate man, you're supposed to exercise charity, but if he's a lunatic, you're not supposed to resist him. Jesus seems to be very clear in the Sermon on the Mount that you're not supposed to resist demands by evil people: that the correct Christian response is "Thank you, sir, may I have another."
I disagree. What use would we be if a man stepped out with a gun and shot us in the foot and we asked him to do it again? You make Jesus sound stupid. You may say, no, HE makes Himself sound stupid. But i think your interpretation is what makes Him sound stupid.
____________________
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
----♥♥-♥♥----
-----♥♥♥-----
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
|
Evelyn
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Sun Aug 19th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 956 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 04:12 am |
|
Interesting question. And I'd like to ask this: ok, so maybe it is one's "flesh" or "sin nature" that makes one lust or be selfish. But in either of the scenarios here (man asks for shirt, woman looks good to man) what do any Christians actually *think* is the right thing to do? In other words, maybe you wouldn't find the courage to give away my shirt (or cut off my hand!), but do you hold that as an ideal? Do you think you *should* give your shirt to a guy who walks up and asks for it? (and throw in my coat?) Do you think that if you were a better Christian, you would be willing to cut off your hand to avoid sin? (maybe that last one is not a good question because it seems obvious that it's an exaggeration. Surely Jesus wasn't really recommending self-maiming. But how about giving away one's clothing? Was that an exaggeration too? It sounds pretty literal. It could be literal. IS it the ideal, if only Christians weren't so weak in the flesh? (Did Jesus do it?)
|
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 04:14 am |
|
Buttons wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: stiggywiggy wrote: I got a better one for Christians of the male persuasion:
You're walking down the street. A hot little nubile number catches your eye. You glance her way. You appreciate. Suddenly your appreciation in infused with a slight desire. Then... BOOM.... your desire blossoms into full-blown lust. You look away. Too late. You're already in danger of hellfire. You may as well take what pleasures you can get on the way down.
Now the question is, do you:
(1). pluck out your eyes and cut off your hands after you tend to the business at hand, or
(2). pluck out your eyes and cut off your hands before? If so, how do you facilitate, if you know what I mean? Or do you:
(3). ignore Jesus' command and relegate Him to the category of fussy perfectionist?
Beyond the sarcasm here, are you making a point? Because it seems to me that the answer for nearly all Christians is an obvious (3), and Jesus really is treated as a fussy perfectionist whose commands you have absolutely no intention of even trying to follow.
Give to those who ask of you is one of the scriptures John and i really feel admonished about. We take that very seriously. And then also giving out of your need. IOW, not using, "Do i have enough of it" as a factor in deciding whether you should give or not. Though, i'll tell you, i hardly ever give to the bell ringers in front of the grocery store. The reason being, the guilt i feel when i walk passed them pisses me off and so i refuse in my mind to cow down to that feeling. Also, i rarely buy from little children selling candy bars for various reasons. But we'll always give to the men who stand on the side of the highway with signs. And i saw a man walking in the freezing cold on my way back from work and i came home and asked John to drive back out with me so we could give him a ride. John sat behind the guy in the back seat so he could restrain him if he were to try anything and it turned out he was just getting out of the county jail! We drove him about four miles down the road and he was cool. He didn't pull anything weird. Heh.
grin...so you'll give freely to the individual homeless man but not to someone donating their day off to solicit funds for the homeless collective? LOL
Well, idk what the bell ringers are asking donations for but yes, that's right. It's not that i object to helping the homeless, obviously. It's that every single time i go in and out of the store i'm plagued by guilty feelings and it pisses me off so i refuse to give.
I know what you mean about the feeling though. I don't want to be made to feel OBLIGATED to give...then again, I have no religious code that instructs me to do so...and yet I still feel guilt when I want past them.
You don't really need a code. I think it's inappropriate, personally. Soliciting like that. It's uncomfortable and basically makes it seem like whomever doesn't give is a greedy bastard. It's the same thing when i'm in church and everyone stands to sing/worship. If i don't feel like doing it at that moment, i wont. I don't like being told to worship on demand. Everyone stand...now and sing...and worship. It's not an admirable trait. It's probably rebellion. I just don't like being made to feel like i have to do something if i'm not ready and i wont fake it.
Now we've given a few times to a Christian drug rehab that runs on donations. Why that's different than the bell rings, idk. I guess the bell ringers feel obnoxious or something. I'm not sure.
____________________
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
----♥♥-♥♥----
-----♥♥♥-----
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 05:07 am |
|
stiggywiggy wrote:No. My house is not mine alone. My shirt is. Clothing and shelter are necessities, not luxuries. My house is mine and my family's. If someone asks me for shelter in my house, yeah, I would feel it my moral obligation to provide it. If they ask for corrupt mammon, like equity in a home, nah. They can take a hike.
Your family are Christians too, right? And even if they weren't, didn't Jesus specifically say "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"?
Seems to me that Jesus would prefer you follow his teachings rather than violate them on your family's behalf.
Would it surprise you to learn that I don't give a shit about your moral evaluation of me?
Not at all! But don't think the point of any of this is to suggest you're an immoral person. After all, I think refusing to give me your and your family's house just because I demanded it is the right moral choice.
I just think Jesus was pretty clear that it was the wrong one.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 05:14 am |
|
But with respect to several of those Sermon of the Mount teachings, I don't see in most Christians even the desire to follow them. Do you have the desire not to resist criminals? Do you have the desire to give up all your possessions? How could you see anyone's desires? You'd have to crawl inside their hearts and minds to know what those are. My Mother in law's professor once said it's impossible to judge anyone unless you've been in their skin from birth until now. You can't possibly know what a person is going through, thinking or feeling or the influences in their lives that make them the way they are. For instance, did you know that John and i almost always give to those who ask before i said it? How can you know anything? What specifically does each Christian give and what are their "desires?"
Well, you can always ask them.
Loryn, this thread really isn't about charity, and I've never accused you (or anyone else here) of being uncharitable.
This thread is about Jesus's commands to give criminals what they want, and more; and not to amass any wealth or property, even enough to be financially secure.
So, that's what I'm asking. Jesus says that if someone sues you for your shirt, don't fight back. Give him the shirt, and give him your coat, too. If someone hits you, don't fight back. Offer to let him hit you again.
And so I'm asking the Christians on this board: is that what you really desire? To let people take advantage of you whenever they want? When you refuse to let people take advantage of you, do you feel guilty for violating one of Jesus's most explicit commands?
Jesus blessed people with wealth. When i lived in a one bedroom, tiny apartment with a hole in the wall and crappy plumbing etc., etc., etc., i was a millionaire compared to the kids in Rwanda who didn't have a computer, carpet, other rooms, television, electrical appliances. I was just above poverty level and someone might've felt very sorry for me. But the kids in Rwanda would've been extremely impressed with my home. I had CARPET! I don't think everyone is called to do exactly the same thing. What does the person who aquires the wealth DO with it?
I don't see anything in the Bible about Jesus blessing people with wealth. What I see is Jesus saying: "Don't have wealth."
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." - Matthew 6:19
Now, that looks like Jesus might be preaching against having excessive wealth, but in case you think that, he goes on to make it perfectly clear that he doesn't even want people to acquire wealth for the sake of financial security:
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them." - Matthew 6:25-26
It seems pretty unambiguous to me.
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 05:18 am |
|
ToniLoryn wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: I chose three because i wouldn't take my shirt off because it would be pornographic. I'd also be scared of the guy and i'd run from him. If my husband were with me, he'd give his shirt instead or knock the guy out, depending on his demeanor. If he seemed like a lunatic who was going to hurt us or if he was just a desperate man who needed a shirt.
