Defense is reasonable reaction to (one hopes) reduce the injury… good not only for the defender, but for the attackers, who take upon themselves the responsibility (guilt) for damage done.

Retaliation willfully raises the level of violence and
increases the possibility of injury. Retaliation is not reactive. There is a choice. A whole range of possible responses, in fact–that retaliation or revenge erase.

I’m not a Christian, but do believe religious texts are rich sources for interpretation–for thinking about we want to live, what kind of persons we want to be, what kind of society we want create for ourselves. It seems that these words attributed to Jesus lend themselves to the distinctions I’ve made. They don’t make sense applied to a reactive situation–where someone is initiating violence against us. It does, when you have space and time to consider alternatives–where demonstrating good will can relieve the other side of the need for violence.

This applies to Martin Luther King’s use of non-violence. A demonstration in the name of justice, or protesting injustice, grows out of a rational decision to place oneself in potential danger. The reaction has been thought through and determined in advance. Injury is accepted as the price of exposing the injustice, and making it clear to everyone who witnesses the violence, who is the aggressor. The rational acceptance of injury has then the additional power of inviting the opponent to change, by posing no threat, by standing for another way, above all–by not assuming the worst, by crediting the opponent with the possibility of change, change of heart is given more room.

I’ve seen this happen. Going back 45 years… anyway, I hope you don’t mind my thoughts. Few things are more important than figuring out how to respond to violence and aggression. Thinking about the words of men like Jesus, like Dr. King raises a little closer to the kind of person they thought we might become.

and i agree with you, jesus was radical and resistant… in fact i agree even more, citing that his execution is a result of the perceived “bucking” as sedition by the roman “powers that be.” i just think we’d disagree over his methodology, which is cool. he just seems to rebuff peter too strongly for me to assent to something contradictory…

and while i would not also want to over-romanticize jesus, i admit though that for me it’d be reductionistic to only view him as a meek man. for me–and i only speak for me–he would have to not only “exemplify” what’s best about humanity but also transcend it. for me, again, much more than just being a man he was (and still is for me) very much god…

his humanity, and thus is ability to be both sympathetic and empathetic to me being in this world is what makes my christianity sustainable….moreover, his divinity though and his ability to transcend my perspective keeps me in the quest to self-transcend. in other words, if i were to reduce him to just being the meek-mannered man that wouldn’t be enough for me to remain in the sect…but this is really more an argument of belief…i just know that i wouldn’t be able to risk all on an historical moralist (which is what he’d otherwise be)…but that’s not incontrovertible for some…..this is just my conviction on the matter:)

now i do sorta despise proof-texting, for that could prove interminable and affronting…so i’ll stay in the speculative realm and not go theological in trying to limn out jesus’s nature…

i will say, since you adduce him, that though respected by many i’m sure, dr. black’s notes certainly don’t offer me any peremptory statements to what i simply proffer (imperfectly even) as one of jesus’ philosophical tenets based on what i see as indicative of his ethics….

but again, let me conclude by saying that, again, it’s just me….

like dennis miller says, “i could be wrong…”

…uh, well, yeah…. could be (smiles)….all things are possible (lol)…

but i love the dialogue…

Its Luke 22:35-38. In this passage, which immediately precedes the Gethsemane event it appears that Jesus instructed his disciples to get ready for whats coming. In this passage (v38) we see Jesus affirming that weapons are needed. And it is also in this chapter that we see weapons being used.

My statement about the method of slapping is taken right from one of Dr. Black’s lectures.

I try not to “hyper-romanticize” Jesus. When I read the text I don’t see a pacifist, I see a meek man – one with strength under control exemplifying when to fight, how to fight, and who to fight. When reading the New Testament in the Greek we have all noted the heavy military language. For this reason, I believe that any person who reads the Biblical text for what it says and takes into consideration the context and the audacity of the One who says it will by all means find a leader that completely for “bucking.”
But again we all read the text, and any text, from a starting point.

I hope this was easier to follow. Then again… I probably shouldn’t be responding while at work.

XOs,
Lil Sis

and a couple of things i’d like to submit on your comments, sis; namely, if one is a Black Panther then philosophically they probably would already be at odds with a jesus ethics in the first place…and two, when jesus was sending out disciples two by two, i believe he said take nothing with you (essentially saying, i’d construe, that you are in god’s care by my authority for your provision and protection), but even without referring to the Scriptures now i’m hard-pressed to recall any instance where jesus says “get it, girl” to paraphrase…

in fact in the gethsemenee (sp) event he told peter, “those who live by the sword shall die by sword…”

peter’s impetuousness, in fact, is often chided in the Scriptures…though his courage often was rewarded…

so yeah, i guess for me i think the day will determine my adherence to the passive mode…that’s my issue…but i’m sure the best mode is to heed to the paliative assertion by which might says, “God will vindicate..”

so say more if you wish sis, i just think i got lost in tryin to follow…

as always though i jus lov ur passion, lol…and u too..

me

The reward that Jesus is talking about takes place on earth not heaven… you get to make a fool out of people. Actually… you allow people to make fools of themselves.

So yes… the text is quite literal, but we have to know the culture and the audience to whom Jesus is speaking. Also, I suppose the question to ask is which would you have been – a Freedom Fighter or a Black Panther. Because you are indeed the starting point for how you read scripture. For a Panther this scripture would seem oppressive. For a Non-Violent Freedom Fighter this scripture is a guide.

Jesus was for protecting one’s self. I don’t have a Bible readily available but there is a text where Jesus says to his disciples (paraphrase) “when I sent you out before I sent you out with nothing, no money bag, no sword, no change of clothes. But now, if you have money get it. If you have a sword get it. Basically, get your s-*- because its about to go down.” And notice — Peter took him seriously!