Jesus' teachings. Profound?

[McCulloch]

Perhaps, but for me the miracle things are secondary, in comparison to what Jesus taught. The teachings of Jesus are for me the greatest thing, not the miracles.

In what way are Jesus' teachings extraordinary? Can it be demonstrated that Jesus had great insight? What profound wisdom is there in Jesus' teachings?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 54 by JewishVolcano]

Jehovah's Witness culture follows the principle of non-violence but we believe it's okay to take reasonable measures to defend ourselves.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

That's what you believe to be okay but it's not what scripture says is ok.

No, that's what we believe to be okay and it *is* what scriptures says is ok.

Did you not read my the explanation I posted earlier? I'll link to it in case you missed it
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 650#773650


Respect,

JW

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 70 by DanieltheDragon]

So what do you think is the meaning of 'indicate obligation, typically when criticizing someone's actions'? If I'm indicating you're obliged to do something, I'm indicating a rule - not giving you a non-binding advice.

Israelite used 'should' in the same sense as 'must'. He COULD do something to make them comply, he just chose not to. If there was no legal consequences for him and he was in a position of power - he would have done it in a heartbeat.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 54 by JewishVolcano]

Jehovah's Witness culture follows the principle of non-violence but we believe it's okay to take reasonable measures to defend ourselves.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

That's what you believe to be okay but it's not what scripture says is ok.

No, that's what we believe to be okay and it *is* what scriptures says is ok.

Did you not read my the explanation I posted earlier? I'll link to it in case you missed it
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 650#773650


Respect,

JW

Well if you believe scripture says it's ok then show me the place where it does so. Meanwhile here's where it says it's not ok.

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well"

"But I tell you, love your enemies"

An open handed "slap" was an insulting gesture, less aimed at inflicting pain so much as provoking to confontation. (It was not so long ago, even here in Europe, if a "gentleman" wanted challenge another to a duel, he slapped him in the face with his glove. This was a challenge for conflict) In a similar way Jesus was telling his followers not to passively submit to physical abuse but to not rise to provokation to conflict or violence.

So what would be the difference between 'not passively submitting to physical abuse' and 'not rising to provocation to violence'? It's exactly the same thing. And slap is not necessarily meant to provoke you either. It can be to put you down or just to have fun at your expense.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 73 by JewishVolcano]

We are using the same verses as you, we just interpret them differently.

So what would be the difference between 'not passively submitting to physical abuse' and 'not rising to provocation to violence'?

Not passively submitting to physical abuse would be not just lying there if someone wanted to rape you or your child, doing all that is reasonably* in your power to fend off or flee from physical harm or threat of life. And a woman fighting off an rapist is a reasonable measure of self defense. There have been cases for example, when our fellow Jehovah's Witnesses brothers and sisters have had to literally leave everything they had and flee from guerilla warfare. Even Jesus is recorded on more than one occassion as escaping when people sought to murder him. Passively submitting would have been him saying "You want to murder me, go ahead, I'll not perform any action to detere or discourage you".

Provocation to violence is not usually life threatening. It could be verbal insults or a physical gesture or action that is meant to get a reaction from another person. Someone that insults your mother is provoking you to fight or retaliate in kind. Someone that challenges another person slaps your face or spits in your face or insults you is attempting to provoke or cause another to engage in physical or verbal retaliation. In this case a Christian, rather than responding in like will attempt to diffuse the situation or simply walk away. It is in this context that Jesus gave the hyperbolic image of turning the other cheek, people don't usually die from having their face slapped even repeatedly. The point was Christians are not to retaliate under any circumstances.


* Jehovah's Witnesses believe life is sacred and would not deliberately take another person's life, no matter what the situation; but the same principle means that failing to take reasonable measures to protect one's own life (without deliberately seeking to take another's) would be a kind of "self murder" which is also disrespectful to the source and giver of all life, Our Creator

** The measures a Christian might take would be individual to the situation and it would be arbitary to say "You can shove but not punch, you can kick but not pinch" The principle is not to resort to violence when it can be avoided and to understand that , as has been proved by many a case with Jehovah's Witnesses, a peaceful manner a good reputation, and a non-violent approach has often proved the best defense before all but the most manic and murderous attack and this is thankfully extremely rare. Faces with a psycopathic murderer intent on taking ones life, a Christian will understand that "thou shalt not kill" remains a principle to live and if necessary, die for.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 74 by JehovahsWitness]

There's no ban on escaping in scripture - escape all you want.

