Should we turn the other cheek?

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

manolo wrote: Parodite,

I have had this conversation with an elderly Catholic Nun (in 3d), who I much admired; also with other Christians from time to time. She was reduced to saying "It's the mystery" which Christians often fall back to when facing such difficult questions. Of course, I'm happy to accept that any theist God would be unknowable by humans, but there is something in the story which goes against that. We do seem to know too much and it's not pleasant. This may be a hangover from the Old Testament 'jealous God' notion, but it seems to dog Jesus' life as well.

If the Jesus story is true, he was given nothing if not a hard time by his father, and that is where he had to do the cheek turning. Even if we accept the split off 'satan' idea of evil, the author of all this is the Christian God. That's where the buck stops.

Alex.
The inverse of "the devil made me do it". :)

Good stuff E.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Parodite »

manolo wrote:Parodite,

I have had this conversation with an elderly Catholic Nun (in 3d), who I much admired; also with other Christians from time to time. She was reduced to saying "It's the mystery" which Christians often fall back to when facing such difficult questions. Of course, I'm happy to accept that any theist God would be unknowable by humans, but there is something in the story which goes against that. We do seem to know too much and it's not pleasant. This may be a hangover from the Old Testament 'jealous God' notion, but it seems to dog Jesus' life as well.
I was raised secular (not anti-religious or anything like that) but remember when in my teenage years I got interested also in Christian religion... these moral contradictions killed it for me. On the simple human level and in the world I know from experience, a lot of Jesus' teachings made immediate and easy sense.

But the character of his Father in the stories.. the Mysterious Patriarch Father King.. made no sense to me at all, on the contrary. More than just a hangover from the OT, I instinctively felt that there is something seriously wrong with that typa guy in the sky. A Father who, supposedly, loves you unconditionally and only wants the best for you... yet on the other hand, perhaps on one of his famous off-days, is able to give you the whip without much reason, gets in such violent fits that he can drown human beings in the thousands or deliver them on purpose to eternal hell fire. As a Jew, the supposed apple of His Eye, this schizophrenia is even more invasive. Hell.. send them to the gaz-chambers... for all I care... that'll teach them!

We can now laugh at such a God-character and simply recognize the average Patriarch-King of the times.. and you will find the same one in the Quran. But this psychopathic father-figure is placed at the top of the food chain in our cultures and is still sitting high and dry... f*cking up minds and hearts on a daily basis, as this Lordship has always been doing.

Yes... for many Christians it is and has to be a mystery why their God is such a double-faced lover- and-asshole all in one. It only helps to a degree introducing Satan and declare him the ultimate owner of evil; after all Satan is also a creation of God.

Efforts to go mystic and poetic with all this...not taking it all literally but as a reflection of the times through which man's struggle with death and suffering is made visible and where "God" could be written as "Good on the march".. only brings you some fresh air. Rejecting the failed anthropomorphic God-head also throws you back onto your own naked existence where there are no answers. But you can also turn the other cheek to all the wrong answers.. by recognizing how the questions were wrong to begin with. Reboot.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Now that the true purpose of the thread is beginning to reveal itself I would like to address your concern P.

Now please realize this is the seed of an idea. The Bible is a thousand pages in most printings, and so obviously there are many points that need integration but...

Imagine, that God can no longer be God if he were to embrace evil. Imagine that God can only be God if he is sinless. If God is our Father, what is his purpose with us. Perhaps to raise us? Maybe Fathers love their children. What if God knows the consequence of sin, maybe grasps it better than we can.

An analogy would be someone like me, who has never touched a narcotic mind altering substance. aka drugs. I can be around someone who has used substances, even alcohol, and detect the degrading effect those substances have had on that individual. Someone as clean as me let's say, I have a perspective on substances that a tweaker can't really grasp, let alone a drinker. I knew a kid in high school, and I knew when he had gone and hit his first kegger over the weekend. It had changed him. Not the only time that happened, but was alarming to me, my first experience with him.

So God sent Jesus to pay for our sins, because we cannot be in his presence in a sinful state. Therefore there must be some value to being sinless.

Repentance makes cleansing possible, but it is so much better to have not committed the sin. Sin creates habits that can be painfully difficult to correct. Better for everyone to not do them in advance.

