Unpopular(?) opinion

To turn the other cheek means exactly that. No, it's not a metaphor about "fighting smart" or some cultural thing where you challenge the aggressor to hit you with an open hand as I've heard many times.
As a christian, of course you have the right to defend your life and dignity. Not your pride though.
It's pacifism at its purest. No aggression even in self defense. Violence breeds more violence and you end the cycle the moment it reaches you.
There isn't a just war except the one the Lord is fighting in the hearts of all of us.
For people, the path of the least resistance is often the path of the most struggle. To swallow your pride is harder than to give in to the urge of retaliation. This goes on a national level as well. As much as you want it to be so, an offense against nation's borders, pride or symbols is no reason to initiate violence. As I have said you have the right to defend your life. Nation has the right to defend her people and as means to do that war should be the last resort.
Discuss.

Attached: 8ac58af8bc3820a5c1c9fe9885356e32a27777fdf51055679cc540d7d97f8a1d.jpg (800x792, 25.01K)

Other urls found in this thread:

liveleak.com/view?t=afTOm_1529367605
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Agreed. I think a lot of the pushback from Christians about this commandment is due to the world trying to twist its meaning as it tries to twist all of God's commandments.

Personally I don't think I could wield a weapon in defense of my own life, even though I think it is justified. I do, however, believe in being strong and capable because I think not fighting back simply because you are weak and could not even if you wanted to, is just cowardice and not restraint.

I would pick up a weapon for the sake of my future wife and children ten times out of ten. Never out of anger and only with as much force as is absolutely necessary, with my family's life in mind.

I agree that defense should always be of life and not something as petty as ego or pride. But then again it has never really been a struggle for me because I am an emotional cripple who has trouble processing insult and emotional attacks.

I agree, the mindset some take certainly isn't how the Apostles took it.
All of them were beaten, mocked, spat upon, and even executed for the faith. Did they offer resistance? No.
They merely sang the praises of God for bearing testimony to the faith.

Somebody didn't read Maccabees.

Attached: 77f99c031a00600206f3e8abec8f729cf81a781879fc23a9151bd4b4f2e3f54c.gif (113x162, 68.33K)

This is your brain on sola scriptura

Attached: DeOfjoMWAAIa9N4.jpg (874x960 234.89 KB, 163.11K)

Isn't continuing to preach, convert and practice in the face of threats, violence, and murder from persecution literally resisting your persecutors? Where is the line drawn?

Not a protestant nor a literalist. But you are being awfully literal about the writings of the Fathers. Tell me, have you read the whole letter? Do you understand that the relation between killing and war is drawn as an analogy to the relation between sex and marriage?

Violence outside of defending the innocent, of course.

I'm not saying to just lay down and let evil things happen.
In the event that you come across someone hurting an innocent, you should naturally intervene.
What I'm saying is that on an individual basis, you should be firm in the word but offer no violence to those who persecute you beyond basic self-defense.

Seriously though, you're right in substance, but not in your particular application of your interpretation. You're wrong about there being no just war by your own standard, because there are defensive wars (and yes, a preemptive strike can be legitimately defensive). And you're wrong in that a nation's borders are on a similar moral level as their symbols, violating a nation's borders is an act of war (and yes, this does apply to mass migration, aka population replacement, which is a direct threat to the lives and well being of citizens, as well as the maintenance of and real representation within a democratic society [assuming of course that this is the chosen governmental structure of said people]). Only the most extreme nationalists (which would strangely have them border on imperialists) would demand that, say, America go to war with Mexico because their president cleaned his boots with the stars and stripes. I'm not endorsing war over migration either, but deportation is a use of force, and a legitimate one.

But, that said, your interpretation of "turn the other cheek" being about not escalating personal grievances without merit is correct (and I think this was the intent, as a personal moral, not immediately extensible to society in general), though you may not have considered that turning your other cheek is not an act of passivity, but of non-violent defiance. Backing down is passivity, turning the other cheek is daring them to shame themselves further with their undignified action.