However what exactly do you mean by 'doing what is reasonably in your power to fend off the physical harm'? Do you by any chance mean using violence, shoving, punching or otherwise fighting the attacker?

[JP Cusick]

Do you subscribe to the "turn the other cheek" dictate each and every time without fail yourself?

I doubt that I do it so often or so well as I might do or could do it.

So I expect that I probably do fail at it, and unfortunately I have failed at it on times when I did do it as it is hard to do it correctly.

In my view turning the other cheek is not just about slapping or about physical violence, so that any time a person does us wrong then we are to aggressively defy the wrong by redoing the provocation.

As like some one steals from me then I give them another chance to steal again and then I confront the stealing without any violence or retaliation.

In this way to turn the other cheek can get very complicated and intense.

I think that I get better and better at this every time I try, so yes I do fail but I keep trying to get it done more correctly.

In my view that tactic gives me a real weapon against evil and so I see it as a privilege and a blessing to have this option, so I do subscribe to it as often as I can, and I hope that I do it every time that I get the chance.

[JP Cusick]

I don't abide by the doctrine and I don't believe in it's divine origins, but it doesn't mean I don't understand what this doctrine demands. And you're offering no alternative interpretation either.

I say you have misinterpreted the doctrine, and I gave you lots of details as to why your interpretation is misguided, as seen in my post #61 linked HERE.

You deny the Divine and yet you are the interpreter of the text = well no.

You say yourself that Jesus have said not to resist violence. So you just affirm my interpretation. You can personally view you not resisting violence as a superagressive act of defiance but this still leaves you with the fact that you're not resisting it. You allow yourself to be smacked around and robbed. Which is a very definition of doormat.

The Bible message and certainly the Gospel message is to defy the spiritual evil and not the physical person.

The physical violence whether it is a slap or sword or death is not our true enemy or opposition, while spiritual violence is to be defied by all cost.

See Gandhi called "tuning the other cheek" as = civil disobedience. See here SHORT VIDEO.

[alwayson]

Peter and Paul would not have viewed the 4 Gospels as scripture, as they were written long after they died.

[Zzyzx]

.

In what way are Jesus' teachings extraordinary? Can it be demonstrated that Jesus had great insight? What profound wisdom is there in Jesus' teachings?

Did Jesus teach anything more profound than what kindergarten teachers say frequently?

'Be nice to each other, share your things, don't fight, and don't throw stones'.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 77 by JP Cusick]

I say you have misinterpreted the doctrine, and I gave you lots of details as to why your interpretation is misguided, as seen in my post #61 linked HERE.

You deny the Divine and yet you are the interpreter of the text = well no.

You didn't give me any details as to why my 'interpretation' may be misguided. All you did is told me how 'eye for an eye' rule was meant to limit vendetta and then Jesus came and told everyone not to resist violence at all. I agree. Then you said how not resisting violence, turning the other cheek, is an agressive act of defiance. So be it. But it still doesn't change the fact that you're not supposed to resist violence. Not supposed to fight back and defend yourself.

The Bible message and certainly the Gospel message is to defy the spiritual evil and not the physical person.

The physical violence whether it is a slap or sword or death is not our true enemy or opposition, while spiritual violence is to be defied by all cost.

See Gandhi called "tuning the other cheek" as = civil disobedience. See here SHORT VIDEO.

I'm not going to watch any videos. What Gandhi? We are talking about scripture.

Gospel doesn't say anything about 'spiritual evil' as opposed to 'physical person'. What do you even mean? It flat out states 'do not resist an evil person' and then proceeds to give specific examples of a quite physical 'non-resistance'.