Wow think of all the cool parcels this person gets. Life hack!
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.
all this precision is fishy to me
can anyone offer a description of what literally “turning the other cheek” would look like?
your head always has a right-most surface. there’s no contortion that would make a backhand strike from that side impossible. you can turn your face to the left and get struck on the ear or base of your jaw, or to the right and get struck face-on.
this interpretation of the advice to “turn the other cheek” as being a literal strategy for making it difficult for someone to choose to strike you with the preferred side of their preferred hand seems like it’s trying too hard. cheeks don’t do the thing required for it to work. I think maybe it just means what everyone thinks it means.
how to make friends
I am both of them.
jesus fuck dude is she supposed to change your diapers for you too
"I just want a woman to see past my the veener of low self esteem I maintain to minimize the effort I am expected to extend to relationships, to pander to the core of entitlement and intrinsic worthiness that fuels my belief that someone should be happy to take care of me while I offer them nothing, sheerly because my contentment and approval are valued by default."
juicebox seriously fuck you
Sometimes when I’m thinking negatively about masculinity, I get this guilty nagging thought like, how would this make my father feel.
There’s this idea that our fathers are our models for everything we come to believe & feel about masculinity. How we feel about men is how we feel about our dads. I never really thought about that critically, at least in the context of me and my dad, until about five minutes ago.
I had one of those negative thoughts about masculinity a few minutes ago (something about “real men” being a bad ideal), and then I had that reflexive guilt, and then I surprised myself by telling my reflexive guilt no you know what my dad was never just some man to me
He wasn’t my model for masculinity, he didn’t teach me by patterning manhood.
He’s a good person. He taught me by being kind and thoughtful and compassionate and witty and occasionally irascible and impatient and imperfect and strong and weak and human. And so did my mother.
And those characteristics and others do intersect with gender norms, and those intersections did impact my development, I’m not saying I was accidentally raised in a utopia free from normalizing gender roles.
I’m just saying I just now realized it isn’t a betrayal of loving men in my life to see masculinity as a negative construct, because that doesn’t have to be the axis along which we make our connection.
I don’t know where I can follow that thought to, but it’s an immediate relief.
just a few seconds after the wildest, most violent downpour I’ve been in since Hurricane Juan. it was short but scary, like Wednesday Addams. it caused a lot of damage in the neighbourhood, like Wednesday Addams.
my Syracuse-only collaborations bootleg, “Sir, I Accuse!,” has 22 underheard gems from this stack. I’m about to post a link. Physical only, all hand-crafted.
People usually only include the first 2 panels
people usually don’t include credit for cartoonist KC Green, who made this as part of his Gun Show webcomic.