| We hope you enjoy your visit! You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language. If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Turning the other cheek; is it obligatory, no ifs, no buts? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:14 (1,424 Views) | |
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:14 Post #1 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
On this thread, Mairtin wrote:
When I asked where Our Lord explicitly stated that, Mairtin offered this:
And Mairtin's cyber-jaw dropped when I said that those were not commandments that we are obliged to fulfill, So, can there really be no exceptions to the "commandment" to turn the other cheek? Are we really obliged to give our cloak to someone who steals our coat?? And, is a woman whose husband hits her a bad Christian if she doesn't turn the other cheek? Does this "commandment" cover violence involving people we are responsible for? For example, must a country turn the other cheek? If I see someone hit a weaker person, must I tell him to turn the other cheek because Our Lord explicitly forbids violence? Am I the only person who thinks, "Of course not!"?? |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:40 Post #2 |
|
More particularly, it was you assertion that Jesus was only "asking" us. I'm moving my last couple of relevant posts from the other thread to here. Edited by Mairtin, Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:44.
|
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:41 Post #3 |
|
From the other thread:How do you come to the conclusion "of course not."? My starting point with anything said directly by Jesus is that He meant what He said unless He is very clearly telling a parable or unless He has explicitly said something else that throws a different slant on that particular statement. He wasn't telling a parable in this instance and I'm not aware of anything He said to suggest that we should not give the thief our cloak; on the contrary, His meaning exactly what He said ties in with what He has said on other occasions e.g. Matthew 6:19-34 as quoted on the 'Crucified Thieves' thread. Can you explain why you actually think we should not take His words as a direct command? |
![]() |
|
| Mairtin | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:43 Post #4 |
|
From the other thread (2):If these things can be worked out by common sense then why do we need to bother at all with the words of Jesus as recorded in Holy Scripture?
This is an area where the Church seems to have moved the goalposts. You have always stressed the importance of Tradition; can you quote me anything from the Fathers where any of them suggested that Jesus meant anything other than what He actually said on this subject?
Yes it is a parable of sorts and fits neatly into what I said earlier about Jesus expanding on a statement elsewhere - it's not your hand or your eye that causes you to sin, Jesus made it clear that it's what's in your heart that causes you to sin, e.g. Matthew 5:28 which immediately precedes the bit about plucking out eyes and cutting of hands.
I seem to recall reading something that suggests that you have to take at least seventy times seven punches ... |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 18:47 Post #5 |
|
Clare's rejection of Mairtin's interpretation puts me in mind of the rich young man, who also couldn't believe what Jesus was asking of him, and went sorrowing away. |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 19:40 Post #6 |
|
Agreed, The Gospel is RADICAL. The safe approach is to accept the standard while also realising that it is so high as to be impossible to reach without God's help. Clare - errr, I thought you liked the literal approach? Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 19:58 Post #7 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Gerard, I like the Catholic approach. So, do you take Our Lord literally when He says to pluck out your eye when it causes you to sin, or cut off your hand? So, the beaten wife ought to just accept it? The abused child ought to put up with it? Perhaps Holocaust survivors ought to shut up and just accept it. I mean, if there are absolutely no ifs, buts, or exceptions... Yes, that's radical all right. As I have already said, the exhortation for us to turn the other cheek only applies to us as individuals when we are individually assaulted or whatever. It does not apply when we see someone else in trouble. We are our brother's keeper after all. It is therefore not a blanket ban on violence. And the Church does not say it is. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:00 Post #8 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
I can believe Our Lord is asking it of me. I can't believe He is asking it of everyone in every situation. Or that He is asking me to turn your cheek for you. I can't believe He is asking it of nations which are under threat. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Gerard | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:02 Post #9 |
|
I dont think this was Rabbinical exaggeration (I do think the eye thing was) because it was in answer to a question and is an instruction. Moreover the early church lived it and thus grew (note they ran away from persecution but did not fight it). Furthermore, even Ghandi recognised that this approach was effective. It brings out the best in the aggressor and tends to stop the violence. Safer to accept the standard. Gerry |
| "The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998). | |
![]() |
|
| Rose of York | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:06 Post #10 |
![]()
Administrator
|
They should not just accept it and most certainly should not turn the other cheek, giving the attacker an opportunity to repeat the violence.
Clare does that mean you believe the beaten wife, the abused child and Holocaust survivors ought to shut up and just accept it? |
|
Keep the Faith! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:16 Post #11 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
Of course not, Rose. I thought that was clear from my previous post. If they want to, they may, and they may well gain extra merit in doing so, but they are emphatically not obliged to. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| OsullivanB | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:18 Post #12 |
|
Not at all. That is not the experience of the early Church. They can and should exit the situation. But they don't get the right (insofar as they are Christians) to kill the abuser (Mrs Aluwahlia's case notwithstanding) |
| "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer | |
![]() |
|
| Angus Toanimo | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:29 Post #13 |
![]()
Administrator
|
Somehow I can't see Mairtin catching a couple of men burgling his house in the dead of the night, exiting with the TV and saying to them, "hold on lads, why don't you take the DVD player and the PC too, and I'll throw in the car?" |
![]()
| |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:33 Post #14 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
It wasn't in answer to a question as far as I can see. It was part of the same Sermon on the Mount that "the eye thing" was. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| Clare | Tuesday, 24. August 2010, 20:35 Post #15 |
|
Putting the "Fun Dame" into Fundamentalist
|
I'm not saying anything about killing here, although killing in self-defence (or in defence of someone else) is also allowed, if I dare mention that fact. |
|
S.A.G. Motes 'n' Beams blog Join in the Fun Trivia Quiz! | |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Archived Discussions · Next Topic » |









7:54 PM Jul 11