NPR fires Juan Williams.

[DinoDoc]

Anyone?

Off the top of my head, Geraldo Rivera, Juan Williams, and Alan Colmes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, I am referring to some advanced biblical discussion of what 'turn the other cheek' actually may mean. Apparently, during that period, slaves were hit with the back of the hand. By turning the other cheek after being hit, it basically forces the agressor to use the open hand or fist...and that is how one would hit an equal...not a slave. Ergo, by 'turning the other cheek' one asserts themself as an equal, but not as a slave. Its not an act of being passive, but one of recognition or escalation.

Granted thats not the traditional view of that, but sometimes things 2000 plus years ago are wrongly interpreted. Especially biblical things.

You mean that's the way a few Christians have decided to interpret the phrase in direct contravention to the standard way the phrase is interpreted by the vast majority of Christians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

Turning the other cheek is a phrase in Christian doctrine that refers to responding to an aggressor without violence. The phrase originates from the Sermon on the Mount in the New Testament.

In the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says:

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

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.
—Luke 6:27-31. NIV

This passage is viewed as promoting nonresistance, Christian pacifism or nonviolence on the part of the victim.

That's the great thing about "interpreting" the Bible. You can make it mean essentially anything you want it to mean, even if hardly anybody agrees with your "advanced biblical discussion".

 

[MobBoss]

You mean that's the way some Christians have decided to deliberately distort the phrase?

No, in that its an alternative interpretation discussed at a much higher level of than your average person partakes in.

And I dont profess to know all the detail in regards to it either, just something I read in passing some time back.

And I wasnt being dishonest Form, as I absolutely did mention that was a deviation from the traditional view of that - which you so kindly linked to via wikipedia.

That's the great thing about "interpreting" the Bible. You can make it mean essentially anything you want it to mean, even if hardly anybody agrees with your "advanced" interpretation

Actually, my point wasnt that, but such things often dont translate well into modern day without a more complete grasp of even the non-biblical references of that period.

For example, many wonder why Jesus stopped the crowd of people from stoning the adulteress, but didnt convict her. Often his actions are misconstrued as being against a death penalty since he interrupted what was ongoing....however, what people dont realize is that according to hebrew law at the time, Hebrews werent allowed to conduct such executions by Roman law (its a trap!), and even then, three judges had to preside over the issue along with those that accused the person of wrongdoing. None of those were present in that situation, ergo, the whole thing was indeed set up as a trap to lure Jesus into breaking the law, and then being dealt with accordingly. Without that context of the process of the time, the situation paints a very different picture scripturally.

Thats my point. I would hope, you being an educated person, that you would appreciate such nuance.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, in that its an alternative interpretation discussed at a much higher level of than your average person partakes in.

I find it ironic that virtually all Christians would classify such obvious revisionist attempts to reinterpret Christianity in such a manner as being just the opposite. It is hardly a "much higher level" than mainstream Christian thought.

Now, do you want to reconsider this statement?

If one doesnt understand the context of a thing, one shouldnt use it as a reference.

After all:

I absolutely did mention that was a deviation from the traditional view of that

 

[Holycannoli]

Off the top of my head, Geraldo Rivera, Juan Williams, and Alan Colmes.

Alan Colmes is still there. He's on quite a lot actually.

Rivera though is gone. To be honest I didn't even notice he was gone until now.

Both of which can be considered to be quite liberal by some, yet they still manage to have journalistic integrity.

MSNBC does not have journalistic integrity at all! I've even linked videos to some of the despicable things they do, namely that doofus Olbermann's show. MSNBC is an embarassment.


Link to video.

Journalistic integrity right there. (I apologize for the title but it's hard to find a clip of this. Just know it's not my video and not my title, and it's what's inside that counts)

As for NY Times look up Jayson Blair.

 

[MobBoss]

I find it ironic that virtually all Christians would classify such obvious revisionist attempts to reinterpret Christianity in such a manner as being just the opposite. It is hardly a "much higher level" than mainstream Christian thought.

The thought comes from Jesus not being passive in all instances, and to be honest, the viewpoint still doesnt really change the message that much - you should still love your neighbor, forgive them, etc. The only real difference in looking at it that way is that it changes the perception slightly from a totally passive situation, to one of being seen as equal even while getting whacked in the face.

Now, do you want to reconsider this statement?

Form, try reading what I typed again, maybe in more detail this time. I admitted that the point certainly wasnt a mainstream view. Also, Jesus didnt always remain passive in such situations. The issue is a bit more complex than simply rolling out a single scripture which might just contain more context that the person spouting it off realizes.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Also, Jesus didnt always remain passive in such situations.

Right. There is one actual example where he lost his temper in the entire New Testament. Let's not forget about that blatant rebuttal of why Christianity isn't really a pacifist religion instead of one that advocates violence in some situations.

 

[MobBoss]

Right. There is one actual example where he lost his temper in the entire New Testament. Let's not forget about that blatant rebuttal of why Christianity isn't really a pacifist religion instead of one that advocates violence in some situations.

No, he also got angry at the disciples more than a few times 'cause they were acting ignorant. He also had some not-so-nice words for the pharasees and other religious leaders of the day.

Matthew 10:34-35 (New King James Version)
34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’;

Matthew 11:11-13 (New King James Version)
11 “Assuredly, I say to you, among those born of women there has not risen one greater than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. 12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Still no actual violence - just metaphors for completely peaceful and pacifiistic behavior by him and his disciples.

Christianity, like Islam, is a religion of peace, not violence. You have to go into the OT to find examples where it is not.

 

[MobBoss]

Still no actual violence - just metaphors for completely peaceful and pacifiistic behavior by him and his disciples.

You think clearing out the money changers a passive act?

Christianity, like Islam, is a religion of peace, not violence.

I 100% agree that Christianity is a religion of peace, but not necessarily one of being passive. In the context we are discussing peace isnt the same thing as being passive.

 

[JollyRoger]

You think clearing out the money changers a passive act?

I've heard it's an impeachable act.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You think clearing out the money changers a passive act?.

It wasn't an act of great violence as you have tried to make it out to be on more than one occasion. And once again, a single incident when Jesus lost his temper doesn't make Christianity a violent reilgion. As you just admitted Christianity is indeed a religion of peace. This is also obviously true of Islam.

You have also tried to conflate being passive with pacifism. That is simply not true. Pacifism is the opposition to war and violence to settle disputes as the primary incentive. Many pacifists accept using violence in defense when warranted. They are primarily opposed to violent aggression, especially when other methods could likely be used to resolve the conflict. In other words, WWJD.

 

[MobBoss]

It wasn't an act of great violence as you have tried to make it out to be on more than one occasion.

"Great" violence? Is that the descriptor I used? Pretty sure I described it as violence, minus the 'great'. That would be your lablel, incorrectly attributed to my own comment

For a guy who complains ceaselessly about others putting words in his mouth, I would have thought you loath to mistate others comments. Ah well.

And once again, a single incident when Jesus lost his temper doesn't make Christianity a violent reilgion.

Where have I ever said that Christianity was a violent religion?

Your're the one always talking about Christian terrorism....not me.

As you just admitted Christianity is indeed a religion of peace. This is also obviously true of Islam.

I dont profess to know that of Islam or not. Are you a muslim?

Many pacifists accept using violence in defense when warranted.

Then they arent really pacifists.

They are primarily opposed to violent aggression, especially when other methods could likely be used to resolve the conflict. In other words, WWJD.

Ah, so are you saying here that Jesus would use violence in defense when warrented? Since that seems to be the case in your defintion of pacifism?

 

[JollyRoger]

"I dont profess to know that of Islam or not. Are you a muslim?



Then they arent really pacifists.

Are you pacifist?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I dont profess to know that of Islam or not. Are you a muslim?

Do you think you know enough about Islam to claim it isn't? Do you dispite GWB's own statements in this regard?

"We are not at war with the Afghani people, and we are not at war with Islam, which most Americans respect as a religion of peace." -- George W. Bush, 9/16/01

Then they arent really pacifists.

You mean they aren't the way you personally stereotype all pacifists even though it obviously isn't the case? Pacifism is a lot like Christianity. You will find various adherants claiming all sorts of contradictory things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism

Ah, so are you saying here that Jesus would use violence in defense when warrented?

I don't think I've ever read anything in the NT which would suggest that was true. Have you?

 

[MobBoss]

Do you think you know enough about Islam to claim it isn't? Do you dispite GWB's own statements in this regard?

Since you dont think GWB smart enough to know either way, why do you quote him?

But to answer your question, I dont have a good enough knowledge of the Koran to say one way or another. Since I was able to answer your question, perhaps you can answer mine. Do you?

I don't think I've ever read anything in the NT which would suggest that was true. Have you?

Only the part where, you know, he used violence.

(notice the lack of the word 'great' in there for future reference in case you decide to bring this up again sometime....)

 

[JollyRoger]

Hopefully, no one is advocating building a Christian Church within 4 blocks from where he used violence. It is just too soon. It may also explain my fear when I see a person with a crucifix in line with me at the bank.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Hopefully, no one is advocating building a Christian Church within 4 blocks from where he used violence. It is just too soon. It may also explain my fear when I see a person with a crucifix in line with me at the bank.

They should tear down that Catholic church that's two blocks away from that bank that Christian guy robbed.

 

[Berzerker]

Jesus hit someone?