Is "turn the other cheek" a crock?

Post Reply New Topic

Matthew 5:38

Turning the other cheek doesn't mean being a doormat or letting other people take advantage of you. To assume that is to assume that only violence and aggression can solve problems. Turning the other cheek is being the bigger person who sees the bigger picture and doesn't escalate violence with more violence. It's a position of strength and kindness, not weakness.

True, it's not always possible or practical. We do what we can.

Ancient wisdom: The best battle won is the battle not fought.

If your enemies are not worth it, do not hurt them.

Use your words, not your fists.

If they make an ass of themselves in public to get to you, do not stop them.

I will assume such statement shouldn't be interpreted too literally.


I think... It's more to do with breaking cycles and not perpetuating them.
If not violence, then abuse or whatever constitutes as sin.

There's forgiveness, there's walking away, there's actually letting them get what they want.
But act itself is in discretion depending on the situation.


It's not merely doing nothing, being dormant, or enabling. That's still being 'in-character'.

But more like... Not feeding into whatever perpetrators beliefs.
Like... Non-reaction or breaking whatever character the perpetrator is expecting.


And yes, it's easier said than done.
I don't think it's as simple as engaging active pacifism, but that's the recommendation.

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.

People only have two cheeks.

Technically, people have four cheeks. The other two are further down south.

Both Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were deeply influenced by the principle of "turning the other cheek," and they integrated it into their philosophies of nonviolent resistance.

Gandhi adopted the concept of ahimsa (nonviolence) and Satyagraha (truth force or soul force), which were grounded in the idea of responding to violence and oppression without resorting to violence in return. He believed that nonviolence was not just a tactic but a powerful moral stance that could lead to true change and justice.

Dr. King, inspired by Gandhi and the teachings of Jesus, also embraced nonviolence as the cornerstone of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States. He believed that responding to hatred and violence with love and nonviolent resistance was not only morally superior but also more effective in the long run. King's approach aimed to win over the hearts and minds of opponents and to bring about social change through peaceful means.

For both leaders, the idea of "turning the other cheek" was far from being a "crock"—it was a guiding principle that shaped their approaches to fighting injustice and inspired movements that made significant, lasting impacts.

I'm curious how Genghis Khan would have responded to non-violent resistance.

I anticipate it would involve a whole lot of violence, unless he had reason to fear that his use of force would provoke an overwhelming violent response from those who sympathize with the non-violent resistance.

I like non-violence, but I believe it works best when it's backed by the option to use force. MLK's approach worked because people like Malcolm X became the alternative if MLK failed.

I think "turning the other cheek" is an idea with real but limited merit. Jesus is more reknowned for colourful rhetoric than for detail and precision.

I guess the idea is that you can use it to shame your aggressor into desisting or to make bystanders take your side. It can work, but not everybody can be shamed like that, and bystanders might not help you at all. And it's suspiciously handy for authorities to encourage people to be docile and easier to push around.

Me, I rarely turn the other cheek. I prefer the doctrine of minimum force.

Here's an episode from a show called Moral Orel dedicated to the phrase "Turn the other cheek". WARNING: This is not a kid's show! This is a mature show about a kid named Orel growing up in a WASP society. The series portrays him taking church sermons, bible quotes, and other religious lessons too seriously or out of context resulting in situations getting out of hand.

I've seen some Christians rationalize it thus: