You don't have to be a Bible believer to answer this question because it can apply to anyone. Just curious how you would react to a situation & why.
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Human nature is eye for eye. In most instances I try to turn the other cheek at first. You know, "fool me once ..uh....shame on you......fool me twice ,, uh .... uh....you can't be fooled a second time"
I tend to take it for a while, but once I've had enough, then I've had enough.
I voted for cheek , but that is qualified.
I'm getting really tired of turning the other cheek.....
Eye for an eye. No doubt. Up front. The meek shall inherit nothing.
I'm getting really tired of turning the other cheek.....
________
I hear you, dog.
Eye for an eye. No doubt. Up front. The meek shall inherit nothing.
______________________
that's not true.. the meek shall inherit the earth... it's just that someone will take it away from them, rather quickly!
Semi asks "What kind of reactor are you to a BAD situation?"
My careers’ experiences have taught me that those who turn their cheeks as a defense mechanism in bad situations wind up becoming professional victims. There are times when turning ones cheek is preferable to a "eye for and eye" reaction, but a bad situation as I define it isn’t one of them.
BTW, I don’t define "turning the other cheek" as necessarily being meek. Out of legal necessity LEOs do it most of the time else our hospitals and graveyards would be overflowing instead of our prisons.
Is it not a bad situation any time someone has to use the "eye for an eye" or "turn the other check"? I can't think of any reason it would be a good situation. I shouldn't have used the word bad in my question, but by the time I thought of it, it was to late to change it.
An interesting history to this:
A literal interpretation of the passages, in which the command refers specifically to a manual strike against the side of a person's face, can be supported by reference to historical and other factors.[3] At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance.[4] 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.[5] The other 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 demanding equality.
That IS kinda neat, C.p.
I've heard of that before.
Where I'm from however, ya turn the other cheek and they'll take THAT ONE, too.
Same here...
"You have played the part of a ****ed scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it."
~ Nathan Bedford Forrest to Braxton Bragg
I betcha John Wayne & Tommy Lee Jones wouldn't turn the other cheek.