Why All the Pageantry?

[POI]

If God wanted to forgive us, why not just forgive us? He's God.

Why clone himself, send that human to earth, and have this god-clone be martyred/murdered to atone for human sin (like a sheep) -- only to have this martyred/murdered clone almost immediately ascend back up to heaven -- (a place of perfect bliss anyways)? Seems like a lot of unnecessary-ness. It also does not really seem like an "ultimate sacrifice" anyhow.

For Debate:

(again) If God wanted to forgive us, why not just forgive us? He's God. If no one 'deserves' God's true grace anyways, then just forgive all. What's with all the extra pageantry?

[Purple Knight]

The tale of the unforgiving slave, turn the other cheek, and give him your coat who takes your tunic, are three examples of not doing anything back that all have to be excused on context.

Context always matters. Why call that being ‘excused’ on context?

Because it is. Jesus only speaks against fighting back, never for it. And Exodus is before Jesus, isn't it? I never disputed that Jews are allowed self-defence. I think Christians are not.

If I’m understanding you, then the punishment seems useless and, therefore, should be let go of for the good of all involved. Punishing this individual isn’t going to serve the purpose of creating a fair and just society.

Right. I think there are potentially examples of punishment being useless. Now, if I were a dictator, I would sit here and lie to you and say there aren't any, because if my People heard me say that, the unscrupulous ones would seek out those edge cases so that they could wrong others and get away with it. So there's a second layer to the idea that punishment can potentially be pointless, and if too many people accept that punishment can be pointless, punishment is necessary even in those cases. But as a conversation on a forum with a couple dozen active members, it's not going to do anything bad if I admit there are potential cases where punishment is pointless, and in those cases, if I were the wronged party, and it were up to me, I wouldn't punish. I do think such cases are rare, though.

I do think we can make choices that will affect our emotions. But forgiveness isn’t a feeling. You can forgive someone even while still struggling emotionally with resentment.

I agree some consequences aren’t given, perhaps in many cases, no consequences because love may change them more than the punishments would. If one is already ready to repent, really sorry for what they did, punishments and rejection could lead them further down that path, while love could change the direction of their life. Each case is different. As to giving wrongdoers consequences, it’s all tied with the passages in the Bible on seeking justice.

I've been around, "I forgive you, buuuuuut...." people. They like refusing to give consequences so they can hold it over the other person's head. That's why I always insist on consequences, and after that I let it be over. I don't see the "I forgive you, but," as necessarily dishonest. Sometimes it probably is, but I see it as potentially a consequence of not dealing with the reality of resentment in a way that allows closure. Some problems can be fixed by ignoring them. Some cannot. Even though the vast majority of the division there is whether or not it is a purely emotional issue, resentment falls into the opposite category it should, because if you've got someone running around that you can't entirely trust because they keep doing stuff and not making it up to you because you prefer that, then that becomes an information problem, not an emotion problem. In other words, in a world of liars and cheats, consequences are the only way you know you can trust someone, and you do need that information.

The person who is genuine, will always accept consequences that make it worse for them to have done the offending act, because that allows them closure too, and it proves they can be trusted. The person who just wants to get away with it, will always find a way to make the person giving consequences look bad. And in my experience, people only trust the latter sort. This should be reversed. But that requires a lot of mental effort and introspection that people in general do not possess.

I would ask to be sent back to Earth to experience anything I dished out, before I would ask for forgiveness, for sure on other people, because the idea that I should respect them was never in question, but if I have to be every chicken I've eaten, every cockroach I've stepped on, the only part of that I'll call unfair is that the other people I'm supposed to respect, who know more about morality than I do, outright told me that rights are for humans, and only humans. And for all I know, plants have feelings too.

Regardless of why you're supposed to do it, you're supposed to respect the human pecking order and kowtow to bullies and thieves.

What verse(s)?

Do you think the guy slapping people, or the person who sues you to take your cloak, is likely to be low down on the pecking order? To me this sounds like rich merchants knowing the law will favour them, because they have bought that favour, and teaching them, yeah, if you're a bully, don't even worry about buying the courts, just bully people, and everyone should submit to it.

"Use this precious silver to become an honest man." Yes you're right about that, and I don't dispute the validity of that story. I just feel extra bad for the version of Frenchie who didn't steal, and maybe wanted to start the same business Jean Valjean did, but got edged out by someone who was bold enough to break rules if he needed to. This hypothetical other Frenchman doesn't exist in that story because it doesn't make a good story, but the real streets are teeming with him, forgotten, left out, because he didn't break a rule and call attention to himself. He just begged and pled for things to change, and we all ignored him, casting our precious silver before thieves instead.

There is enough for them and the thief who can change and the thieves we try to help that never change. Christians (too few of them) make up the most of those who try to help them, as far as various figures I’ve heard over the years, but there are plenty of Christians (myself included at times) where we ignore and “deserve” to treat ourselves (once again) with that nicer vehicle and nicer vacation and nicer house and nicer vacation house, blah, blah, blah.

I know there are people who do this unthinkingly. I also think being stingy serves a purpose. There are ways to give back without trusting thieves. In a capitalistic system, which does have benefits, that involves paying people fairly for what they do. It involves calling that "will work for food" guy's bluff. It's not about the person who wants to be honest. It's about the consequences to everyone when, out of moral fear, we give valuables to every thief and many of them don't want to better themselves and prefer to steal more, then end up stealing from someone who can't afford it, because we thoughtlessly enabled their parasitism. If you are absolutely sure Jean Valjean doesn't want to steal anymore, go ahead, but the reality is that the thousands of years of selection for honeyed words and silver tongues, means that unless you know someone really, really well, the guy you do trust is probably the bad one.

Christianity doesn’t say to reward the thief. It says to confront the injustice of the system of one who is suing you for your clothes because that is all you have. Christianity includes consequences on unloving actions. It also includes mercy at times. Punishment alone is not a good motivator.

You don’t do the same thing, you don’t release your own badly edited rubbish to get them canceled, but I think you would expose their deeds. When you turn the other cheek you are saying “we are equals, I’m not inferior to you”. When you give them your clothes, you are naked, and you are exposing the injustice of what was done to shame them and the system.

So calling them a liar when they are, is not an insult? That's like returning the slap because they actually deserved it. But the whole point is, don't do it, even if they do deserve it. So that means don't insult people (here meaning, hurt their reputation) even if it is fully justified. That's why considering a slap as an insult, and the idea that you ask for another slap instead of returning one, fails. And you think society is looking poorly on the person who took a naked man's last set of clothes? Give me a break. Society looks on him as clever and laudable, and looks on the naked man as human refuse to be ridiculed. Maybe in the past it was different, but now that the deadly combo of anonymity and capitalism has run for a few generations, the veneer of "oh, poor so-and-so" is paper-thin. People pretend to sympathy harder, but they have none. It's been selected out.

Submission is about putting the other person’s needs ahead of your own. Not what they want, not the injustice they want, but what they, as an image of God, needs. The husband needs to be stopped not just for her good (but definitely that, as well) and the good of other women (but definitely that, as well) but also his own good.

Wanting abuse to stop isn’t vengeance. Wanting the husband to be tortured or killed or something like that does probably get into vengeance.

Knowing what is better for another is not necessarily arrogance, it can be love. But I’m also not saying the wife gets out of that situation mainly for his good, it’s probably mainly for her own good, but also for his possible good.