Pacifism is ok when dealing with normal conflicts with your brothers also when dealing with some sort of unfairness. That changes hearts, this is the christian way! Be meek in those occasions. But sometimes you have to fight for the good of the christianity. And fights means killing if necessary. Some adversaries will not leave you another option. And they are guilty because they caused it, not me. I will not take the command of "turning the other cheek" into an absurdity. The Lord is better than that.

Pride in one's nation is still pride, a mortal sin. It will have no place in the Kingdom to come.

Also first and foremost, our loyalty is to God, not our nation(s).

Read the Church Fathers commentaries you silly prots:


Aug., Serm. in Mont., i, 20: Whence the Lord judges that others' weakness should rather be borne with compassion, than that our own should be soothed by others' pain. For that retribution which tends to correction is not here forbidden, for such is indeed a part of mercy; nor does such intention hinder that he, who seeks to correct another, is not at the same time ready himself to take more at his hands. But it is required that he should inflict the punishment to whom the power is given by the course of things, and with such a mind as the father has to a child in correcting him whom it is impossible he should hate. And holy men have punished some sins with death, in order that a wholesome fear might be struck into the living, and so that not his death, but the likelihood of increase of his sin had he lived, was the hurt of the criminal. Thus Elias punished many with death, and when the disciples would take example from him they were rebuked by the Lord, who did not censure this example of the Prophet, but their ignorant use of it, seeing them to desire the punishment not for correction's sake, but from angry hate. But after He had inculcated love of their neighbour, and had given them the Holy Spirit, there wanted not instances of such vengeance; as Ananias and his wife who fell down dead at the words of Peter, and the Apostle Paul delivered some to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. Yet do some, with a kind of blind opposition, rage against the temporal punishments of the Old Testament, not knowing with what mind they were inflicted.


Aug., de Mendac., 15: The things which are done by the Saints in the New Testament profit for examples of understanding those Scriptures which are modelled into the form of precepts. Thus we read in Luke; "Whoso smiteth thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also." [Luke 6:29] Now there is no example of patience more perfect than that of the Lord; yet He, when He was smitten, said not, 'Behold the other cheek,' but, "If I have spoken amiss, accuse me wherein it is amiss; but if well, why smitest thou me? [John 18:23] hereby shewing us that turning of the other cheek should be in the heart.

An opinion is not a view over an objective statement. Opinions only are defined over subject fields.
You can't mask your wrong view over the opinion trademark and think your uninformed position has the same value as anyone else.

Christ meant something when he said that, that's not subjective.

Amazing. Truly revelation of the spirit.

thanks brother!

agree, but I'm not going to let my nation go astray just because I'm of God (apolitical?). Temporal powers are still relevant. According to Ephesians 6 12 our struggle, the most important, is against intermediate spiritual authorities. This does not imply that we should submit to the antichrist in the flesh.

This seems like a mutually exclusive preference. If you cannot use aggressive means to defend your life and dignity in the pursuit of pure pacifism since that's a prideful issue, there is nothing to defend.

I've heard it said that your body is a temple, usually in the context of consuming narcotics or overmuch food. From that, you do not worship a temple itself, that is prideful, but you worship within it the proper target. I personally treat the defense of my of my body as I would treat the security of a local church. Certainly be mindful of others, humble and unassuming as possible, but do not make leave for it to be victimized. Both rules work well for both structures, and also leave room for further physical and spiritual growth over time. I suspect nations would do well to follow those rules as well.

But in general, I personally do try to love my own excellence in success and failure. Signaling my virtue by not defending the temple, still means the temple is lost. I would instead say that quietly and politely protecting that which is important would work out best long term in all possible areas.

Rather, I meant to say I do NOT try to love either. I should write long posts in a word processor going forward.

Pride is never worth defending, but sometimes its hard to separate out pride from dignity.

That's just cowardly apathy though.

What's the difference between defending your pride and defending your dignity?