Seems like Jesus is saying that doesn't matter: if he's a desperate man, you're supposed to exercise charity, but if he's a lunatic, you're not supposed to resist him. Jesus seems to be very clear in the Sermon on the Mount that you're not supposed to resist demands by evil people: that the correct Christian response is "Thank you, sir, may I have another."
I disagree. What use would we be if a man stepped out with a gun and shot us in the foot and we asked him to do it again? You make Jesus sound stupid. You may say, no, HE makes Himself sound stupid. But i think your interpretation is what makes Him sound stupid.
I think Jesus is very literally telling you that if a man steps out and shoots you in the foot, you should ask him to do it again. Because your foot doesn't matter. Your life doesn't matter. What matters is your salvation, and it's better to give up your safety and possibly your life to this thug than to give up your salvation by turning against him in anger.
Jesus really lays down that code pretty explicity: do not resist evil. Give an evil person exactly what they want, and more. If they take your shirt, offer them your coat. If they hit you once, offer to let them hit you again.
That's Jesus's code. And I believe most Christians don't follow it. Or even believe in it.
|
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 05:26 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: I chose three because i wouldn't take my shirt off because it would be pornographic. I'd also be scared of the guy and i'd run from him. If my husband were with me, he'd give his shirt instead or knock the guy out, depending on his demeanor. If he seemed like a lunatic who was going to hurt us or if he was just a desperate man who needed a shirt.
Seems like Jesus is saying that doesn't matter: if he's a desperate man, you're supposed to exercise charity, but if he's a lunatic, you're not supposed to resist him. Jesus seems to be very clear in the Sermon on the Mount that you're not supposed to resist demands by evil people: that the correct Christian response is "Thank you, sir, may I have another."
I disagree. What use would we be if a man stepped out with a gun and shot us in the foot and we asked him to do it again? You make Jesus sound stupid. You may say, no, HE makes Himself sound stupid. But i think your interpretation is what makes Him sound stupid.
I think Jesus is very literally telling you that if a man steps out and shoots you in the foot, you should ask him to do it again. Because your foot doesn't matter. Your life doesn't matter. What matters is your salvation, and it's better to give up your safety and possibly your life to this thug than to give up your salvation by turning against him in anger.
Jesus really lays down that code pretty explicity: do not resist evil. Give an evil person exactly what they want, and more. If they take your shirt, offer them your coat. If they hit you once, offer to let them hit you again.
That's Jesus's code. And I believe most Christians don't follow it. Or even believe in it.
I don't understand it so you're probably right. If it's meant to be literal, i don't understand it. I understand denying yourself, your wants and needs and giving all your belongings to others but i don't understand handing myself over to an evil person. If that were the case, i would take the mark when i'm told to.
____________________
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
----♥♥-♥♥----
-----♥♥♥-----
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
|
AyHyperbole
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Mon Nov 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2398 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 05:35 am |
|
ToniLoryn wrote: I don't understand it so you're probably right. If it's meant to be literal, i don't understand it. I understand denying yourself, your wants and needs and giving all your belongings to others but i don't understand handing myself over to an evil person. If that were the case, i would take the mark when i'm told to.
It sure looks like it's meant to be literal. Matthew 5:39: "But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person."
No figurative language there. Jesus tells you not to resist violence, not to resist a lawsuit, not to resist being kidnapped. Don't fight back; don't run; just give into the demands and offer even more.
What do you mean by "I would take the mark when I'm told to"?
|
PearlsSand2
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1250 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 05:51 am |
|
ToniLoryn wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: I chose three because i wouldn't take my shirt off because it would be pornographic. I'd also be scared of the guy and i'd run from him. If my husband were with me, he'd give his shirt instead or knock the guy out, depending on his demeanor. If he seemed like a lunatic who was going to hurt us or if he was just a desperate man who needed a shirt.
Seems like Jesus is saying that doesn't matter: if he's a desperate man, you're supposed to exercise charity, but if he's a lunatic, you're not supposed to resist him. Jesus seems to be very clear in the Sermon on the Mount that you're not supposed to resist demands by evil people: that the correct Christian response is "Thank you, sir, may I have another."
I disagree. What use would we be if a man stepped out with a gun and shot us in the foot and we asked him to do it again? You make Jesus sound stupid. You may say, no, HE makes Himself sound stupid. But i think your interpretation is what makes Him sound stupid.
I think Jesus is very literally telling you that if a man steps out and shoots you in the foot, you should ask him to do it again. Because your foot doesn't matter. Your life doesn't matter. What matters is your salvation, and it's better to give up your safety and possibly your life to this thug than to give up your salvation by turning against him in anger.
Jesus really lays down that code pretty explicity: do not resist evil. Give an evil person exactly what they want, and more. If they take your shirt, offer them your coat. If they hit you once, offer to let them hit you again.
That's Jesus's code. And I believe most Christians don't follow it. Or even believe in it.
I don't understand it so you're probably right. If it's meant to be literal, i don't understand it. I understand denying yourself, your wants and needs and giving all your belongings to others but i don't understand handing myself over to an evil person. If that were the case, i would take the mark when i'm told to.
Here's an interesting bit of commentary on this from David Guzik:
b. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also: Here, Jesus presents the fullness of the eye for an eye law, and how its idea of limiting revenge extends into the principle of accepting certain evil against one’s self.
i. When a person insults us (slaps you on the right cheek) we want to give them back what they gave to us, plus more. Jesus says we should patiently bear such insults and offences, and not resist an evil person who insults us this way. Instead, we trust God to defend us.
ii. It is wrong to think Jesus means evil should never be resisted. Jesus demonstrated with His life that evil should and must be resisted, such as when He turned tables in the temple.
iii. It is wrong to think that Jesus means a physical attack cannot be resisted or defended against. When Jesus speaks of a slap on your right cheek, that was culturally understood as a deep insult, not a physical attack. Jesus does not mean that if someone hits across the right side of our head with a baseball bat, we should allow them to then hit the left side.
iv. It is also wrong to think Jesus means that there is no place for punishment or retribution in society. Jesus here speaks to personal relationships, and not to the proper functions of government in restraining evil (Romans 13:1-4). I must turn my cheek when I am personally insulted, but the government has a responsibility to restrain the evil man from physical assault.
v. Jesus also displayed the principle behind the law in His trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate. He showed that we are to let God defend our case, not ourselves.
Last edited on Tue Jan 13th, 2009 06:24 am by PearlsSand2
____________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkKue_MEnkk&feature=fvw
|
Belvedere
Belvedere
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 134 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 05:52 am |
|
Henry Sidgwick wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: I chose three because i wouldn't take my shirt off because it would be pornographic. I'd also be scared of the guy and i'd run from him. If my husband were with me, he'd give his shirt instead or knock the guy out, depending on his demeanor. If he seemed like a lunatic who was going to hurt us or if he was just a desperate man who needed a shirt.
Seems like Jesus is saying that doesn't matter: if he's a desperate man, you're supposed to exercise charity, but if he's a lunatic, you're not supposed to resist him. Jesus seems to be very clear in the Sermon on the Mount that you're not supposed to resist demands by evil people: that the correct Christian response is "Thank you, sir, may I have another."
That's a very common misunderstanding of the Sermon on the Mount. The real message is not "do not resist evil" but "do not resist evil in kind".
That's interesting. Maybe this whole thread is centered around a pseudo-problem.
Seems like a terrible waste of energy to me.
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 05:55 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote:
This thread is about Jesus's commands to give criminals what they want, and more; and not to amass any wealth or property, even enough to be financially secure.
So, that's what I'm asking. Jesus says that if someone sues you for your shirt, don't fight back. Give him the shirt, and give him your coat, too. If someone hits you, don't fight back. Offer to let him hit you again.