So back to our drug analogy, better to never touch it to begin with. Better to have families where substances are not used rather than bearing children into substance abusing homes.

Now the poor folks of the OT, Father taught them the hard way, but as a sinless God he has a unique insight on what it means to be sinless. Punishment is a time tested method for correction of error. It hurt him more than it hurt us.

Animal sacrifice in the Bible is glossed over by almost everyone these days. That is too bad. What was the point of it? To pay for the sins? No, it was teach the Israelites the horror of sin, to have to constantly shed blood because of their actions. The tragedy of it.

To a modern secular who is so far removed from the nature of sin and righteousness surely this can only be deeply puzzling, but if you will let's look at the subject of murder. The gist I get from seculars is hey, let people fornicate. Let 'em get drunk. As long as it doesn't interfere with their ability to function who cares. There is apparently no counterargument that seculars will entertain.

But let's look at murder. Is murder a human act of consequence? Are their debts to be paid? Moral costs? Could you use a concept of sin here? Is there a moral consequence here? Would a Father God have an interest in prevention or punishment?

There was a lost soul on Spengler forum who went to great lengths to explain away a lot of traditional morality, boy by the name of Orpheus M, but bless him he came up with an interesting theory once. That murder was a way to call down the Gods. The murder was an act that got their attention. Murdering was a way to interact with the divine. No time to get into it now, but something to think about. I've thought about it a long time.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Parodite »

Mr.P., I will consider. But lemmi say this already and for you to consider: both punishment and reward operate in life without your mysticism. People discover, sooner or later.. the punishments that drug abuse brings, the pain of fornication.. and able to discover the joy and happiness of staying away from what hurts... and how to do that. Of learning what is bad for yourself and others. (not always identical..but still). Why you need more?

As for murder.. rape... robbery...stealing...we have courts.. and police.
Deep down I'm very superficial
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by manolo »

Mr. Perfect wrote: So back to our drug analogy, better to never touch it to begin with. Better to have families where substances are not used rather than bearing children into substance abusing homes.
Mr P,

With respect, I can't see how your analogy works. People can be 'clean' of drugs but in the Christian story nobody can be clean of sin. OK, there are born agains and such like, but the 'fall' is a structural part of Christian mortality. IMHO there is no getting away from it in this life.

Another thought is that there are plenty of nice and kind parents who enjoy a drink and plenty of 'clean' people who are downright nasty to their kids, even abusive. Again, the analogy isn't working, which is a common problem with analogies of course.

Alex.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Parodite wrote:Mr.P., I will consider. But lemmi say this already and for you to consider: both punishment and reward operate in life without your mysticism. People discover, sooner or later.. the punishments that drug abuse brings, the pain of fornication.. and able to discover the joy and happiness of staying away from what hurts... and how to do that. Of learning what is bad for yourself and others. (not always identical..but still). Why you need more?
There are these human questions. Where did we come from. Why are we here. What is the purpose of this. Humans, many or most of us, are looking for these answers.
As for murder.. rape... robbery...stealing...we have courts.. and police.
Yes but one wonders if their isn't larger morality here than a mere prison sentence. I would say definitely yes.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

manolo wrote:Mr P,

With respect, I can't see how your analogy works. People can be 'clean' of drugs but in the Christian story nobody can be clean of sin. OK, there are born agains and such like, but the 'fall' is a structural part of Christian mortality. IMHO there is no getting away from it in this life.

Another thought is that there are plenty of nice and kind parents who enjoy a drink and plenty of 'clean' people who are downright nasty to their kids, even abusive. Again, the analogy isn't working, which is a common problem with analogies of course.

Alex.
I think if my analogy wasn't working you may not protest so much. A direct disagreement is not your style.

Jesus commanded us to be perfect, even as the Father is perfect. The Father provided the Son for this purpose so in a sense perfection and sinlessness is possible.

I know bad people who are good parents, and good people who are poor parents. But I don't think this bears on the topic. A lot of people reflexively have a binary perception of bad and good people. Good people are essentially good who make only well intentioned errors, bad people are always conniving miscreants who take pleasure in other people's pain. This is not reality.

To be brief, being good in one area does not erase our sin in another. Another seed to be planted here is that the consequence of the sin is not necessarily what makes the sin immoral. Eg drug use is very easy to use to illustrate obvious relationships between sin and harm, but we get a lot of examples of harmless sin, like white lies or an occasional beer, or whatever. I don't really catalog that stuff.

I'm trying to do this without going through all the work of cutting a pasting, but in the scriptures the overall theme is the old saw virtue is it's own reward.

The OT law of Moses perspective is akin to training seals. If you want a seal to do something, jump through a hoop, you reward and punish the seal. The act of jumping through the hoop however does not produce a fish. And so progression in this case is limited. Or "dammed".

The new law of Christ is more akin to weightlifting. If you want a larger muscle there is only one way to obtain it, working that muscle. In this case the act of lifting the weight produces the muscle. If one, as is commonly the case, is lazy, and wants to neglect their calves in favor of their deltoids they have "dammed" themselves. They simply will not have the calves. No matter how glorious the deltoid, the calf will be scrawny.

Such is the nature of perfection. There are no shortcuts. God will however give you some do-overs.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Parodite »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Parodite wrote:Mr.P., I will consider. But lemmi say this already and for you to consider: both punishment and reward operate in life without your mysticism. People discover, sooner or later.. the punishments that drug abuse brings, the pain of fornication.. and able to discover the joy and happiness of staying away from what hurts... and how to do that. Of learning what is bad for yourself and others. (not always identical..but still). Why you need more?
There are these human questions. Where did we come from. Why are we here. What is the purpose of this. Humans, many or most of us, are looking for these answers.
Of course. These a very human questions and they rise in all our heads. We are united in these questions.. and diverge in the answers.
As for murder.. rape... robbery...stealing...we have courts.. and police.
Yes but one wonders if their isn't larger morality here than a mere prison sentence. I would say definitely yes.
I think the morality is that when a majority agree on what behavior is hurtful to others based on our selfish experience (in the good sense).. they will make it a law to minimally remove those hurters from society in order to prevent them to hurt others again (and perhaps deter those who intend to hurt others) and the sense of justice by punishing the hurter with an amount of pain that is supposed to be a fair price for the pain they inflicted on others. I don't see much else there going on..
Deep down I'm very superficial
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Parodite wrote: Of course. These a very human questions and they rise in all our heads. We are united in these questions.. and diverge in the answers.

I think the morality is that when a majority agree on what behavior is hurtful to others based on our selfish experience (in the good sense).. they will make it a law to minimally remove those hurters from society in order to prevent them to hurt others again (and perhaps deter those who intend to hurt others) and the sense of justice by punishing the hurter with an amount of pain that is supposed to be a fair price for the pain they inflicted on others. I don't see much else there going on..
This is just another reason interestingly that you can't be a libertarian.

Libertarianism is based on the concept of natural law, natural law being based on the idea that right and wrong are objective realities beyond voting or human opinion, and the moral onus is upon human beings to discover right and wrong objectively and legislate and politic accordingly. It is a moral exercise. An exercise in morality, as opposed to a group deciding on their interests of the moment.

You think very much like a leftist.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Parodite »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Parodite wrote: Of course. These a very human questions and they rise in all our heads. We are united in these questions.. and diverge in the answers.

I think the morality is that when a majority agree on what behavior is hurtful to others based on our selfish experience (in the good sense).. they will make it a law to minimally remove those hurters from society in order to prevent them to hurt others again (and perhaps deter those who intend to hurt others) and the sense of justice by punishing the hurter with an amount of pain that is supposed to be a fair price for the pain they inflicted on others. I don't see much else there going on..
This is just another reason interestingly that you can't be a libertarian.

Libertarianism is based on the concept of natural law, natural law being based on the idea that right and wrong are objective realities beyond voting or human opinion, and the moral onus is upon human beings to discover right and wrong objectively and legislate and politic accordingly. It is a moral exercise. An exercise in morality, as opposed to a group deciding on their interests of the moment.

You think very much like a leftist.
I think you have it all upside down. I am the only one working with objective reality while you are looking for faces in the stars and call them objective faces.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Everyone is looking into the stars, stars are part of objective reality. We are supposed to be knowledge seeking scientists after all.

My experience with God is little different than my experience with you. God is something I have experienced. I can deny him no more than I can deny the computer I'm working on.