Matthew 12:25
Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand.

liveleak.com/view?t=afTOm_1529367605

This kind of does not make sense does it.
I don't know how many levels of sola scriptura you are on but you can't interpret this passage without knowing the historical context - that's a fact. Also one cannot claim that it has no further meaning than 'muh challenge' Of course it has.. When someone hit you on the cheek it was a challenge to fight. It meant your honor was questioned. In those times the options were to fight or to be insulted by the other person. Christ tells us to swallow our pride and to turn the other cheek. That is - do not freak out just because somebody might have insulted you. However that does not imply one does not have right to defend himself. Nowhere it says "let strangers into your home and let them rape your wife and your daughter' A nation has right to defend itself. I'm sorry to break it to you but without you actually doing anything physically ("aggression" of some kind - the attacker will always consider it to be an aggression on your part) - you cannot defend yourself. Words will not protect you. Look we agree that the pride should be swallowed, no unnecessary conflicts should be fought over muh insult, we agree that you have the right to defend yourself and your nation.Yet you claim 'no aggression even in self defense' which negates your whole statement and makes it into a pure nonsense. Or do you think that begging the aggressor to stop raping your daughter will be enough? lol

The issue with this passage is that modern christians like to take one verse, apply modern language and modern customs to it then interpret it so it suits their liberal worldview while claiming 'muh sola scriptura', we wuz the church fathers and so on(all those guys must have been wrong then right?). Let's just say they're mistaken. Either that or most saints who fought bravely were disobeying God by 'not turning the other cheek' and church fathers were wrong too. Basically we waited 2000 years to get those masterful liberal thinkers who finally with merely using the scripture and twisting it discovered the eternal truth. Nobody before them was able to make it.
Also this and this

Hahaha every single time. Modernists always project their own pride while claiming you must be putting your nation above God if you disagree with them on whether it is justified to defend your people and your culture.
Why do you imply that willingness to defend one's nation is the same thing as pride? It's the act of love.

This is why sola scriptura is cancer.

Humans were never meant to 1.-have dignity and 2.-be happy at all.

Humans were just made to praise and kneel to the creator.

...

Unpopular opinion: Jesus was an homosexual and had an incredibly dilated asshole, to the surprise of the Roman soldiers at the point of crucifixion

Filthy Luciferian.

It's amazing how you accuse me of projection than continue to call me a modernist. Arguing against positions I do not hold. Please point to the part of the OP where I say you shouldn't defend your homeland.
Also I am not a protestant nor do I uphold sola scriptura. I wonder how many times have the strawman you are beating turned its cheek.

simply brilliant level of discourse

I'm sorry If i misjudged you but what you wrote implies what I argue against. You do imply 'you can defend yourself' then you reject any physical means of defending yourself by saying:
My whole problem with your OP statement is this. Those are your words. It negates your whole statement. Do you think you can defend your people just by using words? If not you should really clarify where you draw the line. You must admit this does not make sense without defining what you mean by 'no aggresion even in self defense'. I would give you benefit of doubt if you did not bash a guy who just said that you can use physical means to defend your nation.
here in a reply to this
you implied that nationalism - here only expressed as defending your people by physical means - must be pride.
Therefore I call you 'modernist' for your view on 'turn the other cheek' and for implying nationalism must be prideful. Those are modernist ideas, championed by sola scriptura prots or by other people who do not bother to go beyond one cherry picked verse therefore using sola scriptura without being prots - but the result is the same. If you do not hold those positions again I'm sorry to have misjudged your statements… you should have written what you think clearly. What you wrote implies exactly.
You can't defend anything without some sort of force.
Also I stand by my statement that the love for my people does not stem from 'pride' but from me actually loving my people.

And he posts it with a Catholic meme. The irony.

Attached: index.jpg (237x213, 6.98K)

Doesn't Jesus himself teach not to let wickedness go free without intervention?
What is a christian to do when he is forced to go to war by his nation's leaders? Refuse and be jailed, stripped of his rights?

Attached: 436367.jpg (1497x2057, 981.97K)

Great job at taking Christ's points out of context