Grant_us_eyes
No bio...
User ID: 1156
Grant_us_eyes
4d ago
I do not think this is a valid interpretation of the text. How do you interpret "Love your enemies" or "pray for those who persecute you"?
I don't know, I'm not a bibical scholar. I did say my knowledge was limited, and I'd imagine the various translations for the Sermon on the Mount is rife with a whole host of implications; I've heard enough griping about how 'meek' in modern language isn't what Jesus was referring to for his time to eye the modern translation of the bible with skepticism.
Where do you see your interpretation being modelled by Jesus or his disciples in the rest of the text? Where do they force their opponents to break the law?
Well, I don't know. Again, I'm not a bibical scholar. Armed and active resistence displayed in scripture isn't common; most of it is filled with rhetorical brilliance and navigating an unstable political situation.
But that doesn't matter, because in that instance Jesus was arguing for passive resistence, the equivalent of lawfare for the time. Which is smart; going active against a numerical opponent isn't exactly wise...
Peter cuts an ear off one of the men arresting Jesus; Jesus heals the man on the spot. How does that mesh?
Peter was kitted up to strike a roman legionaire sent to arrest a Son of God. (Which god? The romans didn't know.) That implies he was armed and capable; not exactly the image of a pacifist group. As for why the heal, well, you could argue alot of interpretations, depending on how you view things, and I don't consider such that important.
And while not breaking the law, Jesus had no issue resorting to violence as needed, as he did for the money changers, or noting what should be done for those that harm children.
Grant_us_eyes
4d ago
I'm guessing you're a yankee, assuming you're American.
I'll say 'Yes sir' and 'Yes ma'am' to the janitor and maid, or anyone similar. It's basic politeness. So I'd say this is a definite regional thing.
Grant_us_eyes
4d ago
Dance classes supposedly have a very twisted ratio when it comes to men and women, but I've heard this can vary from location to location.
I'd like to learn myself, but, sadly, the evenings they offer for classes are already filled up.
Personally, I wish there was a local book club where I live; the one I attended a while back before covid was surprisingly fun, but nowadays I'm not willing to drive 50-miles one way to attend such a thing.
Grant_us_eyes
4d ago
I was referring to the forced conscriptions Romans could do on civilians.
Key point, they could conscript you for one mile, but anything beyond that was illegal. Hence, 'go with them two miles'.
Grant_us_eyes
4d ago
The past month or so has made me suspect that Europeans(in general) are obsessively attuned to class in a way that America(in general) isn't.
So they default to class, whereas we default to stereotypes.
It's a subtle distinction, but I think it's very telling, and results in monstrously different assumptions and outcomes.
Grant_us_eyes
5d ago
The original interpretation of the phrase was to mean 'force your enemy to respect you'.
Scripture is best looked at as if it was a philosophy text, meant to be interpreted in the historical context of the time. A lot of scripture is like this; for example, 'If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles' is often interpreted to mean that Christians should meekly and gladly submit to slavery - ah, no. Law of the time allowed for Roman soldiers to force conscription to carry military equipment, but only for a mile.
Meaning scripture isn't telling you to meekly submit, but instead 'If someone seeks to enslave you, force them to break the law'.
As for why modern interpretation of scripture tends to lean this way... Look, I'm no Historical Biblical Scholar, but I'd have to say there's a horde of reasons with no single golden bullet. I could probably go off on a semi-long, barely incoherent rant about that, really.
My experience with school districts is that anything Principle-level(and sometimes Assistant-Principle) and above are pure political appointees.
Old-style politics, in the form of whom you know. And if you're lucky, they're somewhat competent at thier job. If not...
So it doesn't really surprise me that he got hired. He knew the right people, and they didn't care about his bona fides.
More options
Context Copy link