If you have been to the top of Everest there is really no way to export that experience to another person. All you can do is describe it the best you can and hope it sparks some interest in getting their own experience.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Parodite »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Everyone is looking into the stars, stars are part of objective reality. We are supposed to be knowledge seeking scientists after all.

My experience with God is little different than my experience with you. God is something I have experienced. I can deny him no more than I can deny the computer I'm working on.

If you have been to the top of Everest there is really no way to export that experience to another person. All you can do is describe it the best you can and hope it sparks some interest in getting their own experience.
Don't see what this has to do with objective morality. If you mean to say that shared (similar) experiences produce "objective" values you may have a point. But God is not so easily a shared experience as are stars we all observe in the sky. I cannot make you look into my head and see the same stars I see...but at least there is little need to disagree about those stars because our experiences are very similar. With God things always get less obvious. How can I communicate to you my observation that your God is merely a production of your own nervous system since from my perspective it has to be? All I can do is describe it to you as best as I can hoping it sparks some interest in you getting your own experience of being aware of that.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Mr. Perfect »

God is known to some and unknown to some, like a lot things in life. No one should expect you to believe in something you have no reason to believe in. I don't. We're just having a conversation. I was like you once in this regard.

But for objective morality I'm merely planting the seed. Greater men than I have written greater arguments than mine on the subject, and I merely invite you to entertain their musings. They ended up creating the Constitution of the United States based on it. The Godless, they have created other things.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Parodite »

Mr.P., as you note you cannot prove the positive, neither can I prove the negative to you. We are on equal footing here. It's good to know you understand there is little objective weight attachable to a-God or no-God.. or in my case, a very different-God than your-God. Much less arbitrary is what people experience to be hurtful or good for them. You seem not able to give much weight to that. Or even care.
Deep down I'm very superficial
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by manolo »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
The new law of Christ is more akin to weightlifting. If you want a larger muscle there is only one way to obtain it, working that muscle. In this case the act of lifting the weight produces the muscle. If one, as is commonly the case, is lazy, and wants to neglect their calves in favor of their deltoids they have "dammed" themselves. They simply will not have the calves. No matter how glorious the deltoid, the calf will be scrawny.
Mr P,

Buddhists of various stripes use a similar idea. We are encouraged to meditate or chant. In Nichiren Shoshu, newcomers will even be encouraged to chant for money or a new car. Of course, this is just a ploy to get people into the practise and the teacher's belief is that the meditating or chanting will become an end in itself. It is "working that muscle".

There is also an amusing similarity with the sin you mention, of "occasional beer", but the Buddhists tend to use chocolate in their sermons. For 'sin' read 'attachment'.

As my interest is basically philosophy (you once complemented me on that) I like to see the way patterns of ideas thread through differing disciplines and the above feels like a nice example to me. You will no doubt disagree, as disagreement is a pattern that threads through internet forums. :)

Alex.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
The new law of Christ is more akin to weightlifting. If you want a larger muscle there is only one way to obtain it, working that muscle. In this case the act of lifting the weight produces the muscle. If one, as is commonly the case, is lazy, and wants to neglect their calves in favor of their deltoids they have "dammed" themselves. They simply will not have the calves. No matter how glorious the deltoid, the calf will be scrawny.
This is an absurd interpretation of Christianity.

Manolo, please refocus your thread before it devolves further.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Simple Minded

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Simple Minded »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
The new law of Christ is more akin to weightlifting. If you want a larger muscle there is only one way to obtain it, working that muscle. In this case the act of lifting the weight produces the muscle. If one, as is commonly the case, is lazy, and wants to neglect their calves in favor of their deltoids they have "dammed" themselves. They simply will not have the calves. No matter how glorious the deltoid, the calf will be scrawny.
This is an absurd interpretation of Christianity.

Manolo, please refocus your thread before it devolves further.
Refocus please! calves, deltoids....?

Does turn the other cheek mean after someone slaps your face, offer up your glutes? :?
noddy
Posts: 11325
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
The new law of Christ is more akin to weightlifting. If you want a larger muscle there is only one way to obtain it, working that muscle. In this case the act of lifting the weight produces the muscle. If one, as is commonly the case, is lazy, and wants to neglect their calves in favor of their deltoids they have "dammed" themselves. They simply will not have the calves. No matter how glorious the deltoid, the calf will be scrawny.
This is an absurd interpretation of Christianity.

