Turning the Other Cheek Takes Great Courage

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
What if you are being baited?

If it's by a master then you should certainly not turn the other cheek.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Tartuffe
And if they steal your cloak do you give them your tunic as well?

I don't wear a cloak or a tunic. Are you talking about one of my bespoke suits? No, they wouldn't get it from me since denying someone of theft isn't turning the other cheek.

No I'm speaking of Matthew 5:38-42

originally posted by: Tartuffe
No I'm speaking of Matthew 5:38-42

And I'm speaking of Versace SS19.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tartuffe

What if you are being baited?

In that case reaction is submission to the will of your opponent.

If someone slaps you on the face, would you let him slap you on the other cheek?

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tartuffe

What if you are being baited?

In that case reaction is submission to the will of your opponent.

If someone slaps you on the face, would you let him slap you on the other cheek?

Depends on the context, but most of the time probably not.

That said, I've always taken the verse as more of an analogy than literally.

A slap is not danger, it's an attack on pride. So do you seek vengeance for an attack on your pride or do you exercise humility?

If it's a punch than there is danger and is to be dealt with differently.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tartuffe

What if you are being baited?

In that case reaction is submission to the will of your opponent.

If someone slaps you on the face, would you let him slap you on the other cheek?

Depends on the context, but most of the time probably not.

That said, I've always taken the verse as more of an analogy than literally.

A slap is not danger, it's an attack on pride. So do you seek vengeance for an attack on your pride or do you exercise humility?

If it's a punch than there is danger and is to be dealt with differently.

It's more of an example than an analogy.

In that sense, I don't think allowing people to hurt others is an exercise in humility, but cowardice.

a reply to: Tartuffe

I never read the message as having to do with others, but rather one's self. As for cowardice, that would imply your actions or lack there of are fear driven.

I like the verse and the bible for that matter, even as an agnostic. The general message I get is if you're defending yourself or others, you're in the right... If you're defending your pride, you're in the wrong.

Great OP, I agree, although find it difficult to act on that agreement in real life situations. Work in progress for sure.

To trust someone with closed eyes is naivety, but to trust someone with open eyes (or awareness of how that could go very wrongly for you) is bravery.

Forget where I heard that but it’s stuck with me and surfaced as I was reading you OP.

I think that it’s quite profound.

Ancient advice is chock full of wisdom that the average person does not understand today.

There is great insight in “turn the other cheek” advice that is too quickly dismissed bc most see it as a control mechanism to have the masses submit to authority and oppressive treatment.

Turning the other cheek does take courage, when someone says something you do not like, you should never turn around and stick your butt at them and tap it and make your lips look like you are throwing a kiss. That is not a smart thing to do.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tartuffe

I never read the message as having to do with others, but rather one's self. As for cowardice, that would imply your actions or lack there of are fear driven.

I like the verse and the bible for that matter, even as an agnostic. The general message I get is if you're defending yourself or others, you're in the right... If you're defending your pride, you're in the wrong.

I agree with that and your sentiment. The problem is, Immediately before the phrase in question it says "do not resist an evil person". Personally I cannot abide by that.

a reply to: Tartuffe

I don't abide by the bible as law as much as I look at it as art. I look at it abstractly.

As per addressing violence, the most valiant thing to do is prevent it IMO. The pen is mightier, and to change a mind is always the most powerful thing. You can't kill a thought, but you can change it. I think not letting people control your emotion/reactions is strength, but as always, context is key.

dbl

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: zosimov

I think it is the other way about, that we are the weakest and at our most submissive when we allow others to abuse us. Defiance is nobler than submissiveness.

There are ways to not allow yourself to be abused without having to strike back though.

Think about it this way:

If someone strikes you in anger or violence and you strike back, then you were controlled by the person attacking you. They controlled you. Just like all these people today who get so terribly offended by the mere words of another person that they cannot continue on in their life and must strike back by seeking a punitive, and in some cases taking a violent response, they were provoked, allowed themselves to be moved and provoked.

To be strong and do nothing, to walk away, robs that person of their power to make you move and try to retaliate. It robs them of their control over how you act and what you feel.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Tartuffe

I don't abide by the bible as law as much as I look at it as art. I look at it abstractly.

As per addressing violence, the most valiant thing to do is prevent it IMO. The pen is mightier, and to change a mind is always the most powerful thing. You can't kill a thought, but you can change it. I think not letting people control your emotion/reactions is strength, but as always, context is key.

I'm not sure about that. I look at all the people put to the sword or burned for their writings and wholly repudiate that metaphor.

Someone needs to stand up to evil. Evil people are not swayed by moral gestures and pacifism. They fear physical force. They fear justice and those who would defend the innocent.

a reply to: zosimov

The way I want to start putting this into play is through true courtesy when I’d otherwise be inclined to be annoyed, through giving the other person the benefit of the doubt, and through biting my tongue before saying (or typing) anything I’d regret. This will help cultivate discipline.

Forgiveness is a lot more difficult.

I'm not sure that I understand what forgiveness even means.
If someone wrongs me I tend to avoid that person in the future; what Specimen characterizes as cold shoulder.
Avoiding retaliation doesn't seem difficult.
Vengeance would tend to bind one closer to the offender rather than free one from the offender. Clean breaks are called clean breaks for a reason.

For some relationships, say marriage for instance, divorce for irreconcilable differences, results in a change of relationship. The responsibilities change therefore roles change. It can take years to fit into new roles. "Forgive and forget" makes it sound instant. It isn't; in fact forgetting seems counterproductive.

What seems harder for me to deal with is that while attempting to share with someone, that person ascribes false motives to my words and actions. That causes grief, I don't know why. Part of grief is anger. Anger does a number on me something fierce. Rather than lash out, I walk away.

There's a very ambiguous saying about casting pearls before swine that some people use to justify themselves in the face of rejection. I never considered that I ever understood that before. So just now I found a pretty good quote:

In Divine Conspiracy, Dallas Willard offers another interpretation. In it, Jesus is not speaking of a wonderful treasure (the pearl), or whether the audience is fit to have it (the swine). Instead, he is observing that the pearl is not helpful. "Pigs cannot digest pearls, cannot nourish themselves upon them." He concludes that this reflects "our efforts to correct and control others by pouring out our good things" that our audience is not ready for, and that our seemingly good intentions will ultimately yield anger, resentment and attack by the audience. This turns the analogy into one that exposes one's self-superiority in thinking the other needs the unbidden advice.
Pearls before swine

Now that makes sense to me. I'll try to remember that next time I feel aggrieved over rejection. What really sucks hard though is when I'm not even giving advice and then I'm accused of giving advice.

Good thread.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: zosimov

I think it is the other way about, that we are the weakest and at our most submissive when we allow others to abuse us. Defiance is nobler than submissiveness.

There are ways to not allow yourself to be abused without having to strike back though.

Think about it this way:

If someone strikes you in anger or violence and you strike back, then you were controlled by the person attacking you. They controlled you. Just like all these people today who get so terribly offended by the mere words of another person that they cannot continue on in their life and must strike back by seeking a punitive, and in some cases taking a violent response, they were provoked, allowed themselves to be moved and provoked.

To be strong and do nothing, to walk away, robs that person of their power to make you move and try to retaliate. It robs them of their control over how you act and what you feel.

The person who struck me might have gotten what he wanted, but he surely cannot control me. We each have complete free well, and letting people get away with evil is also a choice.

a reply to: pthena

Forgiveness is as much for you as it is for the person who wronged you. Think of it as letting go of what happened so that you aren't dwelling on it and letting it poison you.

Forgiving is about saying, "I know you wronged me, and I can let go of that and move on. I forgive you." It doesn't mean you're seeking to repair the old relationship necessarily, only that you are intending to let go of the hard feelings and negativity.

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: zosimov

I think it is the other way about, that we are the weakest and at our most submissive when we allow others to abuse us. Defiance is nobler than submissiveness.

I hear what you're saying but the way I understand it, turning the other cheek is the ultimate act of defiance rather than submissiveness.

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: zosimov

I think it is the other way about, that we are the weakest and at our most submissive when we allow others to abuse us. Defiance is nobler than submissiveness.

There are ways to not allow yourself to be abused without having to strike back though.

Think about it this way:

If someone strikes you in anger or violence and you strike back, then you were controlled by the person attacking you. They controlled you. Just like all these people today who get so terribly offended by the mere words of another person that they cannot continue on in their life and must strike back by seeking a punitive, and in some cases taking a violent response, they were provoked, allowed themselves to be moved and provoked.

To be strong and do nothing, to walk away, robs that person of their power to make you move and try to retaliate. It robs them of their control over how you act and what you feel.

The person who struck me might have gotten what he wanted, but he surely cannot control me. We each have complete free well, and letting people get away with evil is also a choice.

And if you fall back to eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, how quickly do we devolve into complete anarchy and chaos?

Someone, somewhere has to step aside and end it.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: zosimov

I think it is the other way about, that we are the weakest and at our most submissive when we allow others to abuse us. Defiance is nobler than submissiveness.

There are ways to not allow yourself to be abused without having to strike back though.

Think about it this way:

If someone strikes you in anger or violence and you strike back, then you were controlled by the person attacking you. They controlled you. Just like all these people today who get so terribly offended by the mere words of another person that they cannot continue on in their life and must strike back by seeking a punitive, and in some cases taking a violent response, they were provoked, allowed themselves to be moved and provoked.

To be strong and do nothing, to walk away, robs that person of their power to make you move and try to retaliate. It robs them of their control over how you act and what you feel.

The person who struck me might have gotten what he wanted, but he surely cannot control me. We each have complete free well, and letting people get away with evil is also a choice.

And if you fall back to eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, how quickly do we devolve into complete anarchy and chaos?

Someone, somewhere has to step aside and end it.

Let justice be done though the heavens fall.