the genius of Christ

[gib]

@Maia

In many of the Pagan mythologies, such as the Greek, we find parental concern. I see none of that in the Judeo-Christian god, if that’s what you’re getting at.

No, it’s not what I’m getting at. Signs of “parental concern” is hardly the same as a formal stipulation of a religious doctrine. I’m sure even some of the slave owners of pre-Civil War American showed “parental concern” for their slaves on occasion. But what Christ preached–as a philosopher remember–was that the relation between God and man is like that between a father and his children–and that became a formal part of the Christian doctrine. Do we see any of that kind of parental concern in the acts and words of the Judeo-Christian God? Meh… if you think not, take it up with Jesus (as philosopher), not with me.

@Simms

Hi Gib,

I think it is pretty obvious that Christ functioned to create cogitative dissonance (or existential dilemmas) in the society/individuals at the time (a major cause of the resultant change that followed).

If we consider a smoker as a metaphor. Smoking is the behaviour (psychological and psychical habit) and we can move away from the notion that nicotine is the cause of smokers smoking (it is just a reinforcer). A person then who holds life as precious (a value) will not experience cognitive dissonance until they are made aware that there is a strong correlation between poor health and smoking. A person who does not hold life as precious ( a value) will not experience cognitive dissonance for reasons associated with health concerns (there may be other factors that cause dissonance but this would be linked to another value). Subsequently, I find it hard to see smoking as an issue of “common sense” - it is largely a behavioural (based on likes/dislikes) habit and to change that behavioural habit we don’t need to experience the counterintuitive. We just need to experience cognitive dissonance and the only solution to this dissonance is to quit smoking (the issue is reduced to a matter of NO choice and we are eventually only left with one action). In effect, we are psychologically cornered (by ourselves) and are only left with one exit plan.

But having said this, this view [of mine] purely depends on our own cultural world views, our personal preferences and our own life experiences. For me. these are learnt characteristics that are the result of the repetitive exposure to what is considered the “norm”. Simply a matter of being programmed without question and this programming does not discriminate based on the individual (all are programmed in the same manner but just have different programs). Language is a perfect illustration of this, language is a cultural norm but there is no common sense basis for it (it is passed on from one generation to the next through learnt behaviour).

At the same time I can appreciate that common sense to you holds a different meaning for you. So yes, to you the Pharisees believed their own common sense (according to your world view). Specifically, the Pharisees beliefs (cognitive habits) were that the most important factor was to uphold the Law and that the relationship to God was not important. But they were still human and so understood and held the values of forgiveness and love (and how they are related to each other). I think the word Pharisees actually means/translates as “separated people” and they came into power around 100-200bc (could be wrong on this). In allowing the sinner (possibly a prostitute) to touch him, Christ was breaking the Law as set out by the Pharisees. He then used their own values (love/forgiveness) to foster cognitive dissonance with them. In this sense they were hypocrites of behaviour but still actually held values (otherwise love/forgiveness could not be discussed as it is not possible to discuss something that is not experienced to even the smallest of degrees — there must be a basis of commonalty and common understanding).

So yes, I think it is interesting to see Christ as a philosopher but I see it far more interesting to see Christ as an existential-psychotherapist. But, at the same time, I respect your point of view and your interest in this topic. I still find the “counterintuitive” element of your view a hard thing to comprehend, but like I said earlier we have different world views, beliefs, understandings and experiences which place a different lens on what we perceive.

So you seem to be saying that the Pharisees knew that the right thing to do was to turn the other cheek, to forgive sins, to martyr one’s self for the sake of another–they just didn’t want to, or perhaps they felt compelled not to because of their laws. Is that right?

That’s a hard pill to swallow. I’m not sure that human beings generally take these values to be obvious or intuitive. I would think the more intuitive values would be more along the lines of an eye for an eye: If somebody hits you, you hit them back. If someone threatens you with war, you crush them.

But even if you’re right–that the Pharisees knew, on some level, that the values Christ was preaching were right–it sometimes does take a philosopher to make a persuasive case for what people already know. Philosophers are not just in the business of inventing knew theories and unforeseen insights. They sometimes take what people already believe or value and come up with a persuasive argument in support of it. It’s the argument that may be knew, and because the people already believe in the point it supports, they will gobble it up and run with it. This is what happened with much of the enlightenment philosophy of the 18th century–philosophies about human rights, free speech, political systems, morality and freedom of religion–all these things the people were more or less aware of at the time, but needed a few articulate and sharp thinkers to clearly explain why such philosophies were justified, and thereby give the people a sense that they had a right to follow up on it. Sometimes that’s just what people need in order to take action.

@Simms

By the way, thanks for the great discussion.

Any time.

[Maia]

@gib

@Maia

In many of the Pagan mythologies, such as the Greek, we find parental concern. I see none of that in the Judeo-Christian god, if that’s what you’re getting at.

No, it’s not what I’m getting at. Signs of “parental concern” is hardly the same as a formal stipulation of a religious doctrine. I’m sure even some of the slave owners of pre-Civil War American showed “parental concern” for their slaves on occasion. But what Christ preached–as a philosopher remember–was that the relation between God and man is like that between a father and his children–and that became a formal part of the Christian doctrine. Do we see any of that kind of parental concern in the acts and words of the Judeo-Christian God? Meh… if you think not, take it up with Jesus (as philosopher), not with me.

@Simms

Hi Gib,

I think it is pretty obvious that Christ functioned to create cogitative dissonance (or existential dilemmas) in the society/individuals at the time (a major cause of the resultant change that followed).

If we consider a smoker as a metaphor. Smoking is the behaviour (psychological and psychical habit) and we can move away from the notion that nicotine is the cause of smokers smoking (it is just a reinforcer). A person then who holds life as precious (a value) will not experience cognitive dissonance until they are made aware that there is a strong correlation between poor health and smoking. A person who does not hold life as precious ( a value) will not experience cognitive dissonance for reasons associated with health concerns (there may be other factors that cause dissonance but this would be linked to another value). Subsequently, I find it hard to see smoking as an issue of “common sense” - it is largely a behavioural (based on likes/dislikes) habit and to change that behavioural habit we don’t need to experience the counterintuitive. We just need to experience cognitive dissonance and the only solution to this dissonance is to quit smoking (the issue is reduced to a matter of NO choice and we are eventually only left with one action). In effect, we are psychologically cornered (by ourselves) and are only left with one exit plan.

But having said this, this view [of mine] purely depends on our own cultural world views, our personal preferences and our own life experiences. For me. these are learnt characteristics that are the result of the repetitive exposure to what is considered the “norm”. Simply a matter of being programmed without question and this programming does not discriminate based on the individual (all are programmed in the same manner but just have different programs). Language is a perfect illustration of this, language is a cultural norm but there is no common sense basis for it (it is passed on from one generation to the next through learnt behaviour).

At the same time I can appreciate that common sense to you holds a different meaning for you. So yes, to you the Pharisees believed their own common sense (according to your world view). Specifically, the Pharisees beliefs (cognitive habits) were that the most important factor was to uphold the Law and that the relationship to God was not important. But they were still human and so understood and held the values of forgiveness and love (and how they are related to each other). I think the word Pharisees actually means/translates as “separated people” and they came into power around 100-200bc (could be wrong on this). In allowing the sinner (possibly a prostitute) to touch him, Christ was breaking the Law as set out by the Pharisees. He then used their own values (love/forgiveness) to foster cognitive dissonance with them. In this sense they were hypocrites of behaviour but still actually held values (otherwise love/forgiveness could not be discussed as it is not possible to discuss something that is not experienced to even the smallest of degrees — there must be a basis of commonalty and common understanding).

So yes, I think it is interesting to see Christ as a philosopher but I see it far more interesting to see Christ as an existential-psychotherapist. But, at the same time, I respect your point of view and your interest in this topic. I still find the “counterintuitive” element of your view a hard thing to comprehend, but like I said earlier we have different world views, beliefs, understandings and experiences which place a different lens on what we perceive.

So you seem to be saying that the Pharisees knew that the right thing to do was to turn the other cheek, to forgive sins, to martyr one’s self for the sake of another–they just didn’t want to, or perhaps they felt compelled not to because of their laws. Is that right?

That’s a hard pill to swallow. I’m not sure that human beings generally take these values to be obvious or intuitive. I would think the more intuitive values would be more along the lines of an eye for an eye: If somebody hits you, you hit them back. If someone threatens you with war, you crush them.

But even if you’re right–that the Pharisees knew, on some level, that the values Christ was preaching were right–it sometimes does take a philosopher to make a persuasive case for what people already know. Philosophers are not just in the business of inventing knew theories and unforeseen insights. They sometimes take what people already believe or value and come up with a persuasive argument in support of it. It’s the argument that may be knew, and because the people already believe in the point it supports, they will gobble it up and run with it. This is what happened with much of the enlightenment philosophy of the 18th century–philosophies about human rights, free speech, political systems, morality and freedom of religion–all these things the people were more or less aware of at the time, but needed a few articulate and sharp thinkers to clearly explain why such philosophies were justified, and thereby give the people a sense that they had a right to follow up on it. Sometimes that’s just what people need in order to take action.

