Is it better to "turn the other cheek", or to "stand up for your rights"?

[pjnlsn]

That is rather the point. Violence begets violence.



But you cannot give rest to your soul, thinking this will be the case. Even a little violence, upsets the whole body.




I would define that as passive violence. Still to be avoided.



Mastery is a function of Peace. Slaves are a function of War. I should think then that a society that turns the other cheek would be a society of Masters and not slaves.

Injustice in a Peaceful society is nothing more than laziness. Would you fight laziness with the Sword? Or would you rather fight it in word and deed? Examine yourself, what evidence do you actually have that a man who turns the other cheek immediately turns to injustice?

It's just human nature to react to a problem rather than repress it. Well, it's human nature to repress one's problems in the face of a far superior authority, perceived or otherwise, but i doubt many people would say that people in general should be powerless.

This is an attitude associated with the religious, however. And that you prefer to self-delude with religion, if that's not too strong a term, doesn't mean that these potential problems would suddenly not exist.

 

[Gottservant]

Would your avatar be depicting three swords and three shields?

Let him who has no sword sell his tunic and go out and buy one.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. (Matthew 5:38-41)

Great point of reference for this discussion.

You were bought with a price; do not become bondservants of men. 1 Corinthians 7:23

I concur that this is a sound scripture to live by, but you must discern between battle and war.

If the price is blood, war has been declared. If blood is merely provoked, it is merely a battle.

This is a link worth considering:
Is Doormat-Theology Jesus-Theology?

Interesting link. Children certainly provoke war more than they do engage in battle (unless its make believe naturally).

The comments made are not on the whole successful though, in my opinion. Since there is a wealth of conflict resolution that turning the other cheek affords which one cannot reach if one does not in some sense take turning the other cheek literally. The problem is being dogmatic about over-turning scripture, simply being dogmatic does not make it any more pheasible.

 

[Gottservant]

Sometimes that's not a bad thing.

The wise thing to say is that sometimes violence begetting violence is not greatly a bad thing.

To say its not at all a bad thing is ridiculous.

What exactly is "passive violence"? That's an oxymoron.

You are arguing against turning the other cheek, therefore you have failed to distinguish between the battle and the war, therefore you cannot discern between violence that achieves its end without drawing blood and violence that achieves its end by directly drawing blood. There is ultimately no difference I agree, but in making progress to a world where noone draws blood, it is necessary to make the distinction.

A society that turns the other cheek will result in a society of people who are walked over by those who take advantage of others.

What you are talking about may be true on the level of the individual, but it is not true on the level of a whole society. If I can expect that the next person I talk to is likely to turn the other cheek in a conflict, I am much more able to keep the status quo. People who keep the status quo because of passive assertion of peace, are much less likely to get into conflict than those who keep the status quo by force because of a fear of conflict.

On what basis do you say injustice in a peaceful society is just laziness? There's been many injustices that are not tied to laziness in peaceful societies.

If every one is turning the other cheek and you decide you can't be bothered joining in, that is laziness.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That is rather the point. Violence begets violence.

I don't see how using violence in a defensive way begets any more violence than the attackers bring upon themselves. IOWs, the fault lies with the attackers for creating a violent situation, NOT the people who stand up for themselves.

But you cannot give rest to your soul, thinking this will be the case. Even a little violence, upsets the whole body.

Standing up for yourself may risk violence, but it is not itself a violent act. Indeed, I'd suggest that standing up for yourself is healthy for the soul. It is a courageous assertion of personal dignity and self-worth, instead of being a passive wall flower.

Even if you do use violence in self-defense, that is preferable to the disturbance to the body from being made a passive victim.

Just to give an obvious example: is a woman who passively gives in to rape better off than one who using her kung fu training to prevent the rape? In which case is her body "upset" more?

I would define that as passive violence. Still to be avoided.

No idea what "passive violence" could even mean, or why it should be avoided.

Mastery is a function of Peace. Slaves are a function of War. I should think then that a society that turns the other cheek would be a society of Masters and not slaves.

Let's not equivocate here.

Mastery in the sense I mean is a function of violence, or the threat of violence. The master has the upper hand with his slaves either because he has superior violence or because the slaves accept their servitude.

Examine yourself, what evidence do you actually have that a man who turns the other cheek immediately turns to injustice?

He doesn't "turn" to injustice. Rather, he is the passive victim of injustice. He gives aid and comfort to the unjust by rewarding them (at least in their own minds) with unjust acts. He encourages further acts of injustice from the unjust.

