Amish girl told killer, “Shoot me first”
posted at 1:18 pm on October 5, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
If I can devote umpteen posts to John Mark Karr, I can devote one to this. Not quite the same as Fabrizio Quattrochi, but the same courage.
JPod’s got an interesting post at the Corner about the Amish telling their kids to forgive the animal who did it:
I can certainly see the beauty and the moral seriousness that would follow from attempting to hew as closely as possible to Christ’s example of unconditional love and forgiveness. All the same, this story disturbs me deeply — because there can be no question that anger can be as righteous as forgiveness. I’m not sure I would want to be someone who succeeded in rising above hatred of those who murder children. Does this mean that those who harbor hatred of child killers have somehow achieved a higher level of Godliness than those who succeed in banishing such hatred from their hearts? That seems to be a necessary corollary of the idea that it is heroic to “instruct the young not to hate,” and that seems very wrong to me.
I’m with JPod, although I suspect quite a few of our readers — especially the religious ones — won’t be. Serious question: if it’s okay to turn the other cheek when it comes to child killers, why isn’t it okay when it comes to, say, Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein? That inconsistency among hawkish Christians has always troubled me.
Or is it perfectly consistent, and I’m just missing something?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
AP, I’m certainly no hawkish Christian, nor am I a religious scholar. Heck, I’m not all that ‘religious’ in the normal sense (I don’t pray before every meal, read the bible nightly, etc), but let’s see if I can give a brief explanation to your question. (and others can then correct me where appropriate).
I don’t believe that Jesus ever meant for us to be completely, utterly forgiving of everybody and everything. I think in the Amish girls’ case, this was a single incident; Karr, for whatever reason, did this horrible act. In the case of Al Qaeda or Hussein (or Hitler, etc), it was an on-going situation… i.e. Hussein continually murdered/tortured/abused/etc people. Also, I believe that even though Jesus taught us to forgive, he would also want us to try to combat evil where we find it.
Of course, that’s just my opinion; I could be wrong.
dalewalt on October 5, 2006 at 1:25 PM
I don’t think it’s inconsistent, AP. Rather, when it is an isolated incident, like this horrible one that took place in Pennsylvania, it is easier for the human heart to forgive one man. However, when it seems that hundreds of thousands of Muslim extremists wish you dead, it is much more difficult for any Christian to forgive. And although he knows he should forgive, he wishes the same death and destruction back on his enemy, in order to preserve our lives, our country, and our way of life.
John Mark Carr wasn’t trying to eradicate Christianity or a nation as Islamic Fascists do.
BirdEye on October 5, 2006 at 1:25 PM
And a “right-on” to you as well, dalewalt.
BirdEye on October 5, 2006 at 1:26 PM
Well, AP, it’s kinda easier when they’re dead. By saying people want to “turn the other cheek” to a child killer, you seem to suggest that, if they were to kill one child, they’d say, “Here! Kill my other kid too!”
I don’t see anyone holding that position.
frankj on October 5, 2006 at 1:28 PM
I’m an agnostic, but I don’t think Christians necessarily mean that there isn’t any distinction between justice and personal forgiveness.
Unlike the case of al-Qaeda operatives, justice cannot possibly be served in this case. The killer is dead. The greater society may not forgive the killer, it probably isn’t even society’s place to think it can or should, but those personally affected might.
Sometimes, when nothing else can be done, for your own sake, you have to let go.
tommy1 on October 5, 2006 at 1:28 PM
Christians are taught to forgive those who sin against them. That does not mean that those who have been forgiven should escape justice. Forgiveness and justice are very different. I can forgive the child murderers, jihadis, etc., but still want them to face justice.
A parent can forgive a child murderer for killing her child, but still want that person to rot in jail. I don’t think any Christian will say that someone who has committed a crime should go unpunished. But, the christian WILL say that we must forgive the criminal, just as Christ forgave us.
Not feeling great today, so i hope that makes sense.
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 1:30 PM
Liberals blame the gun. Conservatives blame the shooter. Christians blame the sinful nature of man where Jesus came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Valiant on October 5, 2006 at 1:31 PM
yes He did. You MUST forgive the person, but that doesn’t mean that the person should go unpunished. They are two very different things.
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 1:33 PM
Don’t you find bashing the Amish to be just a bit tacky at the moment? Religious or not, don’t you think you owe them a bit of respect? The latest update on the funeral is here.
rightwingprof on October 5, 2006 at 1:33 PM
What I mean by “turn the other cheek” is forgive and not respond in kind.
So it’s a numbers game? Everyone gets one or two free shots at Jesus, but if they keep taking a swing at him he turns around and kicks ass?
I don’t know.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2006 at 1:33 PM
Well said everyone… I’m glad I’m not crazy because all of you said exactly what I was going to say about this.
RightWinged on October 5, 2006 at 1:34 PM
How am I bashing them, rightwingprof? I posted this to honor that girl’s courage, and JPod raised an interesting philosophical point about the lessons. I’m simply disagreeing with their approach. Geez.
So when Jesus said “turn the other cheek” he meant “kick his ass, but then forgive him”?
Allahpundit on October 5, 2006 at 1:37 PM
True forgiveness is one of the most difficult things for a Christian to do. But it is what Jesus asks of all Christians.
I admire the Amish for their steadfastness – they live and breathe their faith. And it is their faith that will help them through this most difficult time.
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 1:37 PM
Great question AP. I’m not a very relegious person, and God bless the attitude of these Amish folks, but didn’t the phrase eye for and eye come from the Bible? In todays world it seems eye for an eye has been replaced by kill or be killed. It surely is getting harder and harder to turn the other cheek, God bless those who can, for me it will always be eye for an eye.
soulsirkus on October 5, 2006 at 1:38 PM
Well like others have said AP, it’s different when the guy is dead. But anyway, forgiveness doesn’t mean that someone shouldn’t be brought to justice and be punished for their sins. So when the person is dead, what do you do?
Now Jesus might be able to forgive Saddam, etc. and while we’re supposed to strive to be like him, we’re still only human and simply can’t be like him (keep in mind he’s the only “man” without sin). Our human nature gets in the way of forgiving Saddam, etc. But again, forgiveness for sin, doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be punished.
Does that make any sense?
RightWinged on October 5, 2006 at 1:38 PM
AP, you got it backwards.
If someone kills two or three people it’s a tragedy.
If he kills a million people it’s a statistic.
Niko on October 5, 2006 at 1:39 PM
I dont think hawkish Christians, like me, advocate turning the other cheek to child killers. Generally I see people with a pacifist bent, or people like me who simply dont choose to take “turn the other cheek” to its extreme.
While “turn the other cheek” sounds nice on paper, it is seriously wrongheaded if applied literally, and necessarily leads to a society where evil people dominate sheepish Christian slaves. People should not try to make more of this statement than it was. It was merely Christ overturning the old testament rule of “an eye for an eye”. Remember, this is the same Christ who went on to lay the smack down at the temple marketplace. Was He turning the other cheek then?
Actions speak louder than words.
kaltes on October 5, 2006 at 1:40 PM
Jesus wasn’t “the government” and doling out punishment wasn’t his game. We have a justice system, as have governments for millenia.
RightWinged on October 5, 2006 at 1:40 PM
Me too. I don’t know what their position was about Afghanistan or Iraq or even if they had one, but it’s hard for me to believe they were gung ho for either.
Well, if you’re a serious Christian like the Amish are, human nature isn’t much of an excuse, is it? Granted, it’s hard to forgive. But Jesus didn’t say “try really hard to forgive but if you can’t, hey — human nature,” did he?
Re: punishment, yeah that makes sense. But isn’t … God the one who’s supposed to do the punishing? Osama knocks the Trade Center, we turn the other cheek, God deals with him on Judgment Day. Simple.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2006 at 1:44 PM
AP,
Maybe I thought you were being for flippant than you were, as it is a good question and I don’t think your bashing anyone. Christians aren’t supposed to hate anyone, but, in times of necessity, we may have to kill to protect ourselves and others. Killing should be a hard choice to make, though, as that ends any person’s chance at forgiveness or salvation in this world.
And, it’s kinda useless to forgive a dead guy except to find your own peace. I think it’s quite compassionate to show there was no ill will toward’s the murderer’s family, though.
Again, it’s an ideal, and I don’t think very many people live up to it (I know I constantly fall short).
frankj on October 5, 2006 at 1:44 PM
You’re right pullingmyhairout, I misspoke.
I doubt very much if I could be as forgiving as the Amish are, but I do thinks it’s very admirable, and speaks volumes about the goodness of these people (regardless of your religious (non)affilitation.
dalewalt on October 5, 2006 at 1:45 PM
Everything has a paradoxical drive in Christianity.
Drtuddle on October 5, 2006 at 1:45 PM
If this atheist may presume to speak for the Christians here, I believe that Christ would indeed command us to forgive everyone. That doesn’t mean that you allow the sinning to continue. In the case of the Amish school shooter, the incident is over, and the shooter is dead. We may forgive him and pray for his soul, secure in the knowledge that he won’t be shooting anyone else any time soon.
In the case of Al Queda, you’re dealing with an ongoing situation. You can forgive those Al Queda members who are dead, or even the ones who are alive, but that shouldn’t stop you from trying to stop what they’re doing.
That would be my understanding of the Christian approach. My own approach would have both points of corresponence, and points of departure from that.
Farmer_Joe on October 5, 2006 at 1:46 PM
I think it depends on how much of a literalist one is with regard to Scriptural interpretation.
Personally, not only am I unwilling to give up those “two or three free shots”; I’m looking to block the first, and maybe even strike pre-emptively.
When did Ned Flanders ever become the prototypical Christian role model?
Kid from Brooklyn on October 5, 2006 at 1:48 PM
The Amish, of course, are very literal. They take a lot of things to extremes. For instance, some of the more conservative Amish give their daughters dolls without faces: they take the “graven images” thing very seriously.
Still, I can’t help but admire people like the Amish, the Mennonites and the Hutterites. In a day where the average child is incredibly shallow, self-centered and has a five second attention span, it is amazing to see children who are so much more serious, gracious, patient, and all around noble compared to today’s average brats.
tommy1 on October 5, 2006 at 1:49 PM
Well, in a way he kind of did say that… Yes he commanded something of us, but knowing that we are only sinful humans, being like him is not something achievable.
Yeah, the final judgement. But there has always been justice within countries/communities dating all the way back, and he commands punishment of murderers, thieves, etc. I’ve got to run, at the moment, but I think you’re in good hands here AP and the other commenters are doing a good job with answers. I’ll be interested to see how this plays out later.
RightWinged on October 5, 2006 at 1:50 PM
I wouldn’t go overboard in praising the Amish. I think their ability for forgiveness is admirable, but, if the price is to draw from society to such an extreme, then I don’t think that’s worth it. Their society only exists because there is everyone else out there to handle the rest of the world for them.
frankj on October 5, 2006 at 1:52 PM
So we get to hit back at AQ because we, essentially, are the international policeman. It’s not that we’re striking back out of rage or anger, we’re simply effectuating a little justice. That’s a neat exception for us, but what about other countries? If Paris gets nuked, is the appropriate Christian response for France to turn the other cheek and let Police Chief America handle it?
If not, then you’re simply dressing up retaliation as “punishment.”
Allahpundit on October 5, 2006 at 1:54 PM
It’s consistent. There is a good book published last year by Regnery Press that deals with these issues: How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
On forgiveness versus justice: You forgive, but the Catholic Church continued the Western concept of justice. Even though you are forgiven and you should forgive, some type of justice is necessary. (Liberals forget this). This is why the death penalty has never been against Catholic doctrine. You should not “hate” criminals but you should demand that justice be done.
On Al Qaeda, How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization discusses the concept of just war on pp 203-215. This is worth the price of the book alone because libs have so skewered the actual Catholic view on war.
St. Thomas Aquinas gives 3 categories for just war: 1) “First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war.” (Compare that to Al Qaeda individuals declaring war on us.); 2) Just cause on account of some fault (e.g. Afghanistan harboring Taliban); and 3)”The belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.” (Only moonbats believe we have some ulterior motive in attacking Iraq and Afghanistan.) The War on Terror including the attack on Iraq were definitely just. Justice demands eliminating terrorists.
januarius on October 5, 2006 at 1:54 PM
I’m no religious scholar either. We have some very interesting ideas being bandied about in the comments section. I think what the Amish are striving for is to release the anger as quickly as possible. No, it is not alright to kill children. The Apostle Paul cautioned us to be angry, but sin not. And Christ in the sermon on the mount declared that if we wish that our brother was dead, we have killed him in our hearts. Stern stuff. Anger is very powerful, and even if it can be used righteously, that use has the power to corrupt. Surrendering our desire for vengeance to God is saying, “God, I have faith that You will work it out.” Which is based on what I have been taught is what God wants out of us.
