Talk:Turning the other cheek

message: A new contribution adds: "Others counter this teaching can serve justice when used as the philosophy behind passive resistance as practiced by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King which the practitioner of this tactic turns other cheek in an effort to turn the aggressors' violence against them."
:That's just not true. Gandhi 'never' advocated non-violence, despite his false claims to the contrary. Any reading of his full writings reveals that he publicly and repeatedly advocated the use of violence, which he knew would include killings, to advance his cause. He deliberately set up resistance which would provoke and cause beatings and killings, and he stated that hoped that the one-sided attacks of the British against the Indians would cause a lot of public outcry and sympathy. That's not non-violence; that a cynical manipulation of the stupid masses to use beatings and deaths to further one's political goals. (Goals that, as we now know, led to a massive war.)  As for King, he publicly stated that he was not a pacifist, and that black people had the right to use force to defend themselves if they were attacked. Many Christians may have later come to interpret these men as following "turn the other cheek", but neither did so in practice. RK 01:26, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)
::I'm not following your statements. It sounds like you are saying that Gandhi advised his followers to perform non-violent actions in such a context as to lead to them experiencing violence, with the purpose of the violence being publicized. Are you saying that (if I even have the first part correct) by advocating non-violence which was likely or certain to lead to violence, you therefore claim he did not advocate non-violence, but rather violence ? I can't quite follow this. If he is urging the soldiers to shoot, then he is advocating violence. If he is urging the victims to be shot, then he is advocating non-violence. No ? -- ll
:::You understand me correctly. He was urging Indians to piss off the British, in the hope that the British would beat and kill many Indians. Gandhi then used this to promote his political agenda. This is the creation of violence for political purposes. Gandhi understood the psychology of the European and American public; causing the killing of his own followers made many people more sympathetic to the Indian cause. Still some people (like me) are very uncomfortable with this. There is a reason that Gandhi has many published critics; this is one of them. RK
Ok, but, isn't this the classic method of non-violent change ? Perform non-violence in such a way as to make public the violence against you ? That is to say, even if person X advocates going out and laying down in front of bulldozers, I don't think we can fairly say that person X advocates crushing people with bulldozers.
This contribution "The Other Cheekhttps://www.linkedin.com/pulse/other-cheek-some-vineet-kapoor" here says that the right example of 'the other cheek' would be the Dandi March (or the Salt Satyagraha). Violence or Non-Violence by the other party is not in your control, but you surely can organize a defiance to show your point of view not with an itent of taking advantage of the law but breaking it to a minimal extent that a note can be taken.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.124.73 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If a person says "Go out and incite British troops to mass murder Indians", and they do this repeatedly, and then some people do get killed by British troops, then yes, it is fair to say that the original person is guilty of inciting violence.  I don't know how to make this any clearer.  Repeating the word "peace" one thousands times in a row doesn't make one peaceful, especially when one is promoting violence, and this promotion actually results in massive casulties.  Unless you have some different definition of the word "peace".... RK 21:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know how to make this any clearer.  Gandhi did promote violence, and he admitted it.  He admitted that he hoped to provoke British troops to hurt and kill many Indians, in order to garner public sympathy.  One can argue whether this was good or bad, wise or unwise, but to argue against the basic facts is bizarre. RK 21:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think your analogy is too far off base to be useful here.  Your comparison is not a good analogue. RK
Saying Gandhi didn't advocate "nonviolence" limits the definition of nonviolence. Nonviolence has many facets, but I think a core function of nonviolence deals with dignity. Gandhi admired the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita, in which Krishna spends considerable time teaching Arjuna that he must go into war and kill his relatives. The message is non-action is the worst possible answer - far worse than violence. I think often people confuse nonviolence with non-action and they are profoundly different. Violence is closer to nonviolence than nonviolence is to non-action. A famous passage from Gandhi has someone writing him, "A bully in my town slapped me and I was embarrassed, What should I have done?" Gandhi responded "You should have slapped him back, but the real question is why did you let yourself feel embarrassed?" --ElgertS 23:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gandhi

message: Some have defended against this criticism by emphasizing pacifisim, arguing that this teaching can serve justice when used as the philosophy behind passive resistance as practiced by Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., in which the practitioner of this tactic turns the other cheek in an effort to turn the aggressors' violence against himself.
:This is just not true.  King never preached "turn the other cheek", and he stated that Negros (now called African-Americans) have the right to use physical force to defend their lives. This was a point he stressed after his famous meeting with Malcom X.  And while I am not a fan of the early or mid-life Malcom X, he was absolutely correct to say that Negros must not lie down and allow white racists to beat them and murder them.  Martin Luther King, Jr., did not take the murder of anyone lightly.  As for Gandhi, he publicly incited the mass murder of Indians in order to arouse public sympathy around the world.  This is not "turning the other cheek".  Only Gandhi's most syncophantic apologists can see promoting mass-beatings and mass-killings as "turning the other cheek." RK 22:07, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I have heard that under Roman law it was illegal to strike a servent more than once.  Is this true, and does it have anything to do with the origins of the expression?--71.141.109.130 23:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you familiar with Gandhi's pro-violent statements, or his demands that all of Europe's Jews kill themselves in order to shame the Nazis?  I am basing my criticism of him on his actual statements, and not on the silly movie which whitewashed his entire life. RK 21:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defenders of the literal interpretation

message: There is another interpretation of this passage.  The pharisees and religious leaders of the day had twisted the old testament passage instructing the magistrate (judge) to take "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as court-administered punishment, into justifications for personal revenge.  Jesus was countering the misconception of the law.  Also, to "strike the cheek" meant to severely insult someone - not to physically hit them.  Jesus was urging his followers to ignore insults and not start fights.
:Could you please provide a source?  Which group has this interpretation? RK
:The underlying greek means an open handed strike or slap. This is an insult even to this day in the mid-east. Jesus was talking about vengence and that is only for the LORD to hand out. The pharisees et al. were advocating making vengence a personal issue with "an eye for an eye" clearly against what God had told them in the OT writings. It was not supporting pacifism in any measure except when withstanding an insult. There are numerous OT and NT passages that support that a Christian or Jew can certainly practive defense of self and of family. Only taken OUT of context can you get pacifism.
If Jesus was really commanding his followers to submit to crime, why did he command them to take a short sword with them?  He knew they were packing heat, and did not discourage it.  For a Christian who believes the Bible to be infallible, Christ could not have commanded his followers to take a sword with them for protection, and then turn around and tell them to let a common criminal beat them to death for a few bucks.  In the old testament self-defense, even resulting in the death of an attacker, was justified.  When Peter struck the high priest's servant with a sword in defense of Jesus, Jesus did not command Peter not to resist an evil person, but told him that it was his "cup" to die that way, and that he could have called 10,000 angels to his defense.
I think this interpretation merits at least a mention, so I'm going to add it as an alternative mention.  If everyone comes to a concensus against it, I'm sure you will have no trouble removing it.
What do you think Jesus meant when he said "do not resist the evildoer?" just curious. TheTruth12 03:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is another interpretation. 

message: Walter Wink, of Spirituality & Health, has it right I think. 
Here is my analysis, written before reading his.
An alternate interpretation of the scripture.
Background:
At this time, a thief would have a hand chopped off. People ate from a common plate of food in the middle of the table. One used one hand to wipe after defecating and the OTHER hand to take food from the common plate. Thus a man with one hand was not welcome to eat with others. Usually, the eating hand was the right hand.
Thus if one were struck on the right cheek by the back of someone's right hand, it was an insult and a provocation.
What happens if one turns the OTHER cheek, presumably to be struck with the OTHER hand?
I believe if you were struck AGAIN with the OTHER hand, it would be a grievous insult and a major provocation.
This leads me to conclude that the gesture of turning the other cheek is a challenge to the striker. It says, "Look you jerk, you hit me. I'm raising the stakes. If you hit me again with the OTHER hand, you will demonstrate that you are a major jerk, unworthy of any admiration or status."
This is thus, a non-violent act intended to SHAME the other person, perhaps even into backing down and apologizing. It is good social policy since it leaves everyone involved with their teeth and eyes intact.
Does that make sense to you?
Similarly, the act of offering your shirt as well as your coat leaves you naked in the street. This was a big deal in those days, and even today. Again it challenges and shames the other person.
:And it does not promote pacifism nor rule out self-defense.
If you are nonviolent to challenge or shame someone, are you not still nonviolent? TheTruth12 03:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And an interpretation as a challenge to the striker. 

message: i think that unless citations are added, this section should be removed. Where is this coming from? what evidence do we have that Jews before Jesus taught to turn the other cheek, and what book says that Jesus didn't originally come up with it?TheTruth12 02:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  historical origins 

message: Here is my opinion - I think it is odd that people can read "do not resist evil" and think that it means something other than not resisting evil. And even go on to say that interpreting it to mean what it clearly says plain as day in blunt language is taking it out of context. People go to great lengths to pretend that it means something other than the obvious interpretation.TheTruth12 03:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  literal interpretation 

message: It means you have to be a vesel for the wrath of others because that's a kind of good. If you are stong and their anger is absorbed by you then you have done good to this world. 
Besides, do you really think someone that is supposed to be KILLED because people HATE HIM would have a different philosophy of life?
Therefore, it's "literal" in the way of helping others calm down and at the same time it's the very thing that explains in a way - or another way - why he gave his life.
This is interesting and rather close to the nonviolent perspective, which intends to take negative energy (anger, rage) both from yourself and your opposition and channel it in a positive manner to beneficially impact all parties involved. Another goal of nonviolence is to provoke violent reactions out into the open where people can see "institutionalized" violence for what it is rather than accepting it. --ElgertS 22:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My interpretation. 

