since we have to forgive 70 times 7 times - then i guess after turning your cheek the 490th time - when 491 comes - it's eye for an eye.
just joking but....seriously -- we are to forgive - when Christ died the veil in the temple was rent in two - seperating the old from the New.
2006-09-21 10:02:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by Marysia 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, it does seem very confusing. And if the Bible was the word of God, why would there be such a contradiction in "culture" between the old and new testaments? This point better than any other, makes it clear that the Bible is the work of people, and that it is subjective, and political, and that it is not the word of God. God is perfect and would not contradict himself.
The word of God is lucid. I am "Rational Spirituality" (you may read it on the Dhaxem website), and I understand that all I need to worry about is how I conduct myself towards others. Because whatever I project into the world, comes back to me. I, myself, will live the consequences of my own actions, and even thoughts. I am the creator of my own reality. Those are the Divine Laws in a nutshell, and as they relate to my conduct in relation to others. If someone does me harm, I search what is this experience telling me? Do I have traits that attract similar? For example, if someone is rude to me in a certain way, I ask myself, would I have done it at some point, myself? If yes, I know that I got a lesson, and I am grateful for that. But I am not asked to turn the other cheek.
The "other cheek" theory was invented by the church-state alliance to safeguard the subservience of the masses. Jesus Christ was a "rebel" who died for his beliefs. And "...turn the other cheek" were words that others put into his mouth, over 300 years after his life.
2006-09-23 10:15:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
In the Old Testament it was an eye for an eye.
In the New Testament is was turn the other cheek.
The reference Jesus made regarding swords, sons and fathers was an illustration that if one were to follow in the radical footsteps of a 'new' understanding then conflict would undoubtedly arise. Concerning this conflict He further proclaimed a larger truth than the need for a sword, being right or 'proving' God on 'our' side.
Jesus said that the greatest commandment was to ". . . love the Lord thy God with all thine heart and thy neighbor as thyself."
No duplicity.
He called neither for 'doves' nor 'hawks' but for love.
Christanity is supposedly the following of Christ. Too many 'christians' follow Paul, old testament laws that they like and various other teachings that fit their conception of being Christ like.
Jesus said that love was the way to knowing Him and His Father.
Anything else is fluff and smoke.
2006-09-21 09:36:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by Temple 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Old Testament = Warhawks
New Testament = Pacifists.
The bible was written under two different philosophies. The OT says that God is to be feared, as he is powerful, vengeful, and will destroy those he is angry at. It was written by centuries worth of Jews who experienced some pretty tough times.
The NT says that God is loving, and loves us all. It was written by those who followed Jesus's teachings. His teachings were aimed at the poor, telling them that they were loved and had value. That's why his teachings became so popular...poor people rarely heard that.
2006-09-21 09:25:33
·
answer #4
·
answered by DougDoug_ 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Understand, when its done to you (me) its turn the other cheek!
When done to another, for the justice, it is Eye for an Eye!
2006-09-21 11:00:47
·
answer #5
·
answered by Grandreal 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
your brethern in christ (fellow believers) = turn the other cheek
dealing with enemies of God = might have to fight. you might have to forgive your enemies, but you do not have to be their victims either. You can protect yourself.
2006-09-21 09:31:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by bunny dog 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think its bend over and take it up the ***.
2006-09-21 09:27:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by trouthunter 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
becuase it is not the same god. in fact early judaism was polytheistic.
2006-09-21 09:26:44
·
answer #8
·
answered by Caus 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
both. different circumstances require different reactions.
2006-09-21 09:26:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