But I’m not good at letting go of anger and even hate. I feel strongly that we need to exert a vigor self-defense by being aggeressive in Iraq. AM I turning the other cheek. No, not really. I don’t know how other Christians reconcile that. In fact I am pretty sure that most of us can’t. I have trouble finding it in me to say I forgive this guy, and I’m just a blogger with a pen in my hand. I think it is incredible that the Amish people can. I admire that and attribute it to their simpler lifestyle. But I don’t think there are many Amish pundits calling for us to get out of Iraq or to bring Osama to justice.
Just my two cents.
Ennuipundit on October 5, 2006 at 1:57 PM
I am just sooooo impressed with the Amish and their behavior in the face of this tragedy that I’ll never look at them in quite the same way.
No Amish Spokesperson hawking for the camera.
No Amish on OPRAH or THE VIEW, of ABC/NBC/CBS/MSNBC/FOX
No Health Insurance (All extended family members contribute and they will pay in cash.)
No Pictures
No Hate
No Pity
No Civil Suits looking for money from the family of the killer
No Politicians looking for votes at the funeral.
No Calls for gun control or the death penalty.
Just private mourning!
Just forgiveness!
Just faith in Family!
Just trust in God!
Just tranquility!
Just grace!
Just class!
Nice tag line! NO HATE JUST FAITH!
I’d follow their lifestyle tomorrow, but it’s just too damn hard!!!! More’s the pity!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on October 5, 2006 at 1:57 PM
Jesus didn’t like money lenders. He strode into their “office”
and started flipping over their tables. He actually grabbed a whip and started cracking it.
He did not lead with glass-jawed forgiveness.
I don’t see him walking into that schoolhouse, before the shooting began, and then staying passive.
Stephen M on October 5, 2006 at 1:58 PM
Peter & Helen Evans have a threepart interview on “Is it (war) Christian?” up at RenewAmerica that may be helpful to those who want to read some more on this subject. part 1, part 2, part 3.
MT on October 5, 2006 at 1:59 PM
Sometimes the answer to “What would Jesus do?” is “Flip out and knock over tables.”
frankj on October 5, 2006 at 2:01 PM
Oh. And I think the KY Jelly in the guy’s pocket might have set him off too.
Stephen M on October 5, 2006 at 2:02 PM
Great info januarius. I remember reading what St. Thomas had to say about a just war, but had forgotten it until your post.
frankj, I wouldn’t sell the Amish short. I’ve a feeling that if you went into their farmhouse and started attacking them, they *would* defend themselves, though they may need to pray for forgiveness afterwards.
dalewalt on October 5, 2006 at 2:04 PM
I’m not saying they wouldn’t (I don’t know all their beliefs). I’m just saying I don’t admire having a closed society. If they really think their way is the best, do they realize it only exists because so many don’t choose their way and can provide them a (realtively) peaceful country.
frankj on October 5, 2006 at 2:07 PM
I’m not saying they wouldn’t (I don’t know all their beliefs). I’m just saying I don’t admire having a closed society. If they really think their way is the best, do they realize it only exists because so many don’t choose their way and can provide them a (realtively) peaceful country.
Stephen M on October 5, 2006 at 2:08 PM
Hey AP,
On another matter, the phrase turn the other is subject to various interpretation, most commonly the non-resistance model that most folks understand. But an equally valid interpretation is that Jesus means, to use the vernacular, don’t go all Charley Bronson on the guys who go hurt you. I’m on it. Just chill.
Ennuipundit on October 5, 2006 at 2:08 PM
Forgive him first and then expect/facilitate justice, never revenge.
Valiant on October 5, 2006 at 2:08 PM
Excellent point. They get to be studiously principled Christians because other Christians aren’t.
Yeah, I figured Aquinas would come up eventually. My point is, most Christians haven’t read Aquinas; when they back war in Afghanistan or Iraq, they’re going pretty much on what Jesus himself had to say. What I want to know is, how did they get from the Sermon on the Mount to daisy cutters?
Also, doesn’t Aquinas’s scheme amount to, “Turn the other cheek, unless you’ve been wronged, in which case swing away”?
Allahpundit on October 5, 2006 at 2:08 PM
If the shooter were still alive, the Amish people would still forgive him. That does not mean that under the laws of our country, he would not be held to account, punishment, if you want to call it that. The ultimate punishment comes from God for those that break His laws. Maybe you can tell, I’m not a deeply religious person, but I do believe there is a higher power that will judge all of us. I hope that power is a benevolent power, because I’m going to need all the help I can get. As for the Amish, I have the greatest respect for them and I am sorry for all of this intrusion into their quiet and simple lives.
d1carter on October 5, 2006 at 2:15 PM
I heard one of the girls grandfather on television and he said he forgave in his heart which led me to wonder if he forgave in his mind yet. I am a Christian-Catholic (I know some people think those two things are mutually exclusive) but I don’t think I could turn the other cheek. I saw Ron Goldman’s father on television around the anniversary of his son’s death and whoever the commentator was asked him if he would ever forgive the killer of his son and if this incident (I remember whoever it was calling it an incident) had consumed his life. He said yes that it had and no he would not forgive his son’s killer-now or ever. I know that there are those who say they forgive but I don’t think they forget and I don’t think these people will either. I sometimes marvel at the Amish and their culture. I wonder if they’re happier living in another time while living in our times. I know the two times I’ve been (once when I was 10 and another time when I was 34) I thought how do these people feel living in a fish bowl of tourists and gawkers who come in and pay too much for a quilt and want to take their pictures (which they don’t like). It’s kind of like the “living history demonstrations” at Colonial Williamsburg or a Civil War Re-enactment except those people go home and come back to their time. These people don’t and live as they have for hundreds of years. I know at some point in their teenage years the kids are allowed to leave and go out into the world. Many can’t handle the world that swirls around them on the outside and come back, while others leave the community for good. I think it’s wonderful if they can really forgive as it’s probably better for your mental health if you can but that doesn’t mean that you don’t want justice. However, in this case the justice has been meeted out already. It will be interesting to see how those who are not in the Amish community react to the family of this creep. It’s true that no one really knows what goes through another person’s mind no matter how close you are to that person.
