Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're not a pastor and don't get to decide what the text means and what every Christian should do or not do. You are misconstruing the whole era and also very few Christian interpret the texts the way you are trying to do.
Would you mind terribly interpreting the verse for us and telling us how it should apply to our lives? I'd love to know what it means to you. Obviously you have rare insight.
Here it is again:
Luke 6:27-31
“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
Except you aren't suppose to interpret as you want, its suppose to be the literal word of God. Sounds like you are choosing to ignore the portions you don't like.
That's a common trait of today's "Christians." They pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they like, and disregard the rest. Supposedly, Jesus brought forth a New Covenant with God, which is the New Testament of the Bible. But they discard Christ's directive to "love one another as I have loved you," and cite instead the abomination quote from the Old Testament in order to disparage gays. That allows them to hate gays freely and with God's blessing.
Would you mind terribly interpreting the verse for us and telling us how it should apply to our lives? I'd love to know what it means to you. Obviously you have rare insight.
Here it is again:
Luke 6:27-31
“But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
It means don't be vengeful and retaliatory and to help those who are poor and in need. But doesn't mean you allow yourself to be robbed blind or can't defend yourself, or that you should support bums who are able to work.
But doesn't mean you allow yourself to be robbed blind or can't defend yourself
Actually, it does mean that - one of the things i find wrong with the philosophy.
It is very specific.
Right here:
"If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back."
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,600,682 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
Blame is the opposite of taking responsibility for oneself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
That is Jordan Peterson's main message.
Very simplistic. That same line could be used for any time period to justify the cultural status quo. Yet history shows that sometimes you can fairly blame others for your shortcomings. Nobody is perfect, and it's true for victim-blamers or victims in different contexts. (f.ex: workers complaining about low pay and hazardous work conditions is often justified, a revolt in which the workers kill their former employers / overlords is not justified even if the overlords were a**holes to them). If it's true in this case, then why not in less drastic cases (i.e. the current sex and/or gender debate)?
It's easy to say to give equal time to men and women playing the "goofball" and/or "clueless" role, but I fear "selective perception" will enter the picture on a large scale.
Do women need time off from work to help raise kids? Yes indeed. Likewise men should have the same rights to care for kids as women - especially with the breakdown of traditional gender roles. Sweden seems to recognize this and offers equal amounts of both maternity and paternity leave.
The term "gender roles" itself inherently insults individuality. If a person can do a job, they can do a job; whether its a guy running a floral shop or a woman on a construction site (or even front-line armed combat). Let's just drop the stigma of (sex and/or gender) doing a (opposite sex and/or gender). It's kneejerk shallow thinking, pointless, and as said insulting to the individual.
ADDED: OK, back on topic. Responsibility. Isn't the disadvantaged or otherwise "out" crowd taking responsibility for their fate by opposing dominant-group practices and assumptions? It sounds like it to me. If anything, more often than not, it's the in-group/powerful's responsibility to take responsibility for thinking about whether the gains and/or conveniences they enjoy really are worth demeaning other people over. Thus, I consider in-group calls for "personal responsibility" to be a mere verbal weapon designed to stigmatize the challengers and little more - as if the "in crowd", traditionalist, powerful, however, are so correct about everything that the situation speaks for itself.
Clearly then, liability is a concept invented by women to oppress men and prevent us from reaching our full potential.
LOL I finally got your shtick and I'm fully enjoying it. :clapping: Carry on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.