"Letting people spit on you"

[tonton]

Is indeed tolerance.

And humbly helping society to become educated that that is not an action that can lead to the global values of kindness and compassion is leadership. Spitting back is cowardice and lack of self control.

[talksense101]

No. There is a line that needs to be drawn between cowardice and tolerance. Every individual has an ego that needs to be pampered.

The problem needs to be addressed earlier before letting the individual spit on you. The common requirement for all individuals is to pursue happiness and to avoid pain and suffering. If we work towards achieving that goal for ourselves while allowing others to achieve that same goal, the spitting game won't start.

[bunge]

Especially in a place like China, spitting can kill you. Tuberculous.

[groverat]

SARS

[segovius]

Jesus let people spit on him. It's central to the story - he could have used more power than any modern state (according to the Bible) to revenge himself at the crucifixion but he didn't.

Because he wasn't a hypocrite and lived his teaching of 'turn the other cheek'.

If people follow his example, or claim to, then they should allow themselves to be spat on.

If they cannot allow this then they should repudiate his doctrine and not claim to be Christians.

It's up to the rest of us to just keep trying to show that retaliation can only lead to retaliation and just hope (pray) we somehow all survive in the meantime.

[tonton]

Seriously. I'm really impressed by Segovius' constantly demonstrated theological knowledge, even if I don't always agree with his beliefs (which in this case, of course, I do).

[trumptman]

Originally posted by segovius
Jesus let people spit on him. It's central to the story - he could have used more power than any modern state (according to the Bible) to revenge himself at the crucifixion but he didn't.

Because he wasn't a hypocrite and lived his teaching of 'turn the other cheek'.

If people follow his example, or claim to, then they should allow themselves to be spat on.

If they cannot allow this then they should repudiate his doctrine and not claim to be Christians.

It's up to the rest of us to just keep trying to show that retaliation can only lead to retaliation and just hope (pray) we somehow all survive in the meantime.

Jesus also fashioned a whip and used it in the temple. He used it against the rich who were described as the money-changers and tax collectors.

As a religious person it really irks me when people claim Jesus was lacking certain attributes in any form. We are made in God's image and the full range of emotions and reactions we have are also God's. The difference is God applies them perfectly and we don't. God knows when to turn the other cheek. God knows when to be vengeful. God knows when to apply a whip. We have not been vengeful in our dealings. We could have simply lobbed some nukes if we were a vengeful people. Instead we have risked and had occur, deaths of our own sons and daughters.

Nick

[segovius]

Originally posted by trumptman
Jesus also fashioned a whip and used it in the temple. He used it against the rich who were described as the money-changers and tax collectors.

As a religious person it really irks me when people claim Jesus was lacking certain attributes in any form. We are made in God's image and the full range of emotions and reactions we have are also God's. The difference is God applies them perfectly and we don't. God knows when to turn the other cheek. God knows when to be vengeful. God knows when to apply a whip. We have not been vengeful in our dealings. We could have simply lobbed some nukes if we were a vengeful people. Instead we have risked and had occur, deaths of our own sons and daughters.

Nick

The cleansing of the Temple was not retaliation - the 'turning the other cheek' doctrine applies purely to circumstances where one is tempted to respond, otherwise how could you have a cheek to turn as it were ?

So there you are not applying like with like.

Re your interpretation of 'God's image' I would be very careful with that if I were you. Image as a term means just that - image or likeness.

It does not (and cannot) imply any comment on the inner nature of the person - Satan is reputed to be very beautiful for example.

God doesn't have to know when to turn the other cheek - ths situation could never arise. How could God have someone who could attack him or even equal Him in any way ? He is alone in that regard. As for 'vengeance' these are petty human concerns writ large and (imo) a blasphemy to apply to God who must be by His nature completely 'other'. In other words He is 'all the things we are not'.

This line of reasoning is treacherous - if God ever 'wields a whip' then what form does it take ? Was 911 'a whip' ? I don't believe so but there are fundies that do and this line of reasoning has taken them there.

Btw, for the record, I have never said (nor do I believe) that the US is vengeful in its dealings. I believe it to be a (possibly THE) bastion of civilization and nothing anyone can do (least of all Bush) can change that in the long term.

For now though there is a problem.