Catie96706 on October 5, 2006 at 2:17 PM
But then how do you deal with the fact that your religion says you’re supposed to?
Allahpundit on October 5, 2006 at 2:18 PM
I dont think “forgive” means “dont punish”. It means punish them for their sins against humanity but forgive and hope for the redemption of their Souls.
But to the story of that brave little girl. I surely hope and PRAY that Angels were standing there holding her hand when she said that. I just cant get past the horror of that scene.
labwrs on October 5, 2006 at 2:19 PM
Jesus said “he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one”
Stephen M on October 5, 2006 at 2:19 PM
It’s a process, AP. Humans aren’t perfect.
Farmer_Joe on October 5, 2006 at 2:20 PM
La Shawn Barber posted about this topic a couple of years ago, and her post may help answer a few questions Allah and others may have about Christians and war.
SisterToldjah on October 5, 2006 at 2:24 PM
AP,
Go here
.
You’ll find:
…in regards to this passage. Jesus was not changing the meaning of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” but restoring it to the original context. Jesus starts his statement with “you have heard it said” which means that he was clarifying a misconception, as opposed to “it is written” which would be a reference to scripture. The common misconception seems to be that people were using Exodus 21:24-25 (the guidelines for a magistrate to punish convicted offenders) as a justification for personal vengeance. In this context, the command to “turn the other cheek” would not be a command to allow someone to beat or rob a person, but a command not to take vengeance.
Stephen M on October 5, 2006 at 2:24 PM
Okay, but is it really a process? Do the Christians here pray at night for God to give them the strength to forgive Bin Laden?
I was raised Catholic, and for the longest time I used to play this “I’m only human!” card too. Every bad thing I did or thought, no matter how much I enjoyed it, would be dismissed on grounds that “hey — I’m only human.” It was really just a license for me to violate the tenets of the religion and then “make it up” in confession later.
Is that what’s going on here? Root root root for agony for Osama, then blame it later on your own human frailty?
Pretty sweet deal.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2006 at 2:24 PM
As a non-religious person, the “idea” of forgiving is a noble one; however, I could never wrap my mind around forgiving someone for such evil.
SouthernGent on October 5, 2006 at 2:29 PM
Yes, great one.
I forgive you but you have to take your punishment.
If you were raised Catholic Allah (*scratches head* lol), surely you remember being taught about Purgatory? And Christ’s talking about not getting out of jail until everything is paid up. (Words to that effect, cannot remember the exact verse)
Lady Heather on October 5, 2006 at 2:29 PM
As a Christian who grows weary of non-Christians trying to understand the ways of God, allow me to interject my 2 cents.
Please do not forget that Jesus IS God, the 1 God. God the Father (God), God the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. So, that same Jesus Christ who walked the earth and taught us to “turn the other cheek,” as non-Christians are so quick to quote, also declared to the Israelites that they should utterly destroy their enemies as they entered the Promised Land.
They were instructed to leave NONE of the heathen alive, not even their cattle in many cases. God is a God of justice. Only HE can choose when and if that justice is to be meted out. But…
That same Jesus, did teach about forgiveness. We are PERSONALLY to forgive those who harm us. And we are not to inflame our enemies, but rather, pray for them. So, if someone is mean to me, my first response is to try to diffuse the situation, not just get right back into their face and be mean back.
DO NOT confuse that with being chicken, or pacifist, or whatever other derogatory term the left throws at Christians. I will protect my family with ferocity is necessary.
Jesus also said to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s,” among other comments relating to governments roll in the world. Governments are sanctioned by God to do things that the normal Christian is not supposed to do. It’s called justice, and it is (as other posters have tried to scream) very different from forgiveness. Oh, and it’s also very necessary.
“Thou shalt not kill” doesn’t mean NEVER. It means NEVER for the wrong reason. I can think of 19 guys who, as we like to say in the South, “Needed Killin’.” Did God task me with that job? No. But too bad the cops didn’t get ahold of them like they did that guy down in Florida the other day.
It’s not as complicated or “greyish” as those on the left would have you believe.
y2church on October 5, 2006 at 2:29 PM
It’s not just the process like Farmer Joe, says. Though his point that humans aren’t perfect is right on the money. The idea is that everything that Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount is impossible for humans to do. Only in choosing to surrender your life to God, and choosing to listen to the Holy Spirit can you succeed at failing less. For example, do I…Love my enemies. Nope. How about…not judging others…ummm, nope. I’m a blogger judging others kinda comes with the territory. And when it comes to…removing the log from my eye before practicing opthamology on another…no way. I’m failing big time. But as I let God run the show more, the closer I get to that ideal.
Ennuipundit on October 5, 2006 at 2:29 PM
It had to. The Catholic Church has never been pacifistic or suicidal. Hilaire Belloc, perhaps the best European historian of the last hundred years, says in Europe and the Faith:
Right now Western Civ is being saved by the sword. Turning the cheek against Al Qaeda would be suicidal. Anyway, libs put Jesus’ “turning the other cheek” out of context. The New Testament is not anti-war. Luke says about John the Baptist: “Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.” Where does he say, do not kill in a just war?
januarius on October 5, 2006 at 2:30 PM
That’s open to interpretation, and whether or not one is a literalist. I don’t believe that the concept of “turning the other cheek” obligates me to let someone kick my ass or harm my family unabated. Again, who died and made Ned Flanders the standard bearer for Christianity?
Kid from Brooklyn on October 5, 2006 at 2:32 PM
Stephen M — That’s well and good, but as with Aquinas, it’s a doctrinal gloss. Most Christians aren’t aware of it. I’m asking how did Christians justify their support for the war based on their own understandings of Jesus’s teachings? How do they justify their support for celebrating Zarqawi getting blown to pieces instead of captured and imprisoned?
You guys are doing a good job trying to reconcile all this, but let me tell you my suspicion. My suspicion is that most Christians (but not all) responded to 9/11 without a thought at all for what their religion has to say. They perceived a threat, they perceived it had to be dealt with, and they perceived that Jesus’s golden rule had very little to offer. So they turned the other cheek — to Jesus — and did the rational thing.
