christianity is confusing

[lauralh]

Those interpreting ["If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also"] figuratively have cited historical and other factors in support. They note that 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. 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. The other alternative would be to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality.

(from Wikipedia; the basic summary of this view is that the Sermon on the Mount was to intice people to break Roman law)

Comments

[kevinsketch.livejournal.com]

Not sure that I buy that, in the context of the rest of the sermon around it, where it says if someone takes your hat, also give him your coats, etc. I can't image Jesus was saying, "when you're mugged show love, when you're beaten show love, but man, if you're bitch slapped, you demand equality."

But whatever, I don't have a time machine. I did, but I lost it.

In Santa Monica.

the coat thing:

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

Further, it is argued, 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 Jewish 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

Re: the coat thing:

[jimbojones.livejournal.com]

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."

Uh, they didn't want to look at their dad's wrinkled hairy package. I don't really see extrapolating from that into "it's shameful to see a naked person, not to be one."

Re: the coat thing:

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

But Ham was the one punished.

Re: the coat thing:

[kevinsketch.livejournal.com]

That's so hot.

[chris.livejournal.com]

whats wrong with just slapping them forehand?

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

likewise, a statement of equality.

[jimbojones.livejournal.com]

wouldn't smacking them with your asswiping hand just serve to even further demean them? this sounds pretty silly to me.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

well it was kind of a "either be a big fucking jerk or treat me equal" move

[rimd.livejournal.com]

Shoot them instead. Dilemma solved.

*slap*
*bang* *bang*
*thump*

Praise juh-hee-hee-zus, mah nigz. fo realz.

[jette.livejournal.com]

That would be fucking awesome and in tune with my personal vision of Christianity, which is that Our Lord was a Real Life Troll.

[discogravy.livejournal.com]

religion is confusing, let's talk about something less controversial, like abortion.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

This is why I beat my wife. It's a show of equality. Respect. I'm a feminist, you know.

[roughestgunark.livejournal.com]

i read an article in some magazine once about how the meaning of a lot of these sayings has been miscontrued and corrupted over the years..

yeah the cheek striking example had to do with shaming the smacker instead of accepting the shame, since it would violate social constructs..

another example was "if a man asks you to carry his pack 1 mile, carry it 2". there was evidently a law during that time that said that soldiers could require people to carry their equipment at will, but no more than 1 mile. by carrying the equipment more than a mile, they would actually not only bring shame upon the soldier but also get them in quite a bit of trouble..

the whole lot of examples has wound up making the jesus out to be some sort of blatant pussy, when in actuality he was calling for some serious passive resistance..

oh and i just read an article, i'm not some sort of bible guy or anything.. just thought it was all really interesting..

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

This follows my stumbling across a long discussion of the asswiping hand in the premodern world. People evidently used... pebbles. I know that's not really relevant, but it's all I have to contribute.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

that's ... I would have guessed leaves, ya know?

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Not too many leaves in ancient Palestine. Actually, pebbles seem to be the better alternative. Not for the squeamish -- well, I don't imagine you are: http://www.canonist.com/?p=808.

Why Jesus?

[realethicalslut.livejournal.com]

Dan Barker use to be an fundamentalist evangelist who now turned atheist and works for the Freedom from Religious Foundation group.

One of my favorite non-tracts of his examines the sayings of Jesus:

Why Jesus?
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php

And here's a radio show between him and Todd Friel/Ray Comfort (the banana guy) on Way of the Master (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_of_the_Master) radio:

Brace yourself for Jesus-hater Dan Barker. That's all I am going to tell you, just brace yourself.
http://www.wotmradio.com/2006/04/03/april-1-2006-weekend-show/ (Dan appears around the 21 min mark)

Dan Barker makes Ray look like a doofus with his lame loaded moral questions. This is one of my favorite debates although it's informal.

realethicalslut