Manolo, please refocus your thread before it devolves further.
Refocus please! calves, deltoids....?

Does turn the other cheek mean after someone slaps your face, offer up your glutes? :?
churning the other cheek is a different topic :P
ultracrepidarian
manolo
Posts: 1582
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:46 pm

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by manolo »

Folks,

Humour, the sure sign of incipient thread death. :o

Alex.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

This is the entire section from Matthew 5. It's really a single argument with many examples, and replete with hyperbole.
Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Anger
21 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brotherfn will be liable to judgment; whoever insultsfn his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hellfn of fire. 23 So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison. 26 Truly, I say to you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.fn
Lust
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
Divorce
31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Oaths
33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ 34 But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.fn
Retaliation
38 “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,fn let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Love Your Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,fn what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Simple Minded

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
The new law of Christ is more akin to weightlifting. If you want a larger muscle there is only one way to obtain it, working that muscle. In this case the act of lifting the weight produces the muscle. If one, as is commonly the case, is lazy, and wants to neglect their calves in favor of their deltoids they have "dammed" themselves. They simply will not have the calves. No matter how glorious the deltoid, the calf will be scrawny.
This is an absurd interpretation of Christianity.

Manolo, please refocus your thread before it devolves further.
Refocus please! calves, deltoids....?

Does turn the other cheek mean after someone slaps your face, offer up your glutes? :?
churning the other cheek is a different topic :P
I must have missed that thread...... :(
Simple Minded

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Simple Minded »

manolo wrote:Folks,

Humour, the sure sign of incipient thread death. :o

Alex.
Not always, many, if not most, threads die of posters taking their own opinions tooooooooo seriously! :)
noddy
Posts: 11325
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by noddy »

Simple Minded wrote:
noddy wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
The new law of Christ is more akin to weightlifting. If you want a larger muscle there is only one way to obtain it, working that muscle. In this case the act of lifting the weight produces the muscle. If one, as is commonly the case, is lazy, and wants to neglect their calves in favor of their deltoids they have "dammed" themselves. They simply will not have the calves. No matter how glorious the deltoid, the calf will be scrawny.
This is an absurd interpretation of Christianity.

Manolo, please refocus your thread before it devolves further.
Refocus please! calves, deltoids....?

Does turn the other cheek mean after someone slaps your face, offer up your glutes? :?
churning the other cheek is a different topic :P
I must have missed that thread...... :(
too distracted by mr p's deltoids.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

noddy wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
noddy wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
The new law of Christ is more akin to weightlifting. If you want a larger muscle there is only one way to obtain it, working that muscle. In this case the act of lifting the weight produces the muscle. If one, as is commonly the case, is lazy, and wants to neglect their calves in favor of their deltoids they have "dammed" themselves. They simply will not have the calves. No matter how glorious the deltoid, the calf will be scrawny.
This is an absurd interpretation of Christianity.

Manolo, please refocus your thread before it devolves further.
Refocus please! calves, deltoids....?

Does turn the other cheek mean after someone slaps your face, offer up your glutes? :?
churning the other cheek is a different topic :P
I must have missed that thread...... :(
too distracted by mr p's deltoids.
He hasn't had an avatar for a long time. Maybe he's thinking of going back to the original Mr. P portrait.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Simple Minded

Re: Should we turn the other cheek?

Post by Simple Minded »

noddy wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
noddy wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
The new law of Christ is more akin to weightlifting. If you want a larger muscle there is only one way to obtain it, working that muscle. In this case the act of lifting the weight produces the muscle. If one, as is commonly the case, is lazy, and wants to neglect their calves in favor of their deltoids they have "dammed" themselves. They simply will not have the calves. No matter how glorious the deltoid, the calf will be scrawny.
This is an absurd interpretation of Christianity.

Manolo, please refocus your thread before it devolves further.
Refocus please! calves, deltoids....?

Does turn the other cheek mean after someone slaps your face, offer up your glutes? :?
churning the other cheek is a different topic :P
I must have missed that thread...... :(
too distracted by mr p's deltoids.
I refuse to focus on his glutes...... I'm turning away from those cheeks! ;)
Post Reply