@eidolon@binkle Buddhism is the only religion not intended for normies.
So obviously the normies made their own version of it with spirits, gods, temples and magic.
@Nudhul@binkle@eidolon I guess thats up to interpretation. It does literally say:
> But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
@inertia@binkle@eidolon its tied up in ancient customs and culture. he isn't saying to just let someone beat you up. reddit being actually useful for once in a solar eclipse provides this answer:
Historical context: in Jesus’ era – slapping was a way to publically shame someone of a lower hierarchical status.
If the slap was unwarranted then there were penalties and compensations. If the victim of the slap “turned the other cheek” they were taking the initiative to resolve the dispute right there instead of pressing charges. Turning the other cheek would show restraint and a willingness to suffer further injustice to allow the offender to show their true nature. They could repent or they could further the offense and condemn themselves publically. In other words the onus is reversed to the offender, giving them the opportunity to refrain from repeating the offence presenting a chance for reconciliation.
In turning the other cheek the victim in a sense takes charge and refuses to be humiliated. They restore their dignity and graciously offer to do more than what was originally demanded. This shows character allowing the offender to reconsider their action. If offender continues then the injustice is exposed and compounded; if the offender stops they restore their own dignity and the parties may be reconciled. The offender “repents” (stop, go another direction).
Jesus turns the other cheek when he endures the cross for sinners. He endured from sinners such hostility against himself (sins are against God.) This allows for reconciliation.
Yet we see that in other instances Jesus isn’t silent or passive to evil when confronted. He stood up to attacks and had heated debates - Jesus didn’t back down and often purposely provoked confrontations with Pharisees and Temple Leadership. In the same sense Peter and John didn’t turn a cheek when brought before the Sanhedrin in Acts, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
In in Nehemiah 4:11-14 it explains that we can defend ourselves from an attack. Exodus 22:2-3 explains that if a thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed. If the attacker survives your defense but afterword you kill them – only then is it murder which is there is guilt for his bloodshed.
@eidolon@inertia i wonder how, say, father seraphim rose would feel about this. i get the feeling there would be an interesting and amiable conversation
Add comment