• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Luke 6:29-30: Be a Door Mat

I

ideologyhunter

Contributor
Joined
Jan 10, 2004
Messages
5,843
Location
Port Clinton, Ohio
Basic Beliefs
atheism/beatnikism
My text for today is from the Book of Luke:
If anyone hits you on the cheek, offer the other one also. If anyone takes your coat, give him your shirt as well. Give to everyone that asks you. If anyone takes what is your property, do not seek to get it back. (LK 6:29-30)
This is Christian dogma, since it is attributed directly to Jesus. The first part, about non-resistance, is familiar to nearly everyone. Turn the other cheek. It seems to point Christians toward pacifism, but there is any amount of Christian polemics to justify self-defense and use of force. Apparently you can make Jesus mean whatever you want him to.
The second part, especially the section telling you not to seek after stolen property, is jarring. Who teaches this in church? Who tells their children that this is a successful way to live? A reference that came to mind when I revisited this verse is the episode of the stolen candlesticks in Les Miserables, in which the bishop tells the police that Jean Valjean did not steal the silver and must be set free. Later he tells Jean, 'It is your soul I buy from you.' An emotionally overwrought scene that Hugo's genius puts over, even as the modern reader classifies it as a guilty pleasure.
Years ago, someone sent this scripture to a televangelist (Falwell, I think) and demanded that he give him his car, since this behavior was mandated by Jesus. He didn't get the car.
Christians -- do you take this scripture as a mandate? Do you give to everyone who asks you? Do you excuse the theft of your property and make no effort to get it back? Or did Jesus mean something else? (One commentary I consulted interprets the final passage in 6:30 as a reference to people borrowing others' property -- however, in the 4 Bible translations I looked at, the verb is given as 'takes'.)
 
In Internet terminology a troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages as well as top post flooding and impersonating others -- designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion. A troll's main goal is usually to arouse anger and frustration or otherwise offend the message board's other participants, and will write whatever it takes to achieve this end.

One popular trolling strategy is the practice of Winning by Losing. While the victim is trying to put forward solid and convincing facts to prove his position, the troll's only goal is to infuriate its prey. The troll takes (what it knows to be) a badly flawed, wholly illogical argument, and then vigorously defends it while mocking and insulting its prey. The troll looks like a complete fool, but this is all part of the plan. The victim becomes noticeably angry by trying to repeatedly explain the flaws of the troll's argument. Provoking this anger was the troll's one and only goal from the very beginning."

Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore him or her, because responding encourages a true troll to continue disruptive posts — hence the often-seen warning "Please do not feed the troll".

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; You cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; You cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility. When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored. In short, the proper response is not hate but indifference

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, do not feed the trolls.
 
Yeah, the right wing/evangelicals have turned the relatively obvious overall intent of the Gospels on its head regarding violence. For a bunch of uptight twits who want their holy book to be God-breathed, they can be pretty dense. As it is obvious that many of the Jesus statements should not be taken to any extreme, unless their followers should have lots of 1 eyed men. But the goal of non-violence/war-mongering should still be fairly front and center, but maybe not quite up to the Mennonites level.

Redneck theology:
9f893ba9caeed2b58156c77c0ca9edc8.jpg
 
funinspace said:
Yeah, the right wing/evangelicals have turned the relatively obvious overall intent of the Gospels on its head regarding violence. For a bunch of uptight twits who want their holy book to be God-breathed, they can be pretty dense. As it is obvious that many of the Jesus statements should not be taken to any extreme, unless their followers should have lots of 1 eyed men. But the goal of non-violence/war-mongering should still be fairly front and center, but maybe not quite up to the Mennonites level.

Redneck theology:
View attachment 11796
Click to expand...

The bible is sufficiently large and diverse as to be capable of supporting any position. The difference between sects is not due to their use of different texts, but just to their reliance upon different interpretations.

That's why the RCC are so keen to eliminate heresy, which is the act of interpreting the bible in a way that differs from the interpretation imposed by the RCC.

The bible is a blank cheque. Whoever gets to use it can use it for whatever purpose they like; The Mennonite interpretation is no more 'correct' or 'obvious' than that of the NRA, the RCC, or any other of the myriad bible sects that infest the world.
 
ideologyhunter said:
If anyone takes what is your property, do not seek to get it back. (LK 6:29-30)


Years ago, someone sent this scripture to a televangelist (Falwell, I think) and demanded that he give him his car, since this behavior was mandated by Jesus. He didn't get the car.
Click to expand...

He did it wrong. According to the Bible he's supposed to *take* the car and Falwell will not seek to get it back.
 
It should not come as a surprise that a deluded apocalypticist who believed that a new world order was just around the corner would say some strange and seemingly contradictory things.
 
bilby said:
funinspace said:
Yeah, the right wing/evangelicals have turned the relatively obvious overall intent of the Gospels on its head regarding violence. For a bunch of uptight twits who want their holy book to be God-breathed, they can be pretty dense. As it is obvious that many of the Jesus statements should not be taken to any extreme, unless their followers should have lots of 1 eyed men. But the goal of non-violence/war-mongering should still be fairly front and center, but maybe not quite up to the Mennonites level.

Redneck theology:
<snipped pic>
Click to expand...

The bible is sufficiently large and diverse as to be capable of supporting any position. The difference between sects is not due to their use of different texts, but just to their reliance upon different interpretations.
Click to expand...
Obviously, it is about differing interpretations. However, I don’t think all interpretations are equal. Some ideas by some sects are preposterous and others are more reasonable in light of the totality of the Bible, and any givens sect hermeneutics and view of the Tanakh and its relation to their theology. For an example of the preposterous, the very few churches that practice playing with poisonous snakes.

That's why the RCC are so keen to eliminate heresy, which is the act of interpreting the bible in a way that differs from the interpretation imposed by the RCC.
Click to expand...
That is so last century…

The bible is a blank cheque. Whoever gets to use it can use it for whatever purpose they like; The Mennonite interpretation is no more 'correct' or 'obvious' than that of the NRA, the RCC, or any other of the myriad bible sects that infest the world.
Click to expand...
I’d say the human mind is a blank cheque more so.
 
Turns out middle-eastern people who got high on mushrooms and saw God during Roman times didn't write bulletproof theology.

Historically, the Christian intent was to civilize society during a period of time when life was harsh. That's about all that can be said intelligently about these passages.

Now let the 600 post thread commence..
 
Lion IRC said:
ideologyhunter said:
Christians -- do you take this scripture as a mandate?
Click to expand...

Sure. Jesus consistently preached altruism.
...as against selfishness and greed and the love of money.

Where's the problem?
Click to expand...

Folks,

This is one of those threads that states a truism to those who can see it, and is practically useless in calling out Christian hypocrisy. Christian apologetics 101 is never to touch this argument, and they don't. :pigsfly:

A.
 
What's the "argument"?
Show it to me so I can touch it.
 
God doesn't torment people for an eternity in heaven if they don't want to be there.
 
That's a dirty film.
A dirty, dirty, dirty film full of sexuallly suggestive choreography and smutty single entendres.
...or so I'm told.
 
Nobody is forced into heaven against their will - not even Christopher Hitchens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom