Blessed are the Meek

[partinobodycular]

But at the same time they are quite capable of doing the opposite. They are not a separate species.

And you're quite capable of performing homosexual acts, that doesn't mean that you have a desire to do so.

So who is more righteous? He who desires to but doesn't, or he who doesn't desire to in the first place. Meekness isn't about controlling ones aggression, it's about not desiring to be aggressive in the first place, whether one is capable of it or not.

 

[partinobodycular]

Same difference. Was Jesus meek or restrained?

No, meekness and restraint are not the same thing.

Do you have to restrain yourself from performing homosexual acts?

 

[timothyu]

So who is more righteous?

Neither, but he who is capable but doesn't is the stronger, hence meeker of the two.

 

[timothyu]

No, meekness and restraint are not the same thing.

Again, was Jesus meek or restrained?

 

[eleos1954]

Exactly. Strength under control.

Aw .... but strength is not manifested with the ability of having or access to a weapon and then showing restraint by not using it .... the strength is in His love (putting others before self).

This was the thought (in error) by the OT clergy of that time ... and one of the reasons they did not accept Jesus as Messiah. Jesus turned their thinking up side down and they didn't understand the power of love.

1 Thessalonians 5:8
But since we belong to the day, let us be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and the helmet of our hope of salvation.

 

[timothyu]

the strength is in His love (putting others before self).

Which is exactly why one would restrain themselves, no?

 

[eleos1954]

But even in this definition there's no need for God. Meekness is merely the choice to do the compassionate thing.

But why is it about choice at all?

Isn't the person who does the compassionate thing simply because it's in their nature to do so meeker than the person who must first overcome their desire to do otherwise?

Surely the former is meeker than the latter.

Meekness is not weakness. The ability to have compassion comes from the Lord.

 

[partinobodycular]

Meekness is not weakness.

I agree, but timothyu would seem to think otherwise.

The ability to have compassion comes from the Lord.

That's an assertion for which I see no justification.

 

[partinobodycular]

Which is exactly why one would restrain themselves, no?

No, if one truly loves their neighbor then they do not not have to "restrain" themselves, anymore than you have to restrain yourself from committing homosexual acts. True "love" doesn't require the restraint from doing evil, because it has no desire to do evil.

 

[eleos1954]

I agree, but timothyu would seem to think otherwise.


That's an assertion for which I see no justification.

John 3:16 - God's ultimate compassion (compassion towards all of the human race), shown on the cross.

 

[timothyu]

No, if one truly loves their neighbor then they do not not have to "restrain" themselves, anymore than you have to restrain yourself from committing homosexual acts. True "love" doesn't require the restraint from doing evil, because it has no desire to do evil.

I know what you are saying but the capability is always there. Instincts are strong and it is at those times restraint comes into play. If God had intended to make us into some magically changed being in this life he wouldn't have had to send the HS to help keep those of the Kingdom on the right path.

 

[timothyu]

I agree, but timothyu would seem to think otherwise.

I said it was a strength

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Jordan Peterson rightly explains what it biblically means to be meek... to have a sword and know how to use it, but keep it sheathed.

From the Oxford dictionary: quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive.

Why should one hold one's self to an arbitrary standard?

 

[durangodawood]

From the Oxford dictionary: quiet, gentle, and easily imposed on; submissive.

Why should one hold one's self to an arbitrary standard?

Yes. The Bible should mean what it plainly says. Of course there may be deeper meanings as well. But the surface meaning should correspond to the common sense of the words chosen.

 

[timothyu]

The Bible should mean what it plainly says.

'Therefore, I speak to them in parables: because they seeing, see not; and hearing, they hear not, neither do they understand'

 

[durangodawood]

'Therefore, I speak to them in parables: because they seeing, see not; and hearing, they hear not, neither do they understand'

Is blessed are the meek... a parable?

 

[timothyu]

Did He say'Blessed are the cheesemakers? Speak up!

 

[Sunshinee777]

Yes. The Bible should mean what it plainly says. Of course there may be deeper meanings as well. But the surface meaning should correspond to the common sense of the words chosen.

Bible was never meant to be interpreted by our own understanding, but God given understanding, which is in Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit is the author of the bible, how can you understand God’s word without having He interpreted it for you?


Isaiah 55:9

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

 

[durangodawood]

Bible was never meant to be interpreted by our own understanding, but God given understanding, which is in Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit is the author of the bible, how can you understand God’s word without having He interpreted it for you?


Isaiah 55:9

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

So you're arguing it doesn't matter what the actual words are?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Yes. The Bible should mean what it plainly says. Of course there may be deeper meanings as well. But the surface meaning should correspond to the common sense of the words chosen.

My point is that if it has to be interpreted then who's to say whose interpretation is the right one. It's all arbitrary. I'll stick with my objective moral code.