Allahpundit on October 5, 2006 at 2:33 PM
No. They are supposed to. Ideally, that’s the way we are supposed to do it. There’s a guy I listen to. A Scottish preacher from Cleveland. He recently related on his radio program the story of him observing two people whose behavior outraged him. And he was doing a series on the Sermon on the Plain, Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount. And his visceral reaction was, I hate you and what you are doing. Followed by the reminder to “love your enemies.” He confesses that he struggles with it. As do we all. But only in sincere effort to change your behavior will you succeed. We can’t play this card:
Because God sees those who are sincere and those who are just playing. Catholocism, no disrespect intended, because of the idea of confession to a priest who acts as an earthly intercessor, tends to create the idea that as long as you are penitent, your actions, even if they were pre-meditated and calculated are forgiven. And in truth they are. But any Christian with the attitude of I’m going to sin now and then make it up to God later, even though I know I am sinning is not operating inside their faith.
Ennuipundit on October 5, 2006 at 2:36 PM
yes. i think many do.
The fact that we are human is the reason for our fallibility, not an excuse. Anyone who uses his/her “humaness” is unwilling to do the hard work that Christianity requires of us – which is forgiveness and good works. No one said it was easy to understand and it is a question that I ask myself frequently – “Am I doing the best I can? Am I striving to be more like Christ? Do I have a forgiving heart?” Sometimes the answer is “yes” and sometimes, sadly, it’s “no.” But, the good news is that Jesus will always forgive us. We must pray that we will be forgiven for our imperfections, of which I have many.
But I think we all strive to be better human beings, which makes me so angry about how I have been slammed for my sympathy for ‘anchor babies.” but that’s a different topic…
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 2:37 PM
Hey y2church,
If you are…
can I ask why. I am happy to share and hopefully illuminate others. Some of them may become Christians int he process. I would imagine you are too, just wondering.
Ennuipundit on October 5, 2006 at 2:40 PM
As a christian, this is how I view it.
Forgiveness isn’t acceptance of sin so when they say they are forgiving the shooter they aren’t saying that what he did was ok. They are saying it wasn’t ok but they are releasing him of guilt for it in so far as it pertains to them.
Saddam is a different issue because he was continually performing acts of evil on the people of Iraq. While I could say I forgive him, that wasn’t going to stop him from doing it again. So then it becomes necessary to stop the person or persons that are sinning. So basically it comes down to us saying we forgive you but if we have to kill you to stop you from killing more innocents, then we will.
And just fyi, I don’t support the death penalty. What I was saying above was that if he was killed in the war or in trying to apprehend him.
Benaiah on October 5, 2006 at 2:40 PM
And AP, about reconciling Christianity with War, that is very difficult. In order to bring criminals to justice, sometimes war is a necessity. Otherwise, we would live in a chaotic world.
Good conversation. But, afternoon kid duties are calling!!
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 2:42 PM
A couple scattered thoughts, Allah. I’ve wrestled with this before. I have a natural toughness and predisposition toward retaliation, just as many red-blooded, red-state American Christians do. I’ve always thought it was inspired by a desire for justice rather than a wish for violence, but the question remains whether desiring justice and bringing it about is stepping on God’s toes.
Of course, when you’re in an actual situation with someone who’s striking both your cheeks again and again, and you’re trying to turn them like a good Christian, you can easily find yourself getting walked all over, which never felt like a good testimony to the table-toppling, Temple-freak-out Jesus, who wouldn’t have stood for it. So, what the dilly, yo? Which, is actually how I pose the question to the Lord.
I’m not sure who said it, but I’m with whoever said that Christians are called to forgive, but they’re not called to allow folks to go on sinning egregiously. The “cheek” scripture in question (the version that starts at Matthew 6:38) is actually more about “loving your enemy” and praying for him than about not retaliating. In fact, I’ve read that the Greek verb translated as “strike” in the Scripture is translated as “slaps with the back of the hand,” which was evidently considered more of an insult than a violent attack. So, I think there’s some wiggle room in there. It’s easier to imagine turning the other cheek to an insult than a violent attack, when one might be called upon to defend one’s own safety.
But there are other Scriptures that call for us to discipline one another and the Lord even says, “Those who I love, I rebuke and discipline,” (Rev. 3:19), which is the same principle many Christian parents use in disciplining their children. So, if you’re truly following the example of the Lord and loving your enemies, you can also rebuke and discipline them? Hmmm. Just throwin’ it out there. Heck, as Christians, we’re even called to discipline members of our own church in order to prevent future sin and the spread of sin within a congregation, so I think that’s a decent indication that Christians can feel comfortable “disciplining” others or with the nation or justice system “disciplining” someone on their behalf.
Are we called to forgive all the time? Yes. Are we called to be like the perfect Jesus? Yes. Can we be? Nope. There is no perfect forgiveness without punishment except through His grace. Outside of that, on this earth, we gotta do the best we can. But loving one’s enemy and praying for him I don’t think preclude punishment or retaliation. I usually get to the praying, but have a hard time with the forgiving, sigh.
Plus, you have to remember that the great commissioning for Christians is to preach the Gospel. If all Christians were pacifists, and all of them objected to any military action on their behalf, there would be far fewer free countries in the world. That means, not only would many innocents have died under many more totalitarian regimes without the military intervention of free nations, but Christians would be much less free to preach and practice their faith. I can’t believe that Jesus would be down with either of those things.
Here’s C.S. Lewis on that point in “Why I’m Not a Pacifist”:
For many years before 9/11 Christians were dealing with this question, and some theologians had long ago decided that pacifism ain’t fly. Many Christians know this and could easily have considered it at the time of 9/11, just as they did at Pearl Harbor. Many Christians could have made up their minds about it before 9/11.
All right, feel free to pick it apart. I’m no theologian, but I think there’s some Scriptural evidence that pacifism is not the Christian imperative, and have thought so for some time.
marykatharine on October 5, 2006 at 2:44 PM
As long as you brought up the Sermon on the Mount, thats where Jesus gave us the Lords Prayer. The first two words are enough to describe much of the ‘plan’. OUR FATHER. We’re all children of God, no grandkids, all equal. Jesus said to forgive, but forgiveness does not say it’s OK. We must forgive to free our hearts from anger so we can be more representative of God.
We also live in a nation of laws that we must follow, laws OF THE PEOPLE are laws Jesus would agree to for ‘mans’ life here on earth.
