Originally posted by karoly aczelYes. One must understand the Jewish customs, while living under the
What's your take on this? Are you presenting this link as something you agree with totally,partially, or what?
Give me answer, then I will check out your link. Deal?
oppression of the Romans in the first century, and the fact that one is not
just being struck anywhere.
P.S. For if he is struck again, there is no rule against striking back. So
this does not mean someone should not defend himself as ao many assume.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsAre you saying we shouldn't defend ourselves?
Yes. One must understand the Jewish customs, while living under the
oppression of the Romans in the first century, and the fact that one is not
just being struck anywhere.
P.S. For if he is struck again, there is no rule against striking back. So
this does not mean someone should not defend himself as ao many assume.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI had a bit of a problem with that last sentence. I also have a problem with your seemingly paradoxical views, even though in another sense i admit that the universe is an oxymoron.
No just the opposite. It seems, practically everyone one this forum has a
problem with understand the written word.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsEveryone but you? See, here we go again with the condesending attitude. This is what turns everyone off to wanting to discuss anything with you and taking you serious.
No just the opposite. It seems, practically everyone one this forum has a
problem with understand the written word.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSounds kind of passive-aggressive, doesn't it?
http://dharmagates.org/other_cheek.html
And why does Borg leave out the first part of Matthew 5:39?
39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person.
The word resist caught my attention immediately. It reminded me of a certain famous political activist:
From his deep studies of Gandhi and his own experience, Martin Luther King Jr. developed a list of six facts to help people understand non-violent resistance and join with him in his vision.
King’s words are as insightful and thought provoking today as they were when he wrote them:
1. Non-violent resistance is not for cowards. It is not a quiet, passive acceptance of evil. One is passive and non-violent physically, but very active spiritually, always seeking ways to persuade the opponent of advantages to the way of love, cooperation, and peace.
2. The goal is not to defeat or humiliate the opponent but rather to win him or her over to understanding new ways to create cooperation and community.
3. The non-violent resister attacks the forces of evil, not the people who are engaged in injustice. As King said in Montgomery, “We are out to defeat injustice and not white persons who may be unjust.”
4. The non-violent resister accepts suffering without retaliating; accepts violence, but never commits it. Gandhi said, “Rivers of blood may have to flow before we gain our freedom, but it must be our blood.” Gandhi and King both understood that suffering by activists had the mysterious power of converting opponents who would otherwise refuse to listen.
5. In non-violent resistance, one learns to avoid physical violence toward others and also learns to love the opponents with “agape” or unconditional love–which is love given not for what one will receive in return, but for the sake of love alone. It is God flowing through the human heart. Agape is ahimsa. “Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate,” said King.
6. Non-violent resistance is based on the belief that the universe is just. There is God or a creative force that is moving us toward universal love and wholeness continually. Therefore, all our work for justice will bear fruit – the fruit of love, peace, and justice for all beings everywhere.”
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/martin-luther-king-six-facts.html
It's interesting that King chose the word 'resist' when it is explicitly mentioned by Jesus as something not to do.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsactually, there is a rule for not striking back. it's called turning the other cheek.
Yes. One must understand the Jewish customs, while living under the
oppression of the Romans in the first century, and the fact that one is not
just being struck anywhere.
P.S. For if he is struck again, there is no rule against striking back. So
this does not mean someone should not defend himself as ao many assume.
turn the other cheek does not mean strike back under any interpretation, even really twisted ones.
13 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitmany christians will try to justify violent behavior in any way they can, even if it means disobeying christ.
Sounds kind of passive-aggressive, doesn't it?
And why does Borg leave out the first part of Matthew 5:39?39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person.
The word [b]resist caught my attention immediately. It reminded me of a certain famous political activist:
[quote]From his deep studies of Gandhi and his own experience, Martin ing chose the word 'resist' when it is explicitly mentioned by Jesus as something not to do.[/b]
14 Mar 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelSee what I mean. With the addition of one extra letter and you are practically
I had a bit of a problem with that last sentence. I also have a problem with your seemingly paradoxical views, even though in another sense i admit that the universe is an oxymoron.
dumbfounded. 😏