That's why, ultimately, if you get to consider that you know abusing others will hurt a person's soul, all this put-him-first-and-be-a-dog stuff just reduces to the same sort of reciprocity the Christian part of the Bible doesn't teach (but the Jewish part does, I admit). That's why it has to add that you can't judge, to get it to work. Somebody had that exact thought you just had, and realised that it gave people a plausible excuse to demand better treatment, so they put in being totally nonjudgmental as well. This is technically an ad hominem case but I don't think ad hominem is always a fallacy. When someone is just making a moral claim from on high, that is the main case when it's not, and when you get to consider how likely that claim is to come from nothing or from really believing that is righteous, as opposed to how likely it is to come from someone with an ulterior motive.

It’s wise to submit to omniscient omnibenevolent beings. This is ‘blindly’ in one sense (we don’t fully understand why X is the best choice), but not ‘blindly’ in another because of what we know of God’s goodness. That goodness won’t go against what we know is wrong. Abraham didn’t know child sacrifice was wrong, but God works within that knowledge to bring him to greater knowledge that child sacrifice is wrong because it’s not about appeasing God through sacrifices, but trusting in God to provide for us.

I have that trust for everyone who makes a moral claim. Even if it looks seedy, I am not the one who knows about morality and I have to trust. But if it's blatantly false I have to question it, and this is the only way a person who does not have a conscience can trim out some of the false moral claims made out of maliciousness.

I know rewarding thieves over those who don't steal, is wrong. It's not because of me; not because I might lose something I prefer not to lose but can nevertheless actually part with. It's because of the next person he'll steal from. A world where people don't return insults, don't hit back, and let people strip them naked because they think it shames their attacker and not them, is not one I want to live in, and it's not just that it's not good for me - it's not good for all those other people I'm supposed to be putting first, either. If we submit to the Bible's let-them-beat-you-you're-a-dog submissiveness, and lose awareness of our own good, we're not qualified to help others pursue their good, either. That's why I think being a little selfish has to be necessary. The moral political Left and Christianity has this in common. If we selflessly say things like, we should want to do the right thing even without reward or even with punishment, then why not punish that guy for doing rightly? That's what he ought to want, right? It proves him the most moral, doesn't it?

And there are examples of people telling God no. I think God sets up those interchanges so that people will take what they know about God and “stand up to God”. Abraham haggles with God about how many are needed to save Sodom and Gomorrah. Some commentators think Abraham could have kept going and God might have relented, although I’m not sure about that, since God is a God of justice and Sodom and Gomorrah are places of extreme injustice. Moses does it in Exodus 32. God says to let him destroy the Israelites for the golden calf episode, but Moses says don’t do it but to remember his covenant.

Pleading and getting someone to change their mind (or simply take into account that plea) is not the same as standing up to someone asking for something morally wrong. My take on the haggling is that it only happened to get Abraham to go in and rescue Lot. God knew there was only one good guy in there. The topic specifically about this story and whether God can change his mind fueled my thinking here.

No, I believe someone can be sorry they hate someone. I don’t think forgiveness is (1) not giving consequences, (2) not resenting, or (3) both. Someone who is trying not to resent is forgiving, whether consequences are given or not. I don’t think Christianity looks are people who do wrong in only a good light or people wronged in bad light. I think Christianity looks at all in love, which includes the reality of the situation and wanting what is best for that person and those around them.

There is no twisting [punishment into revenge] if they're simply the same act. People might not be able to help that they feel good about their attacker being punished, but if you're for justice, you understand that doesn't mean the attacker should have no consequences. You can try not to feel good about it but that doesn't mean you'll succeed.

Yes, but even trying shows that one isn’t being vengeful; that is overcoming their emotions without eradicating their emotions. That sounds like forgiveness to me.

If forgiveness is just what I think of as trying to forgive, I guess that's fair, but I will still ask: Is there another term besides overcoming without eradicating one's emotions, for the thing being attempted and failed at? It's going to make further discussions a lot easier and this is an issue I get into a lot here.

It's giving me trouble, because normally, if I used the turn of phrase you did, I would be able to point to some thing I actually did not do out in reality. I wanted to ring that guy's neck, and I didn't do it, so I overcame my emotions (did not do the thing I wanted to...) without eradicating them (...but I still want to). With this thing, it seems like a pure emotion from the get-go, so it's hard for me to apply the same paradigm to it. So it seems less meaningful that I am fighting the urge, because having the urge at all seems to be the thing in question. The best I can do is imagine that I am watching an execution in anticipation and am able to curb myself and stop being happy about it by the time the guy's head actually comes off. The gore would do it for some people, so maybe there's something fundamentally moral in that ick reaction.

While being unable to hurt someone is better than people choosing their freedom to hurt others, that’s not the full equation. Being unable to love is worse than people choosing their freedom to love others.

It serves the purpose of love. Without free will there is no love. Having love would matter to a loving God. And that loving God will even try to use the suffering we cause for each other for the good of all involved.

You said this yourself, about loving someone being sometimes giving consequences. I'm not good at love and I admit it, but I do feel like I love my cats unconditionally. But even unconditional love is not totally unconditional. I'm not talking about a very nasty cat that pees everywhere, bites in anger, and tries to kill me in my sleep. I'm talking about a rock. You can ask someone to be understanding when looking at the worst possible behaviour, and love in spite of that behaviour, but what you are saying is, that being still has some quality that is worthy of love. If not, why not ask people to love rocks? Now, think of a rock and add nothing but hate and malice to it. Do not add anything good. It may have become conscious (but actually maybe not since it does not possess the ability to love, free will, as you say) but no quality was added that made it more worthy of being loved. I may be unintentionally throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this analogy, and if you can pick it apart and show how I'm doing that it would actually be appreciated, but I have to be fundamentally correct that if love was necessary when no quality of the thing being loved existed to justify that love, we ought to love rocks. And that just seems very reductive of the idea of universal unconditional love.

[The Tanager]

Because it is. Jesus only speaks against fighting back, never for it. And Exodus is before Jesus, isn't it? I never disputed that Jews are allowed self-defence. I think Christians are not.

Taking into account context is proper interpretation, not an “excuse”. Jesus talks about fighting back in different ways than fighting back with vengeance. Jesus called Christians to follow the Hebrew scriptures.

I've been around, "I forgive you, buuuuuut...." people. They like refusing to give consequences so they can hold it over the other person's head.

That’s not forgiveness, no matter what word they use.

the only part of that I'll call unfair is that the other people I'm supposed to respect, who know more about morality than I do, outright told me that rights are for humans, and only humans. And for all I know, plants have feelings too.

The term ‘rights’ means different things to different people, but even many of those who don’t believe animals have “rights” believe humans should act morally towards them.

Do you think the guy slapping people, or the person who sues you to take your cloak, is likely to be low down on the pecking order? To me this sounds like rich merchants knowing the law will favour them, because they have bought that favour, and teaching them, yeah, if you're a bully, don't even worry about buying the courts, just bully people, and everyone should submit to it.

It’s about not respecting that order or playing into it by trying to come out on top of the pecking order, but shaming the whole order.

I know there are people who do this unthinkingly. I also think being stingy serves a purpose. There are ways to give back without trusting thieves. In a capitalistic system, which does have benefits, that involves paying people fairly for what they do. It involves calling that "will work for food" guy's bluff. It's not about the person who wants to be honest. It's about the consequences to everyone when, out of moral fear, we give valuables to every thief and many of them don't want to better themselves and prefer to steal more, then end up stealing from someone who can't afford it, because we thoughtlessly enabled their parasitism. If you are absolutely sure Jean Valjean doesn't want to steal anymore, go ahead, but the reality is that the thousands of years of selection for honeyed words and silver tongues, means that unless you know someone really, really well, the guy you do trust is probably the bad one.

