You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
3
TallestSkil on scored.co
4 days ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)1 child
>Do not resist an evil person.
>Oof. 🤭
Thanks for purposely misreading the line, ***precisely how every single jew does.*** Let’s look at what it actually says, Patrick Bateman.
>But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite the on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. **~ Matthew 5:39**
What did He mean by this? It’s better translated as “do not diametrically oppose an evildoer” and the reason you were supposed to turn the other cheek is:
1. In antiquity, you only hit someone with your right hand (the clean one).
2. Backhands were to insult, a frontal slap showed equality and challenge.
3. By turning your cheek, the aggressor was forced to stop hitting you or acknowledge you as an equal; that was quite a statement to a Roman by a conquered Judean.
Jesus was telling us to fight back smartly, using public shame as a weapon, not just attack head-on like a moron.
First of all, ἀντιστῆναι, translated as “do not resist”, has more to it than ‘resist’. Strong’s Concordance at 436 notes “to take a complete stand against” and it derived from a military term to diametrically oppose one’s foes. Thayer’s notes “to set oneself against.” ‘Resist’ here is passive, but the term ἀντιστῆναι clearly denotes an aggressive posture. Better might be “But I say unto you, do not square off against an evildoer.” Especially in the context of the examples all being examples of how to engage in intelligent resistance.
“Give him your cloak, too” is Christ referencing Exodus 22:26 to shame your opponent. Exodus 22:26 compels creditors to return the cloak at night so that the poor can sleep in it. By giving up your cloak, you shame the creditor who is willing to sue for your tunic–and God will hear the cries of the debtor. As for walking the extra mile, that’s a reference to the Roman law of impressment which allowed a Roman soldier to compel a person of a conquered state to carry his pack for one mile, but no further. By carrying it the second mile, the soldier would be forced to comically beg you to put it down lest his commanding officer see and he get in trouble. So it clearly does not mean “don’t fight back”–it means to fight back smartly.
This is what happens when people try to read scripture with no reference for the history or culture in which it was written. Remember, Christ taught us to fight smartly, not to not fight. Of course a Christian fights against evil! How could we not?
4 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
That's a lot of words to completely miss my point.
I'm not arguing that Christianity has *always* been overwhelmingly pacifist. I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist through rigorous exegesis (although your interpretation is still enforcing *nonviolence,* which is at least soft pacifism as far as I'm concerned.)
I'm arguing that this is not the default reading, and using the earliest large scale Christian movement—spanning over two centuries—as the evidence. Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion. They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
I'll ask you the same questions that the other user refused to answer: Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics? Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position. All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
4 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
>That's a lot of words to completely miss my point.
Your point is a proven lie. You were wrong.
>I'm not arguing that Christianity has always been overwhelmingly pacifist.
You are, yeah.
>I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist
There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
>Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion.
Funny how they all cleverly rebelled in those centuries, then, isn’t it.
>They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
Funny how they survived, then, isn’t it.
>Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics?
“WOW I LIED ABOUT YOUR FAITH AND THEREFORE EVERYONE YOU LIKE IS A HYPOCRITE HA HA”
>Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
Because there’s no mutual exclusivity there.
>It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position.
The crux that you completely ignored, on purpose, which you openly admitted to doing.
>All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
4 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
> Dismissal without engagement.
> Accusations instead of evidence.
> Reddit-tier condescension.
Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
> There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
Literal falsehood. I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times, was Christian for years, and got baptized as an adult in 2023. I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation, despite starting from a position of *wanting* it to be true.
> Except for Jesus Himself, who violently resisted.
Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
4 days ago-2 points(+0/-0/-2Score on mirror)1 child
>Dismissal without engagement.
Yes, you did that. You were proven incorrect. [You refused to engage.](https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ARdRBLUv6/love-your-enemies-never-included/c/4eZBKHfXT3Z) Your point was wrong. Your judaism was noticed.
>Accusations instead of evidence.
Evidence provided. You have no rebuttal to it.
>Reddit-tier condescension.
Precipitation. When you’re the lowest of the low, it’s difficult not to be intrinsically better than you, jew.
>Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
Cool; I don’t care about your fantasies. You lied about the verse on purpose to promote the same jewish propaganda spammed for over 60 years (and only in the last 60 years). Drink bleach.
>Literal falsehood.
Already disproven with direct sources.
>I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times
No one is going to believe you.
>I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation
Enjoy hell, jew. Maybe become literate before deliberating something you didn’t understand.
>Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
[You’re so shit at your job.](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/2-driving-of-the-merchants-from-the-temple-scarsellino.jpg)
4 days ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
> (and only in the last 60 years)
Meds. My very first statement makes its argument solely from quotations from 2nd century Christians. I'll ask again: Were they heretics or otherwise incorrect when they exhorted Christians to nonviolence, refusing to use weapons or fight for any reason?
> No one is going to believe you.
Every baseless refusal of my life experience only sharpens my position, because I'm not lying about it.
> Enjoy hell, jew.
You become increasingly unhinged every time you assert this. I have 100% White ancestry. I denounce the talmud and firmly believe we need a real holocaust.
> You’re so shit at your job.
I actually believe you're intelligent despite holding an opposite position to mine, so I'm surprised at this level of sloppy self-owning.
1. Jesus's narrative in the gospels (Mark most conspicuously) still culminates in him letting himself be murdered by jews. That dwarfs the act of driving them out of the temple one time. You're imitating Christ if you let them kill you too, as was the logic of the martyrs. Stephen in Acts, hello?
2. Again, crucially, the earliest Christians didn't interpret the temple scene as permission to exercise violence. They interpreted the opposite and were radical pacifists.
Christianity at the societal level flipped from totally nonviolent rhetoric to "actually violence is okay now that we conveniently hold state power." If you could explain how that somehow squares itself with Christianity being the One, True, Unchanging Religion, without retreating entirely into much later rhetoric, then you could sway me to your position.
>Oof. 🤭
Thanks for purposely misreading the line, ***precisely how every single jew does.*** Let’s look at what it actually says, Patrick Bateman.
>But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite the on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. **~ Matthew 5:39**
What did He mean by this? It’s better translated as “do not diametrically oppose an evildoer” and the reason you were supposed to turn the other cheek is:
1. In antiquity, you only hit someone with your right hand (the clean one).
2. Backhands were to insult, a frontal slap showed equality and challenge.
3. By turning your cheek, the aggressor was forced to stop hitting you or acknowledge you as an equal; that was quite a statement to a Roman by a conquered Judean.
Jesus was telling us to fight back smartly, using public shame as a weapon, not just attack head-on like a moron.
>ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μὴ ἀντιστῆναι τῷ πονηρῷ· ἀλλ’ ὅστις σε ῥαπίζει εἰς τὴν δεξιὰν σιαγόνα σου, στρέψον αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν ἄλλην·
First of all, ἀντιστῆναι, translated as “do not resist”, has more to it than ‘resist’. Strong’s Concordance at 436 notes “to take a complete stand against” and it derived from a military term to diametrically oppose one’s foes. Thayer’s notes “to set oneself against.” ‘Resist’ here is passive, but the term ἀντιστῆναι clearly denotes an aggressive posture. Better might be “But I say unto you, do not square off against an evildoer.” Especially in the context of the examples all being examples of how to engage in intelligent resistance.
“Give him your cloak, too” is Christ referencing Exodus 22:26 to shame your opponent. Exodus 22:26 compels creditors to return the cloak at night so that the poor can sleep in it. By giving up your cloak, you shame the creditor who is willing to sue for your tunic–and God will hear the cries of the debtor. As for walking the extra mile, that’s a reference to the Roman law of impressment which allowed a Roman soldier to compel a person of a conquered state to carry his pack for one mile, but no further. By carrying it the second mile, the soldier would be forced to comically beg you to put it down lest his commanding officer see and he get in trouble. So it clearly does not mean “don’t fight back”–it means to fight back smartly.
This is what happens when people try to read scripture with no reference for the history or culture in which it was written. Remember, Christ taught us to fight smartly, not to not fight. Of course a Christian fights against evil! How could we not?
I'm not arguing that Christianity has *always* been overwhelmingly pacifist. I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist through rigorous exegesis (although your interpretation is still enforcing *nonviolence,* which is at least soft pacifism as far as I'm concerned.)
I'm arguing that this is not the default reading, and using the earliest large scale Christian movement—spanning over two centuries—as the evidence. Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion. They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
I'll ask you the same questions that the other user refused to answer: Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics? Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position. All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
Your point is a proven lie. You were wrong.
>I'm not arguing that Christianity has always been overwhelmingly pacifist.
You are, yeah.
>I'm not arguing it is impossible to reinterpret Jesus's teachings as non-pacifist
There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
>Virtually none of them interpreted the sermon on the mount as clever rebellion.
Funny how they all cleverly rebelled in those centuries, then, isn’t it.
>They treated it as a literal prescription to nonviolence, which is why they refused to be soldiers, resist those who sought to kill them, or use weapons for any reason.
Funny how they survived, then, isn’t it.
>Were the original progenitors of the faith all heretics?
“WOW I LIED ABOUT YOUR FAITH AND THEREFORE EVERYONE YOU LIKE IS A HYPOCRITE HA HA”
>Why were they dogmatic pacifists if Jesus wasn't teaching pacifism?
Because there’s no mutual exclusivity there.
>It's ironic you claim I make no reference to the history of culture of the time when it is the crux of my position.
The crux that you completely ignored, on purpose, which you openly admitted to doing.
>All those church fathers I quoted are significantly closer to the time of Jesus than any figure you can find advocating a violent interpretation of Christianity.
Except for Jesus Himself, who violently resisted.
Run along, yid.
> Accusations instead of evidence.
> Reddit-tier condescension.
Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
> There’s nothing to reinterpret. You’ve never read the Bible. You have no idea what Christ did or did not do.
Literal falsehood. I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times, was Christian for years, and got baptized as an adult in 2023. I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation, despite starting from a position of *wanting* it to be true.
> Except for Jesus Himself, who violently resisted.
Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
Yes, you did that. You were proven incorrect. [You refused to engage.](https://scored.co/c/ConsumeProduct/p/1ARdRBLUv6/love-your-enemies-never-included/c/4eZBKHfXT3Z) Your point was wrong. Your judaism was noticed.
>Accusations instead of evidence.
Evidence provided. You have no rebuttal to it.
>Reddit-tier condescension.
Precipitation. When you’re the lowest of the low, it’s difficult not to be intrinsically better than you, jew.
>Your whole "I know you are but what am I" shtick isn't clever.
Cool; I don’t care about your fantasies. You lied about the verse on purpose to promote the same jewish propaganda spammed for over 60 years (and only in the last 60 years). Drink bleach.
>Literal falsehood.
Already disproven with direct sources.
>I've read the new testament cover to cover multiple times
No one is going to believe you.
>I now reject it from a place of extensive deliberation
Enjoy hell, jew. Maybe become literate before deliberating something you didn’t understand.
>Was that before or after he let a bunch of jews murder him?
[You’re so shit at your job.](https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/3/2-driving-of-the-merchants-from-the-temple-scarsellino.jpg)
Meds. My very first statement makes its argument solely from quotations from 2nd century Christians. I'll ask again: Were they heretics or otherwise incorrect when they exhorted Christians to nonviolence, refusing to use weapons or fight for any reason?
> No one is going to believe you.
Every baseless refusal of my life experience only sharpens my position, because I'm not lying about it.
> Enjoy hell, jew.
You become increasingly unhinged every time you assert this. I have 100% White ancestry. I denounce the talmud and firmly believe we need a real holocaust.
> You’re so shit at your job.
I actually believe you're intelligent despite holding an opposite position to mine, so I'm surprised at this level of sloppy self-owning.
1. Jesus's narrative in the gospels (Mark most conspicuously) still culminates in him letting himself be murdered by jews. That dwarfs the act of driving them out of the temple one time. You're imitating Christ if you let them kill you too, as was the logic of the martyrs. Stephen in Acts, hello?
2. Again, crucially, the earliest Christians didn't interpret the temple scene as permission to exercise violence. They interpreted the opposite and were radical pacifists.
Christianity at the societal level flipped from totally nonviolent rhetoric to "actually violence is okay now that we conveniently hold state power." If you could explain how that somehow squares itself with Christianity being the One, True, Unchanging Religion, without retreating entirely into much later rhetoric, then you could sway me to your position.