The True Meaning Of Turn The Other Cheek

Originally posted by FMF
How should the local people react to these things? If RBHill means that they should "turn the other cheek" what does that actually mean in this case?

I got the impression that he meant he thought they were overreacting and they
need to let the authorities handle this and they should get over their desire for
revenge before more violence breaks out. However, you may have to ask him
for a more accurate understanding to be clear.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I got the impression that he meant he thought they were overreacting and they
need to let the authorities handle this and they should get over their desire for
revenge before more violence breaks out.

Don't the local people have the right to demonstrate, to take revenge, and to take action that might help persuade the foreign power to leave their country? If the roles were reversed, and it was in America, and Americans were the victims of a massacre by someone from a base belonging to an occupying Afghan army, would you be counselling your fellow Americans to "get over it" and not to "overreact"?

Originally posted by FMF
Don't the local people have the right to demonstrate, to take revenge, and to take action that might help persuade the foreign power to leave their country? If the roles were reversed, and it was in America, and Americans were the victims of a massacre by someone from a base belonging to an occupying Afghan army, would you be counselling your fellow Americans to "get over it" and not to "overreact"?

Apparently, you are in the mood to argue, so I will just leave it to RBHill to
argue with you, if he wishes to do that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Apparently, you are in the mood to argue, so I will just leave it to RBHill to
argue with you, if he wishes to do that.

Well, this is an excellent way of discussing "The True Meaning Of Turn The Other Cheek". If you don't want to explain or justify what you have said, or if you are unable to discuss how the concept of turning the other cheek applies in this case, then that is fine. It's a genuine moral issue as well as a very topical one. It wouldn't surprise anyone, I'm sure, to find you are unwilling/incapable of addressing something serious like this, even when it is directly connected to a thread you yourself started.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Who says its the cheek on the face?

What cheek does the scripture refer? I thought the term used was "turn" and not "spread".

Originally posted by FMF
Well, this is an excellent way of discussing "The True Meaning Of Turn The Other Cheek". If you don't want to explain or justify what you have said, or if you are unable to discuss how the concept of turning the other cheek applies in this case, then that is fine. It's a genuine moral issue as well as a very topical one. It wouldn't surprise anyone, I'm sure, to ...[text shortened]... ng serious like this, even when it is directly connected to a thread you yourself started.

You do not want to discuss, but you want to argue. It is clear that the accused
soldier is in custody and our Government has apologized for the incident and
will take appropriate action against the accused soldier. According to the Holy
Bible, vengeance belongs to the Lord and He will handle it probably through the
government officials in this case. So the afghans should cool it to allow time
for the legal system to work. If it does not, then they have the right to protest
for proper justice. This in no way means they do not have the right to defend
themselves. But our Government is not attacking the Afghan people and I will
not argue the truth of my statement on this matter, which I know you wish to
do.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You do not want to discuss, but you want to argue. It is clear that the accused
soldier is in custody and our Government has apologized for the incident and
will take appropriate action against the accused soldier. According to the Holy
Bible, vengeance belongs to the Lord and He will handle it probably through the
government officials in this case. S ...[text shortened]... le and I will
not argue the truth of my statement on this matter, which I know you wish to
do.

Didn't Panetta say the guy could get the death penalty.

Originally posted by moon1969
Didn't Panetta say the guy could get the death penalty.

The soldier, whom the military has not named, has yet to be charged. He turned himself in to his fellow Americans after the killings and could face the death penalty, Panetta has said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/14/world/asia/afghanistan-shooting/index.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
You do not want to discuss, but you want to argue. It is clear that the accused
soldier is in custody and our Government has apologized for the incident and
will take appropriate action against the accused soldier. According to the Holy
Bible, vengeance belongs to the Lord and He will handle it probably through the
government officials in this case. S ...[text shortened]... le and I will
not argue the truth of my statement on this matter, which I know you wish to
do.

If the roles were reversed, and it happened in America, and Americans were the victims of a massacre perpetrated by someone from a base belonging to an occupying Afghan army, would you be counselling your fellow Americans to "get over it", "turn the other cheek", and not to "overreact"?

Originally posted by FMF
If the roles were reversed, and it happened in America, and Americans were the victims of a massacre perpetrated by someone from a base belonging to an occupying Afghan army, would you be counselling your fellow Americans to "get over it", "turn the other cheek", and not to "overreact"?

Of course.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Of course.

Even at the risk of being seen as a collaborator by fellow Americans who want to see an end to the occupation by a foreign power?

Originally posted by moon1969
Didn't Panetta say the guy could get the death penalty.

But not if it is established that he was insane, or that he'd suffered a mental breakdown that was shown to be equivalent to insanity, presumably?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Sorry, for confusing you two. But of course I disagree with both of you in
bascially the same ways. I do try to follow Christ as betst as I can. But'surely you are not saying I must be as good as Christ in presenting the Good news. I
believe, if someone gets mad at me when I present the turth of a spirituall
matter, then that is there problem. I am just going to think I did a good job.

So no I'm not saying anyone can do as Jesus did unless you are perfect which you are not.
You're still not getting the point but I hope someday you will.



Ephesians 4:22
The Message (MSG)

20-24 But that's no life for you. You learned Christ! My assumption is that you have paid careful attention to him, been well instructed in the truth precisely as we have it in Jesus. Since, then, we do not have the excuse of ignorance, everything—and I do mean everything—connected with that old way of life has to go. It's rotten through and through. Get rid of it! And then take on an entirely new way of life—a God-fashioned life, a life renewed from the inside and (((( working itself into your conduct as God accurately reproduces his character in you.))))

My suggestion for you is to read this scripture over and over and get the meaning of it!!!!!

We as Christians have the respondsability to represent Jesus and the message he teached and in the manor he teached. One can have all the knowledge in the world in his head but if he does not practice what he preaches, he is a hypocrite.

Originally posted by FMF
Even at the risk of being seen as a collaborator by fellow Americans who want to see an end to the occupation by a foreign power?

Apples and Oranges. 😏

Originally posted by galveston75
So no I'm not saying anyone can do as Jesus did unless you are perfect which you are not.
You're still not getting the point but I hope someday you will.



Ephesians 4:22
The Message (MSG)

20-24 But that's no life for you. You learned Christ! My assumption is that you have paid careful attention to him, been well instructed in the truth prec ...[text shortened]... ge in the world in his head but if he does not practice what he preaches, he is a hypocrite.

I have paid cose attention to his actions of making a whip to drive out the money
changers and turning over the tables. I paid attention when he called some people
names, like hypocrites, serpents, brood of vipers, fools and blind guides.