@Simms

By the way, thanks for the great discussion.

Any time.

I don’t see any parental concern is the genocide of the entire human race in a flood, and countless other examples.

[gib]

@Maia

I don’t see any parental concern is the genocide of the entire human race in a flood, and countless other examples.

Like I said, take it up with this guy:

But on another note, isn’t the NT supposed to be God having a change of attitude? He used to be a jealous god, now he’s a loving god?

[Simms]

Hi Gib,

One of the philosophies Christ taught is love and he acknowledged that there were various types off love (family love, friendship love, erotic love, and universal love). The Greek word for universal love was Agape (which is still used today but in a different context). So, in talking to the Pharisees (and assuming Christ was not a hypocrite) the interactions he had with the Pharisees must have been an expression of Agape.

In my profession, I have worked with some fairly unsavoury characters and I have yet to meet a person who did not know (on some level) the intuitive nature of love and forgiveness. I would argue strongly that every human being, no matter what part of the world they come from and no matter the extent of their so called evil actions, still has some understanding of love/forgiveness. I do not think that the Pharisees were exempt from this.

We are human and we can respond in many ways. Turning the other cheek is one response and crushing your enemy is another response. But a good thing to remember is that the way we respond is a behaviour; and as discussed previously, many behaviours are the result of cultural norms and are the result of learnt habits. The behaviour may align with a value (no change will occur) and the behaviour may not align with a value (cognitive dissonance = change).

So within humans, as I am sure you are aware, there are many values. Love/Forgiveness is one set of values but hate/resentment/non-forgetfulness are another set of values. As humans, we have the capacity for both and as the Pharisees were human then they also had the capacity for both. Again, for Christs philosophy to be sound, Christ must have also been aware of this (otherwise there was no point).

The best way to bring about change is not to change behaviour while internally we begrudge this change in behaviour. The best way is to examine our values, use wisdom in the process, and then see if our behaviours align with our values. But as I said, we have many values and these values come into being in different context and situations. For e.g. When I am at work, I try to be responsible and pay attention to detail and I don’t go forgiving everyone (but I may depending on the context). When, in a given context, a certain value comes into being it may not be the best choice of value to use. We, as humans, have the capacity to direct our awareness to a any set of values but this process of awareness is also a cognitive habit which needs to be broken if cognitive dissonance is to occur.

So what Christ was doing, in the Parable of Debtors, was gently pointing (with a sledge hammer) the Pharisees to a set of values they had while also pointing out that their behaviours were contradicting these values. Keep in mind the respond to Christ’s question and how Christ responded in return:
Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven.”
“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.

Then later this happens…
The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
This question is the beginning, the very first utterance, of cognitive dissonance.

Sorry, I have run out of time and need to get back to real life.
Simms.

[gib]

Simms,

I agree that forgiveness and love, and maybe even martyrdom, are universal values that are instilled in human beings genetically (although requiring some help from environment in order to manifest phenotypically, as all genetic predispositions do), but they are also very context specific. You seemed to acknowledge that in your last post, but I think we might disagree on the contexts. I wasn’t around during the time of Christ and so I never had the chance to be exposed to the culture, the worldviews, and ways of living of the Pharisees, so I don’t know which contexts they saw as obviously appropriate for forgiveness and love, but I can certainly imagine certain contexts from my own culture in which a response of forgiveness and love would be the last thing that would come to mind. I imagine, for example, being at a pub, and some dooshbag decides to provoke me by dumping beer all over my shirt. I don’t think anybody from my culture would think, as a first and obvious response: you know, that pisses me off, but I really should forgive the guy and turn the other cheek. In fact, even if I did think that, even if I was a good hard-nosed Christian who recognized this situation as one of those key moments when I should practice the Golden Rule, I’d still be skeptical about whether or not it would actually work. Love comes from forgiveness, right? Well, would it? Would it in this situation? It might, but then again, knowing the kind of crowds that frequent pubs and get drunk, they might just laugh at my passivity and refusal to retaliate or stand up for myself–in fact, they may even invite their friends to try it on me again, just to see how much of a pussy I was. They might end up doing it ever time I met them at the pub–just to get a kick out of it. I don’t know how likely this is to happen, but my point is, it’s far from obvious that forgiveness and love are the appropriate reactions to someone trying to provoke some animosity or belligerence from you.

Like I said, this is context specific, so it doesn’t negate the point you were making–that the values of love and forgiveness are universal to all human beings–but I think it does negate the notion, if this is indeed what Christ would have us believe, that forgiveness and love (and martyrdom?) are the appropriate responses in all situations unconditionally. I don’t know if that is something we all know, deep down inside, we all ought to be doing.

But besides that, there is the difference between reminding one of the moral values they hold and telling them that they ought to be following them (which amounts to a guilt trip), and explaining why, philosophically, they are better off following those values (i.e. that forgiveness creates love). I mean, we all live in a culture with Christianity strongly in the background, so we all tend to feel we “should” forgive and love even our enemies, but this feeling often comes as just a pang in our conscience, and not something we always understand the justifications for. That’s where philosophy comes in–philosophy is in the business of justifying things, and in the case of moral philosophy, justifying why a certain course of action is morally correct. I think on top of creating a lot of cognitive dissonance, Christ did offer a philosophical justification with his parable of the two debtors (which even appeals to one’s selfish desires as opposed to a moral obligation–i.e. you’ll win an ally, or create love within someone directed at you). I’m not sure how obvious this justification was to the Pharisees (like I said, I wasn’t there), but given that we are told that the order of the day was “an eye for an eye” I would guess that the prevailing philosophy was that a wrong done unto you ought to be met with punishment or revenge.

[Orbie]

Gib, Christ said, " Be shrewd as a serpent, but blameless as a lamb." Between the two points of view, forgiveness has to be evaluated, case by case. I don’t think Christ would have been taken seriously, had he not evaluated the context within which such pondering was inferred.

[Simms]

I tend to agree with obe and that is what I am trying to do Gib. I am with you, (as you noted) you were not there 2000 years ago (neither was I)… but I am trying to contextualize the meaning of what is documented (irrespective of its accuracy). An “eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek” meant something very different back then. How can we discuss the philosophy of Christ if we do not consider the (historical) context? And yes, I am aware that you understand that the context is important and we have agreed on this.

So it sounds like we agree but I am now at a loss as I am not sure what it is you want to discuss.

[gib]

@obe

Gib, Christ said, " Be shrewd as a serpent, but blameless as a lamb." Between the two points of view, forgiveness has to be evaluated, case by case. I don’t think Christ would have been taken seriously, had he not evaluated the context within which such pondering was inferred.

Yes, that’s what I would think. I guess another way of saying that I want to look at Christ as a philosopher is that I want to look at Christ as the realistic historical figure I believe him to have been (i.e. not the supernatural, immortal Son of God). I can’t say that I know that he was a philosopher, or thought of himself as one, but I know that the culture he was born into (at least the empire that had taken it over) had a several centuries long tradition of doing philosophy, and I suspect Christ saw an opportunity in this. I see him as having the genius to recognize the potentials that a marriage between his traditional Hebrew religion and the philosophical tradition of the grecoroman culture could bear. So I have little doubt that Christ purposely included a bit of philosophizing in his life’s work.

That said, and to relate this to your point, looking at Christ realistically (as an actual historical figure), one would think he had to discriminate between the subtle nuances of one context against another. And as you said, he probably wouldn’t have been taken seriously if he didn’t. That seems more realistic to me.

So even though his teachings come down to us as unconditionally and universally imperative (which, btw, I think would have been avoided if it weren’t for the crucifiction and how that event was interpreted by his followers), I have no qualms with acknowledging that Christ probably did discriminate in a realistic way on a case by case basis. It’s just the notion that Simms brought up–that most (all?) contexts weren’t as counterintuitive as I initially supposed–that has me fixated right now.

@Simms

I tend to agree with obe and that is what I am trying to do Gib. I am with you, (as you noted) you were not there 2000 years ago (neither was I)… but I am trying to contextualize the meaning of what is documented (irrespective of its accuracy). An “eye for an eye” and “turn the other cheek” meant something very different back then. How can we discuss the philosophy of Christ if we do not consider the (historical) context? And yes, I am aware that you understand that the context is important and we have agreed on this.

Well, if we are to keep Christ’s philosophies within the context in which they were preached, then I take you to be saying that to the Pharisee, the whole “turn the other cheek” philosophy wasn’t counterintuitive, that it was nothing like my bar fight scenario. Would this mean, then, that these Christian values and principles didn’t begin with Christ, but were rather “enforced” by him, or maybe reinvigorated (or something like that)?

But even in a modern context, it’s still interesting to ponder how Christ’s philosophies are interpreted and how they fit into today’s society. I mean, when modern readers and thinkers intepret the words of Christ, I think they would have to believe that they’re getting through to the meaning they had even at the time they were uttered. They may be wrong, but if we are to discuss the philosophies of Christ, I don’t know how we could avoid this.

@Simms

So it sounds like we agree but I am now at a loss as I am not sure what it is you want to discuss.

Me neither . I started this thread with the intention of posting my thoughts–nothing much beyond that–so if you want a discussion, I’d be happy to have one with you, but the ball’s in your court on that front.

[Simms]

@gib

Well, if we are to keep Christ’s philosophies within the context in which they were preached, then I take you to be saying that to the Pharisee, the whole “turn the other cheek” philosophy wasn’t counterintuitive, that it was nothing like my bar fight scenario. Would this mean, then, that these Christian values and principles didn’t begin with Christ, but were rather “enforced” by him, or maybe reinvigorated (or something like that)?But even in a modern context, it’s still interesting to ponder how Christ’s philosophies are interpreted and how they fit into today’s society. I mean, when modern readers and thinkers intepret the words of Christ, I think they would have to believe that they’re getting through to the meaning they had even at the time they were uttered. They may be wrong, but if we are to discuss the philosophies of Christ, I don’t know how we could avoid this.

Okay, rather than philosophy about philosophy…
Firstly, what do you think “an eye for an eye” means.
Secondly, what do you think “turn the other cheek” means.

[Kriswest]

All of this presumes that those who wrote the books were accurately quoting Jesus and that those who translated the words from the original written texts accurately translated.
Did either the authors or translators embellish or edit? Or did it happen that both did both to some in order to make their own point or interpretation? We don’t know. But, based on human behaviorism we can safely presume ego inserted change. So are you having faith in Jesus or those that painted him?

[gib]

@Simms

Firstly, what do you think “an eye for an eye” means.

That phrase strikes me as a standard of justice. If someone takes out your eye, you have a right to take out his–nothing more, nothing less–equality, balance. It harkens back to the scale metaphor of justice. Whatever is done onto one side must be done onto the other, and that is how you maintain balance, which is justice.

@Simms

Secondly, what do you think “turn the other cheek” means.

To me this speaks more of how to preserve one’s innocence rather than how to maintain justice. If someone strikes you on the cheek, you could strike them back, and thereby restore justice, but if you don’t want to risk becoming a guilty party yourself, it’s best simply to turn the other cheek–that way, no one can say you’re in the wrong.

Now it brings up a question whether Christ, or at least the modern Christian doctrine, would say one has a right to strike back at the offender. I mean, just because one way of preserving your innocence is to turn the other cheek, that doesn’t mean your automatically a bad person for getting back in the right proportion. So “turn the other cheek,” might have a further connotation that one has a moral obligation to refrain from vengeance or punishing wrongs done unto you, but that’s a little more fuzzy in my mind.

It also brings up an interesting distinction: Christ could have said that if one strikes you against the cheek, just walk away–or perhaps don’t retaliate, or remain passive–but he didn’t. The fact that he prescribed turning the other cheek might connote that once someone strikes you, you sudden bear the moral obligation to be struck a second time! (now that’s counterintuitive). And it leads one to wonder if an infinite regress lurks around the corner: if you get struck a second time, do you now bear the obligation to be struck a third time, a fourth? This can get ridiculous real fast, for Christ’s sake!

@Kriswest

All of this presumes that those who wrote the books were accurately quoting Jesus and that those who translated the words from the original written texts accurately translated.

Yes, but I don’t think this is any less true of the other philosophers that came before Christ: Aristotle, Plato, Socrates (in fact, when it comes to Socrates, sifting between his original thoughts and the taintings that Plato probably add to his mentor’s is like pulling teeth). But as this doesn’t seem to deter modern scholarship from venturing all kinds of speculation about the aforementioned philosophers, I don’t think it should deter us from venturing speculations about Christ’s philosophies and teachings. But I do think it is something important to keep in mind: we really don’t know what Christ actually said or believed.

[Kriswest]

True about the philosophers and others. Tainting another’s words can enhance or detract. The scholars tend to forget that the works have been translated by fallible humans. I have run across things that seem to take a different , slight path that make you scratch your head.
Nope, don’t ask, I don’t think I could find them after so many years. Just the memory remains.
Grandfather loaned me some very old books long ago. He talked to me about translations, literal, questioning, etc. Cousins probably have those wonderful books now.Memories of a sick little girl sharing ancient works with her grandfather is all I have. But the lessons stick.
And yes I agree we must discuss but, not just the part and parts. I think perhaps we tend to also forget that using slang words and phrases are not new. They are an ancient part of language.

[gib]

@Kriswest

And yes I agree we must discuss but, not just the part and parts. I think perhaps we tend to also forget that using slang words and phrases are not new. They are an ancient part of language.

Yes, but even there they can mislead. I remember learning that the slang terms “survival of the fittest” and “I think therefore I am” were not actually spoken by the figures whom they are attributed to (Darwin and Descartes respectively).

[Simms]

@gib

@Simms

Firstly, what do you think “an eye for an eye” means.

That phrase strikes me as a standard of justice. If someone takes out your eye, you have a right to take out his–nothing more, nothing less–equality, balance. It harkens back to the scale metaphor of justice. Whatever is done onto one side must be done onto the other, and that is how you maintain balance, which is justice.

So what would then be the motivated value behind this system of justice. If someone accidently steps on your big toe why not just slit their throat and be done with it (problems would then be solved). An “eye for an eye” to me not only indicates the balance of justice of what can be done but it is also suggesting a call for restraint in the administration of justice. What human value would be responsible for limiting ones own wrathful vengeance upon another? To me it is also suggesting that people not take the law into their own hands through the use of excessive force. So, at least to me, it is obvious that there is more than a sense of justice within this phrase and the restraint it suggests is not a result of anger/vengeance/hatred/etc. It is pulling in other human values which bring about restraint.

@gib

@Simms

Secondly, what do you think “turn the other cheek” means.

To me this speaks more of how to preserve one’s innocence rather than how to maintain justice. If someone strikes you on the cheek, you could strike them back, and thereby restore justice, but if you don’t want to risk becoming a guilty party yourself, it’s best simply to turn the other cheek–that way, no one can say you’re in the wrong.

Now it brings up a question whether Christ, or at least the modern Christian doctrine, would say one has a right to strike back at the offender. I mean, just because one way of preserving your innocence is to turn the other cheek, that doesn’t mean your automatically a bad person for getting back in the right proportion. So “turn the other cheek,” might have a further connotation that one has a moral obligation to refrain from vengeance or punishing wrongs done unto you, but that’s a little more fuzzy in my mind.

It also brings up an interesting distinction: Christ could have said that if one strikes you against the cheek, just walk away–or perhaps don’t retaliate, or remain passive–but he didn’t. The fact that he prescribed turning the other cheek might connote that once someone strikes you, you sudden bear the moral obligation to be struck a second time! (now that’s counterintuitive). And it leads one to wonder if an infinite regress lurks around the corner: if you get struck a second time, do you now bear the obligation to be struck a third time, a fourth? This can get ridiculous real fast, for Christ’s sake!

Have you considered the following view before:

@Wikipedia

The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time. He says that at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was demanding equality.

If this is the case then by “turning the other cheek” you are also practicing an “eye for an eye”. That is the goal of a right backhander to the right cheek was to humiliate you… by turning the other cheek the other person is humiliated in return (justice has been administered in an eye for an eye fashion).

So in your pub fight scenario, the beer poured down your shirt was an act to publically humiliate you. In keeping in line with “eye for an eye” you would be just in publically humiliating him in return (no more and no less). In keeping in line with the “turn the other cheek” you would then leave him with the dilemma where the next move he makes he publically humiliates himself. That is, you force him into a corner where his own behaviour contradicts his own values (cognitive dissonance). This would be assessed case by case and so how you would do this depends on the circumstances. I don’t know maybe you would get another beer and pour it on yourself and rub your nipples (not sure as I am not there in the hypothetical pub brawl).

[Kriswest]

Uuuuuum, rub your nipples???
Where are you?? I have never heard that one, it, oh hell I cant go there
Though it does go with the whys of wording in this discussion. Knowing culture leads to understanding speech. We do take far too much at face value. Jesus was a child before he was a man, a child that had to learn good and bad. It would be safe to say he probably made many mistakes. The books in the bible were written in different times by different people. If Jesus sounds hypocritical at times it could be he used poor wording or changed his perspective of life. If god wanted to just send a messenger, it would or should have been in the form of an adult. The purpose of an infant? To learn.

[gib]

@Simms

So what would then be the motivated value behind this system of justice. If someone accidently steps on your big toe why not just slit their throat and be done with it (problems would then be solved).

Well, for one thing, that would not be balance. That would tip the scale way in the opposite direction. It would be more like “an eye for two eyes (and an ear, and a nose, and a limb, etc.).”

@Simms

An “eye for an eye” to me not only indicates the balance of justice of what can be done but it is also suggesting a call for restraint in the administration of justice. What human value would be responsible for limiting ones own wrathful vengeance upon another? To me it is also suggesting that people not take the law into their own hands through the use of excessive force. So, at least to me, it is obvious that there is more than a sense of justice within this phrase and the restraint it suggests is not a result of anger/vengeance/hatred/etc. It is pulling in other human values which bring about restraint.

Yes, I agree, but that I think is justice. This is why most people distinguish between justice and revenge. Revenge is unrestrained. Someone spits on you and you slit their throat–that’s revenge, not justice. Justice, accord to the “eye for an eye” motto, would only entail spitting back–nothing more, nothing less. Justice means what’s fair.

@Simms

Have you considered the following view before:

@Wikipedia

The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time. He says that at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was demanding equality.

If this is the case then by “turning the other cheek” you are also practicing an “eye for an eye”. That is the goal of a right backhander to the right cheek was to humiliate you… by turning the other cheek the other person is humiliated in return (justice has been administered in an eye for an eye fashion).

Yes, I’ve come across that interpretation before. If it’s true, then yes, turning the other cheek would be a form of “getting back”.

But that’s hard to square with many of the other slogans and parables that Christ allegedly said:

“judge not, lest ye be judged”

“let he who is without sin cast the first stone”

“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

The parable of the two debtors

The parable of the good Samaritan

…

If you take them all together, they seem to be pointing to a lesson about putting one’s self in another’s shoes, seeing things from another’s perspective, and acting in accordance with that other’s perspective. (however, I’m also noticing that with many of these slogans and parable, cognitive dissonance tends easily to be provoked, and it is interesting to consider that maybe this was Christ’s whole purpose). If this is the overall point of Christ’s teachings and parables, then “turn the other cheek” should be interpreted as: if someone strikes you, they’re obviously angry with you. If you put yourself in their shoes, you can probably guess that they might want more. So offer them more.

@Kriswest

The purpose of an infant? To learn.

In a manner of speaking, yes, but to learn what? If this is God as man, then it is to learn what it is like to be human. He must be born a man, and grow up as one, and finally be crucified as many men have before him. That brings mythology back into the discussion, but it is essential to how the Christian orthodoxy interprets the crucifixion.

[Kriswest]

A man must be a boy before and an infant first. Without those experiences there is no man.

[Simms]

@gib

Yes, I agree, but that I think is justice. This is why most people distinguish between justice and revenge. Revenge is unrestrained. Someone spits on you and you slit their throat–that’s revenge, not justice. Justice, accord to the “eye for an eye” motto, would only entail spitting back–nothing more, nothing less. Justice means what’s fair.

Precisely, it is about fairness and this in essence is about equality. This fairness can only be arrived at through a sense of empathy (love) and by restraining ones anger (letting go - even if this is a little forgiveness). Without these two qualities, restraint would not be possible and fairness would not exist. So the true meaning of “an eye for an eye” is about fairness, equality, love and forgiveness in the light of a wrongdoing which has been committed. Restraining inappropriate behaviour of a person (either of victim or villain) is entirely appropriate and does not contradict Christs philosophy.

@gib

Yes, I’ve come across that interpretation before. If it’s true, then yes, turning the other cheek would be a form of “getting back”

I do not think it is about “getting back”, it is about justice… meaning, it is about what is fair and equal.

I also think it is important to consider the causes of psychological pain and the causes of psychological joy are. The goal of cognitive dissonance is to cause short term psychological pain to reduce long term psychological pain, whereas in the short term it reduces short term psychological joy and increases long term psychological joy.

So if a persons intent is to “get back” at the other person then this is not justice, but it is justice if the person’s intent is to restrain ones behaviour with the hope that the other person will change.

@gib

“judge not, lest ye be judged”

“let he who is without sin cast the first stone”

“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

The parable of the two debtors

The parable of the good Samaritan

…

If you take them all together, they seem to be pointing to a lesson about putting one’s self in another’s shoes, seeing things from another’s perspective, and acting in accordance with that other’s perspective. (however, I’m also noticing that with many of these slogans and parable, cognitive dissonance tends easily to be provoked, and it is interesting to consider that maybe this was Christ’s whole purpose). If this is the overall point of Christ’s teachings and parables, then “turn the other cheek” should be interpreted as: if someone strikes you, they’re obviously angry with you. If you put yourself in their shoes, you can probably guess that they might want more. So offer them more.

Or, if you put yourself in their shoes, you could conclude that their unreasonable anger is causing them long term psychological pain. What actions could a person then take to help another person to reduce this long term psychological pain? Preaching to others generally doesn’t help — but helping people to see the nature of their own problem does. In this way; you are not casting a stone or judging, you are treating others as you would like to be treated, forgiving, etc. There then is no underlying contradiction when we consider the contexts (even though we may still disagree).

Obviously, the terms that are up for interpretation here are the concept of “long term psychological pain” and “long term psychological joy”. Irrespective of a person’s belief systems regarding these two concepts, a person can still understand the purpose of Christs philosophy (atheist’s long term is just shorter than theist’s long term).

[James_S_Saint]

The forgiveness thing was a strategic concept to divert presumptuous accusation (often inspired by third parties) as well as ridding the mind and heart of negative angst. One cannot experience the heavenly state without being clear of negativity (resentment, revenge, anger,…), nor can one mentally see clearly. The mind’s resources are simply not free to make honest assessments. It would be like trying to get a true picture of the State of the Union from Congress while they each still wanted to blame the others for its state. The intent was to allow people to come to see the real truth of things, “sight to the blind”.

[gib]

@Simms

Precisely, it is about fairness and this in essence is about equality. This fairness can only be arrived at through a sense of empathy (love) and by restraining ones anger (letting go - even if this is a little forgiveness). Without these two qualities, restraint would not be possible and fairness would not exist. So the true meaning of “an eye for an eye” is about fairness, equality, love and forgiveness in the light of a wrongdoing which has been committed. Restraining inappropriate behaviour of a person (either of victim or villain) is entirely appropriate and does not contradict Christs philosophy.

That depends on a certain reading.

Does holding back one’s rage for the sake of fairness imply love and forgiveness? How does this work? Do you give in to your desire for revenge up to the point of justice being served (i.e. equality being met) and then switch gears and love and forgive so as to resist any further urges to hurt the offender beyond that equality?

And is “getting even” in the right proportions in order to meet justice what Christ had in mind? Can you see Christ saying “If someone hurts you, you hurt them back, but only to a point, and then you have to forgive.”?

According to a certain reading, it might, but let’s not unwittingly stumble into contradictions.

@Simms

I do not think it is about “getting back”, it is about justice… meaning, it is about what is fair and equal.

I also think it is important to consider the causes of psychological pain and the causes of psychological joy are. The goal of cognitive dissonance is to cause short term psychological pain to reduce long term psychological pain, whereas in the short term it reduces short term psychological joy and increases long term psychological joy.

So if a persons intent is to “get back” at the other person then this is not justice, but it is justice if the person’s intent is to restrain ones behaviour with the hope that the other person will change.

That’s a bit of a different definition of “justice” from what I have mind. You seem to be saying it’s only justice if it functions like a deterant or a rehabilitation–forcing the assailant not to repeat his wrongdoings. Would it require punishment or could even forgiveness of a wrong done onto you be considered justice (if it worked)? What if passivity or forgiveness worked but it still left the victim angry and resentful? Would that still be justice?

Justice in the sense that I’m thinking goes back to the scale analogy. It is the eye-for-an-eye kind of justice but with the goal of leveling the playing field (i.e. balancing the scale), and this is still to be contrasted with revenge (although it may not be mutually exclusive with it) in that revenge doesn’t concern itself with equality; an eye for a death may satisfy one’s thirst for revenge.

@Simms

Or, if you put yourself in their shoes, you could conclude that their unreasonable anger is causing them long term psychological pain. What actions could a person then take to help another person to reduce this long term psychological pain? Preaching to others generally doesn’t help — but helping people to see the nature of their own problem does. In this way; you are not casting a stone or judging, you are treating others as you would like to be treated, forgiving, etc. There then is no underlying contradiction when we consider the contexts (even though we may still disagree).

Obviously, the terms that are up for interpretation here are the concept of “long term psychological pain” and “long term psychological joy”. Irrespective of a person’s belief systems regarding these two concepts, a person can still understand the purpose of Christs philosophy (atheist’s long term is just shorter than theist’s long term).

So would you say there’s a link between forgiveness and provoking cognitive dissonance? It almost sounds like you’re saying forgiveness causes cognitive dissonance.