He is also unjust towards himself by tolerating injustice from others. He does not give himself what he is due.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

I don't see how using violence in a defensive way begets any more violence than the attackers bring upon themselves. IOWs, the fault lies with the attackers for creating a violent situation, NOT the people who stand up for themselves.

Look, I never said that violence was not permissible. There are situations that are not peaceful where you are not simply provoked, but you are rather attacked. In such cases, yes, you must defend yourself. But recognizing those situations that are not peaceful and defending yourself in them, does not stop you from turning the other cheek in situations that are peaceful and vice versa. The point is to be discerning.

Standing up for yourself may risk violence, but it is not itself a violent act. Indeed, I'd suggest that standing up for yourself is healthy for the soul. It is a courageous assertion of personal dignity and self-worth, instead of being a passive wall flower.

Even if you do use violence in self-defense, that is preferable to the disturbance to the body from being made a passive victim.

Just to give an obvious example: is a woman who passively gives in to rape better off than one who using her kung fu training to prevent the rape? In which case is her body "upset" more?

This is the problem of not discerning between battle and war, which I had thought you had discerned. These three paragraphs show you switch between peaceful and non-peaceful situations back and forth as if there is no difference at all. When Jesus said "If someone strikes you on the one cheek" he was talking about a peaceful situation in which you are being provoked, that is vastly different from a situation in which you are being attacked. One may lead to the other, even if you do turn the other cheek, but the point is to be discerning about when you are actually under attack - if you cannot discern that how will you defend yourself?

No idea what "passive violence" could even mean, or why it should be avoided.

I just mean there are situations where you deviate from what you would normally do, for the sake of some particular goal, like voting for a particular person. The reason I say it should be avoided is that it does not cultivate peace, even if it does no harm, it does not cultivate peace and is therefore a waste of time and therefore a vexation of the spirit.

Let's not equivocate here.

Mastery in the sense I mean is a function of violence, or the threat of violence. The master has the upper hand with his slaves either because he has superior violence or because the slaves accept their servitude.

I gave you an intelligent answer, why do you insist on redefining what I have already defined? A society of masters, in which everyone turns the other cheek is a perfectly palatable scenario. You want to introduce violence into the equation to suit your own tastes, but it is not the peaceful description I gave to you.

He doesn't "turn" to injustice. Rather, he is the passive victim of injustice. He gives aid and comfort to the unjust by rewarding them (at least in their own minds) with unjust acts. He encourages further acts of injustice from the unjust.

He is also unjust towards himself by tolerating injustice from others. He does not give himself what he is due.

Personally I think its adorable that you want people to defend themselves so much. But you don't think for a minute that if you take on every provocation that occurs, with force that sooner or later you are going to have a total mess on your hands? People fighting everywhere? You are actually asking people to turn off their ability to discern between provocation and attack and just fight and I don't think it is healthy at all. Yes, the unjust must be prosecuted, but they must be prosecuted within the eyes of the Law, not by man's whim.

The only way to avoid living by man's whim, is to show restraint.

 

[Cearbhall]

I would say that you should never "turn the other cheek" where your rights are concerned. I reserve submission for those situations that are not of great importance. For example, winning an argument might not be worth the strain that it puts on the relationship, but if someone literally strikes me, I'm going to press charges. I suppose I would be turning the other cheek in the sense that I wouldn't do it back (unless the threat was ongoing and I needed to defend myself), but I wouldn't just let it go.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You will have to elaborate on this Dave Ellis version of history. To my understanding, the Germans provoked the nations around them. It is a simplistic account, I know, but yours by comparison is cryptic.

In any case, turning the other cheek is no guarantee that you will never face war, I never said that. But if you cannot be provoked, you cannot be threatened either. It is therefore a very shrewd tactic in war.

Under the Treaty of Versailles Germany was limited to a very small military, I believe the army was limited to 100,000 men, the Navy was limited to a small number of ships, including absolutely no submarines and the Air force was similarly limited to a small force which would be ineffective in fighting a war of aggression. The treaty also specifically prohibited Germany from merging with Austria, and included many other restrictions designed to keep Germany from becoming a major threat to Europe again.

The politicians of the 1930s largely grew up during the WW1 era, and understandably wanted to prevent another major war at all cost. Hitler used that timidity to his full advantage.... He not only openly rebuilt the German Military, but built up one of the most impressive fighting forces the world had ever seen.

