Before you "Ask"
My religious beliefs mostly align with the ACELC and the LCMS.
Before asking, watch this video. If you still want to ask your question, go ahead.
Click here to see what factors influence how quickly I'll respond to your ask or submission.
Hi! My name is Katie Young and I'm a Christian (LCMS) conservative tea-drinking film-directing nerd. Check out my films at kayfilms.com and my eBooks on iBooks and Amazon.
I am unashamedly Pro-Life. The unborn are human and their lives have value equal to that of any other human being. If you are pregnant and feel like abortion is your only option, click here to find resources and organizations that can help you make a different choice. If you are pregnant or post-abortive and need help, you can also contact me any time and I'll do everything I can to help you.
On the tea note: I post about tea and sometimes post codes for $5 gift certificates to Adagio! To see my tea posts and any current gift codes, click here! If you're buying from Adagio for the first time and want $5 off, let me know and I can post a new code for you (I get points, you save money, everyone wins).
did you know canada has bagged water cause I didn’t and I live here
CANADA YOU CAN’T JUST KEEP PUTTING BEVERAGES IN BAGS
Hey, only countries with a government get to criticize us.
How many of you fuckers saying you won’t drink beverages in a bag, but have had this, which is also in a bag?
thATS A POUCH
RESPECT THE POUCH
Me: I posted a link to a video of abortion images and someone said they didn't like it because they eat meat and don't want to see images of animals being gutted. I pointed out that if they're eating meat, hopefully they see a difference between the life of an animal and the life of a human. If they didn't, they hopefully wouldn't be eating animals.
Roommate: Well at least people who do believe that [human life and animal life are equal] are consistent -- in one of two ways.
Me: Right, they either don't eat meat, which is understandable, or they're...well...
Roommate: They're Hannibal!
Both: [Raucous laughter at the fact that understandable and Hannibal rhyme]
This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.
THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you.
I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.
For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”
All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.
Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?
Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.
This is interesting.
Although another aspect to why He was considered a threat is that His claim to be God threatened the religious order in the area and could have caused conflict during the biggest religious holiday of the year. He went to Jerusalem just before Passover, and Passover is when basically everyone who could would go to Jerusalem. During this religious holiday centrally important to the Jewish faith, a “sect leader” claiming to be God, gathering a large following (by this point in His ministry, he regularly gathered crowds numbering in the thousands), and challenging the religious leaders could have caused a rebellion that would have reflected very poorly on Pontius Pilate, the Roman government official in charge of the area. This is why Pilate refused to take sides on the issue and gave the decision to the mob that the religious leaders riled up.
And yes, Jesus was by no means passive. When He saw people exchanging money and selling animals for sacrifice in the Temple, he literally flipped their tables and made a whip of cords which he used to drive them out.