The verse isn’t about trusting thieves or even blessing them, but shaming the justice system of the “thief” who is suing you for the last thing you have within the religio-social structures of a people who claim to follow God.

So calling them a liar when they are, is not an insult? That's like returning the slap because they actually deserved it. But the whole point is, don't do it, even if they do deserve it. So that means don't insult people (here meaning, hurt their reputation) even if it is fully justified. That's why considering a slap as an insult, and the idea that you ask for another slap instead of returning one, fails. And you think society is looking poorly on the person who took a naked man's last set of clothes? Give me a break. Society looks on him as clever and laudable, and looks on the naked man as human refuse to be ridiculed. Maybe in the past it was different, but now that the deadly combo of anonymity and capitalism has run for a few generations, the veneer of "oh, poor so-and-so" is paper-thin. People pretend to sympathy harder, but they have none. It's been selected out.

Calling them a liar? You are calling on them and the justice system to do what is right, what the Law they are supposedly following says to do. That’s not calling them a liar or insulting them, but appealing to how things are supposed to be in a way that isn’t vengeful. Jesus was talking about ways to try to change things and fight back without resorting to the same things they were doing. That’s the point. You may not think it a wise way to go about things, but Jesus (I think) was saying that this idea of I’m going to play the game and just try to be the one on top is definitely not a way to live.

That's why, ultimately, if you get to consider that you know abusing others will hurt a person's soul, all this put-him-first-and-be-a-dog stuff just reduces to the same sort of reciprocity the Christian part of the Bible doesn't teach (but the Jewish part does, I admit). That's why it has to add that you can't judge, to get it to work. Somebody had that exact thought you just had, and realised that it gave people a plausible excuse to demand better treatment, so they put in being totally nonjudgmental as well. This is technically an ad hominem case but I don't think ad hominem is always a fallacy. When someone is just making a moral claim from on high, that is the main case when it's not, and when you get to consider how likely that claim is to come from nothing or from really believing that is righteous, as opposed to how likely it is to come from someone with an ulterior motive.

I’m not sure I followed your train of thought here. It’s not putting him first and being a dog. It’s about seeking good for all involved. Not what they think is good, but what is actually good. I’m a bit confused with the rest of this part.

Pleading and getting someone to change their mind (or simply take into account that plea) is not the same as standing up to someone asking for something morally wrong. My take on the haggling is that it only happened to get Abraham to go in and rescue Lot. God knew there was only one good guy in there. The topic specifically about this story and whether God can change his mind fueled my thinking here.

Yes, those are different. I don’t think God asks people to do something they know is morally wrong. Abraham didn’t go and rescue Lot here. There is no indication that he was expected to do it. The talk was of God doing it.

If forgiveness is just what I think of as trying to forgive, I guess that's fair, but I will still ask: Is there another term besides overcoming without eradicating one's emotions, for the thing being attempted and failed at? It's going to make further discussions a lot easier and this is an issue I get into a lot here.

I’m not sure.

It's giving me trouble, because normally, if I used the turn of phrase you did, I would be able to point to some thing I actually did not do out in reality. I wanted to ring that guy's neck, and I didn't do it, so I overcame my emotions (did not do the thing I wanted to...) without eradicating them (...but I still want to). With this thing, it seems like a pure emotion from the get-go, so it's hard for me to apply the same paradigm to it. So it seems less meaningful that I am fighting the urge, because having the urge at all seems to be the thing in question. The best I can do is imagine that I am watching an execution in anticipation and am able to curb myself and stop being happy about it by the time the guy's head actually comes off. The gore would do it for some people, so maybe there's something fundamentally moral in that ick reaction.

Having the urge would seem to come less and less the more we act in defiance of it, but some things (I think) are just naturally with us and harder to overcome. Still, morality is about willing (and doing unless kept by some greater power from doing) the right thing, ultimately, rather than feeling the right way.

You said this yourself, about loving someone being sometimes giving consequences. I'm not good at love and I admit it, but I do feel like I love my cats unconditionally. But even unconditional love is not totally unconditional. I'm not talking about a very nasty cat that pees everywhere, bites in anger, and tries to kill me in my sleep. I'm talking about a rock. You can ask someone to be understanding when looking at the worst possible behaviour, and love in spite of that behaviour, but what you are saying is, that being still has some quality that is worthy of love. If not, why not ask people to love rocks? Now, think of a rock and add nothing but hate and malice to it. Do not add anything good. It may have become conscious (but actually maybe not since it does not possess the ability to love, free will, as you say) but no quality was added that made it more worthy of being loved. I may be unintentionally throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this analogy, and if you can pick it apart and show how I'm doing that it would actually be appreciated, but I have to be fundamentally correct that if love was necessary when no quality of the thing being loved existed to justify that love, we ought to love rocks. And that just seems very reductive of the idea of universal unconditional love.

What would it mean to love versus hate that rock?

[Purple Knight]

It’s about not respecting that order or playing into it by trying to come out on top of the pecking order, but shaming the whole order.

Well then it requires the people around have the slightest sense of honour and righteousness. We can argue until we've been strangulated about whether people in general see the thief as cool and clever because he comes out on top, or if they see him as unnecessarily mean. I don't think I've ever met anyone who sees real shame in exploiting someone else like that, unless they're pretending to it, to shame others. But regardless, if it's as you say, it requires the people around to have a sense of actual justice, as in, the thief should not strip someone naked. The thief is wrong to do that, and they must see it. It requires the people around to be judgmental.

Calling them a liar? You are calling on them and the justice system to do what is right, what the Law they are supposedly following says to do. That’s not calling them a liar or insulting them, but appealing to how things are supposed to be in a way that isn’t vengeful. Jesus was talking about ways to try to change things and fight back without resorting to the same things they were doing. That’s the point. You may not think it a wise way to go about things, but Jesus (I think) was saying that this idea of I’m going to play the game and just try to be the one on top is definitely not a way to live.

But that's what you're doing when you retaliate. If turning the other cheek means don't return insults and has nothing to do with physical violence, it means you can't fight back when someone defames you. It means you can't call them a liar, even if they are. You may think your insult is true and justified, but so what? Don't retaliate. This is what "Please hit me again," (offer him the other cheek) means if the slap was supposed to be an insult. Don't retaliate and continue it means don't retaliate and continue it. Aren't Christians also called upon not to gossip? "He spreads lies about me," is returning gossip with gossip. It is not offering the villain the other cheek.

I’m not sure I followed your train of thought here. It’s not putting him first and being a dog. It’s about seeking good for all involved. Not what they think is good, but what is actually good. I’m a bit confused with the rest of this part.

If you know that "seeking the good for all involved" means that guy's soul will be ruined the same as yours if he hurts others, then it's in his best interest not to let him hurt you. But "turn the other cheek" says, quite literally, let him hurt you again. You may think this shames him, but it doesn't. It just makes him look cool, because he came out on top. Modern people don't look on the guy getting stomped on as righteous. They look on him as stupid.

Having the urge would seem to come less and less the more we act in defiance of it, but some things (I think) are just naturally with us and harder to overcome. Still, morality is about willing (and doing unless kept by some greater power from doing) the right thing, ultimately, rather than feeling the right way.

That's what I think 100% but that's not what the Bible seems to teach. If you look at a woman lustfully, you've already committed adultery with her in your heart. Don't covet your neighbour's stuff. This gets really hard in a world that is more unequal by the day. In a few more decades it will probably be tantamount to asking people's stomachs not to rumble when they look at the businessman eating his bluefin tuna sushi and lobster tail, which would buy a hundred packets of Ramen for the hungry person.

What would it mean to love versus hate that rock?

Maybe I'm getting the same answer as you when I say nothing. What does it mean to hate a rock except to want to break it, and we break them all the time. We call it mining. Nobody doing it is hateful, at least not of the rocks they break. You can't hate a rock. You also can't love a rock. And this is because there's nothing about it that makes it worthy of either emotion.

Let me give you an example of how this unilateral, universal forgiveness fails. I've thought about it for some time and I think I've come up with an airtight case.

Bob: I lent you $40 last week, remember?
Steven: Yeah but you also lost that $50 bet we made.
Bob: So? Forgive me my debts.
Steven: Okay. Will you forgive mine? I'm willing to forget about the $10 and call it even if you are.
Bob: Nope. Gimme the $40.
Steven: *grumble* Fine, here's your $40.
Bob: You don't seem too happy about that. Looks like you're holding a grudge. Tee-hee! Can't join God with that attitude.
Steven: And what about you? You didn't forgive me anything...?
Bob: So judgmental. Besides, I forgive you your debts.
Steven: After you made me pay you.
Bob: Yep. And I'm not holding any grudges either. I'm really happy, actually. I love you, man.

Just imagine that in the tale of the unforgiving slave, the "unforgiving" one shook the other slave for money they mutually owed one another, his goal being not payment, but for both parties to call it even. Imagine the one who owed him money said, "After all that with the master forgiving you over $500? You're not getting my $50. Now pay up your $40."

[The Tanager]

Well then it requires the people around have the slightest sense of honour and righteousness. We can argue until we've been strangulated about whether people in general see the thief as cool and clever because he comes out on top, or if they see him as unnecessarily mean. I don't think I've ever met anyone who sees real shame in exploiting someone else like that, unless they're pretending to it, to shame others. But regardless, if it's as you say, it requires the people around to have a sense of actual justice, as in, the thief should not strip someone naked. The thief is wrong to do that, and they must see it. It requires the people around to be judgmental.

Success, in the sense of getting the desired outcome, would need that, yes. I think it could be misleading to use “judgmental” here, since there are two senses of judgmentalism we’ve talked about, where Christians are called to be judgmental in one sense but not the other.

But that's what you're doing when you retaliate. If turning the other cheek means don't return insults and has nothing to do with physical violence, it means you can't fight back when someone defames you. It means you can't call them a liar, even if they are. You may think your insult is true and justified, but so what? Don't retaliate. This is what "Please hit me again," (offer him the other cheek) means if the slap was supposed to be an insult. Don't retaliate and continue it means don't retaliate and continue it. Aren't Christians also called upon not to gossip? "He spreads lies about me," is returning gossip with gossip. It is not offering the villain the other cheek.

I don’t think that follows. You can fight back without treating them as inferior, without running over their rights, without defaming them. Telling the truth, exposing the injustice is not insult and defamation and gossip. “Please hit me again” would be offering him the same cheek again, not the other one.

If you know that "seeking the good for all involved" means that guy's soul will be ruined the same as yours if he hurts others, then it's in his best interest not to let him hurt you. But "turn the other cheek" says, quite literally, let him hurt you again. You may think this shames him, but it doesn't. It just makes him look cool, because he came out on top. Modern people don't look on the guy getting stomped on as righteous. They look on him as stupid.

No, it’s not literally saying let him hurt you again. It says don’t play his game, whether you can come out on top or not because that game destroys you, even if it seems to have temporary benefits. It doesn’t matter what people around you think. If they are playing that game, then they’ll view him as coming out on top. If they aren’t playing that game, then they’ll view you as coming out on top. There is a mix of that in the crowds around us.

That's what I think 100% but that's not what the Bible seems to teach. If you look at a woman lustfully, you've already committed adultery with her in your heart. Don't covet your neighbour's stuff. This gets really hard in a world that is more unequal by the day. In a few more decades it will probably be tantamount to asking people's stomachs not to rumble when they look at the businessman eating his bluefin tuna sushi and lobster tail, which would buy a hundred packets of Ramen for the hungry person.

And I think that is what the Bible teaches. Jesus seems to have been confronting people who thought (1) I can hate my brother as long as I don’t actually murder him, (2a) I can fantasize about other women to fill a perceived need I have while ignoring my wife and her good as long as I don’t actually have sex with them, (2b) I can reject my responsibility to care for this wife, (3) I can try to use oaths to get what I want from people, (4) I can seek vengeance as long as I don’t do too much, and (5) I should do bad to those who do bad to me.

with a call of greater love to (1) seek reconciliation so you no longer hate your brother, (2) treat women as more than objects for your own pleasure and love your wife well, (3) do what you say, (4) without vengeance, radically seeking their good and giving generously those in need, and (5) do good to even your enemies.

Let me give you an example of how this unilateral, universal forgiveness fails. I've thought about it for some time and I think I've come up with an airtight case.

Bob: I lent you $40 last week, remember?
Steven: Yeah but you also lost that $50 bet we made.
Bob: So? Forgive me my debts.
Steven: Okay. Will you forgive mine? I'm willing to forget about the $10 and call it even if you are.
Bob: Nope. Gimme the $40.
Steven: *grumble* Fine, here's your $40.
Bob: You don't seem too happy about that. Looks like you're holding a grudge. Tee-hee! Can't join God with that attitude.
Steven: And what about you? You didn't forgive me anything...?
Bob: So judgmental. Besides, I forgive you your debts.
Steven: After you made me pay you.
Bob: Yep. And I'm not holding any grudges either. I'm really happy, actually. I love you, man.

Just imagine that in the tale of the unforgiving slave, the "unforgiving" one shook the other slave for money they mutually owed one another, his goal being not payment, but for both parties to call it even. Imagine the one who owed him money said, "After all that with the master forgiving you over $500? You're not getting my $50. Now pay up your $40."

Debt between two people is just one thing, not separate things. Bob owes Steven $10. Steven can choose to forgive that. If Bob says, no and you owe me $40, then he’s just incorrect. Steven is under no obligation to give Bob $40 or any money. Steven can then give Bob more money, if he wants. He should definitely consider any money given to Bob in the future as charity, not a loan. If he gets paid back by Bob, wonderful, but don’t expect it. No reason to hold a grudge for Steven, and if Bob does, then he’s the one with the wrong attitude, judging Steven absurdly. No reason for Steven to be “judgmental” towards Bob not giving him $10 (he's obviously got bigger problems he's dealing with if he can't make good on his bet here that Steven should pray for changes in Bob's heart for Bob's own good), but Steven should know, moving forward, what to expect from Bob.

[Purple Knight]

Success, in the sense of getting the desired outcome, would need that, yes. I think it could be misleading to use “judgmental” here, since there are two senses of judgmentalism we’ve talked about, where Christians are called to be judgmental in one sense but not the other.

You said it was about that outcome. You said it was about shaming the thief for stripping someone naked. I give the Bible more credit than that. I don't think these morals taught therein are conditional on outcomes. I think they claim to be actually, truly, right.

I don’t think that follows. You can fight back without treating them as inferior, without running over their rights, without defaming them. Telling the truth, exposing the injustice is not insult and defamation and gossip. “Please hit me again” would be offering him the same cheek again, not the other one.

Turning the other cheeks is about not fighting back. If you say the slap you're expected not to return is an insult, then you can't insult in return. People can move slightly even if you turn your head.