The EVIL we are definitely at war with is much deeper than just the AQ or school children killers. And we are at war, but its a spirit world war that is the big fight. Those who would stand hand in hand with God would not, could not, kill another.
First came the 10 commandments, pretty self explanatory.
Then Jesus gave us more at the mount, much more.
Read Emmet Fox ‘Sermon on the Mount’.
Not quite, he meant forgive them. Again, it does NOT mean it was OK, so use the laws of the land (or lands). We have laws for our country and for the world, laws that are supposed to help save lives and protect the weak. We just dont use them now because of fear and or stupidity, but they do exist, and Jesus would want us to follow the laws.
God Family and Country.
shooter on October 5, 2006 at 2:44 PM
I actually grew in faith since 9/11, was not very religious at that time. I would like to say that if I had been as religious as I am now, that I would turn to scriptural guidelines and talk to God and see what He would ahve me do. But I wouldn’t. And I know that. You got me, Allah. I cannot reconcile my rational reaction to my faith which calls me to not be that way.
I am glad to know I am not alone in this regard.
Ennuipundit on October 5, 2006 at 2:46 PM
For me, forgiveness hinges on whether or not the person is/was remorseful about what they’d done.
Before killing himself, Rhoads said…”Pray for me” …which in my mind shows at least a glimmer of remorse.
Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein, not so much.
The Ugly American on October 5, 2006 at 2:49 PM
If the shooter were still alive
HEY D1CARTER, watch your words there buddy…(:-)
shooter on October 5, 2006 at 2:49 PM
Sorry….I should’ve said Roberts and not Rhoads.
The Ugly American on October 5, 2006 at 2:51 PM
Us crazy Christians love it when you post genuine questions about the faith. Thanks to SisterToldjah for pointing the group to the LaShawn Barber post, as it is right on.
Unlike some Muslims I see in the media, real Christians don’t try to dodge what our holy book says. Real Christians simply point to the Bible when trying to responde to these questions. Why? Because if you really study the Bible (in context, and with an understanding of the original Greek/Hebrew texts) it is never inconsistent, not even on issues like these.
In a nutshell AP the Bible says it’s OK to protect yourself, punish evil doers, and forgive them, and these acts don’t have to be inconsistent with each other. It doesn’t mean that Christians sit around forgiving Bin Laden, but it does mean that practicing Christians regularly ask God for the strength to forgive “others”. This strength then comes into play on a individual case-by-case basis. It truly takes reading the actual scriptures to understand this difficult concept.
realVerse on October 5, 2006 at 2:51 PM
You sure? Just got an e-mail from someone telling me to hang on to those Malkin coattails nice and tight because I’m “exploiting” the Amish girl’s death for even raising this question?
I’m hanging on tight!
Allahpundit on October 5, 2006 at 2:54 PM
I’ll second that realVerse.
I believe that there are also degrees of reaction. One killer one victim is percieved differently than one killer one thousand victims. Also tyranny and terrorism disallow a person from being free, freeing the oppressed is within God’s will.
natesnake on October 5, 2006 at 2:57 PM
One can also argue that “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s (Matthew 22:15-21″ makes some distinction between what is spiritual and what is not.
Forgiveness is one thing, justice is another.
Ropera on October 5, 2006 at 2:58 PM
Aww, come on, Allah. One commenter and one e-mailer? Surely the rest of us are testament.
The question is a good one.
marykatharine on October 5, 2006 at 3:00 PM
Well said, RV.
The question Allah posed is a question I had myself long ago. It was answered to me in a similar manner to the post from LB I referenced, and I was glad it was there for me to reference, because I have a difficult time explaining it myself.
SisterToldjah on October 5, 2006 at 3:08 PM
A lot of heavyweights weighing in on this one. Nice question to ask, Allah.
Going to what Mary Katherine said
And is also referenced in the book of Hebrews, where the author is referring to God’s discipline of His children, specifically, Christians. So for example, God is not going to discipline non-believers (until the final judgment). Just like parents should not discipline someone else’s kids.
I’m going to disagree with that one and say that right to discipline is reserved for God, but it is a fair interpretation. And it is not very accepted in our multi-cultural world.
A key passage comes from Peter’s first epistle.
The decisions of national leaders are to be obeyed. I wish someone would read that passage to Jim Dobson sometimes. ;) That’s one way that Christians do choose to reconcile the decision to go to war.
Ennuipundit on October 5, 2006 at 3:09 PM
Is there such a thing as forgiveness in the Muslim religion? Or maybe we shouldn’t be talking about such things, for fear of retaliation?
d1carter on October 5, 2006 at 3:11 PM
Its a great question and topic. The real issue here is how people view and interpret FORGIVENESS and their relationship to God. What does that mean to you. That’s always a good thing. Nice addition Realverse,maryk, sister, and others.
I wanted to add to my post
I do believe in our armed forces and I do believe they are a must in todays world. The need to fight evil, everywhere it exists, is an absolute necessity. Prayer being the strongest form of battle against true evil, but not the only tool in the box.
shooter on October 5, 2006 at 3:15 PM
No, he didn’t raise any such thing. Jeez, can’t we even wait until these girls are buried before we start debating what, after all, is none of our business — Amish religious practices?
Have some respect. Please.
rightwingprof on October 5, 2006 at 3:15 PM
Nah, Allah, this is a very good question. Events like what happened in that school are meant to provoke questions of faith. Only in our society that fears discussion and introspection could anyone not see the value of this tragedy to teach about faith.
Ennuipundit on October 5, 2006 at 3:16 PM
AP, I can’t believe you’re even taking that one emailer seriously.
You know, it strikes me, reading all of these posts, how different most conservative blogs and discussions are compared to liberal ones. Following along in the lines that realVerse mentioned, most conservative conversations, even with a potentially charged subject like you’ve brought forth, are calm, rational discussions, each person giving his/her view(s), accepting others’ comments and criticisms, and often modifying their viewpoint based on fact presented by others.
Contrast this not only with the vehemence exhibited by most Muslims (especially if you dare to criticize Mohammed), but also the normal discussions you find on DU, Kos, HufPost, etc. Not bad for a bunch of right-wing racist, facist, peace-hating bullies.
dalewalt on October 5, 2006 at 3:17 PM
Wow, this thread has grown in the short period of time I’ve been away.
