Was Satan wrong to demand equal rights in heaven?

[Greatest I am]

We were also discussing "turning the other cheek" and some other practices and beliefs that were peculiar to the time. The ancient people thought a lot differently about some things than people do now.

Turning the other cheek is easy for small offences and might shame the perpetrator. This would be good.

But for more serious things, like someone raping your wife, what would turning the other cheek mean? Offering your daughter as the rapists next victim?

Some things make good rhetoric but are just useless and unworkable rhetoric.

Regards
DL

[David Handeye]

We were also discussing "turning the other cheek" and some other practices and beliefs that were peculiar to the time. The ancient people thought a lot differently about some things than people do now.

Turning the other cheek is easy for small offences and might shame the perpetrator. This would be good.

But for more serious things, like someone raping your wife, what would turning the other cheek mean? Offering your daughter as the rapists next victim?

Some things make good rhetoric but are just useless and unworkable rhetoric.

Regards
DL

that's why you have not understood the message of Jesus Christ. Love your enemy.

[Greatest I am]

We were also discussing "turning the other cheek" and some other practices and beliefs that were peculiar to the time. The ancient people thought a lot differently about some things than people do now.

Turning the other cheek is easy for small offences and might shame the perpetrator. This would be good.

But for more serious things, like someone raping your wife, what would turning the other cheek mean? Offering your daughter as the rapists next victim?

Some things make good rhetoric but are just useless and unworkable rhetoric.

Regards
DL

that's why you have not understood the message of Jesus Christ. Love your enemy.

I understand Jesus' better than most. All of them.

You go ahead and love the one raping your wife. Your Jesus would approve, mine would not.

You go ahead and tell the Jews that they should have been loving those who were feeding them to the furnaces.

Don't think about that ore the useless and evil rhetoric you spewed.

Regards
DL

[thedoc]

We were also discussing "turning the other cheek" and some other practices and beliefs that were peculiar to the time. The ancient people thought a lot differently about some things than people do now.

Turning the other cheek is easy for small offences and might shame the perpetrator. This would be good.
But for more serious things, like someone raping your wife, what would turning the other cheek mean? Offering your daughter as the rapists next victim?
Some things make good rhetoric but are just useless and unworkable rhetoric.
Regards
DL

that's why you have not understood the message of Jesus Christ. Love your enemy.

Actually it's not quite so simple as love your enemy. In that time of Jewish history, the honor of the individual, the family, and the whole community was very important. Then, apparently according to Jewish law, the left hand was to be used for defecation and cleaning after, so was apparently thought to be unclean. So anyone striking another person would do so with the right hand, and the "turning the other cheek" was to turn into a position that would force the other person to strike with the left hand, but to do so would bring dishonor. In effect it was a form of self defense.

[ReliStuPhD]

DL, this isn't just Jesus, it's Ghandi, no? And Mother Teresa? Martin Luther King, Jr?

while the particulars may differ, the point (as I understand it) of non-violence is that you have your eyes on a larger goal. Personally, it's not for me (I'd certainly kill someone who had raped my wife, son, or daughter), but that's not to say it isn't a stronger moral position than violence in exchange for violence.

(Also, "turn the other cheek" does not mean offering your daughter after your wife has been raped. This is a crude caricature. You would certainly do what you could to stop such a thing, short of violence.)


EDIT: thedoc's explanation is a good one as well.

[thedoc]

DL, this isn't just Jesus, it's Ghandi, no? And Mother Teresa? Martin Luther King, Jr?
while the particulars may differ, the point (as I understand it) of non-violence is that you have your eyes on a larger goal. Personally, it's not for me (I'd certainly kill someone who had raped my wife, son, or daughter), but that's not to say it isn't a stronger moral position than violence in exchange for violence.

(Also, "turn the other cheek" does not mean offering your daughter after your wife has been raped. This is a crude caricature. You would certainly do what you could to stop such a thing, short of violence.)
.

If we're going to be realistic about it, why "short of violence"? One thing that you could then be sure of, that person wouldn't do it again, - preventative, yes? And an additional benefit is that the perpetrator would be answering to God, right now.

[ReliStuPhD]

DL, this isn't just Jesus, it's Ghandi, no? And Mother Teresa? Martin Luther King, Jr?
while the particulars may differ, the point (as I understand it) of non-violence is that you have your eyes on a larger goal. Personally, it's not for me (I'd certainly kill someone who had raped my wife, son, or daughter), but that's not to say it isn't a stronger moral position than violence in exchange for violence.

(Also, "turn the other cheek" does not mean offering your daughter after your wife has been raped. This is a crude caricature. You would certainly do what you could to stop such a thing, short of violence.)
.

If we're going to be realistic about it, why "short of violence"? One thing that you could then be sure of, that person wouldn't do it again, - preventative, yes? And an additional benefit is that the perpetrator would be answering to God, right now.

I meant that turning the other cheek doesn't exclude non-violent action. Personally, I have no problem with using violence in those situations.

[David Handeye]

[]

[David Handeye]

Actually it's not quite so simple as love your enemy. In that time of Jewish history, the honor of the individual, the family, and the whole community was very important. Then, apparently according to Jewish law, the left hand was to be used for defecation and cleaning after, so was apparently thought to be unclean. So anyone striking another person would do so with the right hand, and the "turning the other cheek" was to turn into a position that would force the other person to strike with the left hand, but to do so would bring dishonor. In effect it was a form of self defense.

