Turn the other cheek

[Algebra]

But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV


You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV


What do these verses mean to you?

I am baffled as to how to interpret them.

Does this mean that you should never fight against an oppressor?

[MF]

Straightforward interpretation
In everyday speech, the phrase "turn the other cheek" is often used to mean something like "turn away from aggression and ignore it rather than retaliate." Morality lessons that teach turning the other cheek as a good or Christian value would typically emphasize nonviolence and non-confrontation.

The most straightforward reading of the passages in Matthew and Luke, however, suggests that the phrase has a more radical meaning: a command to respond to aggression by willingly exposing oneself to a further act of aggression rather than retaliating, retreating, or ignoring it.

Since the passages call for total nonresistance to the point of facilitating aggression against oneself, and since human governments defend themselves by military force, they have led some to Christian anarchism, including the notable Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy, author of the nonfiction book The Kingdom of God Is Within You.

Literal interpretation
A literal interpretation of the passages, in which the command refers specifically to a manual strike against the side of a person's face, can be supported by reference to historical and other factors.[1] At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[2] If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.[3] The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. By handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Hebrew Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

When you make your neighbor a loan of any sort, you shall not enter his house to take his pledge. You shall remain outside, and the man to whom you make the loan shall bring the pledge out to you. If he is a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge. When the sun goes down you shall surely return the pledge to him, that he may sleep in his cloak and bless you; and it will be righteousness for you before the LORD your God.
By giving the lender the cloak as well the debtor was reduced to nakedness. Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27:

Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness.
The succeeding verse from the Sermon on the Mount can similarly be seen as a method for making the oppressor break the law. The commonly invoked Roman law of Angaria allowed the Roman authorities to demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry messages and equipment the distance of one mile post, but prohibited forcing an individual to go further than a single mile, at the risk of suffering disciplinary actions.[4] In this example, the nonviolent interpretation sees Jesus as placing criticism on an unjust and hated Roman law as well as clarifying the teaching to extend beyond Jewish law.[5] As a side effect this may also have afforded the early followers a longer time to minister to the soldier and or cause the soldier not to seek followers of Jesus to carry his equipment in the future so as not to be bothered with their proselytizing.

Righteous personal conduct interpretation
There is a third school of thought in regard to this passage. Jesus was not changing the meaning of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with "you have heard it said" which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to "it is written" which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to "turn the other cheek" would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance.

Some[citation needed] point out that Jesus said "he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one" from Luke 22:36 and the Old Testament laws regarding killing in self-defense to support this view. However, even Luke 22:36 could have been figurative as in Luke 22:38 the disciples point out that they have two swords among the twelve of them, to which Jesus replies "That is enough."


source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

I don't see the big deal. It's all borrowed anyways.

Regards,

[Algebra]

Salam,

I don't see the big deal. It's all borrowed anyways.

Regards,

Borrowed?

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

"My" tunic, "my" cloak.

It's funny how people get so attached to things and stuff; stuff that is just in our hands for a short time. We are only stewards of this world. It is not ours.

Yes, it is borrowed.

Regards,

[theman09]

rambo demonstrates why turning the other cheek is USELESS in dangerous situations.

interesting comment by one viewer

"taking a life is never right" ******* soft ****** protestor! like rambo said, the pirates would have raped her 50 times, and then cut their ******* heads off. i think its okay to kill a terrorist or a pirate, coz they would do the exact same thing to u, maybe even brutally tortured u! if i was in the same situation with pirates, i would do the exact same thing as Rambo did. this is the best rambo film ever "


rambo took a life which tried to take the life of another. if you save a life it is as if you have saved the whole world.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

According to Colonel Trautman John Rambo was gravely traumatized in the Second Indochine War, and suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. He was severely disturbed and had since the return to civilian life become extremely hostile to civilization, and displayed deeply rooted anti-authoritarian aggression. His unpredictable persona and basic inability to function as a free agent in public put him at odds with all of organized society. To venerate mr Rambo as a model for acceptable behaviour is dubious at best.

Regards,

[theman09]

Salam,

According to Colonel Trautman John Rambo was gravely traumatized in the Second Indochine War, and suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. He was severely disturbed and had since the return to civilian life become extremely hostile to civilization, and displayed deeply rooted anti-authoritarian aggression. His unpredictable persona and basic inability to function as a free agent in public put him at odds with all of organized society. To venerate mr Rambo as a model for acceptable behaviour is dubious at best.

Regards,

i aint looking at rambo 1 , 2 and 3 or any "traumatic stress" bs. i am looking at the specific action on the boat agaisnt the pirate agressors.i guess you would allow the pirates to rape the woman, waiting for the holy ghost to fill them so they can turn the other cheek. i on the other hand would do exactly what stallone did.

I am afraid I have no idea what boat you are talking about, my friend

salaam brother ratatosk

someone deleted the video. ptsd or not , what would you or anyone do in a situation where innocent life is on the line and the only option is violence?

Other than that, PTSD--post traumatic stress disorder, or combat stress, or shell shock--is not "bs", it is very real

don't know how much the rambo movies have been exagerrated ,but this "ptsd" did not prevent him from using violence as a means to fight for injustice but justice.

[Ratatosk]

Salam,

I am afraid I have no idea what boat you are talking about, my friend. Other than that, PTSD--post traumatic stress disorder, or combat stress, or shell shock--is not "bs", it is very real. It might be of service if you would look into the matter a bit more closely before dispelling it as "bs". At the very least, it is somewhat of a slap in the face of those tens of thousands of people suffering from it, agree or disagree?

Regards,

[Yahya Sulaiman]

The verses are a mini-treatise against revenge. There's really not much to it. Vengeance is one of the most sophistical vices there are: most vices may, with the aid of their harlot, self-deception, appear in the guise of something "harmless" or "morally neutral" or even "justified" (cowardice is the only one that seems never to be able to pull this off; its only refuge, fittingly, is to hide--to make you think that it isn't really there at all), but revenge is one of those few that can masquerade convincingly as a virtue--specifically, as the virtue of justice. In reality, however, it is just a form of hypocrisy. One of the double-sided masks that its two faces wear, you could say. If there is a purer and more bizarre form of the double standard than, "My excuse for doing that to him is that he had no excuse to do that same thing to me!" then I'd sure like to know what it is. But it isn't always easy to put this into practice because we have that animal instinct to lash out against the source of our affliction. It's a misplaced survival tactic from our reptilian brain or id or whatever invading a more complex and intelligent part of us where it does not belong, at a time when it is not necessary. But to know this in that more developed part of ourselves is not enough: we need to put the knowledge into practice through self-control, time and again. We have to train ourselves to do it. That's the only way. Which isn't to say that you should literally let people walk all over you--that's really technically a separate issue--but that peculiarly hyperbolic way of speaking was common to the biblical Gospels's depictions of Jesus' words. Religious scholar Huston Smith wrote about it, calling it "gigantism".

Oh no, did I just cite Huston Smith? Well, I quoted Schoepenhauer once, didn't I? And I've quoted Ebert quite a lot. Isn't it odd how quotable people who are completely and utterly full of it can still be sometimes? I mean, how else would Nietszsche have got popular? Nobody takes his works seriously as a whole, they just quote little snippets. Like Bacon. I suppose most everyone's good for something. It seems I'm rambling, so now would be a good place to stop...