I almost think it’s going to wind up being an agree to disagree thing, because everyone seems to be repeating the same things back and forth with AP.
Let me just say one thing in reaction to:
You talk about using the “only human” excuse and then going to confession. I don’t want to sit here and Catholic bash, but most Catholics I’ve known (and the northeast is full of ‘em) are just as secular as everyone else, except they go have a snack once a week and tell a man in a box some stuff they did wrong, and they’ve got a permission slip for another week. Non-catholic Christianity has us confess directly to God. I don’t go to church, and rarely set aside a time for prayer (though I should), I sort of stay in a running conversation… may sound weird, but that’s how I roll.
So anyway, non-Catholic born again Christians have a personal relationship with Christ that is constantly growing, but everyone understands you’ll never achieve Jesus status, because while he was a man he was also God. So again, as I and many others have said, it is a lot tougher to forgive terrorists who are still free and committing their acts. And even though Saddam is in custody, it’s hard to actual forgive someone like him. But in our hearts we are technically commanded to.
I think the point you’re missing AP is that there is law enforcement and government that exist outside of religion, and they have always had a role, and dealing justice is part of it. We support justice, but that doesn’t have anything to do with not forgiving. Again, this is getting repetative, so I’m not sure what else to say about that. I suppose I’ll become a reader on this thread from here on out… Interesting conversation.
RightWinged on October 5, 2006 at 3:17 PM
In context the “turn the other cheek” command is in amongst a bunch of legal or personal insult examples. That principle should not be applied to every situation. We’re supposed to protect our families from those who’d harm us. Killing in self-defense is okay’d in the Law. But “turn the other cheek” and “walking two miles instead of one” are a whole different category: our response to those who would insult (not attack) us.
It’s the government’s job to exact justice and mete out punishment on al-Quaeda types (separation of church and state has biblical support). So I don’t think a Christian is violating any Scripture when he supports the WoT.
From a Christian perspective, Jesus died a horrible death to purchase our salvation. He paid the penalty for all of our sins—mine, yours, every child-killer’s and Osama’s. He extends forgiveness to each one. Who am I to say that my standards are higher than God’s. Christians ought to be able to forgive. When we don’t it’s wrong and it shows an area that we need to work on.
jdpaz on October 5, 2006 at 3:18 PM
If a mad dog wanders into my yard, Step 1 is to kill it, Step 2 is to forgive it. The same for jihadis or people who shoot up schools. I see no inconsistancy there.
bdfaith on October 5, 2006 at 3:19 PM
I’d disagree with the implication that following Jesus would be irrational, but Jesus (God) made us this way.
I believe I’m correct that in Jesus’s time, a slap on the cheek was considered an insult. Turning the other cheek is more in terms of not responding in kind with regard to an insult, and may not be appropriately compared with driving planes into skyscrapers.
MT on October 5, 2006 at 3:20 PM
We’re not debating Amish religious practices, rightwingprof. I think we’re discussing faith and matters of Christian belief. These are not exclusive to the Amish. I think in light of the positive comments regarding their ability to practice what they preach, that our debate has been particularly respectful.
And I think when it comes to matters of faith and how people live their lives, discussing positives and negatives is everyone’s business. Maybe there is something we can learn from their lifestyle. Maybe there is something they can learn from ours.
Ennuipundit on October 5, 2006 at 3:22 PM
It doesn’t matter what I or any Christian “says”, but what does God say. For that you have to read the Bible.
First, don’t confuse Jesus words to individuals with God’s commands to government. For example, an individual does not have the right to commit murder (see Ten Commandments) nor to hate another (see the Gospels), but God’s law does allow the government to exact the death penalty for capital crimes via the establishment of the rule of law (see the book of Leviticus).
1) Forgiveness of a person’s offense is based upon their desire to be forgiven. Until they repent, forgiveness cannot be granted even by God. (entire Bible)
2) Forgiveness can only be granted by God and the persons that have been wronged. In this case it is the family and friends of the girls murdered. No one else has the right under God’s Word to say to the murderer “You are forgiven”. If you have not been wronged, you cannot forgive an offense. If the family forgives the murderer, then no one has the right to question it. Being forgiven, however, does not excuse the murderer from his responsibility to the law.
3) Forgiveness does not eradicate responsibility. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, even Christians. Forgiveness of sins by God does not give one “license” to do whatever they want and not suffer the consequences for their actions. There is a price to pay, and it will be paid. (entire Bible)
4) Christ taught that doing harm to a child would be and should be met with the harshest punishment. So much that it would be better for the perpetrator to be drown in the sea. (Matt. 18:6, Mark 9:42)
5) Jesus taught and became the example of how God wants people to live their lives. He was not setting an example of government policy. God has provided law to society to deal with the murderers of children. (the Gospels)
As to dealing with terrorists: I hope the U.S. will continue to be dilligent in stopping terrorism and the murder of people all over the world. If this requires the killing of terrorists, it is the repercussions of their sins of murder. Nevertheless, if I were to be captured by terrorists and told to reject my faith in Christ and become muslim, or die. I would choose death and I would pray to God my Father to forgive them before I died. This may seem strange to those who don’t know and understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Word of God, but it is the nature of His love.
There is a difference between forgiving someone who has offended me, and contributing to the dissemination of evil by inaction.
If you are a Christian and you don’t read and study the Bible, shame on you.
If you are NOT a Christian and you attempt to quote the words of Jesus Christ without having read them, shame on you. You would not like anyone quoting you without actually having read what you wrote. Don’t do the same to Him.
God bless you all.
Lone Star on October 5, 2006 at 3:22 PM
marykatharine,
I don’t see Jesus as a pacifist, more a lock ‘n load kind of guy. “…and he that hath no
sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
Better naked than unarmed is not a pacifist’s stance.
Religious scholars talk this pacifist stuff but they’re no one special.
Turning over money changers’ tables while cracking a whip reads the same in Greek I’ll bet.
Jesus was a man of spirit and action. Theologians are too often just wordsmiths.
Maybe a theologian could lean on his Jesus-mandated sword and count angels on a the head of a pin while a guy takes over a school waving his gun and KY about. But I’m certain Jesus had other uses in mind for that sword. And I’m just as certain that if Jesus came back today he’d approve of today’s swordsman.
Stephen M on October 5, 2006 at 3:23 PM
Great point, dalewalt. I have been particularly happy to participate. Is it often this lively?
Ennuipundit on October 5, 2006 at 3:24 PM
Ropera’s Matthew 22:15-21 reference makes the point I was thinking about as I read this thread.
There is the spiritual world and the earthly one. Often times the two are in conflict. There is a phrase that goes something along the lines that the sign of a first rate mind is the ability to hold two competing ideas at once and still function. Or words to that effect. I’m not trying to use the above as a way of tooting my horn, but to make the point that we have to make our way in a world where oftentimes there is no clear cut answer, but conflicting situations and guidance and what not.
I don’t think we will find a easy answer here, which is actually to our credit as thinking and moral beings.
Because I there ARE some people who have overcome any and all internal debate over issues like this, in terms of spiritual vs material. And they are the jihadists who cut off heads. They are suprememly unconflicted and unconcerned with questions like this.
We are.
And therein lies the differnece.
EFG on October 5, 2006 at 3:25 PM
As MKH said, that’s an isolated example, and I think the rest of us are evidence of that… But might I also add that it could be worse. At least we aren’t strapping on bomb belts and blowing up buses, right?
RightWinged on October 5, 2006 at 3:27 PM
This has been an extremely important debate and I am so proud of all the posters for not turning it into a mud-fest.
And I haven’t seen anyone on this thread slam the Amish. The discussion has been very respectful. So Allah, don’t be afraid to pose questions like this. You don’t need to hang on to Michelle’s coattails (with no disrespect to MM). You do just fine on your own. :)
pullingmyhairout on October 5, 2006 at 3:34 PM
There is so much stuff in this comment section that it is impossible to know where to begin!
I have to say that, I don’t think that the can be, nor should be, reconciled. I mean, there are so many things in Chrsitian faith that exist in paradox. This is not an excuse to take an anti-intellectual approach to Christian doctrine, however, I think that to try to solve all problems that arise from the existence of contradictions is a misguided effort. 19th century American minister and theologian Horace Bushnell wrote that “we never come so near the truth of a matter as in contradiction.”
That said, I think that we need to think issues through, trying to come to some sort of acceptable balance. So, the question is asked “do we forgive Bin Laden” or whoever…insert evil name here. The immediate question that comes to my mind is, “What do we mean by forgiveness?” Is forgiveness the immediate and unconditional pardoning of any and all acts of violence and/or evil? I happen to not think so. We are told in the Bible to “Forgive as the Lord Forgave you.” (Colossians 3.13). How did the Lord forgive me? The Lord forgave me when I repented and believed for forgiveness. So, forgiveness comes as a result of repentence (which, from a Reformed position, is itself a gift of God). So when you ask if I pray for Bin Laden’s forgiveness, I feel no need to, as, Bin Laden feels no repentence or remorse for his actions. Now, anticipating the next question: What if he did, genuinely, repent? Then, I would have to say that my faith tells me that I must forgive – on a personal level. However, this does not negate the need for justice to be administered by the appropriate governing bodies.
As for supporting war – the Bible also discusses the function of government to administer justice. I think that Jesus speaking about on the Sermon on the Mount is discussing interpersonal relationships. Not necessarily national security. So, in my interpersonal relationships, I feel the need to “turn the other cheek” ie, to not take personal retribution (different from proactive forgiveness), whereas, in issues of international terrorism, as a Christian participating in the democratic system, I have helped to elect a government that Ihope will work for safety of its people, and justice for those wronged. Though, I agree with Allah that most Christians after 9/11 probably didn’t think this through, but rode the wave of sentiment. That’s the way humans are.
And, finally, as for the “I’m only human…flesh and blood…a slave,” (sorry, 80’s flashback), I think that this is true, though does not excuse poor behavior. Christain theology, especailly viewed with eschatology (the end things) as primary, tells us that, to put it simply, both forgiven children of God, and still sinful children of Adam (and Eve). This is the inherent paradox of humanity – both wicked and beloved. It doesn’t mean that it is alright, I’m just human. It does mean that God has better things planned for me, and I strive to make that future a reality in the present moment.
I don’t know if any of that made sense…but there it is. My first Hot Air comment!
Casey
nailinmyeye on October 5, 2006 at 3:37 PM
Changing the subject somewhat, Allah, you should proceed directly to the RNC war room for the current election cycle. With one post you managed to refocus most of the attention at HotAir from the Foley scandal to a philosophical/theological debate. In the time that this post has been up, it’s received more comments than have been made on this site today re: the Foley scandal.
If you can redirect the focus that fast, then you are needed elsewhere.
thirteen28 on October 5, 2006 at 3:37 PM
I think one must take into account the context of when Jesus said “…turn the other cheek..” it is in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5 and Luke 6). It here that Jesus is demonstrating the true requirements of the old covenantal law. Before talking about “turning the other cheek” when speaking about the commandment against adultry He said just to look a woman lustful is the same as the physical act of adultry. He admonishes the people to not make false vows in even the pettiest of instances. Before this “turn the other cheek” he tells the people those who are angry with your brother without cause (as the KJV renders it) is just as guilty as murdering him. I think (and I’m no theologian) that Jesus was pointing out how the law truly must be followed thus pointing out that we all fall far, far short thus pointing to the need for the redemptive action of Jesus for our salvation. Also, most theologians that I have read indicate that the turn the other cheek was in reference to extracting personal vengence for a wrong done to you. They argue this because of the pattern established earlier in this dialouge with Jesus citing a commandment or tradition then expanding on it. As other have pointed out the “turn the other cheek” is an expansion of the old “eye for an eye” tradition.
I am having trouble recalling the verse, but I believe there is the idea that God has established government (in the general senses not a specific one) for the punishment of evil. But, I am having a brain fart trying to remember where that is addressed, so justice should be carried out but we cannot extract a personal venegence for a wrong done to us.
Mich_93 on October 5, 2006 at 3:37 PM
I just wanted to add a small point to this thread.
Forgiveness is most beneficial to the person who forgives, not the person who needs forgiveness. If we can forgive, then we are not burdened with hate.
It’s a pleasure to be able to forgive.
Esthier on October 5, 2006 at 3:38 PM
Well, I guess in the time it took me to write my comment others covered it with the various references.
Darn my slow typing skills or is it my slow thinking skills?
D’oh!
Mich_93 on October 5, 2006 at 3:41 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »