Biblical command to 'turn the other cheek' doesn't mean Christians should 'tolerate tyranny'

[Joseph G]

Good point. And it is certainly demonstrated by Jesus' rebuke of Peter's subsequent use of the sword that He did not intend it for violence - at least not in that unique situation.

In researching further, I came across an interesting theory as to Jesus' intention - that in arming his group He was intentionally giving Rome the justification to convict Him as a threat to the Republic - thus fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah 53 that He would be "numbered with the transgressors" though "He had done no violence".

If this is true, it would make Jesus' declaration that He lays down His life by His own authority even more poignant. What a Savior we have!

Thoughts?

 

[DJWhalen]

Except, maybe, when He says to turn the other cheek and that whoever seeks to save his life shall lose it.

Don't say what to do after turning the cheek.

 

[DaisyDay]

Don't say what to do after turning the cheek.

Yeah, it's just to fake 'em out before landing a roundhouse kick!

 

[Adam56]

Does say what? He does not say to use the sword to defend Him or themselves. He doesn’t say to kill anyone in self-defense or in defense of loved ones.

Except, maybe, when He says to turn the other cheek and that whoever seeks to save his life shall lose it.

That is referring to persecution by government authorities, which you are to submit to. Not some random criminal trying to rob and kill you or your family.

 

[Vambram]

Everybody has seen this video. Kirk's friend also claims that the shape of the banana proves that it was divinely-designed. They're both serious, but they have no clue.

Thank you for this video which I have watched for the very first time today.
I saw the grin on Kirk's face and heard a light hearted tone in his voice. I am certain, without a doubt, that he was using humor to illustrate the point about the lack of missing links in the fossil records. In this informative video clip, I didn't see or hear any references to any fruit.
Also, I am praying that those 2 atheists and all other atheists will change their minds about the existence of Almighty God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The "bull - frog"? Are they serious?

As we have been informed, Kirk Cameron is well educated. He did graduate from high school after all while acting in a sitcom.

 

[Vambram]

As we have been informed, Kirk Cameron is well educated. He did graduate from high school after all while acting in a sitcom.

Serious question here.

In order for a person to be well educated and well informed, do you believe that it's a prerequisite that a person has a college degree from a reputable and respected university?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Serious question here.

In order for a person to be well educated and well informed, do you believe that it's a prerequisite that a person has a college degree from a reputable and respected university?

If he expresses genuine knowledge, no, but Cameron repeatedly expresses profound ignorance on evolution and related topics. I was told on this very site (was it this thread?) that Kirk was well educated and informed. He is not.

 

[Vambram]

If he expresses genuine knowledge, no, but Cameron repeatedly expresses profound ignorance on evolution and related topics. I was told on this very site (was it this thread?) that Kirk was well educated and informed. He is not.

Sounds like to me that you believe that unless a person agrees with evolutionism and evolutionists, then a person cannot have genuine knowledge on that topic. Is that what you are implying?

 

[wing2000]

That is referring to persecution by government authorities, which you are to submit to. Not some random criminal trying to rob and kill you or your family.

The op title refers to "tyranny".

 

[wing2000]

Cameron's interpertation of loving your neighbor by not tolerating "the kinds of things...." is twisted and wacko IMO.

“… I see so many who are just tolerating evil and that’s not loving your neighbor,” he said. “At the end of the day, the two great Commandments of Christianity are to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength, and the second is like it, to love your neighbor as yourself.

“If you 'tolerate' the kinds of things that bring misery to your neighbors and ultimately strip them of their liberties, you're not loving them.”
As an example, he cited Just War Theory, followed by most Christians for over a thousand years, which states that if you believe your enemy is preparing to attack, you are justified in defending your own people by attacking first.

Cameron said the Constitution is another means of mitigating against overreach by tyrants.
“We don't tolerate tyranny, either from the outside or the inside, and that is a very essential Christian virtue, is to not tolerate that type of thing,” he added.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sounds like to me that you believe that unless a person agrees with evolutionism and evolutionists, then a person cannot have genuine knowledge on that topic. Is that what you are implying?

If you can't even present the opposite side correctly, I have no respect for your claims. And thus it is with Kirk Cameron.

 

[Adam56]

The op title refers to "tyranny".

That doesn’t contradict what I said.

 

[BCP1928]

Sounds like to me that you believe that unless a person agrees with evolutionism and evolutionists, then a person cannot have genuine knowledge on that topic. Is that what you are implying?

It's not altogether impossible to employ the assumption that God created the world according to the story in the Bible but which He (for some reason) made appear to be the world which science studies and then proceed to become learned in biology or other science. As a practical matter, very few people do that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Cameron's interpertation of loving your neighbor by not tolerating "the kinds of things...." is twisted and wacko IMO.

“… I see so many who are just tolerating evil and that’s not loving your neighbor,” he said. “At the end of the day, the two great Commandments of Christianity are to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength, and the second is like it, to love your neighbor as yourself.

“If you 'tolerate' the kinds of things that bring misery to your neighbors and ultimately strip them of their liberties, you're not loving them.”
As an example, he cited Just War Theory, followed by most Christians for over a thousand years, which states that if you believe your enemy is preparing to attack, you are justified in defending your own people by attacking first.

Cameron said the Constitution is another means of mitigating against overreach by tyrants.
“We don't tolerate tyranny, either from the outside or the inside, and that is a very essential Christian virtue, is to not tolerate that type of thing,” he added.

Kirk Cameron: Biblical command to 'turn the other cheek' doesn't mean Christians should 'tolerate tyranny'

Kirk Cameron has some thoughts on what it really means to turn the other cheek

www.christianpost.com

Kirk Cameron has some thoughts on what it really means to "turn the other cheek."
The actor said intolerance, at least when it comes to evil and tyranny, is, in fact, a “very essential Christian virtue,” one which, he added, America’s founding fathers espoused.

In a Feb. 21 appearance on the “Timcast IRL” podcast with Tim Pool, Cameron touched upon a number of topics, including his fight against “religious viewpoint discrimination” in public libraries and Noah Webster’s Christian influence on education.
But it was in response to Pool’s apparent reference to a Christian Post story earlier this month about his comments on conservative Christians playing a role in America's decline by being “tolerant and accepting” that led to a lively conversation between Pool and Cameron.

Crediting a 2023 speech by entrepreneur Patrick Bet David for his comments, Pool summarized David's speech as essentially saying, “Christians in this country are good people who keep saying OK to these people, being tolerant, allowing them to live the way they want to live.
"But what happens is they push more into the institutions, they introduce dangerous, bad ideas, they start targeting kids, and now we're here where we are today."

Cameron responded by saying “turn the other cheek” and “love your neighbor” were never intended to allow for the tolerance of evil.

“… I see so many who are just tolerating evil and that’s not loving your neighbor,” he said. “At the end of the day, the two great Commandments of Christianity are to love God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength, and the second is like it, to love your neighbor as yourself.

“If you 'tolerate' the kinds of things that bring misery to your neighbors and ultimately strip them of their liberties, you're not loving them.”
As an example, he cited Just War Theory, followed by most Christians for over a thousand years, which states that if you believe your enemy is preparing to attack, you are justified in defending your own people by attacking first.

Cameron said the Constitution is another means of mitigating against overreach by tyrants.
“We don't tolerate tyranny, either from the outside or the inside, and that is a very essential Christian virtue, is to not tolerate that type of thing,” he added.

I think Cameron is attempting to play both sides of the court by imputing his own interpretive definitions where convenient.

 

[NxNW]

I am certain, without a doubt, that he was using humor to illustrate the point about the lack of missing links in the fossil records.

What missing links?

In this informative video clip, I didn't see or hear any references to any fruit.

What fruit?

Also, I am praying that those 2 atheists and all other atheists will change their minds about the existence of Almighty God.

Evidence would be a nice first step in that direction.

 

[NxNW]

Sounds like to me that you believe that unless a person agrees with evolutionism and evolutionists, then a person cannot have genuine knowledge on that topic. Is that what you are implying?

Kirk lacks genuine knowledge on that topic.

 

[DaisyDay]

That is referring to persecution by government authorities, which you are to submit to. Not some random criminal trying to rob and kill you or your family.

No, you need to go back and refresh your recollection of the fifth chapter of Matthew, particularly verses 38-48. This is not about authorities or government, but people you might encounter.

 

[Adam56]

No, you need to go back and refresh your recollection of the fifth chapter of Matthew, particularly verses 38-48. This is not about authorities or government, but people you might encounter.

I’m referring to the “whoever seeks to save his life, will lose it”, which is not in chapter 5, but chapter 16. You are taking things out of context and not viewing the Bible in a holistic manner.

 

[DaisyDay]

I’m referring to the “whoever seeks to save his life, will lose it”, which is not in chapter 5, but chapter 16.

Oh. If your response is only to part of the sentence you quote, then you should be clearer about it. If you want only the "whoever seeks to save his life shall lose it" to refer only to government, you will have to explain how since the plain reading isn't that.

You are taking things out of context and not viewing the Bible in a holistic manner.

What do you think the context is for turning the other cheek, giving the shirt along with the cloak/coat, and going the extra mile is? The chapter goes on to preach about loving one's enemies - do you think that government is the only enemy people encounter?