Perfect. I agree with you.
Gnostics have just a pseudoreligion of their own. Like Jehovah's Witnesses.
Nothing to do with Christianity.

[Greatest I am]

DL, this isn't just Jesus, it's Ghandi, no? And Mother Teresa? Martin Luther King, Jr?

while the particulars may differ, the point (as I understand it) of non-violence is that you have your eyes on a larger goal. Personally, it's not for me (I'd certainly kill someone who had raped my wife, son, or daughter), but that's not to say it isn't a stronger moral position than violence in exchange for violence.

(Also, "turn the other cheek" does not mean offering your daughter after your wife has been raped. This is a crude caricature. You would certainly do what you could to stop such a thing, short of violence.)


EDIT: thedoc's explanation is a good one as well.

And used that way, I have no problem with it.

But that was not the way our friend understood it and his way was useless and un-workable rhetoric.

I believe in non-violent rebellion. If it can work.

If it cannot then I have no problem righting a wrong with violence.

For evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing and if words and peaceful processes do not work, then if that change is worth it then a good man will get violent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qi2m6NyUP0

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Actually it's not quite so simple as love your enemy. In that time of Jewish history, the honor of the individual, the family, and the whole community was very important. Then, apparently according to Jewish law, the left hand was to be used for defecation and cleaning after, so was apparently thought to be unclean. So anyone striking another person would do so with the right hand, and the "turning the other cheek" was to turn into a position that would force the other person to strike with the left hand, but to do so would bring dishonor. In effect it was a form of self defense.

Perfect. I agree with you.
Gnostics have just a pseudoreligion of their own. Like Jehovah's Witnesses.
Nothing to do with Christianity.

Hogwash to your comparison.

Most Christian cults and mainstream religions are homophobic and misogynous.

Gnostics cannot be that as we are Universalists.

We also do not hold any supernatural beliefs while all who fly the cross have to.

You might want to educate yourself a bit on what Gnostic Christians are.

Regards
DL

[thedoc]

Most Christian cults and mainstream religions are homophobic and misogynous.
Regards
DL

Well I can definitely say that my congregation, (the one I am a member of) is not misogynous, but the homophobia is quietly ignored as there are some who are and some who are not and no-one says much for fear of offending someone. And partly because nobody is realy sure who is supportive and who is not, though many are probably ambivalent about it.

[David Handeye]

You might want to educate yourself a bit on what Gnostic Christians are.

Gnosticism is a trivialization and simplification of Christianity; it doesn't get the point of Christianity and is a streamlined decrease for simple minded people. It especially denies the physical aspect, (evenenziale, philosophically) of the Salvation, reducing that at a mere noetic increase. Gnosticism is the reduction of Christianity at ideology. Gnostics don't need faith in Jesus Christ to be saved, but the only man, evolving himself, is able to save himself so becoming a sort of semi-god; Gnostics are fundamentally alone, as what they call "light" is just the darkness of an "ego" immoderately proud posing itself in the place of God, and presume to understand Him with the only thought. Nowadays gnostic Christians survive only in freemasonry. If you want an education on Gnosticism just come to Italy, you'll be illuminated.

[Greatest I am]

Most Christian cults and mainstream religions are homophobic and misogynous.
Regards
DL

Well I can definitely say that my congregation, (the one I am a member of) is not misogynous, but the homophobia is quietly ignored as there are some who are and some who are not and no-one says much for fear of offending someone. And partly because nobody is realy sure who is supportive and who is not, though many are probably ambivalent about it.

Ambivalence to an anti-love issue does not show the love that Christians say they are all in for.

For evil to grow all good Christians need do is be ambivalent to evil.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

You might want to educate yourself a bit on what Gnostic Christians are.

Gnosticism is a trivialization and simplification of Christianity; it doesn't get the point of Christianity and is a streamlined decrease for simple minded people. It especially denies the physical aspect, (evenenziale, philosophically) of the Salvation, reducing that at a mere noetic increase. Gnosticism is the reduction of Christianity at ideology. Gnostics don't need faith in Jesus Christ to be saved, but the only man, evolving himself, is able to save himself so becoming a sort of semi-god; Gnostics are fundamentally alone, as what they call "light" is just the darkness of an "ego" immoderately proud posing itself in the place of God, and presume to understand Him with the only thought. Nowadays gnostic Christians survive only in freemasonry. If you want an education on Gnosticism just come to Italy, you'll be illuminated.

Most of this is garbage and does not show what Gnostic Christianity is.

You say it simplifies things but the contrary is true and that mental exercise, we are a thinking person's religion, put';s us a cut above brain dead Christians who swallow a bunch of supernatural garbage as real.

As to your salvation comment.

The only thing we need saving from is the stupid notion that a God would condemn us for being exactly as created, and then instead of just forgiving us,, has his son needlessly murdered to save us.

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. That immorality does not change even if Jesus would have volunteered, which he did not do.

Christianity is based on human sacrifice and the notion that it is somehow good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty.
That is why Christianity is an immoral creed.

Care to argue that it is good to punish the innocent instead of the guilty?

I did not think so.

Regards
DL