He marched troops into the demilitarized rhineland on the French Border, when the allied politicians did nothing, he annexed Austria. When the allied politicians still did nothing, he demanded the German speaking areas of the Czech Republic (the Sudetenland) and threatened to invade if they were not handed over. Not only did the allied politicians concede this land (which included all of Czechoslovakia's border defences), they didn't bother to consult the president of Czechoslovakia on the matter.

Hitler simply decided to stop paying the war reparations imposed on Germany after WW1, which were partially designed for revenge, but partially designed to keep the German economy limited.

In the end the allied politicians in their cowardice had let Hitler walk all over them in the interests of keeping the peace, until he had built up a war machine so powerful he conquered and held mainland Europe, and probably would have won if he had listened more to what his generals were telling him.

If the Allied politicians had taken up a more confrontational position when Germany was still weak and threatened war when Germany was clearly not ready to fight, Hitler would have had no choice but to concede to international pressure. In this case, taking on an aggressive, confrontational position would have saved millions of lives.

You do not know the war until you have surrendered to the battle.

I am walked over less, knowing that I have a command not to provoke people, than if I voluntarily picked every fight that came my way. Suppose my brother provokes me, if I know that I am commanded not to respond, then when he says "you are a fool" I immediately know I am talking to the Devil and not to my brother, this in turn informs me that I may resist him and he will give up, what is my alternative? To say "I am a fool am I? I'll show you!" No, instead I turn the other cheek and I say "Yes, I can be foolish sometimes" and immediately he is on the back foot, do I mean that I am about to go to war with him, or am I simply admitting guilt, he does not know! He is so concerned with calling me a name that he does not know whether I am assaulting him or merely backing down and so the conflict resolves.

The alternative is that you fight all the time, even the battles you wouldn't otherwise have had to fight.

I am not walked over at all, and I don't go looking for fights, nor do I provoke fights either. Turning the other cheek doesn't deal with provoking fights though, it deals with how you treat someone who is provoking you.

In short, the wise way to live your life is knowing how to pick your battles. Some things are worth fighting for and defending yourself over, whereas other things are not really all that important.

In your above example, first off I'm not sure how you know you're talking to the devil if your brother calls you a fool... I would assume you were talking to your brother, and your brother happens to think you're a fool.

Apart from that, this is a shining example of knowing when to pick your battles. If your brother thinks you're a fool, who really cares. He could very well be wrong. Getting into a fight because someone is calling you a name is pretty childish.

However, on the other hand if someone is threatening you or your family, either from a health or financial or similar standpoint, that's a shining example of where turning the other cheek could lead to disaster for you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The wise thing to say is that sometimes violence begetting violence is not greatly a bad thing.

To say its not at all a bad thing is ridiculous.

I didn't say it's not at all a bad thing, I said sometimes it's not a bad thing.

A smaller incidence of violence, or even the threat of violence sometimes can prevent a much more violent action from occurring.

You are arguing against turning the other cheek, therefore you have failed to distinguish between the battle and the war, therefore you cannot discern between violence that achieves its end without drawing blood and violence that achieves its end by directly drawing blood. There is ultimately no difference I agree, but in making progress to a world where noone draws blood, it is necessary to make the distinction.

The problem with your idea is that turning the other cheek will never lead to a world where noone draws blood. It will lead to a world where the aggressors draw the blood of people who will predictably turn the other cheek.

What you are talking about may be true on the level of the individual, but it is not true on the level of a whole society. If I can expect that the next person I talk to is likely to turn the other cheek in a conflict, I am much more able to keep the status quo. People who keep the status quo because of passive assertion of peace, are much less likely to get into conflict than those who keep the status quo by force because of a fear of conflict.

It's absolutely true on the level of a society, we've seen many examples of this. I agree if you personally are talking to someone who is likely to turn the other cheek, you will avoid a conflict. However, if it's a more aggressively minded person, they will also use that knowledge to abuse the person in question, and take whatever they want from him.

If every one is turning the other cheek and you decide you can't be bothered joining in, that is laziness.

If everyone is permanently turning the other cheek, the one guy who decides not to will eventually become quite wealthy and powerful.

That's also exactly the kind of person you need to keep out of power.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Look, I never said that violence was not permissible. There are situations that are not peaceful where you are not simply provoked, but you are rather attacked. In such cases, yes, you must defend yourself. But recognizing those situations that are not peaceful and defending yourself in them, does not stop you from turning the other cheek in situations that are peaceful and vice versa. The point is to be discerning.

I'm all for being discerning, but often times that will mean peacefully standing up for oneself in peaceful situations. If you wish to back down some of the them, then may prudence be your guide.

This is the problem of not discerning between battle and war, which I had thought you had discerned. These three paragraphs show you switch between peaceful and non-peaceful situations back and forth as if there is no difference at all.

I do distinguish between such cases. All cases are needed to get a full picture of the subject.

When Jesus said "If someone strikes you on the one cheek" he was talking about a peaceful situation in which you are being provoked, that is vastly different from a situation in which you are being attacked.

It wasn't clear to me that you were focusing on these cases to the exclusion of cases in which there is violence. Back in post #4, you had written: "He who takes up the sword, dies by the sword." I had assumed that violence was on the table for discussion.

It's also not self-evident to me that Jesus was only talking about non-violent situations. I realize that the passage has been interpreted that way, but it has also been interpreted as covering violent situations as well.

Also, "standing up for one's rights" doesn't have to be violent. It can involve a few well-chosen words.

I just mean there are situations where you deviate from what you would normally do, for the sake of some particular goal, like voting for a particular person. The reason I say it should be avoided is that it does not cultivate peace, even if it does no harm, it does not cultivate peace and is therefore a waste of time and therefore a vexation of the spirit.

Okay, but I don't accept your standard for what is worthwhile in life. Even something vexing may be something that shouldn't be avoided. Children may be vexed by homework, but that doesn't mean that they should avoid homework.

I gave you an intelligent answer, why do you insist on redefining what I have already defined?

You were equivocating, and not really responding to what I was talking about. It comes across as "shifting the goalposts".

A society of masters, in which everyone turns the other cheek is a perfectly palatable scenario.

It is a completely unlikely scenario. Some people won't be "masters", and will take advantage of the "masters".

You want to introduce violence into the equation to suit your own tastes, but it is not the peaceful description I gave to you.

No, I introduce that subject to suit reality. It's not a subject that should be swept under the rug, because reality won't avoid the subject.

Personally I think its adorable that you want people to defend themselves so much.

Is this the point where I am supposed to ignore your condescension and turn the other cheek?

No, it is not. Stop this nonsense. It is uncalled for.

This is, btw, an excellent example of where turning the other cheek can go wrong. It could encourage you to treat me the same way in the future because you'd know that you could get away with it.

But you don't think for a minute that if you take on every provocation that occurs, with force that sooner or later you are going to have a total mess on your hands? People fighting everywhere?

No, I don't for reasons that I have already given. If force is used defensively against force, there is no escalation of violence. It is the aggressors that create the violent situations.

I'm not arguing for violence against peaceful offenses. I'm not certain how you are reading that into what I've written.

Yes, the unjust must be prosecuted, but they must be prosecuted within the eyes of the Law, not by man's whim.

Man is perfectly capable of making non-whimsical laws.

The only way to avoid living by man's whim, is to show restraint.

No, enforcing sensible laws and standing up for one's rights are required as well. Restraint may be appropriate in some circumstances, but by no means all.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

What I get from your post Eudaimonia (Mark), is that you don't need to discern between the battle and the war, you can just aggress and defend.

What I emphasize to you every time I write, is that only by turning the other cheek to something do you begin to discern the difference between the battle and the war.

I wonder if you can see the difference.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I get from your post Eudaimonia (Mark)

My name is either "Eudaimonist" or "Mark". The word "eudaimonia" is a form of well-wishing.

is that you don't need to discern between the battle and the war

I don't attach much sense to your distinction between battles and wars.

you can just aggress and defend.

When did I ever say that it was okay to aggress?

Yes, I think it is appropriate for you to defend yourself, preferably with words, and only with violence if necessary.

I'm not saying that these are your only options. An excellent way to deal with a fight (whether verbal or physical) is to avoid meeting that person.

I'm not even insisting that "turning the other cheek" won't sometimes shame someone into stopping their abuse. It might work in some cases. The problem is: some aggressors are shameless. Shaming them won't stop them.

As a general policy, I think it is better to stand up for yourself instead of relying on mindgames to stop abuse.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

That I think hits the nail on the head: you would rather believe aggressors are shameless.

That's not the only alternative.

 

[JYJ]

Is it better to "turn the other cheek", or to "stand up for yourself"?

In the first model a man invites violence. In the second he invites scorn. Both Jesus and Buddha had it right. Seek the middle path of dis-interestedness. The only true victory is that which comes from the quiet mind.

 

[Putres Omega]

I would say it is more important to turn the other cheek than stand up for your rights, ultimately, based on the wording. If I were standing up for the rights of others or those who are lesser it would be different but if I was standing up for my own rights it seems to reek of self interest and vanity.

Also, this is not really a zero sum question; one can both stand for their rights or the rights of others but do it in a way that doesn't seek vengeance or retribution. To me, turning the other cheek always seemed like a statement symbolic of passive resistance. Just because one turns their cheek doesn't make them weak. One who resists without returning violence or insult for violence or insult is often much stronger, compared to their trespasser, in my view.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I would say it is more important to turn the other cheek than stand up for your rights, ultimately, based on the wording. If I were standing up for the rights of others or those who are lesser it would be different but if I was standing up for my own rights it seems to reek of self interest and vanity.

So standing up for your own self-interest is bad, but standing up for the self-interest of others is good?

You must hate those other people by wanting them to have what is in their self-interest.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

In the first model a man invites violence. In the second he invites scorn. Both Jesus and Buddha had it right. Seek the middle path of dis-interestedness. The only true victory is that which comes from the quiet mind.

A quiet mind is a repressed mind

 

[Dave Ellis]

I would say it is more important to turn the other cheek than stand up for your rights, ultimately, based on the wording. If I were standing up for the rights of others or those who are lesser it would be different but if I was standing up for my own rights it seems to reek of self interest and vanity.

Also, this is not really a zero sum question; one can both stand for their rights or the rights of others but do it in a way that doesn't seek vengeance or retribution. To me, turning the other cheek always seemed like a statement symbolic of passive resistance. Just because one turns their cheek doesn't make them weak. One who resists without returning violence or insult for violence or insult is often much stronger, compared to their trespasser, in my view.

If you don't stand up for your rights, you will eventually lose them. Self interest is not a bad thing, assuming you're not greedy about it.

 

[Putres Omega]

So standing up for your own self-interest is bad, but standing up for the self-interest of others is good?

You must hate those other people by wanting them to have what is in their self-interest.

You have misinterpreted what I have written - I didn't imply that standing up for yourself is always wrong, simply that seeking petty vengeance is wrong (hence the turn the other cheek thing). I clarified this in the following few lines in dark green that you neglected to quote. I do apologize that I was so confusing in the initial lines. I admit that the fault in this miscommunication lies with me.

If you don't stand up for your rights, you will eventually lose them. Self interest is not a bad thing, assuming you're not greedy about it.

My point wasn't that you shouldn't stand up for yourself. I did make the point somewhat poorly, though feel I clarified this well enough in the following lines. Still, I apologize for the misunderstanding as the fault here lies with my poorly chosen words. What I, ultimately, meant is that guys like Martin Luther King Jr or even Jesus Christ are more effective a means of standing up for the right things than simply reacting to violence or threats with more violence (e.g. the opposite of turning the other cheek).

When it comes to making social change or protecting things that are good, a gentle finger in the water makes bigger waves in the pond than the blows of a fist. A study of history bears this out, I think.

 

[Dave Ellis]

My point wasn't that you shouldn't stand up for yourself. I did make the point somewhat poorly, though feel I clarified this well enough in the following lines. Still, I apologize for the misunderstanding as the fault here lies with my poorly chosen words. What I, ultimately, meant is that guys like Martin Luther King Jr or even Jesus Christ are more effective a means of standing up for the right things than simply reacting to violence or threats with more violence (e.g. the opposite of turning the other cheek).

When it comes to making social change or protecting things that are good, a gentle finger in the water makes bigger waves in the pond than the blows of a fist. A study of history bears this out, I think.

Using MLK as an example isn't really that good to be honest. He certainly believed in non-violent measures, however he certainly at no point in any of his protests used any kind of tactic that would be considered to be turning the other cheek.

He advocated civil disobedience, large scale protests, and things of that sort. It was non violent, but aggressively in your face at the same time. That is the kind of policy that works.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You have misinterpreted what I have written - I didn't imply that standing up for yourself is always wrong, simply that seeking petty vengeance is wrong (hence the turn the other cheek thing). I clarified this in the following few lines in dark green that you neglected to quote. I do apologize that I was so confusing in the initial lines. I admit that the fault in this miscommunication lies with me.

Thanks for the clarification.


eudaimonia,

Mark