Glory to God and all blessings to Jesus Christ.
For the most part these people seem to attach themselves to "Christianity" as a means to remove all personal responsibility from themselves. They have turned the most diligent religion into one of laziness with out of context verses and ridiculous interpretation.
Show them a flaming active faggot and they'll claim it's part of God's plan that this guy is committing abominations. At what point could they possibly decide that God's will is the same as Satan's? Is that not the only inexcusable sin?
They drink and smoke and fornicate and tell us that they are righteous and saved, because John 3:16. 'We don't interpret the bible, we take it at face value'.
Quote Galatians 5:19-21 and they do Olympic level brain acrobatics to tell you that this actually means the opposite of what it says.
This garbage is coming out of the seminaries and Christian colleges. These places are probably overrun with jews and satanists. The average Christians seem to be a lazy bunch who have attached themselves to this feel good philosophy in a means to excuse their sin. If they read the bible, they don't understand it so they turn to youtube channels that interpret the text for them. Usually I think they simply don't read the bible, because it makes them uncomfortable.
It's troublesome that so many Christians misinterpret scripture to believe they have no power to pass any righteous judgement or ever take up arms against Christ haters.
Also the Christianity forum seems to be hostile to any anti-zionism or open condemnation of anti-christ Jews. This is why we go to c/Christian forum instead.
This modern weakened corruption of Christianity is maddening. It's just another excuse from weakened people for why they do nothing to stop evil in their midst. "Oh, I have to go to work in the morning", "I have kids to feed", "violence is wrong", "we just have to vote harder [current year]", "only feds and glowies advocate for violence", "the people in power want us to become violent", "Christ told us to turn the other cheek"...all of it is lies and excuses.
When the shit actually hits the fan because there aren't enough good people to prop up the crumbling foundations of civilization, I'll have zero sympathy for the cruel fates that await those weaklings.
The Old Testament is the Hebrew Bible, i.e. Judaism. Christianity brought pacifism to the Jews. This is why many Jews rejected Jesus and killed him.
Here are alternative arguments for Matthew 5:39 ("turn the other cheek"):
https://www.gotquestions.org/turn-other-cheek.html
> Much of the material surrounding Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek complements the nature of His coming, which was characterized by mercy, sacrificial love, and longsuffering toward sinners. At the same time, Jesus affirms the “last is first” principle upon which the kingdom of God is based. For instance, He tells us to go the extra mile for someone who abuses us (Matthew 5:41) and to love and pray for our enemies instead of holding enmity against them (verse 44). In summary, Jesus is saying we need to be pure inside and out and as accommodating as possible for the sake of a lost world.
In essence, according to this interpretation, it means that we shouldn't escalate an evil, for fear of growing the evil. We should meet evil with love, so that we deescalate it, and grow the kingdom of Christ on earth. However, pertaining to this argument, if who we're facing won't back down, and will escalate no matter what, this lesson is null and void, and there's no reason for us to turn the other cheek.
> Matthew Henry’s comment on this verse is helpful: “Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord’s keeping. And the sum of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who act upon right principles will have most peace and comfort”
This means, essentially, to act in a way which facilitates peace, against honorable opponents. However, if our enemy doesn't want peace, we have zero reason to turn the other cheek.
> Turning the other cheek does not imply pacifism, nor does it mean we place ourselves or others in danger. Jesus’ command to turn the other cheek is simply a command to forgo retaliation for personal offenses. He was not setting government foreign policy, and He was not throwing out the judicial system. Crimes can still be prosecuted, and wars can still be waged, but the follower of Christ need not defend his personal “rights” or avenge his honor.
This here, just like above, is advocating for acting/reacting in a way which leads to peace (when our opponents/aggressors are honorable). Our opponents aren't honorable, and seek the death of each and every one of us. Thus, we aren't obligated to turn the other cheek.
> There was a time in history when a man would feel compelled to protect his honor against one who slandered him or otherwise besmirched his character. The offended party would challenge the offender to a duel. Swords, firearms, or other weapons were chosen, and the two enemies would face off. In most cases, senseless bloodshed ensued. Samuel Johnson wrote in favor of the practice of dueling: “A man may shoot the man who invades his character, as he may shoot him who attempts to break into his house.” The problem is that “invasions of character” are exactly what Jesus told us to tolerate in Matthew 5:38. Turning the other cheek would have been a better option than dueling, and it would have saved lives.
Many non-Christians (and many Christians) don't understand that many passages have historical applicability which changes the interpretation of Biblical passage in question. Shocking! A book over 2000 years old written in different languages doesn't equate 1 to 1 perfectly. This aligns with the previous parts of Matthew 5 (like in 5:38, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’"), that Jesus is merely advocating for peace upon people seeking needless violence (among honorable opponents). And, repeatedly, our opponents aren't honorable, and seek violence regardless of what we do, thus we aren't obligated to turn the other cheek.
> Jesus was, of course, the perfect example of turning the other cheek because He was silent before His accusers and did not call down revenge from heaven on those who crucified Him. Instead, He prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34).
Keep in mind that Jesus knew that his opponents would be met with failure, harm, death, and hell, regardless of what they did to him. He didn't need to seek immediate retribution, as he knew what awaited them should they continue on their course. He prayed for their change of heart, but knew what awaited them should they continue on their path. This doesn't necessarily mean that someone should never fight back, however.
Here's another link:
https://www.thebubble.org.uk/culture/philosophy-religion/the-path-of-most-resistance-what-does-it-mean-to-turn-the-other-cheek/
> There has been thousands of interpretations of this phrase across time, but I will show you a few that could help us to understand it better.
> Many theologians, like N.T Wright (former Bishop of Durham) and P.T Penley, tell us that the answer lies in the historical and linguistic context of the phrase. They see meaning in the fact that Jesus doesn’t generally talk about turning your cheek, but specifically focuses on turning from the right one to the left: “if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other one also”. They highlight that Roman soldiers would slap Jewish citizens on the right cheek, using the back of their hands – the type of slap reserved for their ‘inferiors’. However, backhandedly slapping a person on the left cheek (which is what you are forcing them to do when you turn your cheek) would indicate that the recipient was an equal...Thus, this act of “turning the other cheek” has been interpreted as a subtle assertion of the oppressed person’s humanity: pointing out their equal status of being human, to the attacker. Jesus doesn’t suggest that we offer ourselves up as a sacrifice or invite our aggressor to hurt us again, as I initially thought; he is encouraging a nonviolent strategy of highlighting that the attacker is mistreating a fellow human being. Barbara Reid says that the aggressor is then “shamed” and “humiliated” by this highlighting of their wrongdoing.
This would indicate Jesus is advocating for the victim to force the attacker to treat/view him as an equal. This is completely contradictory to the assertion that God/Jesus advocates for us to be pacifists in the face of our own destruction.
So, which interpretation is correct? Is it yours? Why? Are you asserting it's yours because it supports your position, or because it's what God intended?
Also, as it's relevant to this discussion, here are some Biblical passages which support the position that Jesus/God support righteous violence:
Pretty much the entirety of the Old Testament is God commanding the Israelites to war with and destroy various people so they can inhabit a specific area.
> Exodus 15:3: The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.
> Joshua 10: 7-11: So Joshua marched up from Gilgal with his entire army, including all the best fighting men. The Lord said to Joshua, “Do not be afraid of them; I have given them into your hand. Not one of them will be able to withstand you.” After an all-night march from Gilgal, Joshua took them by surprise. The Lord threw them into confusion before Israel, so Joshua and the Israelites defeated them completely at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah. As they fled before Israel on the road down from Beth Horon to Azekah, the Lord hurled large hailstones down on them, and more of them died from the hail than were killed by the swords of the Israelites.
> Deuteronomy 20:1: When you go to war against your enemies and see horses and chariots and an army greater than yours, do not be afraid of them, because the Lord your God, who brought you up out of Egypt, will be with you.
> Exodus 22:2: “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; 3 but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.
> Leviticus 24:17-22: “‘Anyone who takes the life of a human being is to be put to death. 18 Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution—life for life. 19 Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. 21 Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death. 22 You are to have the same law for the foreigner and the native-born. I am the Lord your God.’”
> Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
> Exodus 21:12–14: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die."
> Romans 13:4: for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
> Proverbs 24:5-6: A wise man is full of strength, and a man of knowledge enhances his might, for by wise guidance you can wage your war, and in abundance of counselors there is victory.
I know, but you're not a Jew are you? If you're not a Jew then everything that is written in the Old Testament, *especially* the war stuff, is irrelevant. How can any reasonable person read the gospels and think that the genocides of the Old Testament are still justifiable?
In fact, the reason many atheists despise Christianity is because of the fucked up shit in the Old Testament, which Christians don't condemn because they are submitted to the Jews.
> This would indicate Jesus is advocating for the victim to force the attacker to treat/view him as an equal. This is completely contradictory to the assertion that God/Jesus advocates for us to be pacifists in the face of our own destruction. So, which interpretation is correct? Is it yours? Why?
Of course it is mine. Because in the same verse where Jesus says to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39) he also says "*Do not resist the one who is evil.*"
Morevoer, in the previous verse he says "*“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’*" and this debunks all the pilpul about Jesus meaning it only in the context of a Roman soldier insulting you. I would actually agree that if a random asshole on the street insults you, not reacting to that is a sign of strength and defiance. But if someone stabs you in the eye, you cannot offer the other eye.
And of course Jesus let himself be crucified. In fact, he rebuked one of his followers who tried to defend him. That is the whole foundation of the religion.
Now, of course I know that most Christians today wouldn't turn the other cheek. But you attempt to follow a philosophy that considers natural instincts of violence as evil. This cognitive dissonance and sense of guilt will be a big obstacle when the war starts. I'm afraid that even a Christian who is a White Nationalist won't have the determination and ferocity that is going to be needed for our race to survive.
Render onto Caesar that which is Caesar's. This meant don't fucking kill the Romans and start a useless rebellion that is going to get you all killed. Be smart about things. Don't be the problem in a kingdom.
Turn the other cheek? It meant don't go into a berserker rage because someone insulted you. Take it on the chin and move on.
No where in the Bible does it teach pacifism. Sell your cloak to buy a sword, meaning you're going to have to protect yourself. The complete opposite of pacifism.
Pacifists are detestable people. You can look at the Amish who are pacifists and say, wow, what a great people. Keep in mind, they hold no power over anything. They're cattle at the end of the day. A lot of people don't want to view them that way, but they are not changing the world. They are a people that will never rebel. The perfect slaves. They don't even require a lash.
You could increase the Amish population by 2 billion people. They could do all of the agricultural and carpentry work in N. America. They would never wield political power. The cities would consume all of the produce and continue to be degenerate. The Amish would ever be dutiful slaves to the system not knowing their place in it.
On Earth, as it is in Heaven. A Christian's duty is to form a moral and just civilization.
Thanks. Join us at c/Christian