Do not resist an evil person So I am told here: Now, let's cut the theoretical BS, talking about religious principles is talking about YOU AND ME, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW. So if I find myself attacked, and the man is trying to rape me, and I can't run away, I should just give in and not defend myself? And, as it is in the nature of violent men, if they could get something once, they will come back for more. According to you, Christians, I should let this man go on raping me whenever he pleases -- for I am not to resist an evil person? YOU, Christians, ADSTAR, OKINRUS, JENYAR, LORI 7, CYPERIUM, BEYONDTIMEANDSPACE, MARC AC AND OTHERS, I don't know you all by name -- you are telling me that if I am to be a Christian, I am to let a man rape me and not defend myself?
Chairman_meow and Jolly Rodger, Stop with your inanities. This is a serious topic on Christianity put to practice. I will ask the moderator to delete your posts.
yes jolly, i am an american. but, i dont like it. i consider myself slavic and scottish, as those are what im decended from. back to the point... so what if i think jacko is guilty? thats not the point of THIS thread. and why wouldn't you shoot a guy who is trying to rape you? its self-defense. perfectly legal. and what's wrong with atheism? Fredrick the Great, king of prussia, was an athiest. im an athiest. thats severe discrimination.
The words you refer to are those of Jesus, not of "Christians". They form part of a methodological sermon on the application of God's laws. Every refutation starts with a reference to some commonly acepted interpretation or application: "You have heard that it was said...". I do not agree that there is "no support for self defence in the NT". Justice is a form of "self-defense" against injustice, and God certainly encourages it in this form. What Jesus is concerned with here is attitude. I'll quote the full pericope for easy reference: Matt. 5:38-42 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for 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.The starting point for his argument is the principle of justice "Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth", i.e. giving somebody his due. This works fine in courts, who are there to administer justice, but how does it apply to "YOU AND ME, RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW"? Or in other words: what does it mean for an individual to serve justice, as God wills it? In the case of rape, whether you resist or not isn't actually in question. Of course you'll resist, in the same way you that might try to jump out of the way of a charging elephant, or try to swim when you are in danger of drowning. But this isn't the kind of attack Jeus is talking about. How serious is a slap on the face? "He that strikes his neighbour (which Maimonides explains, he that strikes his neighbour with his hand shut, about the neck) he shall give him a "sela", or "shekel": R. Judah says... one pound: if he smite him (i.e. as Maimonides says, if he smite him with his double fist upon the face; or, as Bartenora, with the palm of his hand, ... "on the cheek", which is a greater reproach) he shall give him two hundred "zuzim"; and if he does it with the back of his hand, four hundred "zuzim".''But instead of haggling over the price of the penance, Jesus advocates non-violence. If you wonder what your life is worth, or how you (not the courts) should react to an "evil person" - it is worth more that he could ever take away, but it is God who will avenge. As far as it is up to you, as far as possible, you should react with love and non-violence. This is what Ghandi did. And this is a greater requirement than making sure you got an eye for an eye. We should rather be willing to suffer a double injury, than repay evil with evil.
Dear water, Your apparent outrage stems from your belief that in any similar situation where there might be a (seemingly) preferable avenue, you indeed do deserve that avenue and thus must have it. But I say if Jesus was able to receive scourgings for your sake, pierced and bruised for your sins as the sacrificial lamb, then you might be pretty damn haughty to think you deserve better. WWJD?
Jesus knew his body and his life was in God's hands - even thought they might kill it in the most cruel and humiliating way possible, they could not touch this security. And it is this security that He wants us to put into practice as well.
I'm a bit lost here - water is an atheist and SouthStar is a believer again? Is "Write that out in full" a pedantic request to avoid use of acronyms or are you really unaware of its meaning? My answer to the conundrum is that Jesus was specifically referring to someone striking you because you are a Christian. He was talking about someone who would strike you out of a position of authority. Then there is a general philosophy underlying that of non-violence, a philosophy espoused my many thinkers right up to Mahatma Gandhi. I think SouthStar's question of "What Would Jesus Do?" is a good one. If you asked Jesus that specific question, I've no doubt that Jesus would say, "Of course, daughter, you must resist a rapist. You must act in defence of your life, or the lives of your family and children. You must act in defence of anybody who is being hurt."
Gandhi also said a woman should fight with her teeth and nails to the end if her modesty is in danger. :m: Jesus' 'other cheek' example might be for one's personal sake - don't get equally low with your offender but be generous. In case of rape, defending herself is the right of a woman, not becoming willing/unwiiling partner of her offender's violent adultry.