message: "Turn the other cheek" is a verb phrase. I've moved this page to "Turning the other cheek" which is a noun phrase, as per WP:VERB. - ∅ (∅), 19:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: An article has been started called Christian pacifism and a new category :Category:Christian pacifists. Editor inputs are welcome. nirvana2013 17:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian pacifism 

message: I think there should be a section in the article about references to "turning the other cheek" in popular culture (e.g. the song Where Is the Love? by the black eyed peas) I don't know any other references to it but I'm sure there are others. --George 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: Shouldn't there be a section in the article about how this philosophy was not in any way influenced by any part of the zeitgeist of the period, for example other philosophical thought, nor could it possibly have been a philosophical expression of a political reality in the influence of Rome imposing 'peace' whether it was desired or not, and that anyone who suggests such things is 'not mainstream', a 'tiny minority', 'discredited' and so forth.  I just feel that's lacking from the article at the moment. Hakluyt bean (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something missing 

message: "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. 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. 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."
Where's the evidence for this? There should be at least some sort of scholarly source. As of now, there's too many claims in this paragraph about 1st century anthropology and not enough anthropological evidence to back it up. 124.168.169.169 (talk) 11:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence for the figurative interpretation

message: I don't know where to begin to explain why.
"Also, When Jesus said turn the other cheek he was saying, when someone yells at you dont react harshly. Just listen to their plight. Eye for an eye tooth for a tooth. Jesus was not rejecting this. He understood it. The Jews thought God meant what someone does to you do back to them. But it means whatever you do to someone God will do to you. Its Karma. You reap what you sow. Do unto others what what you would have them do to you. Because what you do to others will come back on you good and bad."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.50.230.128 (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please someone hurry to re-write/erase this. 

message: I am somewhat surprised by this entire article and the lack of scholarship in it. The article consists mainly of personal interpretation and speculation. The whole notion of karma (Buddhist) is just thrown in, somewhat arbitrarily, and "turning the other cheek" is linked in a rather convoluted way to Gandhi's philosphy of Satyagraha (which directly inspired strategies/tactics of both Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela/Walter Sisulu's ANC Youth League) but which is only tangentially linked to this topic.
The bulk of the article (which currently has the tone of "some think this" and "some think that") should really identify the main scholarly interpretations and provide references. Without this, everything else is "noise".
89.243.70.222 (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Major rewrite required

message: "Public nudity was viewed as bringing shame on the viewer, not the naked, as evidenced in Genesis 9: 20-27:"
This argument seems really absurd to me. I'm certain it contradicts existing Jewish law. Can we have a source on this? In fact, all of the arguments in the "figurative" section are really shoddy. Even in this spin, Jesus is advocating a form of passive resistance (getting "oppressors" into trouble by forcing them to break obscure Roman laws) as opposed to direct violent confrontation (e.g. Zealots). I agree with ElgertS about the lack of scholarship. 
71.198.211.141 (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Figurative?

message: I just clicked on this from a link at JuanCole.com, and wanted to comment. We have to distinguish between (a) scholarly interpretations of what Jesus, and/or the author(s) of the biblical verses, meant and (b) Christian theological interpretations. On (a), the article cites a handful of sources (without giving page numbers!) which may or may not represent current scholarly opinion. Biblical scholarship is full of speculative theories which are promoted by one person. How can we know whether these interpretations have gained wide acceptance? Also, since the citations are so vague (again, no page numbers are given), I have no great confidence that these theories are actually supported by the sources given (one of which apparently starts from the Bar Kokhba revolt). On (b), the article makes some attempt to cover Christian pacifism, but neglects more mainstream views (see Just War). --Dawud  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.180.224 (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Low Academic Quality

message: This article doesn't even use the term, "literal" literally. I'm not a scholar but I sure know that the extremely short bit under that heading is just one obscure interpretation.  Also really unclear what you mean by "straightforward." If you're not going to do it right, just don't do it, man.
Genepoz (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Literal? Straighforward?

message: I improved the "Interpretations" headings and the material under them, so this article is at least somewhat more accurate now. But I have a question: should Turning the other cheek#Nonviolent resistance interpretation continue to cover the verses about handing over your clock and going two miles, or should it be trimmed down to just discussing the actual subject of the article? I decided to leave the extra material in because the additional verses are context for the idea of turning the other cheek, and because these verses do get discussed together on blogs, etc., but I'd be interested in other opinions. Dreamyshade (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including discussing of related verses? 

message: Not being emotionally affected by negative feedback(like a slap to the face) is annoying and psychopathic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.146.20 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not being emotionally affected by negative feedback is annoying and psychopathic 

message: Maybe I'm wrong, but this section of the article is very opinionated, uses unprofessional writing voice, and lacks citations.
(I have a lot of respect for the Wikipedia community, but I'm new to it, so feel free to correct or advise.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.65.170 (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 2.4

message: Shouldn't there be more sources here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.91.2.98 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretations 

message: I am not a Christian so this would be better suited to someone who is more familiar with the new testament Gospels. I think there should be at the very least about 2 citations in the first paragraph. One citation should indicate the source of the quote/ saying/ topic of the page. The other should indicate a good source that interprets the meaning.
I am not in dispute with either, by the way. I simply think it should meet with Wikipedia principles.--Hypernator (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The very first paragraph on this page has no citations at all 

message: First biblical source of turning the cheek is in lamentations, 3:30 -
    "He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him"
This should be added to the article under "Scriptural references" ShaiGoldman18 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Lamentations