The overall point of the passage is mercy instead of revenge. In the particular matter of the smack in the face, it's very likely referring to a merely insulting face-slap, not a dangerous assault.
And so I'm asking the Christians on this board: is that what you really desire? To let people take advantage of you whenever they want? When you refuse to let people take advantage of you, do you feel guilty for violating one of Jesus's most explicit commands?
Sometimes, but not always. I don't take the commands of Jesus to be the *only* operative commands, and I don't treat Scripture like a rule-book.
I don't see anything in the Bible about Jesus blessing people with wealth. What I see is Jesus saying: "Don't have wealth."
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." - Matthew 6:19
Now, that looks like Jesus might be preaching against having excessive wealth, but in case you think that, he goes on to make it perfectly clear that he doesn't even want people to acquire wealth for the sake of financial security:
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them." - Matthew 6:25-26
It seems pretty unambiguous to me.
Allow me to add some ambiguity:
Matt. 7:11 -- When possible, we are to provide for our parents, not just ourselves; this takes precedence even over offerings to God.
Luke 6:38 -- As we are generous, others will be generous to us. This is presented as something we should expect and enjoy.
Mark 10:30 -- Those who make great sacrifices to spread the Gospel are promised "now, in this life" multiplied reward in kind.
____________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage
"Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt
"Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody
|
Henry Sidgwick
Belvedere
| Joined: | Sat Jan 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 63 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 06:00 am |
|
Norrin, I think Hype is more interested in debating the pseudo-problem, as opposed to really understanding the meaning of the text.
____________________
The "FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”
--Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 06:10 am |
|
Henry Sidgwick wrote: Norrin, I think Hype is more interested in debating the pseudo-problem, as opposed to really understanding the meaning of the text.
Possibly, but so far it's a reasonably civilized discussion, so no real harm in tossing in an opinion.
____________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage
"Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt
"Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody
|
NorrinRadd
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Tue Jul 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 06:15 am |
|
AyHyperbole wrote: ...
What do you mean by "I would take the mark when I'm told to"?
Pressed to its logical conclusion, being absolutely nonresistant to the demands of evil people would lead to accepting the "mark of the Beast," which in turn would lead to judgment by God -- assuming one of the literal, dispensationalist interpretation of Revelation.
____________________
"I reject your reality and substitute my own." -- Mythbuster Adam Savage
"Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence." -- ComputerGear T-Shirt
"Well THAT was a slap and a tickle!" -- William the Bloody
|
PearlsSand2
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1250 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 06:20 am |
|
I don't see anything in the Bible about Jesus blessing people with wealth. What I see is Jesus saying: "Don't have wealth."
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." - Matthew 6:19 Well for part of the chapter there, Jesus is directly addressing the right attitude/motive of giving (charity). Therefore, to be able to do even that, one must have *something to give, whether it is out of personal wealth or lack isn't really mentioned. So I disagree that Jesus was teaching NOT to have wealth. Also, when you leave out the subsequent conclusion of that teaching: "For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also," -Jesus, I can see how one could view what he said prior to that, in and of itself, as an admonition not to store or obtain any wealth on earth AT ALL. But I don't think that is what He was getting at, given his conclusion........it was, as it always is, a matter of where your heart is, regardless of what you may or may not have. -What things you truly value in your heart.
Now, that looks like Jesus might be preaching against having excessive wealth, but in case you think that, he goes on to make it perfectly clear that he doesn't even want people to acquire wealth for the sake of financial security:
"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them." - Matthew 6:25-26
It seems pretty unambiguous to me. Again, I disagree. That one only speaks to our tendency to "worry" when we are "without" I think. It has nothing to do with Him teaching against personal financial security, but more of an assurance that even when things look rather bleak, that our heavenly Father knows what we need and will provide. Jehovah-Jireh.
Last edited on Tue Jan 13th, 2009 06:32 am by PearlsSand2
____________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkKue_MEnkk&feature=fvw
|
PearlsSand2
Dialogue Facilitator
| Joined: | Wed Jun 25th, 2008 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 1250 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 06:37 am |
|
a. Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth: The ancient Greek more literally says do not treasure for yourself treasures on earth.
(Again offering a portion of commentary on this from Mr. Guzik).
____________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkKue_MEnkk&feature=fvw
|
ToniLoryn
Dialogue Follower
| Joined: | Thu Aug 7th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3785 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Jan 13th, 2009 06:51 am |
|
PearlsSand2 wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: AyHyperbole wrote: ToniLoryn wrote: I chose three because i wouldn't take my shirt off because it would be pornographic. I'd also be scared of the guy and i'd run from him. If my husband were with me, he'd give his shirt instead or knock the guy out, depending on his demeanor. If he seemed like a lunatic who was going to hurt us or if he was just a desperate man who needed a shirt.
Seems like Jesus is saying that doesn't matter: if he's a desperate man, you're supposed to exercise charity, but if he's a lunatic, you're not supposed to resist him. Jesus seems to be very clear in the Sermon on the Mount that you're not supposed to resist demands by evil people: that the correct Christian response is "Thank you, sir, may I have another."
I disagree. What use would we be if a man stepped out with a gun and shot us in the foot and we asked him to do it again? You make Jesus sound stupid. You may say, no, HE makes Himself sound stupid. But i think your interpretation is what makes Him sound stupid.
I think Jesus is very literally telling you that if a man steps out and shoots you in the foot, you should ask him to do it again. Because your foot doesn't matter. Your life doesn't matter. What matters is your salvation, and it's better to give up your safety and possibly your life to this thug than to give up your salvation by turning against him in anger.
Jesus really lays down that code pretty explicity: do not resist evil. Give an evil person exactly what they want, and more. If they take your shirt, offer them your coat. If they hit you once, offer to let them hit you again.
That's Jesus's code. And I believe most Christians don't follow it. Or even believe in it.
I don't understand it so you're probably right. If it's meant to be literal, i don't understand it. I understand denying yourself, your wants and needs and giving all your belongings to others but i don't understand handing myself over to an evil person. If that were the case, i would take the mark when i'm told to.
Here's an interesting bit of commentary on this from David Guzik:
b. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also: Here, Jesus presents the fullness of the eye for an eye law, and how its idea of limiting revenge extends into the principle of accepting certain evil against one’s self.
i. When a person insults us (slaps you on the right cheek) we want to give them back what they gave to us, plus more. Jesus says we should patiently bear such insults and offences, and not resist an evil person who insults us this way. Instead, we trust God to defend us.
ii. It is wrong to think Jesus means evil should never be resisted. Jesus demonstrated with His life that evil should and must be resisted, such as when He turned tables in the temple.
iii. It is wrong to think that Jesus means a physical attack cannot be resisted or defended against. When Jesus speaks of a slap on your right cheek, that was culturally understood as a deep insult, not a physical attack. Jesus does not mean that if someone hits across the right side of our head with a baseball bat, we should allow them to then hit the left side.
iv. It is also wrong to think Jesus means that there is no place for punishment or retribution in society. Jesus here speaks to personal relationships, and not to the proper functions of government in restraining evil (Romans 13:1-4). I must turn my cheek when I am personally insulted, but the government has a responsibility to restrain the evil man from physical assault.
v. Jesus also displayed the principle behind the law in His trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate. He showed that we are to let God defend our case, not ourselves.
This makes much more sense to me. It seemed really inconsistent and down right weird, the other interpretation of that scripture. Thanks very much for posting this.
____________________
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
---♥♥---♥♥---
----♥♥-♥♥----
-----♥♥♥-----
----♥♥-♥♥----
---♥♥---♥♥---
|
Current time is 03:44 am | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
|
|
|
