Loving your enemies and turning the other cheek. I'm finding this very difficult
#11
(05-23-2010, 08:58 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote: Joshua, I figured that's what you probably meant (I should have said so in my post), but I thought it was good to clarify because it seemed mistman was worried more about a tendency toward a vindictive anger which wasn't spurring him on to any kind of righteous action, but which left him simply stewing, embittered, entertaining vengeful feelings, and complaining. That quote alone left open the question as to what is a good reason for righteous anger which St. Thomas answers.

:tiphat: Aye, sir!
Reply
#12
(05-21-2010, 05:00 PM)James02 Wrote:   Very sober

I have never met a sober Russian  :laughing:
Reply
#13
Mistman,

I recommend you a daily spiritual exercise. 1 minute, before you get up.

Imagine you are dead, and like everyone else you met Jesus. He is not alone, he embraces someone whom you learned to hate all of your life. He, the hated one ask you: do you want to come with us? The only other place is the hell.

Reply
#14
These replies are pretty good, very uplifting, especially Joshua's.  :)

The intent of this post was whether anger at both the ideas of the New World Order and it's adherents was justified. I feel they are, but it would sure be a heck of a lot easier if I had the approval of the Church and the saints behind me. it isn't really that I have a personal problem with irrational venting if people are curious. (Not that I am implying sainthood either. I've had my moments).  :pray: 

glgas:
"I recommend you a daily spiritual exercise. 1 minute, before you get up."

I'll give this a chance. Thanks. 
Reply
#15
Even righteous anger can become unrighteous if harbored, I think. There is no way one can cling to anger and be disposed to loving one's neighbor or forgiving one's enemy. It really messes up your prayer life too.

I also think that "turning the other cheek" means forgiving personal wrongs. All the same we should stand up for justice and expect somewhat to be persecuted. Jesus taught this in the beatitudes, while adding "rejoice and be glad!"
Reply
#16
It also helps to remember that the Church never officially taught pacifism as binding doctrine for all believers. If Jesus' words applied to us in only an absolutely literal sense, God through the Church would have taught us so. But instead we are taught that we are allowed to defend ourselves and others and that we must stand up for the Faith, and to forgive wrongs as well. One searches Church teaching in vain to find a unilateral requirement of pacifism for all Christians.

I have heard it explained once that Jesus gave this commandment to His followers in order to help them deal with the Romans. Evidently, Romans could physically strike non-Romans who offended them. Given that Palestine was occupied territory, a Christian could, and probably would, get pushed around on account of the Faith. According to Roman custom, a single slap was permissible; more than that and the non-Roman was justified in fighting back. So, Jesus told them to turn the other cheek so as not to get slapped around by the Romans, who would also probably take extreme action to suppress Christians who fought back too often if slapped more than once for offending Roman citizens, possibly enough to destroy the fledgling Church. Given the fate many Christians later met in Rome prior to Constantine, it seems pretty plausible.

I'll try to at least find the post my friend made about this, if anyone is interested. It's on CAF, not here.
Reply
#17
(06-24-2010, 08:41 AM)Lycorth Wrote: It also helps to remember that the Church never officially taught pacifism as binding doctrine for all believers. If Jesus' words applied to us in only an absolutely literal sense, God through the Church would have taught us so.

Right. I don't think "turning the other cheek" is to be taken in the literal sense. Same with "moving mountains" and "plucking out one's eye." Hyperbole was a common rhetorical device for the ancient rabbis.  :)
Reply
#18
(06-24-2010, 08:41 AM)Lycorth Wrote: I have heard it explained once that Jesus gave this commandment to His followers in order to help them deal with the Romans. Evidently, Romans could physically strike non-Romans who offended them. Given that Palestine was occupied territory, a Christian could, and probably would, get pushed around on account of the Faith. According to Roman custom, a single slap was permissible; more than that and the non-Roman was justified in fighting back. So, Jesus told them to turn the other cheek so as not to get slapped around by the Romans, who would also probably take extreme action to suppress Christians who fought back too often if slapped more than once for offending Roman citizens, possibly enough to destroy the fledgling Church. Given the fate many Christians later met in Rome prior to Constantine, it seems pretty plausible.

I would be interested in seeing that substantiated by some historical evidence. That's very interesting.
Reply
#19
(06-24-2010, 05:15 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: I would be interested in seeing that substantiated by some historical evidence. That's very interesting.

Same here; I'll contact my friend and see if he can provide some sources.
Reply
#20
(06-24-2010, 05:25 PM)Lycorth Wrote:
(06-24-2010, 05:15 PM)INPEFESS Wrote: I would be interested in seeing that substantiated by some historical evidence. That's very interesting.

Same here; I'll contact my friend and see if he can provide some sources.

Yep, interesting theory.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)