No, it’s not literally saying let him hurt you again. It says don’t play his game, whether you can come out on top or not because that game destroys you, even if it seems to have temporary benefits. It doesn’t matter what people around you think. If they are playing that game, then they’ll view him as coming out on top. If they aren’t playing that game, then they’ll view you as coming out on top. There is a mix of that in the crowds around us.

There might be but I've never met anyone in real life who doesn't ascribe to the pecking order. It's at least worth considering that the people who understand the pecking order are not playing any games, they're just right, and the people who think it's a game they can opt out of, are actually just stupid. It's worth considering that when it really is a game, you can't impose consequences on the other person for not participating. I can decide not to play Monopoly with you and I won't lose anything. I can "decide not to play" the dominance game but it kind of refutes that concept if I still wind up with broken bones. The difference between deciding not to play Monopoly and thinking that you can "decide not to play" the food-obtaining game is that you'll starve to death. The difference is the real physical consequences. Obtaining food is not a game, and if you stop participating and still experience physical consequences, it's real, not some game.

And I think that is what the Bible teaches. Jesus seems to have been confronting people who thought (1) I can hate my brother as long as I don’t actually murder him, (2a) I can fantasize about other women to fill a perceived need I have while ignoring my wife and her good as long as I don’t actually have sex with them, (2b) I can reject my responsibility to care for this wife, (3) I can try to use oaths to get what I want from people, (4) I can seek vengeance as long as I don’t do too much, and (5) I should do bad to those who do bad to me.

There are obvious instances of the Christian Bible teaching that you must forgive your brother seven times seven times (which means infinity according to some) and if you say the Hebrew stuff is still valid, the obligations to wives and women you get pregnant are detailed. You just said morality was ultimately about what you do, and your first example of hating your brother is a pure emotion and should ultimately be excused as long as you don't do anything to the one you hate. I don't know where you're getting the oaths thing.

Debt between two people is just one thing, not separate things.

Not if one person is called to forgive debts while the other is just not going to do it. You can in fact prove so when the debts occur at different times. If the two are always exchanging debts, but Steven is always being called to forgive it, while Bob insists upon repayment, even if they accumulate equal debts, unilateral expectation to forgive debts means that the flow of money will be one-way. When Bob calls for repayment, Steven might say, yeah, but you just owed me the same amount last week and I forgave it, and Bob can say, well, you forgave it, so it's done, are you holding a grudge, trying to throw it back in my face, unwilling to actually start from scratch? Deciding never to make bets with Bob, or loan to Bob, can be seen as holding a grudge and holding it over his head.

A debt that is expected to actually be repaid (debt that Steven accumulates) is different than a debt that it is expected will be forgiven (debt that people owe Steven).

[The Tanager]

You said it was about that outcome. You said it was about shaming the thief for stripping someone naked. I give the Bible more credit than that. I don't think these morals taught therein are conditional on outcomes. I think they claim to be actually, truly, right.

I agree with you. I’m sorry for the confusion. Perhaps I should have said it is about exposing the thief’s ways whether or not it actually leads to them (or the justice system) feeling shame and a change in their actions. I meant shaming them in that sense, where their shameful actions are confronted, even if they don’t actually feel shame about it.

Turning the other cheeks is about not fighting back. If you say the slap you're expected not to return is an insult, then you can't insult in return. People can move slightly even if you turn your head.

If you didn’t fight back, you wouldn’t turn the other cheek to them, you’d cower your head, say “yes, sir”, grovel, that kind of stuff. Returning the insult would be slapping them. It’s fighting back, but in a different way than they are doing. Yes, they could move slightly to slap you again, but the point of what you just did wouldn’t be lost on them.

There might be but I've never met anyone in real life who doesn't ascribe to the pecking order. It's at least worth considering that the people who understand the pecking order are not playing any games, they're just right, and the people who think it's a game they can opt out of, are actually just stupid. It's worth considering that when it really is a game, you can't impose consequences on the other person for not participating. I can decide not to play Monopoly with you and I won't lose anything. I can "decide not to play" the dominance game but it kind of refutes that concept if I still wind up with broken bones. The difference between deciding not to play Monopoly and thinking that you can "decide not to play" the food-obtaining game is that you'll starve to death. The difference is the real physical consequences. Obtaining food is not a game, and if you stop participating and still experience physical consequences, it's real, not some game.

There are definitely pockets that don’t ascribe to that pecking order (“game” wasn’t meant literally), both Christian and non-Christian. We are called to spread the areas where you don’t have to play that “game” for your basic needs. I don’t think Jesus is faulting the people who have to play that game for their basic needs; he’s faulting the game and wanting people to work towards changing it for those who have to play that game to survive.

There are obvious instances of the Christian Bible teaching that you must forgive your brother seven times seven times (which means infinity according to some) and if you say the Hebrew stuff is still valid, the obligations to wives and women you get pregnant are detailed. You just said morality was ultimately about what you do, and your first example of hating your brother is a pure emotion and should ultimately be excused as long as you don't do anything to the one you hate.

The seventy times seven seems to be a call back to Lamech in Genesis, who killed a young man for wounding him. He then says “If Cain is to be avenged seven times as much, then Lamech seventy-seven times!” I think Jesus is saying the Christian’s forgiveness should be as radical as Lamech’s vengeance. One shouldn’t go into things thinking “when can I finally stop being loving towards someone.” That doesn’t mean you don’t remove the one who keeps breaking their word from you; you can forgive while getting out of that environment.

and if you say the Hebrew stuff is still valid, the obligations to wives and women you get pregnant are detailed.

The Hebrew scripture does allow for divorce, but it seems people were reading a text like Deut 24:1 to include more reasons for divorce than Jesus understood the scriptures to allow for.

You just said morality was ultimately about what you do, and your first example of hating your brother is a pure emotion and should ultimately be excused as long as you don't do anything to the one you hate.

I don’t think love and hate are pure emotions in the ancient Jewish context. I think they are intricately tied to what one does towards the person. After telling us to not hate our brother, he talks about not insulting them, calling them “fool”, leaving your gift at the altar in order to reconcile with your brother and then returning to present your gift before God.

I don't know where you're getting the oaths thing.

It’s the next one in the list in Matthew 5, where the others are talked about.

Not if one person is called to forgive debts while the other is just not going to do it. You can in fact prove so when the debts occur at different times. If the two are always exchanging debts, but Steven is always being called to forgive it, while Bob insists upon repayment, even if they accumulate equal debts, unilateral expectation to forgive debts means that the flow of money will be one-way. When Bob calls for repayment, Steven might say, yeah, but you just owed me the same amount last week and I forgave it, and Bob can say, well, you forgave it, so it's done, are you holding a grudge, trying to throw it back in my face, unwilling to actually start from scratch? Deciding never to make bets with Bob, or loan to Bob, can be seen as holding a grudge and holding it over his head.

A debt that is expected to actually be repaid (debt that Steven accumulates) is different than a debt that it is expected will be forgiven (debt that people owe Steven).

This doesn’t change that debt between two people is just one thing. If Steven forgave Bob’s debt and then later “borrows” money from Bob, then at that point Steven owes Bob $40 or whatever. Steven should not then say, yeah but I forgave your debt earlier, so you have to do the same. If that is Steven’s attitude, then he shouldn’t have asked to “borrow” the money, but asked if Bob would just give him some money. If Bob wants it paid back, Steven should pay it back, if at all possible, without the guilt trip. In this scenario, Steven is holding a grudge.

But deciding never to make bets with Bob or loan money to Bob isn’t necessarily holding a grudge or holding it over his head. If it is loving in that instance to give Bob money, then any money repaid should be seen as great, but not expected.

[Purple Knight]

I agree with you. I’m sorry for the confusion. Perhaps I should have said it is about exposing the thief’s ways whether or not it actually leads to them (or the justice system) feeling shame and a change in their actions. I meant shaming them in that sense, where their shameful actions are confronted, even if they don’t actually feel shame about it.

If you didn’t fight back, you wouldn’t turn the other cheek to them, you’d cower your head, say “yes, sir”, grovel, that kind of stuff. Returning the insult would be slapping them. It’s fighting back, but in a different way than they are doing. Yes, they could move slightly to slap you again, but the point of what you just did wouldn’t be lost on them.

Maybe sometimes, but not always. You're calling people to fight back with a weapon that might not even exist, which is the assumption that at least something will change in somebody's mind. I'm not disputing that sometimes this might happen. I'm saying that I know for a fact, because I have never met anyone personally who thinks worse of the one that comes out on top, that it will certainly fail to happen sometimes. If I told somebody, "You can fight back, but only with a kris knife," then that gives them permission to carry a kris knife. If it doesn't, or if there's no such thing as a kris knife, then I'm just saying they can't fight back. In situations where people will just look on begging to be slapped again as foolish and celebrate the guy who cleverly exploited the fool, the fool is not being allowed to fight back, because the only weapon he may use, doesn't exist.

I don’t think Jesus is faulting the people who have to play that game for their basic needs; he’s faulting the game and wanting people to work towards changing it for those who have to play that game to survive.

The idea that you can win and somehow overthrow the game by playing by the game's rules, accepting the penalties in place, and just intentionally making yourself the loser, is somewhat silly. Just think about someone who loved the game and wanted to win would say. And think about someone who genuinely wanted it to not be like that, and what they would say. The latter would have the slapping people, punished. The former would tell people to accept submission and not try to become dominant.

The thing about the dominance game is that if everyone plays it, it stops working. The more people do it, the more broken it is. It reaches a place of everyone wasting all their energy clawing for the top, and nothing productive getting done. It collapses, the way our society is collapsing now. And at that point, people are forced to change. But if the power players can convince enough people to accept submission, that they are doing the right thing (but somehow, the bully is also doing the right thing and should not be punished) then the game can continue.

Submission makes the game more viable, not less. Bullies need submissive people to bully. It is when everyone tries to become the bully, that in fact, no one can have that coveted spot at the top, hurting people for fun.

The seventy times seven seems to be a call back to Lamech in Genesis, who killed a young man for wounding him. He then says “If Cain is to be avenged seven times as much, then Lamech seventy-seven times!” I think Jesus is saying the Christian’s forgiveness should be as radical as Lamech’s vengeance. One shouldn’t go into things thinking “when can I finally stop being loving towards someone.” That doesn’t mean you don’t remove the one who keeps breaking their word from you; you can forgive while getting out of that environment.

Then why didn't Jesus tell the person with the nasty brother to get away from him? It seems to me that if Lamech is to be seen as over-the-top for expecting over-repayment, then so is Jesus, who expects this poor man to pay for what Lamech did by not asking anything at all, and the right way would be to make his brother pay for his wrongs, and then, if the brother refuses, to impose some fair consequences, not provide infinite, consequence-free forgiveness.

You just said morality was ultimately about what you do, and your first example of hating your brother is a pure emotion and should ultimately be excused as long as you don't do anything to the one you hate.

I don’t think love and hate are pure emotions in the ancient Jewish context. I think they are intricately tied to what one does towards the person. After telling us to not hate our brother, he talks about not insulting them, calling them “fool”, leaving your gift at the altar in order to reconcile with your brother and then returning to present your gift before God.

These things being entangled in the Bible is what I think is fallacious. The Bible equivocating its way to criminalising people for having emotions like hate or lustful thought is the heart of what I'm talking about. In reality they are separate, and you do not have control over your emotions (at least not 100%) so you can't be rightly held liable for them. But you do have control over your actions. It's not a direct fallacy to expect people to feel sorry for their covetousness or hatred and make up for it, but if they don't act on it, it's morally dubious, making people behave as if they are at fault for what they are not at fault for.

That's probably why none of the Hebrew scriptures talk about being attracted to men or fantasising about men. It just says, don't lie with them. Don't actually do it. The Hebrew Bible has its head right about what constitutes breaking a rule. The Christian Bible is like, no, your brain is evil, and you're fully culpable, even if you never do anything.

I don't know where you're getting the oaths thing.

It’s the next one in the list in Matthew 5, where the others are talked about.

Can you quote it?

If Steven forgave Bob’s debt and then later “borrows” money from Bob, then at that point Steven owes Bob $40 or whatever. Steven should not then say, yeah but I forgave your debt earlier, so you have to do the same.

That's just what I'm saying. If Steven should forgive Bob's debt and not expect the same in return, that allows Bob to just get free money. In fact, it can allow Bob to demand it.

But deciding never to make bets with Bob or loan money to Bob isn’t necessarily holding a grudge or holding it over his head. If it is loving in that instance to give Bob money, then any money repaid should be seen as great, but not expected.

So what would you say if Bob is borrowing money or wanting to make a bet?, and saying, "What, you don't think I'm good for it if I lose? I can't believe you'd expect that of me. Sure I've done that in the past but that's over. Are you holding a grudge?" What would you have Steven say to this? He's being asked to forgive and let Bob start over. Repeatedly. But that's the seven-times-seventy, isn't it?

[The Tanager]

Maybe sometimes, but not always. You're calling people to fight back with a weapon that might not even exist, which is the assumption that at least something will change in somebody's mind. I'm not disputing that sometimes this might happen. I'm saying that I know for a fact, because I have never met anyone personally who thinks worse of the one that comes out on top, that it will certainly fail to happen sometimes. If I told somebody, "You can fight back, but only with a kris knife," then that gives them permission to carry a kris knife. If it doesn't, or if there's no such thing as a kris knife, then I'm just saying they can't fight back. In situations where people will just look on begging to be slapped again as foolish and celebrate the guy who cleverly exploited the fool, the fool is not being allowed to fight back, because the only weapon he may use, doesn't exist.

Jesus isn’t telling them to beg to be slapped again and keeping them from fighting back. It’s just not fighting back in the way you think is most effective. I don’t see why this weapon can’t exist in some situations. It will look differently in different situations, but there is always an option of fighting back in a different way then the ones in power want you to fight back (or not fight back at all) in.

The idea that you can win and somehow overthrow the game by playing by the game's rules, accepting the penalties in place, and just intentionally making yourself the loser, is somewhat silly.

That’s not what I’ve been saying. In turning the other cheek you aren’t playing by the game’s rules, you aren’t just accepting the game, you aren’t submitting to it.

Then why didn't Jesus tell the person with the nasty brother to get away from him? It seems to me that if Lamech is to be seen as over-the-top for expecting over-repayment, then so is Jesus, who expects this poor man to pay for what Lamech did by not asking anything at all, and the right way would be to make his brother pay for his wrongs, and then, if the brother refuses, to impose some fair consequences, not provide infinite, consequence-free forgiveness.

In context, Peter is asking about his brother, not some extremely wicked person like Lamech was. It’s about one’s brother, one who loves you and is close to you messing up at times and us forgiving them instead of holding every little thing over their heads.

These things being entangled in the Bible is what I think is fallacious. The Bible equivocating its way to criminalising people for having emotions like hate or lustful thought is the heart of what I'm talking about. In reality they are separate, and you do not have control over your emotions (at least not 100%) so you can't be rightly held liable for them. But you do have control over your actions. It's not a direct fallacy to expect people to feel sorry for their covetousness or hatred and make up for it, but if they don't act on it, it's morally dubious, making people behave as if they are at fault for what they are not at fault for.

That's probably why none of the Hebrew scriptures talk about being attracted to men or fantasising about men. It just says, don't lie with them. Don't actually do it. The Hebrew Bible has its head right about what constitutes breaking a rule. The Christian Bible is like, no, your brain is evil, and you're fully culpable, even if you never do anything.

No, the Bible is not criminalizing people for having emotions. It’s talking about what they do with those emotions. Yes, don’t actually kill your brother, but also don’t let your negative emotions control your thought life, which will lead to you damaging your brother when you interact with him. Those are both actions that go beyond your initial emotional reactions. You are responsible for what you do with your emotions. Not for the initial emotions you have and can’t control, but what you do next with them. That’s what the Bible talks about, Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

Can you quote it?

Matthew 5

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to an older generation,[aq] ‘Do not break an oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’[ar] 34 But I say to you, do not take oaths at all—not by heaven, because it is the throne of God, 35 not by earth, because it is his footstool, and not by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King.[as] 36 Do not take an oath by your head, because you are not able to make one hair white or black. 37 Let your word be ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no.’ More than this is from the evil one.[at]

The context of Matthew 5 is about how one’s love should go beyond the Pharisees’ righteousness (5:20). It’s not just about following the letter of the laws, but the spirit of the laws. Don’t see what you can get away with, but seek to love people through your actions. The reason to swear an oath would seem to make it sound more convincing to the one you are making a promise to (even if yourself) because you really want something. But your word should be trustworthy to where you don’t need to swear to convince the other person that you really mean it this time.

That's just what I'm saying. If Steven should forgive Bob's debt and not expect the same in return, that allows Bob to just get free money. In fact, it can allow Bob to demand it.

No, it doesn’t allow Bob to demand it and Steven simply has to give it to him.

So what would you say if Bob is borrowing money or wanting to make a bet?, and saying, "What, you don't think I'm good for it if I lose? I can't believe you'd expect that of me. Sure I've done that in the past but that's over. Are you holding a grudge?" What would you have Steven say to this? He's being asked to forgive and let Bob start over. Repeatedly. But that's the seven-times-seventy, isn't it?

I would say Bob is silly to think that someone should expect he’d be good for it. If Bob truly thinks that way, then it shows he isn’t good for it because if he had changed his ways, he would expect and accept that people should think he’s not good for it. He should try other ways to build the trust back up. No, it’s just showing Bob hasn’t changed his ways and is wanting to manipulate others to get what he wants. This isn’t holding a grudge. Steven can give him the money, but simply not expect any money to return. If it returns? Great, Bob could be changing. This is seven times seventy.

[Purple Knight]

Jesus isn’t telling them to beg to be slapped again and keeping them from fighting back. It’s just not fighting back in the way you think is most effective. I don’t see why this weapon can’t exist in some situations. It will look differently in different situations, but there is always an option of fighting back in a different way then the ones in power want you to fight back (or not fight back at all) in.

I'm not arguing which thing is most effective. I am arguing that in any cases the weapon (the change in the attitudes of those watching) doesn't exist, you're being told you can't fight back. This way of fighting back is contingent on people looking, thinking that the person being beaten is morally better than the person doing the beating, and that is not always true. In the case that everyone looking will just laugh and cheer the abuser, when you need to fight back the most, you're being told not to.

That’s not what I’ve been saying. In turning the other cheek you aren’t playing by the game’s rules, you aren’t just accepting the game, you aren’t submitting to it.

Then why play according to every rule they set out? What rule are you breaking? The dominant person wants you to submit, and you're doing that. He doesn't want you to hit back, because he's better than you. He gets to hit, and you don't. You are playing entirely within the bounds he sets out. The reason you're doing that is unimportant. You are not breaking his rules, therefore you are playing his game. You're just playing to lose. I'm not going to sit down at the table and play Monopoly and follow every rule but just make bad decisions that hurt me and think that proves something about Monopoly. Not playing, means not playing. If you follow every rule then you are playing.

In context, Peter is asking about his brother, not some extremely wicked person like Lamech was. It’s about one’s brother, one who loves you and is close to you messing up at times and us forgiving them instead of holding every little thing over their heads.

This quote was used against me by my Unitarian family that I had to forgive my very wicked, alcoholic mother. It applies because it's about family. There is no context. It's about forgiving family no matter what. That's what it says to do. It is extremely clear as are all the examples of not fighting back. The message is, make yourself a beaten dog, you're a dog, accept your beatings and abuse. Context excuses one errant example, when there are contrary examples, not every single example when they all say the exact same thing. Jesus never says to fight back, never. The argument that turning the other cheek is fighting back relies on conditions. If those are not the conditions (or you're alone and there are no observers with which to "shame" the abuser) then you're being told you cannot fight back.

No, the Bible is not criminalizing people for having emotions. It’s talking about what they do with those emotions. Yes, don’t actually kill your brother, but also don’t let your negative emotions control your thought life, which will lead to you damaging your brother when you interact with him.

This is the entanglement I'm talking about. Thoughts and actions are different. The healthy view is not to act on your hate. It's also achievable. It's hard but it's achievable. It's less difficult in a system that doesn't just let people abuse you and provides recourse if you're abused. I will not necessarily murder my abusive boss, or even hurt him, no matter what you say. The idea that I necessarily will, or at least do something damaging to him, is telling me I don't have free will. He's not getting less abusive and everybody has one and nobody kills them, though most people probably have a stray fantasy or two about it. Rational adult human beings know the difference between a fantasy you can't act on, and what you must do in the real world.

Those are both actions that go beyond your initial emotional reactions. You are responsible for what you do with your emotions. Not for the initial emotions you have and can’t control, but what you do next with them. That’s what the Bible talks about, Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to an older generation,[aq] ‘Do not break an oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’[ar] 34 But I say to you, do not take oaths at all—not by heaven, because it is the throne of God, 35 not by earth, because it is his footstool, and not by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King.[as] 36 Do not take an oath by your head, because you are not able to make one hair white or black. 37 Let your word be ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no.’ More than this is from the evil one.[at]

I actually had to look this one up. It's another instance where Jesus literally says do not take oaths at all and the interpretation is, do take some oaths.
https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/stu ... #v40005002
Do not swear at all: Jesus did not here prohibit the making of all oaths. God’s Law, which allowed for the swearing of oaths or vows on certain serious occasions, was still in force. (Nu 30:2; Ga 4:4) Rather, Jesus was condemning frivolous and indiscriminate swearing that amounted to a perversion of oath-taking.

Regardless, there is nothing in there about people making oaths to get what they want. It says, don't swear at all. It (apparently) means, do swear sometimes. There are separate commands as to how you treat your wife, not divorcing her except if she cheats. There is no reason to think, even from the interpretation, that when it says, looking at a woman lustfully is literally the commission of adultery, it means anything but what it says. It's criminalising emotion: Lust. Lust is a sin. Not any act, but lust itself.
commit adultery: That is, commit marital sexual unfaithfulness. The Greek verb moi·kheuʹo is used in this quote from Ex 20:14 and De 5:18, where the corresponding Hebrew verb na·ʼaphʹ is found. In the Bible, adultery refers to voluntary acts of “sexual immorality” between a married person and someone who is not his or her mate. (Compare the study note on Mt 5:32, where the term “sexual immorality,” rendered from the Greek word por·neiʹa, is discussed.) During the time when the Mosaic Law was valid, having voluntary sexual relations with another man’s wife or fiancée was considered to be adultery.

The context of Matthew 5 is about how one’s love should go beyond the Pharisees’ righteousness (5:20). It’s not just about following the letter of the laws, but the spirit of the laws. Don’t see what you can get away with, but seek to love people through your actions. The reason to swear an oath would seem to make it sound more convincing to the one you are making a promise to (even if yourself) because you really want something. But your word should be trustworthy to where you don’t need to swear to convince the other person that you really mean it this time.

The letter of the law being to go beyond the letter of the law is paradoxical and problematic. It's part of this trap of, well, you can't actually succeed and that's why you need to be forgiven. But people who stack decks with impossible asks, like a bar that auto-adjusts to higher than you can reach, are themselves not being honest or trustworthy about what they want. Giving your word requires honesty from both parties. If he really really wants to, the person you gave your word to can always find a way that you didn't actually do what you said. In other words, the letter of the law needs to spell out what it wants clearly in a way that people actually get credit for following it, not always being expected to go above and beyond, or they didn't even meet expectations.

Wanting to do more is real. Wanting to give the other person as much credit as possible is real. In general it's probably a good thing to do. When it goes too far and hurts the person doing it, making them a dog to be beaten because somebody found some loophole where they weren't honest enough, they need a concrete system of laws to fall back on, and they need to be able to, like the Pharisees, say that yes, they checked the appropriate boxes. They do not a book that tells them, yeah that person beating you down is right, you weren't good enough, because you didn't go above and beyond what was good enough.

That's just what I'm saying. If Steven should forgive Bob's debt and not expect the same in return, that allows Bob to just get free money. In fact, it can allow Bob to demand it.

No, it doesn’t allow Bob to demand it and Steven simply has to give it to him.

So Steven should welsh on his debts because Bob did? They both have debts. Each is a separate instance. Bob wants each instance of his debt forgiven, unconditionally of Steven's instances of debt to Bob being forgiven. Why should Steven not accede to this request?

I would say Bob is silly to think that someone should expect he’d be good for it. If Bob truly thinks that way, then it shows he isn’t good for it because if he had changed his ways, he would expect and accept that people should think he’s not good for it. He should try other ways to build the trust back up. No, it’s just showing Bob hasn’t changed his ways and is wanting to manipulate others to get what he wants. This isn’t holding a grudge. Steven can give him the money, but simply not expect any money to return. If it returns? Great, Bob could be changing. This is seven times seventy.

I agree that Bob hasn't changed, and this is just how people act when they haven't. But it's about how the Bible says Bob must be treated. And given the disturbing things the Bible has to say about negative thoughts, simply thinking Bob won't pay it back seems to be some kind of sin, probably non-forgiveness. You wouldn't hold Bob's past over his head, so you'd give him the money. You wouldn't think ill of him; that's like thinking ill of your brother, which is not okay except for a stray thought you immediately quash.

You don't call your brother a fool. It doesn't say whether him being a fool or not is true. Similarly, you don't call Bob a liar, even if he obviously is one.

[The Tanager]

I'm not arguing which thing is most effective. I am arguing that in any cases the weapon (the change in the attitudes of those watching) doesn't exist, you're being told you can't fight back. This way of fighting back is contingent on people looking, thinking that the person being beaten is morally better than the person doing the beating, and that is not always true. In the case that everyone looking will just laugh and cheer the abuser, when you need to fight back the most, you're being told not to.

No, it’s not contingent on the people looking. It’s about confronting anyone there with the injustice, not what the people looking on will think or do in response to that.

Then why play according to every rule they set out? What rule are you breaking? The dominant person wants you to submit, and you're doing that. He doesn't want you to hit back, because he's better than you. He gets to hit, and you don't. You are playing entirely within the bounds he sets out. The reason you're doing that is unimportant. You are not breaking his rules, therefore you are playing his game. You're just playing to lose. I'm not going to sit down at the table and play Monopoly and follow every rule but just make bad decisions that hurt me and think that proves something about Monopoly. Not playing, means not playing. If you follow every rule then you are playing.

The game they want you to play is to either (1) strike/insult back in kind or (2) be okay with no pushback at all. Jesus is offering a third choice that isn’t one of those, so it’s not playing their game.

This quote was used against me by my Unitarian family that I had to forgive my very wicked, alcoholic mother. It applies because it's about family. There is no context. It's about forgiving family no matter what. That's what it says to do.

I agree that you should forgive your very wicked, alcoholic mother. I don’t think you have a good hold on what Jesus means to forgive people.

This is the entanglement I'm talking about. Thoughts and actions are different. The healthy view is not to act on your hate. It's also achievable. It's hard but it's achievable. It's less difficult in a system that doesn't just let people abuse you and provides recourse if you're abused. I will not necessarily murder my abusive boss, or even hurt him, no matter what you say. The idea that I necessarily will, or at least do something damaging to him, is telling me I don't have free will. He's not getting less abusive and everybody has one and nobody kills them, though most people probably have a stray fantasy or two about it. Rational adult human beings know the difference between a fantasy you can't act on, and what you must do in the real world.

No, it’s absolutely not saying you don’t have free will. It’s saying your choices have consequences and your free will choice to harp on your hateful emotions and fantasize about them and rehearse them are going to affect you because we are humans - intellect and emotion.

The letter of the law being to go beyond the letter of the law is paradoxical and problematic. It's part of this trap of, well, you can't actually succeed and that's why you need to be forgiven. But people who stack decks with impossible asks, like a bar that auto-adjusts to higher than you can reach, are themselves not being honest or trustworthy about what they want.

I don’t think Christianity teaches that God made us and then makes this bar we can’t reach so that He can forgive us if we do what He wants or anything like that. Christianity teaches that God made us to be in relationship with Him, which means we have free will and are limited in our abilities. The Law is there to show us that we can’t do it on our own and were never asked to, but meant to be in relationship with God, doing the good all together.

Giving your word requires honesty from both parties. If he really really wants to, the person you gave your word to can always find a way that you didn't actually do what you said. In other words, the letter of the law needs to spell out what it wants clearly in a way that people actually get credit for following it, not always being expected to go above and beyond, or they didn't even meet expectations.

Yes, the other person can twist things as well. Every way the law could be spelled out, one could twist it. You can’t write out every single situation. And since God is interested in relationship, not you learning what to do and try to do so perfectly on your own, that would go against His purpose. It’s not about who checks all the right boxes.

So Steven should welsh on his debts because Bob did? They both have debts. Each is a separate instance. Bob wants each instance of his debt forgiven, unconditionally of Steven's instances of debt to Bob being forgiven. Why should Steven not accede to this request?

No, I’m saying Steven doesn’t have to keep trying to loan money to Bob every time Bob demands it.

I agree that Bob hasn't changed, and this is just how people act when they haven't. But it's about how the Bible says Bob must be treated. And given the disturbing things the Bible has to say about negative thoughts, simply thinking Bob won't pay it back seems to be some kind of sin, probably non-forgiveness. You wouldn't hold Bob's past over his head, so you'd give him the money. You wouldn't think ill of him; that's like thinking ill of your brother, which is not okay except for a stray thought you immediately quash.

You don't call your brother a fool. It doesn't say whether him being a fool or not is true. Similarly, you don't call Bob a liar, even if he obviously is one.

Thinking Bob won’t pay it back isn’t some kind of sin according to the logic of the Bible. Forgiveness is not about treating the person like you’ve never interacted with them before. Not loaning money to Bob isn’t holding Bob’s past over his head. You can still love Bob well. In fact, loving Bob well includes not enabling him in these actions.